The State of Army Doctrine

[daftandbarmy]

You are all keenly aware of the many things I don't know but ...  ;D

During my brief time in that strikes me as a succinct description of the duties of a 2iC at any level of command.

Is it fair to say that the first staff officer positions are Coy 2ic and DCO?

My understanding of my duties as 2iC were to make sure the Boss's troops had what they needed to get the job done and to fill in the details.

My secondary duties were to make sure I understood the Boss's plans well enough to continue implementing them when he did an H Jones.

I'm getting the sense these days that the 2iC, Deputy, Asst whatever, is divorced from the staff effort rather than leading the staff effort. 

Or am I all wet as usual?

As a Coy 2IC I had a great time, basically acting as the stand in OC when he was away on course or whatever (which was fairly often) and running all Coy Ops and Training. I led some fairly big and exciting operations/ exercises and generally got tons of command experience.

Alternatively, it seems to me that DCOs get all the crummy jobs and 'special projects' that the CO doesn't want to do, or has to be seen to be acting on for political reasons but doesn't have time for. Or maybe that was just because it was me when I was a DCO  ;D

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

You are all keenly aware of the many things I don't know but ...  ;D

During my brief time in that strikes me as a succinct description of the duties of a 2iC at any level of command.

Is it fair to say that the first staff officer positions are Coy 2ic and DCO?

My understanding of my duties as 2iC were to make sure the Boss's troops had what they needed to get the job done and to fill in the details.

My secondary duties were to make sure I understood the Boss's plans well enough to continue implementing them when he did an H Jones.

I'm getting the sense these days that the 2iC, Deputy, Asst whatever, is divorced from the staff effort rather than leading the staff effort. 

Or am I all wet as usual?

A sub-unit 2IC is not a true staff officer, and neither is a unit Deputy Commanding Officer. Our doctrine separates Deputy Commanders from staffs, and makes it clear that Deputies are not Chiefs of Staff. It also lays out that the COS is not the Deputy.

In a Battalion/Regiment I would argue that there are two Staff Officers: the Adjutant and the Operations Officer (and their assistants if they have them). I would not consider the DCO or any of the Coy/Sqn 2ICs as Staff Officers.

Now, as a Sqn 2IC I did a lot of staff work and I had dotted lines going from my desk to the Adjt and Ops O. I was still not a staff officer - I was part of the Sqn chain of command. As a DCO (Regimental 2IC) I also did a lot of staff work related to certain duties as assigned by the CO, but I was not the unit COS. There were times that I provided some oversight/direction to the Ops O and Adjt but for the vast majority of the time those two cats reported to the CO and were his staff officers. On exercise I would sometimes look at future plans with a skeleton planning team so that the CO and Ops O could focus on the present fight, but I was not the Plans O.

Our doctrine offers that the unit Operations Officer functions as the COS for a unit (battalion/regiment). 

 

[Infanteer]

That's how I see it too.

 

[OldSolduer]

That's how I see it too.

That is how it is.

 

[Old EO Tech]

A sub-unit 2IC is not a true staff officer, and neither is a unit Deputy Commanding Officer. Our doctrine separates Deputy Commanders from staffs, and makes it clear that Deputies are not Chiefs of Staff. It also lays out that the COS is not the Deputy.

In a Battalion/Regiment I would argue that there are two Staff Officers: the Adjutant and the Operations Officer (and their assistants if they have them). I would not consider the DCO or any of the Coy/Sqn 2ICs as Staff Officers.

Now, as a Sqn 2IC I did a lot of staff work and I had dotted lines going from my desk to the Adjt and Ops O. I was still not a staff officer - I was part of the Sqn chain of command. As a DCO (Regimental 2IC) I also did a lot of staff work related to certain duties as assigned by the CO, but I was not the unit COS. There were times that I provided some oversight/direction to the Ops O and Adjt but for the vast majority of the time those two cats reported to the CO and were his staff officers. On exercise I would sometimes look at future plans with a skeleton planning team so that the CO and Ops O could focus on the present fight, but I was not the Plans O.

Our doctrine offers that the unit Operations Officer functions as the COS for a unit (battalion/regiment).

