Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Furniture]

The Brits tried but this is what they ended up with

Light regiments that win wars, while also looking stylish and not silly?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Lovely plumage and running march past vs shirts open to the navel, tight pants and a really quick step. Why can't our light infantry have some panache like that? - Must be a Mediterranean thing.

The Spanish Legion (a.k.a. Grooms of Death) have been given the privledge, it seems


From its establishment the legion was noted for its plain and simple style of dress, in contrast to the colourful dress uniforms worn by the Peninsular regiments of the Spanish Army until the overthrow of the Monarchy in 1931. This was part of the cult of austerity favoured by a unit that considered itself on more or less continual active service.

The modern legion has the same camouflage dress for active service and ordinary duties as the rest of the Spanish Army but retains the unique, sage green Tropical uniform for semi-formal barrack dress and as the basis of Legion parade uniform. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the modern legion uniform is the khaki "gorrillo" cap or "chapiri", with red hanging tassel and piping.

Contrary to usual military practice, Legionaries are allowed to sport beards and are permitted to wear their uniforms, both traditional and service, open at the chest.

Spanish Legion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[markppcli]

In other news, unrelated to 12th century philosophy or the dubious merits of unpaid conscripts / volunteers.

British Army experiments with Dstl study on urban combat

The British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) have been testing improving future urban operations using a new experimental force concept.

www.gov.uk

The NGCT that ETG are experimenting with is based around 2 Phalanx Platoons and a Manoeuvre Support Group. The Phalanx Platoon is built of 3 sections of 10 personnel, an anti-armour/anti-structure capability, a platoon systems operator, a platoon commander and a platoon sergeant.

The new section consists of 2 4-person fire teams and an independent command element comprising section commander and a section systems operator. This command element was shown to increase the situational awareness of the section, through the employment of drones and intelligence kit, while reducing the cognitive burden on the section commander.

The systems operator is also removed from the fire teams to focus on controlling the small uncrewed air systems (UAS) and updating the Dismounted Situational Awareness (DSA) system, providing greater situational awareness to both the section commander and platoon headquarters.

Each Phalanx Platoon has a shoulder-launched rocket team, armed with a Carl-Gustaf weapon system. This enables a rapid, multi-shot capability that can utilise different warheads dependent on the mission and does not require a specialist user to operate in the same way that Javelin does. By having this capability independent of the sections, it allows a more effective employment of these capabilities while reducing the load on the sections in both weight and cognitive burden.

The Manoeuvre Support Group consists of assets that would traditionally be found in a support company, increasing the lethality options immediately available to a company commander. The entire company will be mounted in light mobility vehicles, to offer enhanced mobility but not a platform to fight from

 

[daftandbarmy]

In other news, unrelated to 12th century philosophy or the dubious merits of unpaid conscripts / volunteers.

British Army experiments with Dstl study on urban combat

The British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) have been testing improving future urban operations using a new experimental force concept.

www.gov.uk

The NGCT that ETG are experimenting with is based around 2 Phalanx Platoons and a Manoeuvre Support Group. The Phalanx Platoon is built of 3 sections of 10 personnel, an anti-armour/anti-structure capability, a platoon systems operator, a platoon commander and a platoon sergeant.

The new section consists of 2 4-person fire teams and an independent command element comprising section commander and a section systems operator. This command element was shown to increase the situational awareness of the section, through the employment of drones and intelligence kit, while reducing the cognitive burden on the section commander.

The systems operator is also removed from the fire teams to focus on controlling the small uncrewed air systems (UAS) and updating the Dismounted Situational Awareness (DSA) system, providing greater situational awareness to both the section commander and platoon headquarters.

Each Phalanx Platoon has a shoulder-launched rocket team, armed with a Carl-Gustaf weapon system. This enables a rapid, multi-shot capability that can utilise different warheads dependent on the mission and does not require a specialist user to operate in the same way that Javelin does. By having this capability independent of the sections, it allows a more effective employment of these capabilities while reducing the load on the sections in both weight and cognitive burden.

