Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Amen.

The acquisition of a modern ATGM and DMR would be an extremely cheap way to drastically increase the lethality of a BG.

In theory both could be easy contracts. Fund them, push them through as UORs, train the troops, done. (Relatively easy, I know someone will point out the inevitable ‘can’t snap your fingers’ point, which is valid.)

Doesn’t require an increase in PYs. Does give them the ability to reach out and accurately touch someone though. Or blow up their ride.

Converts the infantry battalion, regardless of means of transport, into an effective contributor to any battlefield - and not just cargo to button up inside a patrol vehicle that covers long ranges at a high rate of knots.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Converts the infantry battalion, regardless of means of transport, into an effective contributor to any battlefield - and not just cargo to button up inside a patrol vehicle that covers long ranges at a high rate of knots.

Assuming three rifle companies, 1 x 84mm per section gives you 27 x 84mm. Add 1 x C6 to those sections and you have a nice little 'speed bump' for any enemy armoured formation.

As I recall, this was the scale of issue we had when participating in various NATO exercises. Our company level Kill Zones were well covered.

Battalion assets (16 x MILAN, 9 x 81mm MOR & 9 x C6-SF) thickened things up and closed the gaps nicely.

And yes, we were 'light' infantry and carried all this stuff.

 

[Kirkhill]

One point I would raise about in support of the American decision to distribute the ATGMs widely - you can't kill them all.

If you concentrate them in a Battalion platoon or a Platoon det you risk loosing your entire capability. All you really need, perhaps in a small battalion concentration, is your Anti-Tank Defence Co-Ordination Cell to establish the plan for all the AT weapons in the battalion, regardless of the level they are held at.

 

[Kirkhill]

Assuming three rifle companies, 1 x 84mm per section gives you 27 x 84mm. Add 1 x C6 to those sections and you have a nice little 'speed bump' for any enemy armoured formation.

As I recall, this was the scale of issue we had when participating in various NATO exercises. Our company level Kill Zones were well covered.

Battalion assets (16 x MILAN, 9 x 81mm MOR & 9 x C6-SF) thickened things up and closed the gaps nicely.

And yes, we were 'light' infantry and carried all this stuff.

Not that you would have objected to an Airborne wheelbarrow or a Mini Moke if they were handy?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not that you would have objected to an Airborne wheelbarrow or a Mini Moke if they were handy?

Actually, the best solution is 'host nation transport', as it's known.

Where the Queen doesn't provide, we 'procure' through local arrangements. We had something going with the local Home Guard, for example, and borrowed their vehicles sometimes.

Then there was the guy whose day job was driving semi-trailers

 

[Underway]

Actually, the best solution is 'host nation transport', as it's known.

Where the Queen doesn't provide, we 'procure' through local arrangements. We had something going with the local Home Guard, for example, and borrowed their vehicles sometimes.

Then there was the guy whose day job was driving semi-trailers

Did the same in Afghanistan. Our shipped from Canada John Deere Gator broke and it would have cost $20,000 to get a new one. We looked over the FOB wall and pointed to a tuk-tuk driving by (essentially a motorcycle front with a two-wheeled bed in back) and asked "how much would those cost?" Turns out $2000. We bought two, saved the crown $16000, and had way more fun driving them around. Even jingled them all up because that's how you are supposed to roll in a tuk-tuk.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you concentrate them in a Battalion platoon or a Platoon det you risk loosing your entire capability.

WTF? How does organizational concentration require spatial concentration?

 

[Infanteer]

One point I would raise about in support of the American decision to distribute the ATGMs widely - you can't kill them all.

If you concentrate them in a Battalion platoon or a Platoon det you risk loosing your entire capability. All you really need, perhaps in a small battalion concentration, is your Anti-Tank Defence Co-Ordination Cell to establish the plan for all the AT weapons in the battalion, regardless of the level they are held at.

My experience suggests otherwise. Concentration allows for focus, and expertise. Machine guns are distributed willy nilly around the battalion, and our Corps machine gun capability is woeful these days.

I've watched us work side-by-side with other militaries who concentrate these capabilities at some level and the difference in abilities is noticeable.

 

[GR66]

It seems the general consensus is that we should at the least strive to be able to field a mechanized Brigade Group capable of fighting in a peer fight. Since this is the most complex/high end capability we expect to need it makes sense that we should address that need first.

What does that Brigade look like?

 

[Kirkhill]

My experience suggests otherwise. Concentration allows for focus, and expertise. Machine guns are distributed willy nilly around the battalion, and our Corps machine gun capability is woeful these days.

I've watched us work side-by-side with other militaries who concentrate these capabilities at some level and the difference in abilities is noticeable.

But you distribute LAVs Willy nilly. Every section gets one.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually, the best solution is 'host nation transport', as it's known.

Where the Queen doesn't provide, we 'procure' through local arrangements. We had something going with the local Home Guard, for example, and borrowed their vehicles sometimes.

Then there was the guy whose day job was driving semi-trailers

Procedure was up and running in Palestine.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

It seems the general consensus is that we should at the least strive to be able to field a mechanized Brigade Group capable of fighting in a peer fight. Since this is the most complex/high end capability we expect to need it makes sense that we should address that need first.

What does that Brigade look like?

Well, I think that a Battle Group (BG) is a more realistic goal for a high-intensity peer fight. We are almost there, with infantry anti-tank being the big delta and that is fairly easy to fix.

Going to a CMBG would require much more in terms of capabilities. Our artillery is not ready for that kind of fight. A CMBG should have GBAD. That is not to say we should not look to achieve that. Just that we need to be realistic. We already have template for what a CMBG should look like for that kind of fight. From an Excel table/Powerpoint TO&E we are there...