In the CSS Svc Bn there is actually a "long term planner officer" called the SLOO, Senior Logistics Operations Officer.  Were as the Ops O does short term planning, the SLOO does the 3-5 year plan or even longer.  Now he does in doctrine get out from behind his desk on Ex/Ops, he does have the role of Commanding the FLOC, Forward Logistics Operations Centre, which is basically a mini Log Ops used for step ups when a Svc Bn is on the move.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

In an Inf Bn or Armd Regt there can be more staff officers than the Adjt/Ops O. There could be several officers working for the Ops O, and they would be staff officers. In my last regimental tour we were blessed with two AOC grads in the Ops Shop.

Now, the Signals Officer is not a staff officer. He has a small command to whom he gives orders. He is a specialist advisor to the Commanding Officer, so in that light he could be seen as staff. Still, his command responsibilities make him different from a G6. The same would apply, in my mind, to the QM and Maint O. They provide specialist advice to the CO, but they also command troops who do things besides plan/coordinate. The Transport Officer does lots of staff work, but he is not a staff officer. He gives orders to subordinates who move around the battlefield. 2IC HQ Sqn completes a blizzard of staff work and operational planning and could perhaps be seen as Staff Officer, but he is part of a Sqn chain of command that directly moves soldiers and equipment around.

As for the SLOO, he sounds like a staff officer (super Ops O), but I could be wrong. I imagine that Arty and Engr units may have some additional officers that could be seen as staff officers. Bde HQ, though, is where the lion share of the true staff officers reside within the field force.

Bear in mind that going out on exercise does not make the determination between Staff Officer and non-Staff Officer. An Ops O might spend months in the field and an OC might stay in garrison. The nature of their duties is what make the determination.

A tank troop leader might spend weeks at a time at his desk doing administration related to his troop, but he is not a staff officer. He is a commander - if a very junior one still learning the ropes.

 

[Kirkhill]

Can I ask for clarification on the RN (RCN?) system, and those of the US Army and Marines where at Coy, Bn and Bde/Regt levels the 2ic is explicitly referred to as the Executive Officer and, I believe, is also explicitly considered as a staff appointment?

I also seem to recall that back in the 80s the Ops O was the OC Cbt Spt Coy who routinely had all his troops farmed out when the unit was engaged.

Now that you don't have Cbt Spt Coy worth the name (- Mortars, - Pioneers, - Anti-Tank) do you really need an OC Cbt Spt Coy AND a separate Ops O?

 

[Infanteer]

Can I ask for clarification on the RN (RCN?) system, and those of the US Army and Marines where at Coy, Bn and Bde/Regt levels the 2ic is explicitly referred to as the Executive Officer and, I believe, is also explicitly considered as a staff appointment?

The unique history of the RCN and RCAF's staff evolution can be read here:

http://airforceapp.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/Journal/Vol1-2008/Iss2-Summer/Sections/05-Staff_Systems_and_the_Canadian_Air_Force-Part1_e.pdf

http://airforceapp.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/Journal/Vol1-2008/Iss3-Fall/Sections/05-Staff_Systems_and_the_Canadian_Air_Force-Part2_e.pdf

Executive Officers may or may not have different functions then our Deputies - I'm not entirely sure.  But it is somewhat irrelevant - the U.S. Army Executive Officer's terms or reference need to be considered within the context of the American version of the Continental System.  U.S. Battalions have senior S3/Ops Os who outrank company commanders while the SNCO role in resupply works slightly different.  The U.S. Executive Officer "works' because it fits with the rest of the system - we couldn't lift it wholesale for import.

Now that you don't have Cbt Spt Coy worth the name (- Mortars, - Pioneers, - Anti-Tank) do you really need an OC Cbt Spt Coy AND a separate Ops O?

Absolutely not.  The Company still has 100+ personnel in Signals, Recce and Snipers.  An operations officer is too occupied coordinating the battalion's efforts to also act as an OC.  I had a friend saddled with these two hats and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

 

[ballz]

Bear in mind that going out on exercise does not make the determination between Staff Officer and non-Staff Officer. An Ops O might spend months in the field and an OC might stay in garrison. The nature of their duties is what make the determination.

Purely out of curiosity, what would you consider a LAV Captain? He acts as the Coy Ops O for the most part, but does have a role to play in the field that involves commanding, but really he is just making sure the details of the OC's scheme of manouevre is accomplished.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Purely out of curiosity, what would you consider a LAV Captain? He acts as the Coy Ops O for the most part, but does have a role to play in the field that involves commanding, but really he is just making sure the details of the OC's scheme of manouevre is accomplished.