The Manoeuvre Support Group consists of assets that would traditionally be found in a support company, increasing the lethality options immediately available to a company commander. The entire company will be mounted in light mobility vehicles, to offer enhanced mobility but not a platform to fight from

I saw this too:

"The company is assigned 2 81mm mortar barrels as integral indirect fires assets."

So it seems the OC's range of influence has been extended out to 5kms, plus or minus.

Fire planning and coordination should be interesting in that battalion.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .
But I think we underestimate how many Canadians actually GAF about their country.

The Daily — Study: Volunteering counts: Formal and informal contributions of Canadians in 2018

Volunteers play an important role in maintaining community well-being and contributing to the overall Canadian economy. Their annual time commitments equalled more than 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2018.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Edit: You know what sells? In my opinion? Utility and recognition. Being useful and being recognized. The old Fame, Fortune and Power game. Fame is a big motivator. And lots of fancy toys to play with. I don't think anybody goes into the CAF, or any military, seeking their Fortune. Perhaps a few too many engage for the Power.

While Canadians may GAF about their country, its experience of 'civil defence' would suggest that they aren't weren't prepared to step up to the plate in the same manner as Europeans (NATO and non-aligned Scandinavians) during the Cold War. That's much the same response as during WW2. While Canadians flocked to a call to arms and joined the military, there was less of a response to volunteer for 'unpaid' duty. That was one of the underlying factors that lead to the 'snakes and ladders' era in the Militia.

The book "Give Me Shelter: The Failure of Canada’s Cold War Civil Defence" by Andrew Burtch discusses it. It's a good read on the subject.

A couple of selected sentences from a review of that work.

Book Reviews

". . . he shows how Canadian citizens did not ‘buy into’ the concept that the costly and dangerous emergency responses necessary after an attack were responsibilities they, as citizens, were expected to bear. . . .

Using letters from citizens, CD meeting archives, and newspaper articles, the author posits how citizens never fully accepted the responsibility for nuclear civil defence or the concept of the obligation-based model of citizen as defender, willing to give their lives if necessary in helping cope with what was perceived as a ‘military’ problem."

 

[FJAG]

While Canadians may GAF about their country, its experience of 'civil defence' would suggest that they aren't weren't prepared to step up to the plate in the same manner as Europeans (NATO and non-aligned Scandinavians) during the Cold War. That's much the same response as during WW2. While Canadians flocked to a call to arms and joined the military, there was less of a response to volunteer for 'unpaid' duty. That was one of the underlying factors that lead to the 'snakes and ladders' era in the Militia.

The book "Give Me Shelter: The Failure of Canada’s Cold War Civil Defence" by Andrew Burtch discusses it. It's a good read on the subject.

A couple of selected sentences from a review of that work.

Book Reviews

". . . he shows how Canadian citizens did not ‘buy into’ the concept that the costly and dangerous emergency responses necessary after an attack were responsibilities they, as citizens, were expected to bear. . . .

Using letters from citizens, CD meeting archives, and newspaper articles, the author posits how citizens never fully accepted the responsibility for nuclear civil defence or the concept of the obligation-based model of citizen as defender, willing to give their lives if necessary in helping cope with what was perceived as a ‘military’ problem."

I blame the Scottish Presbyterian Labour Rabble rousers that marked the early labour and union movements here. It created the concept of "all labour must be fairly (or generously) rewarded."

On the one hand there's this:

The Daily — Study: Volunteering counts: Formal and informal contributions of Canadians in 2018

Volunteers play an important role in maintaining community well-being and contributing to the overall Canadian economy. Their annual time commitments equalled more than 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2018.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

On the other, there's this:

Critical lack of volunteers putting Canadian non-profit services at risk: Volunteer Canada​

Up to 65% of organizations have identified a shortage, Volunteer Canada says​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/volunteer-shortage-caanada-1.6723348

 

[markppcli]

I saw this too:

"The company is assigned 2 81mm mortar barrels as integral indirect fires assets."

So it seems the OC's range of influence has been extended out to 5kms, plus or minus.

Fire planning and coordination should be interesting in that battalion.