 

[medic5]

Well, I think that a Battle Group (BG) is a more realistic goal for a high-intensity peer fight. We are almost there, with infantry anti-tank being the big delta and that is fairly easy to fix.

Going to a CMBG would require much more in terms of capabilities. Our artillery is not ready for that kind of fight. A CMBG should have GBAD. That is not to say we should not look to achieve that. Just that we need to be realistic. We already have template for what a CMBG should look like for that kind of fight. From an Excel table/Powerpoint TO&E we are there...

I seem to remember something about US Army BCTs being fairly weak on air defence as well. What goes between 1980s Stingers and the extremely rare Patriot battery?

Is a lack of effective air defence a uniquely Canadian thing, or is it a western thing where air superiority has been guaranteed for the last 40 years?

 

[CBH99]

I seem to remember something about US Army BCTs being fairly weak on air defence as well. What goes between 1980s Stingers and the extremely rare Patriot battery?

Is a lack of effective air defence a uniquely Canadian thing, or is it a western thing where air superiority has been guaranteed for the last 40 years?

It isn’t a uniquely Canadian problem by any stretch.

Most western countries were focused on COIN operations for the last 20 years or so. With limited budgets, AD capabilities atrophied across NATO with most countries.

One thing the US can do very well is design & introduce a new capability in lightning speed, even if just an interim capability. Upgunning the Strykers with a 35mm was pretty quick, and putting together an AD package for the Stryker was pretty quick too.

But it isn’t just a Canadian problem.

 

[Kirkhill]

WTF? How does organizational concentration require spatial concentration?

You're not wrong. The battalion Javelin platoon, rather than giving them 6x ACSVs of their own to travel in, could be allocated as a gunner and loader pair to 24 LAVs. Assuming there is a couple of spare seats available.

Organizational concentration doesn't require spatial concentration.

 

[FJAG]

Not

I seem to remember something about US Army BCTs being fairly weak on air defence as well. What goes between 1980s Stingers and the extremely rare Patriot battery?

Is a lack of effective air defence a uniquely Canadian thing, or is it a western thing where air superiority has been guaranteed for the last 40 years?

Not just weak but nonexistent. Air defence in the US Army is a divisional and higher resource. Around the same time that the Army started splitting into BCTs, the divisions (which still exist) were divested of air defence capabilities although a significantly reduced capability stayed within bot Active Army and National Guard AD battalions and brigades.

At it's lowest level is the shoulder fired Stinger which, while it still is available in large numbers are not in general distribution within BCTs. They are available for specific roles and some appear as self defence weapons on Navy ships.

The next level of air defence that would be available at the BCT level is the Avenger which is a vehicle mounted battery of Stingers and a .50 machine gun. These mostly exist in Natl Guard battalions but because of the recent revival of AD a few additional Active Army battalions have been reformed as a temporary measure while the new Stryker mounted SHORAD systems are coming on line.

There are additional layers of higher and further striking systems in the inventory and if your interested in the overall state, there's a fairly recent Congressional briefing paper on the subject here.

In short, BCT's do not currently have organic AD systems but do operate under an AD umbrella when there is an air threat.

 

[Kirkhill]

Assuming three rifle companies, 1 x 84mm per section gives you 27 x 84mm. Add 1 x C6 to those sections and you have a nice little 'speed bump' for any enemy armoured formation.

As I recall, this was the scale of issue we had when participating in various NATO exercises. Our company level Kill Zones were well covered.

Battalion assets (16 x MILAN, 9 x 81mm MOR & 9 x C6-SF) thickened things up and closed the gaps nicely.

And yes, we were 'light' infantry and carried all this stuff.

Interesting that all the stuff that was relied on to do the killing was in the Support Company.

And that without the Support Company both the infantry and the rest of the Army seem to have lost the sense of what an infantry battalion is and what it can do. What it isn't is a bunch of riflemen.

Who supports who?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Interesting that all the stuff that was relied on to do the killing was in the Support Company.

And that without the Support Company both the infantry and the rest of the Army seem to have lost the sense of what an infantry battalion is and what it can do. What it isn't is a bunch of riflemen.

Who supports who?

I guess that's what a team is all about, right?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I think we still need to be able to operate as a CMBG - SSE directs us to be able to lead either a NATO or UN style mission and also states that the Brigade is important. Our CMBG HQs could certainly take a Sector in a place like Southern Lebanon (the UNIFIL Mission is a Div with two Sectors - each having a Bde HQ) or a NATO counter-insurgency/stability mission. 1st Cdn Div, owned by CJOC but inhabited by many Army folks, can at least provide a framework for something like RC South or even the HQ of a Cdn led mission. I think the environment would have to be somewhat permissive (we aren't fighting against conventional forces on a large scale).

Looking at the high-intensity European context, what capabilities do we need to operate as a pure CMBG within a multi-national Division?

Does the calculus change for something like Gulf War 1 or OIF?

 

[CBH99]

Looking at the high-intensity European context, what capabilities do we need to operate as a pure CMBG within a multi-national division?

We do have decent APCs / IFVs. As I think you stated upthread, we do have good tanks. (Even if we could/should get them all to the same standard.)

Looking at this purely from an Army perspective, I would go back to what you suggested upthread also. A lethal, modern ATGM. That alone could substantially increase lethality of our units.

I had suggested a good DMR also.

Ideally, 60mm and 81mm mortars available at the platoon or company level. Options are always nice.

And obviously a modern, lethal AD system. Preferably two actually - one MANPAD type, own vehicle mounted (talks to radar, etc)


None of these capabilities are expensive, complicated, timely to acquire or train, and we don’t ‘have’ to always have PYs dedicated to all of them simultaneously. But if I had a vote, add those capabilities to our units that are already equipped with LAV 6 / TAPV / Leopard 2 - and we would have a pretty lethal and effective CMBG.


0.02