Great question. I hadn't thought about him.

Looking at the armour organizations from which the concept of the LAV Capt was initially taken, a tank or recce sqn Battle Captain is certainly not a staff officer. He is third in line to succeed the OC and takes over during the immediate battle if the OC goes down (the 2IC is too far back).

At first blush I would not view a LAV Captain as a Staff Officer. I believe that he is in the chain to take over command before a Pl Comd. He can command tactical groupings in contact. This makes me think that he is not a true Staff Officer. Having said that, I can see the argument to say that he is usually acting as a Coy Ops O. I believe that Engr Sqns now have Operations Officers - I suppose they could be seen as Staff.

 

[McG]

... U.S. Battalions have senior S3/Ops Os who outrank company commanders while the SNCO role in resupply works slightly different. 

Adding to that, the US Battalion also has both an S6 and a Signals Pl Comd, both an S4 and a Logistics Pl Comd, and the HHC in place of Admin Coy.  It is not the same as a Canadian Battalion.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have been re-reading two WW2 classics about the USMC in the Pacific: 'Goodbye Darkness', by William Manchester and 'With the Old Breed' by Eugene Sledge.

Terry Copp has also done some work on Canadian casualties in Normandy, which exceeded British levels and seem equivalent to the USMC rates: http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1491&context=cmh

It's a sobering reminder that the casualty rates of for combat arms, especially Infantry, in high intensity warfare are astronomical. If for no other reason than leadership continuity, it's a good idea to have a few extras hanging around.

 

[Kirkhill]

This info may be a bit dated but it is available in the public domain

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-1/FM7_20/APPB.PDF

Bn XO

The XO is second in command and the battalion
commander’s main assistant. As the second in
charge, he must be prepared to assume the duties
of the commander.
a. The XO, as the coordinator of the
battalion staff, establishes staff operating
procedures. He ensures the commander and
staff are informed on matters affecting the
command. To coordinate and synchronize the
plan, the XO assembles and supervises the staff
during the decision-making process. He
establishes the required liaison. Unless
instructed otherwise by the commander, all staff
officers inform the XO of any recommendations
or information they give directly to the
commander or any instructions they receive
directly from the commander. When required,
he represents the commander, supervises the
main CP and its operations, and provides for
battalion logistical support.

A publication B-GL-322-003 seemed to be quite clear that the OC Cbt Spt Coy was Ops O as the platoons of CS Coy were parcelled out or under the direct control of the CO.  The Pl Ldrs and Recce Officers were tasked to the TOC as Duty Offrs.

The DCO was located at the Main CP (AOC at A Echelon) with the OC Adm Coy with 3 primary tasks:

1.  assuming command in the absence of the CO
2. responsible to the CO  for overall administration (AOC supplied by OC Adm and the Adm Coy HQ)
3. planning future ops when Ops O (OC Cbt Spt) is committed

I admit to being dense but I am not seeing a huge gulf between the duties of a DCO and an XO.

Also, I am having difficulty understanding why you need more officers to organize battalions of 500 than you needed to organize battalions of 1000.  Why do you need a OC Cbt Spt Coy and a Ops O?

Surely "Staff" is merely the addition of supernumary personnel to assist Line Command in delivering the necessary services?  They may be capable of assuming command, they probably have had command billets prior to their staff appointments, but regardless of rank, surely they shouldn't intervene in the chain of command?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Kirkhill,

You are comparing US and Canadian positions - and I must confess that I am not sure what your point is. I have been trained and worked in both systems - a US battalion S3 is not a Canadian Ops O, and a US XO is not a Canadian DCO.

Is your argument that a Canadian Battalion Ops O could be OC Cbt Support?

 

[Infanteer]

A publication B-GL-322-003 seemed to be quite clear that the OC Cbt Spt Coy was Ops O as the platoons of CS Coy were parcelled out or under the direct control of the CO.
....
Also, I am having difficulty understanding why you need more officers to organize battalions of 500 than you needed to organize battalions of 1000.  Why do you need a OC Cbt Spt Coy and a Ops O?

This has never been the case.  OC Cbt Spt (previously OC HQ Coy) is a position that predates the Second World War.  It has always been a "spare OC" and there has never been a codified tactical role for this officer.  I have Army Journal correspondence dating from the 1960s arguing about the utility of keeping OC HQ Coy as the "spare prick at the wedding" for numerous tasks that would pop up (LO, cas replacement, etc).