Sounds more like they are tasked from the mortar platoon. The CO, I assume, would retain control. The organic fire cell is interesting but I don’t see what the advantage is there over an integrated FST / FOO Party / ART. I maintain systems operators below platoon probably aren’t necessary and I’m surprised they need a guy updating ATAC but maybe bowman can’t do Data so they need it.

 

[Ostrozac]

That's much the same response as during WW2. While Canadians flocked to a call to arms and joined the military, there was less of a response to volunteer for 'unpaid' duty.

Canadians as a whole weren’t exactly enthusiastic about the two World Wars. Canadians certainly did volunteer, but there was a limit to their enthusiasm, otherwise we wouldn’t have had two conscription crises.

While there seems to be a pattern of Canadian public interest in volunteering for medium-sized foreign adventures (South Africa, Korea, Afghanistan) — this interest seems to meet a hard cap in major conflict.

Regardless, if we couldn’t sell Canadians on conscription for the World Wars, then in the 21st century nothing short of alien invasion would result in conscription.

 

[IRepoCans]

Sounds more like they are tasked from the mortar platoon. The CO, I assume, would retain control. The organic fire cell is interesting but I don’t see what the advantage is there over an integrated FST / FOO Party / ART. I maintain systems operators below platoon probably aren’t necessary and I’m surprised they need a guy updating ATAC but maybe bowman can’t do Data so they need it.

The Brits are droping Bowman (and it's not compatible with ATAK from what I've been told) and are moving to the PRC-163s like we are, but I surmise they're following the USMC model are probably looking to push a lot of unmanned assets down to the section (whether that is actually going to happen or worth it remains to be seen).

 

[Kirkhill]

I blame the Scottish Presbyterian Labour Rabble rousers that marked the early labour and union movements here. It created the concept of "all labour must be fairly (or generously) rewarded."

On the one hand there's this:



On the other, there's this:

Blame the Scots Presbyterians all you like - but I would point out that both the number of Scots Presbyterian rabble rousers and the number of volunteers are in decline. Coincidence? I think not.

Now there is a particular type Scots rabble rouser I would point to that fits your bill.

Joe Davidson was notorious as the union leader who once proclaimed, "to hell with the public." In the late 1970s as the leader of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers he was perhaps the most hated man in Canada.
Here Joe Davidson tells his own story, warts and all. He recounts his long experience as a worker in Scotland, toiling in foundries before his move to Canada. He describes his rise to become a union an executive, a position he never really wanted. Most importantly he offers insight into the most contentious period in Canadian postal history, 13 years that witnessed five seperate work stoppages, a time of rapid technological change and great labour unrest.

Red Clydeside - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem with allowing folks to speak their minds. Some are wrong.

 

[Kirkhill]

While Canadians may GAF about their country, its experience of 'civil defence' would suggest that they aren't weren't prepared to step up to the plate in the same manner as Europeans (NATO and non-aligned Scandinavians) during the Cold War. That's much the same response as during WW2. While Canadians flocked to a call to arms and joined the military, there was less of a response to volunteer for 'unpaid' duty. That was one of the underlying factors that lead to the 'snakes and ladders' era in the Militia.

The book "Give Me Shelter: The Failure of Canada’s Cold War Civil Defence" by Andrew Burtch discusses it. It's a good read on the subject.

A couple of selected sentences from a review of that work.

Book Reviews

". . . he shows how Canadian citizens did not ‘buy into’ the concept that the costly and dangerous emergency responses necessary after an attack were responsibilities they, as citizens, were expected to bear. . . .

Using letters from citizens, CD meeting archives, and newspaper articles, the author posits how citizens never fully accepted the responsibility for nuclear civil defence or the concept of the obligation-based model of citizen as defender, willing to give their lives if necessary in helping cope with what was perceived as a ‘military’ problem."

One part of me wants to argue the toss. Another wants to reference some Quebecois leader's comments about Canada and real countries. But the third thought is that contemplating nuclear destruction and the end of the world doesn't really promote that sense of optimism that is necessary to encourage people to pick up a bucket and ladder and try to put out a fire.

I don't know nuffin'.

 

[markppcli]

The Brits are droping Bowman (and it's not compatible with ATAK from what I've been told) and are moving to the PRC-163s like we are, but I surmise they're following the USMC model are probably looking to push a lot of unmanned assets down to the section (whether that is actually going to happen or worth it remains to be seen).

They are, it’s in the article. I don’t know as a section commander when I’d have had time to check my drone feed or ask about my system operators drone feed. The fight is too close, for me anyways.

Glad to hear bowman is on the way out. 163s have their issues, but you could probably boil tea with them if you transmit long enough so there’s that. ( a joke but honestly the VHF + UHF freq capability is wasted on most infantry units).

 

[Kirkhill]

I saw this too:

"The company is assigned 2 81mm mortar barrels as integral indirect fires assets."

So it seems the OC's range of influence has been extended out to 5kms, plus or minus.

Fire planning and coordination should be interesting in that battalion.

Doesn't that follow the Afghanistan experience?

It sounds like the field re-org of the Commando 21 force when the Stand Off Companies were re-allocated downwards to the Close Combat Companies and the mortars were allocated to the individual companies.

• 1 Command Company:
  • Main HQ
  • Tactical HQ
  • Reconnaissance Troop (includes a sniper section)
  • Signals Troop
  • Mortar Troop
    (9 x 81mm mortars + 4 Mortar Fire Control parties)
  • Anti-Tank (AT) Troop
    (6 x Javelin)
  • Medium Machine Gun Troop
    (6 x GPMG (SF mode)
• 1 Logistic Company:
  • A Echelon 1 (A Ech1)
  • A Echelon 2 (A Ech2)
  • Forward Repair Team (FRT)
  • Regimental Aid Post (RAP)
  • B Echelon (B Ech)
• 2 Close Combat Companies :
  • Company Headquarters
    (Coy HQ)
  • 3 Close Combat Troops
    (Troop HQ, 3 Rifle Sections, Manoeuvre Support Section)
• 2 Stand Off Companies
  (1 x tracked, 1 x wheeled)
  consisting of :
  • Company Headquarters (Coy HQ)
  • Heavy Machine Gun Troop
    (6 x HMG / GMG)
  • AT Troop
    (6 x Javelin)
  • 1x Close Combat Troop
    (5 officers + 78 other ranks)

One of the advantages of downloading the mortars is that while you are sacrificing weight of response you are improving speed of response when confronted with small, fleeting targets.

 

[IRepoCans]

They are, it’s in the article. I don’t know as a section commander when I’d have had time to check my drone feed or ask about my system operators drone feed. The fight is too close, for me anyways.

Glad to hear bowman is on the way out. 163s have their issues, but you could probably boil tea with them if you transmit long enough so there’s that. ( a joke but honestly the VHF + UHF freq capability is wasted on most infantry units).

As far as the system operator, I feel that would a heavily contextualized role like having a sect signaller, but it would be something I would have to play with.

But yeah, there's just way too much shit crammed into the 163 that I'll never end up using and that's before you get into all the mission modules you can attach to it. A simple dual voice/data radio (like the new-er 148) so I don't have to carry two radios (since as per ISS everyone in the section is getting a single voice/date radio to replace the PRR) as a sect comd or 2IC that can communicate with the LAV's that contain the functionality that I'll actually have to use.

Doesn't that follow the Afghanistan experience?

It sounds like the field re-org of the Commando 21 force when the Stand Off Companies were re-allocated downwards to the Close Combat Companies and the mortars were allocated to the individual companies.