The Ops O is a creation of the 1970s; previously, assisting the CO with battle management and planning was a function of the Adjutant but, with the growth in pers admin policy the Adjutant became completely dedicated to pers admin and Ops Os were created to handle the battle management/planning and orders drafting part.

At times, due to shortages in officers, it has been acceptable to double tap 59r and 9B as you could afford to do it due to the lack of a tactical role of 59r.  However, this is not a very good thing to do - OC Combat Support is dedicated to ensuring there is a guiding hand to the training of Snipers, Recce and Signals while the Ops O is dedicated to the Battalion as a whole.  I can tell you from first hand experience that merging these two duties would entail large risks to the effort that can be put to these two distinct, and vital, tasks.  Finally, OC Cbt Spt is still the "untasked guy" when you hit the field, making him very valuable for all those odd tasks that come up (LO, ISTAR Coord, spare C2, etc).

Finally, I am not sure where you are getting your assumption that Canadian Battalions have larger staffs than U.S. ones.  An American Bn S-3 shop at the battalion level is larger than a Canadian Inf Bn Ops section.

 

[Kirkhill]

T2B

To be honest I don't know what my point is.

I sense that you, the CAF, are moving from large battalions in large brigade groups, a particularly Canadian construct,  to small battalions and at the same time are moving from a British-Canadian command and control system to an American-Canadian system.  By that I mean that you are starting to adopt Americanisms in your terminology (S1, S2, S3, S3 .....) but yet you don't seem to be accepting the rest of the system that spawns those terms.

Complicating my understanding is that the Americans seem to be struggling with their own systems at the same time you are fighting your way through trying to decide what you can do with the reduced resources that you have in hand.

Some of the things the Americans seem to have done is provide additional berths by supplying planning personnel that are divorced from the units providing the support.  The British-Canadian system generally relied on the supporting entities supplying both the planning advisors and the support.
I can be all wet, as I said......

But at the same time we are reducing the size and number of units, and I am hearing people expressing concern about the size of staffs at NDHQ, we seem to be adding staff billets, like the dedicated Ops O.

I have to be thinking that the emphasis should be the other way, on paring staff billets for officers and leaving them in line positions, even if it means reducing the size of the commands.

For example, retaining the fourth rifle coy in an inf bn, as an operational and training construct, even if it means reducing all rifle coys to something in the 60 to 80 PY range.  Also, retaining skills like MORs, Pnrs, DFS (HMG/GMG/GPMG-SF) even if it means reducing mors to 4 tubes and only 23 PYs as found in a US battalion.

I have been looking for the skinniest organizations and trying to understand what their limitations are.  Needless to say trying to understand the Staff part of the equation is ........perplexing.

And I have rambled enough.  Sorry.  :-[ :-\

 

[Kirkhill]

Infanteer, just to address your points before going silent:

I'm not arguing that the Canadians have more Staff than the Americans,  in fact I believe the opposite to be true.  But... I am sensing that even though Battalions have been downsized here in Canada the number of officers per battalion has not.  That seems to have resulted in jobs that were Duty positions of Line officers having become full time planning positions.

I am thinking specifically of the Pioneer, Armd Def, Mor Pl officers, and the 4th Rifle Coy officers as well as the OC Cbt Spt Coy.

An Infantry School Student Handout "The Organization, Characteristics, and Role of the Mechanized Infantry Battalion" issued in 1983 on Phase 2
said this:

"The Operations Centre.  The operations centre is the focal point for planning, control and co-ordination of unit combat operations.  When the commanding officer is present it may be referred to as the unit command post.  The staff consists of the operations officer (the officer commanding combat support company), the intelligence officer, a number of duty officers drawn from the combat support company and intelligence clerks, drivers and signallers."

"Combat Support Company

28. This company does not operate as a tactical sub-unit.  It comprises a headquarters, mortar, reconnaissance, anti-armour and assault pioneer platoons.  It has a total strength of 9-171 and while this  is the largest company in the battalion organization, it is never deployed in its entirety as a tactical sub-unit."

B-GL-322-003/fp-001

"Section 2, Battalion Headquarters

Command Post Section

10. The command post (CP) is the focal point for the planning, control and coordination of unit operations.  The staff consists of the Operations Officer (Ops O), the Intelligence Officer (IO), a number of duty officers drawn from the combat support company and intelligence clerks, drivers and signallers."