• 1 Command Company:
  • Main HQ
  • Tactical HQ
  • Reconnaissance Troop (includes a sniper section)
  • Signals Troop
  • Mortar Troop
    (9 x 81mm mortars + 4 Mortar Fire Control parties)
  • Anti-Tank (AT) Troop
    (6 x Javelin)
  • Medium Machine Gun Troop
    (6 x GPMG (SF mode)
• 1 Logistic Company:
  • A Echelon 1 (A Ech1)
  • A Echelon 2 (A Ech2)
  • Forward Repair Team (FRT)
  • Regimental Aid Post (RAP)
  • B Echelon (B Ech)
• 2 Close Combat Companies :
  • Company Headquarters
    (Coy HQ)
  • 3 Close Combat Troops
    (Troop HQ, 3 Rifle Sections, Manoeuvre Support Section)
• 2 Stand Off Companies
  (1 x tracked, 1 x wheeled)
  consisting of :
  • Company Headquarters (Coy HQ)
  • Heavy Machine Gun Troop
    (6 x HMG / GMG)
  • AT Troop
    (6 x Javelin)
  • 1x Close Combat Troop
    (5 officers + 78 other ranks)

Funny thing about Cdo 21 is that it never actually manifested as far as the fighting companies are concerned: they just did a modified TOE to the standing fighting coys by plugging in a fire support group in each company instead.

 

[FJAG]

Sounds more like they are tasked from the mortar platoon. The CO, I assume, would retain control. The organic fire cell is interesting but I don’t see what the advantage is there over an integrated FST / FOO Party / ART. I maintain systems operators below platoon probably aren’t necessary and I’m surprised they need a guy updating ATAC but maybe bowman can’t do Data so they need it.

It's a take on the Stryker Company. There are two M1299 Stryker 120mm mortar carriers that are integral. They also used to have three MGS DFSV but those have gone to the Cavalry. In addition to the two vehicle borne 120s, the company also has two 81mm portable mortars used in a locker room concept. Over and above the six 120/six 81s with the companies, the Stryker battalion still has a mortar platoon with four 120/four 81 tubes as well.

Each company gets a FIST as well which gets priority from its two tubes and other support as allocated by battalion.

 

[FJAG]

deleted.

 

[Kirkhill]

I saw this too:

"The company is assigned 2 81mm mortar barrels as integral indirect fires assets."

So it seems the OC's range of influence has been extended out to 5kms, plus or minus.

Fire planning and coordination should be interesting in that battalion.

OC's Area of Interest may be greater than that

If she has Brimstone on strength she has a 25 km reach

Is Ukraine’s Brimstone use behind the UK’s Project Wolfram? - Army Technology

Mobile launchers have been effective in Ukraine, which adapted the Brimstone missile to fire from a flat-bed vehicle earlier this year.

www.army-technology.com

As to the Section SOs - are they Section Assets or do they just travel with the sections to let higher know what is going on? Section will exploit the info locally but is that the primary task?

OC would have

6x Section SOs
2x Platoon SOs
2x SDE SOs
1x OC SO??? - not stated but perhaps?

all available to cue

12 Fire Teams in 6 Sections
3 Javelin Teams
2 CG SDE Teams (exploiting the Aimpoint FCS as a Sensor? Designator?)
2 81 mm Teams
1 Brimstone Team

All transported in light vehicles

Edit: One thing I could see the 81s being useful in the close fight - lots of smoke.

 

[markppcli]

OC's Area of Interest may be greater than that

If she has Brimstone on strength she has a 25 km reach

Is Ukraine’s Brimstone use behind the UK’s Project Wolfram? - Army Technology

Mobile launchers have been effective in Ukraine, which adapted the Brimstone missile to fire from a flat-bed vehicle earlier this year.

www.army-technology.com

As to the Section SOs - are they Section Assets or do they just travel with the sections to let higher know what is going on? Section will exploit the info locally but is that the primary task?

OC would have

6x Section SOs
2x Platoon SOs
2x SDE SOs
1x OC SO??? - not stated but perhaps?

all available to cue

12 Fire Teams in 6 Sections
3 Javelin Teams
2 CG SDE Teams (exploiting the Aimpoint FCS as a Sensor? Designator?)
2 81 mm Teams
1 Brimstone Team

All transported in light vehicles

Edit: One thing I could see the 81s being useful in the close fight - lots of smoke.

They’re section assets running the kit (DSA and UAV) for the section commander. The platoon commander has another SO running the platoon’s UAV. As per the article this is about empowering lower level commander.