"Section 4, Combat Support Company

General

24.  Combat Support Company does not operate as a tactical subunit in operations.  Rather its platoons (mortar, reconnaissance and assault pioneer) operate as independent platoons under the direct command of the CO.  Out of battle, the company may operate as a sub-unit for ease of administration and training.....

Headquarters Combat Support Company

25.  The company is commanded by a major who usually also acts as the Battalion Ops O, working out of the battalion CP.....

26.  Combat Support Company headquarters personnel provide administrative support to the Battalion Headquarters.  Normally in operations this administrative support group is commanded by the Combat Support Company sergeant major."

"Section 2

Combat Support Company

Organization and Command

3. Combat Support Company normally operates as a  sub-unit for ease of administration and training when out of battle.  In battle its platoons operate as independent platoons under the direct command of the CO.  The platoons are organized and equipped to conduct their own replenishment from A echelon (or AI echelon).  They may receive some assistance from the company quarter-master sergeant (CQMS).

4. The company commander acts as the Battalion Ops O in the battalion CP. The routine company administration of the combat support platoons is performed by the Company 2IC, if and officer can be spared for this job, or by the senior combat support platoon commander, when the company is out of battle and the company commander/battalions Ops O is occupied planning future operations.

5.  The Company headquarters personnel provide administrative support to battalion headquarters.  In operations this support is provided under the company CSM....."


"Annex A

Battalion Headquarters Responsibilities of Key Personnel

3. Operations Officer (Ops O).  The Operations Officer is responsible to the CO for the functioning of the Battalion Headquarters.  His duties include:

a. responsibility for all operational staff work;
b. assisting the CO in the preparation of tactical plans;
c. Coordinating all patrol activity (he may be the battalion patrol master)
d. Coordinating support from the other arms and services;
e. Coordinating all unit in-theatre training
f. assuming command if the CO becomes a casualty during the absence of the DCO."


I can also cite similar instructions issued as SOPs for Calg Highrs when they were assigned to supply a D&D platoon to 1 PPCLI.  The SOPs were copies of 1 PPCLI SOPS circa 1980.

But I probably misunderstood the situation.... 

 

[McG]

... you are starting to adopt Americanisms in your terminology (S1, S2, S3, S3 .....) but yet you don't seem to be accepting the rest of the system that spawns those terms.

The "S staff" terms were picked-up by some BGs in Kandahar with the argument that it would be easier for US Army allies to understand who they were speaking with in the BG HQ.  Few individuals have continued to use the terms in Canada because it sounds cool; this is not correct practice.  There has been no formal adoption of these unit staff titles in Canada.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We should be careful comparing and contrasting US and Canadian units. We did indeed start calling our Bn level staff by US designations, but as MCG states this was to be cool in a US theatre. We didn't really change our structure besides adding some CCs.

In a US unit, the sub-unit commanders are Captains. In Canada, they are Majors. A typical US unit has two Majors - the XO and the S3. The Ops O has much more relative power compared to a Canadian Ops O. This holds true even if the Canadian Ops O is a Major since he is pre-command. A US Bn XO has a different relationship with the Company Commanders than the Canadian DCO does. When I was tracking the details fifteen years ago (on a US course and on exchanges), the XO ran the TOC and oversaw the MDMP. The S3 of a tank battalion had a tank and would often be forward. He might even command two company teams. We would instead have a large combat team with one or two of the OCs running the show. I am not saying that one is better. To change would be a massive deal and I am not sure what the benefits would be.

The OC of the combat support company position pre-dates the most recent reductions in Bn size, so its not a conspiracy to preserve a Maj (and CSM) billet. In any case, a Battle Group organized for expeditionary operations is actually quite large.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer, just to address your points before going silent:

I'm not arguing that the Canadians have more Staff than the Americans,  in fact I believe the opposite to be true.  But... I am sensing that even though Battalions have been downsized here in Canada the number of officers per battalion has not.  That seems to have resulted in jobs that were Duty positions of Line officers having become full time planning positions.

I am thinking specifically of the Pioneer, Armd Def, Mor Pl officers, and the 4th Rifle Coy officers as well as the OC Cbt Spt Coy.

I've read and understand superseded PAMs.  I've answered your question on the two appointments twice but you've never read/addressed my response.