I read the two 81mm as tasked to not attached to. Ie they have access to a pair of tubes but they aren’t part of the company.

Aim point FCS isn’t a designator. About the lightest most reliable designator in the market today is a Type 163 laser (you’ve posted it’s brochure but I think your sense of scale is off) and that’s miles different.

Brimstone is accessible to but not assigned to. No different than any other fires really.

As far as the system operator, I feel that would a heavily contextualized role like having a sect signaller, but it would be something I would have to play with.

But yeah, there's just way too much shit crammed into the 163 that I'll never end up using and that's before you get into all the mission modules you can attach to it. A simple dual voice/data radio (like the new-er 148) so I don't have to carry two radios (since as per ISS everyone in the section is getting a single voice/date radio to replace the PRR) as a sect comd or 2IC that can communicate with the LAV's that contain the functionality that I'll actually have to use.

Is anyone actually running the ISSP electronics? The head sets are a night mare and in ear.. which is kinda gross to be honest. I know they haven’t made it out to Edmonton, vests or kits, and the units that do have them are just tossing the electronics in the CQ and leaving in there.

 

[Furniture]

In other news, unrelated to 12th century philosophy or the dubious merits of unpaid conscripts / volunteers.

British Army experiments with Dstl study on urban combat

The British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) have been testing improving future urban operations using a new experimental force concept.

www.gov.uk

The NGCT that ETG are experimenting with is based around 2 Phalanx Platoons and a Manoeuvre Support Group. The Phalanx Platoon is built of 3 sections of 10 personnel, an anti-armour/anti-structure capability, a platoon systems operator, a platoon commander and a platoon sergeant.

The new section consists of 2 4-person fire teams and an independent command element comprising section commander and a section systems operator. This command element was shown to increase the situational awareness of the section, through the employment of drones and intelligence kit, while reducing the cognitive burden on the section commander.

The systems operator is also removed from the fire teams to focus on controlling the small uncrewed air systems (UAS) and updating the Dismounted Situational Awareness (DSA) system, providing greater situational awareness to both the section commander and platoon headquarters.

Each Phalanx Platoon has a shoulder-launched rocket team, armed with a Carl-Gustaf weapon system. This enables a rapid, multi-shot capability that can utilise different warheads dependent on the mission and does not require a specialist user to operate in the same way that Javelin does. By having this capability independent of the sections, it allows a more effective employment of these capabilities while reducing the load on the sections in both weight and cognitive burden.

The Manoeuvre Support Group consists of assets that would traditionally be found in a support company, increasing the lethality options immediately available to a company commander. The entire company will be mounted in light mobility vehicles, to offer enhanced mobility but not a platform to fight from

Does that make the UK the first to adapt Ukrainian war experience into doctrine/potential doctrine?

On a related note, I'll channel my inner @Kirkhill and point out that modern AT weapons seem to be closing in one being the game changer the Yeoman longbow companies were in the Hundred Year's War. Yeoman archers were a lot cheaper to train, equip, and pay, than mounted men-at-arms.

If the UK can mount an effective AT missile system on a light, and cheap platform, they essentially make negate the effectiveness of armour.

 

[markppcli]

Does that make the UK the first to adapt Ukrainian war experience into doctrine/potential doctrine?

Probably not? It’s a dedicated experimental group, their whole job is to try new shit out.

On a related note, I'll channel my inner @Kirkhill and point out that modern AT weapons seem to be closing in one being the game changer the Yeoman longbow companies were in the Hundred Year's War. Yeoman archers were a lot cheaper to train, equip, and pay, than mounted men-at-arms.

If the UK can mount an effective AT missile system on a light, and cheap platform, they essentially make negate the effectiveness of armour.

we’ve hat effective light platform mounted AT weapons since the 1970s. Hell we have TOW on Iltis. Stuff has gotten better, but a lot of Ukraines early ATGM success is due to A: Russian infantry being ineffective and lacking in numbers and B: confirmation bias. Also they have to fill weight of the West’s economy supporting that.