Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Prairie canuck]

I am well out of my lane regarding force structure but my general view from all that is written here is I do not see anything that would enable Canada to be active in the Pacific. The US is restructuring the USMC to do exactly that.
Adding amphibious capabilities to Canada's expeditionary forces is a must if we are to stay linked to and support our Pacific Allies is it not? Naval surface and subsurface assets to support amphibious operations are also lacking so it will be a huge undertaking but the US see China as the "next" threat, Europe and Russia not so much.

 

[Underway]

Let's go back to the definition of Light Forces in B-GL-300-001.

Light forces are defined as military forces rapidly deployable at all levels of command and optimized for terrain and conditions not suited to mechanized forces. They have significant strategic mobility, as they can be transported to any theatre by aircraft. They may be the only forces that can operate in complex environments characterized by close terrain.

So, same role (infantry - close with and destroy the enemy) but for different missions and tasks. The Light Battalion should be able to rapidly deploy, and should. There are plenty of examples of missions and tasks that suited light forces for a variety of reasons: UK in the Falklands, French in Mali, numerous smaller scale interventions (I'm thinking UK in Sierra Leone), specific missions within a larger conflict (101st in OIF), counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (RC-East), NEO in Kabul, etc, etc.

Again, a light battalion can't do this on its own, and needs a level of second line support external to the unit to be fully enabled (no different than any other type of unit).

I appreciate the time you're putting in to educate me here.

I perhaps should have been more specific in my question. What's the point of a Light Battalion in a Mech Medium Brigade force construct? If as you say they are often not able to be effective in a mechanized conflict and provide a weak point in the CMBG should they not be able to do their B-GL-300-001 defined tasks with their own dedicated Brigade or another sort of formation instead?

It just seems like they are tacked on as an afterthought (I am aware of the history of their creation).

 

[Kirkhill]

So what's the point of a Light Battalion then?

Seems like it just needs to be jettisoned or combined into a light brigade with air mobility to make it useful for specific tasks that only a light brigade can do. Or should we give all the light brigades new jobs and make them fully mechanized across the board? If you want to jump out of planes then join CSOR.


Why use the light battalion for this? This means you are losing an infantry battalion. Cavalry Squadrons are at their core Armoured Recce Squadrons and we have those existing already.

Or is this a case of we don't have enough Recce to go around and also have an Armoured Squadron (I think we use Regiment for this size of armoured formation?) formation attached to make up the CMBG. Are you using the ABCT as your template with only 2x Mech Companies and 2x Armor Companies per Combined Arms Battalion?

If you only have heavy forces then the enemy will go where the heavy forces can't.

America won the conventional war in Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq in 2003. So the opposition fought differently in different places.

Israel fights with heavy forces because they don't have far to travel and they are backed by a well developed network of highways.

Sweden and Finland fight with light forces and lots of artillery backed by local armoured manoeuvre forces because much of their countryside is covered in trees and bogs. And because the forces are local, and locally organized they have little need for airlift of any kind. A strategy based on dispersed light forces armed with mortars and ATGMs plays to their strengths. They also have strong GBAD networks and Air Defence Fighter forces.

Sweden has

1000x Unarmoured Bandvagns - locally designed and built
246x Armoured Bandvagns - locally designed and built
354x CV9040 IFV(Tracked) - locally designed and built
316x WAPC - designed and built in Finland
165x Combat Boats - locally designed and built for use by the marines

These are backed by

121x MBTs - German

215x 81mm mortars - designed and built in Finland
84x 120mm mortars - designed and built in Finland
60x 120mm Mjolner self propelled mortars - locally designed and built
72x 155mm Archers self propelled howitzers - locally designed and built


Air Defence consists of

27x CV9040 AD variants to defend the manoeuvre forces - locally designed and built
70x RBS-70 MANPADS - locally designed and built
12x Patriot launchers - US systems
71x Gripens - locally designed and built


All that to defend a population and area equivalent to Alberta with a terrain and climate not dissimilar


Finland has

426x Bandvagns - designed and built in Sweden
102x CV9030 IFV(Tracked) - designed and built in Sweden
628x WAPC - locally designed and built

These are backed by

200x MBTs - German

550x 81mm mortars - locally designed and built
698x 120mm mortars - locally designed and built
167x 155mm towed howitzers - locally designed and built

18x 120mm AMOS self propelled mortars - locally designed and built in cooperation with Sweden
48x 155mm K9 self propelled howitzers - Korean
40x MRLS M270 - US


Air Defence consists of a complex mix of autocannons and missiles from the USSR, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland and Norway together with 55 F18s which are being replaced by 64 F35s


Finland also maintains a Warsaw Pact era inventory.

110x BMD-2 IFV(Tracked) - designed and built in the Soviet Union
389x TAPC - MTLB - designed and built in the Soviet Union
471x 122mm towed howitzers - designed and built in the Soviet Union
24x 152mm towed field guns - designed and built in the Soviet Union
74x 122mm self propelled howitzers - designed and built in the Soviet Union
34x 122mm MRLS - Czech


That defends the population of BC in the area of Newfoundland and Labrador with terrain and climate similar to Labrador or Northern Ontario,

 

[Underway]

Full disclosure, I don't read all your data. I read your first para and last para and ignore skim the rest.

Sure, but now you're running into the jack of all trades master of none trap. Let's just bolt on everything to a CMBG just in case. How about a CLBG construct instead. I know around the buoy with the same argument.

I'm trying to drill down here. Is a CMBG better or worse off with a Light Infantry Battalion as integral to the formation? It seems like (from what others here have mentioned) they inhibit the operations of the rest of the CMBG more than they enable them, and that the Mech Inf Battalions can provide a lot of what the Light can if they leave their rides behind.

 

[FJAG]

Not to make light of re-turreting, but if there was will and money to put these on LAV's into Infantry AT platoons and the armoured regiments (2:1 with LRSS) how far off would we be from having one tank regiment, three cavalry regiments, six mechanized battalions, three light battalions, and the aggregate of an artillery regiment+? Could it be done with the existing LAV fleet (hulls)?

If so, we'd have the basis of 3 symmetrical Medium+ Brigades (each with 2x Mech Battalion+ Cavalry Regiment) and a Light Brigade. Could a pooled total force tank regiment be used as needed, whether that be penny packeted with half squadrons added to battlegroups or the whole regiment added to any of the three brigades to turn it heavy(ish)? Could the artillery (guns) be similarly pooled?

I see it a bit different.

My suggestion to turn a light battalion into a cavalry regiment applies to only to 1 CMBG - the heavy brigade - so that it has one armoured regiment and two mech battalions as its manoeuvre units plus a new cavalry unit.

2 and 5 CMBG already have an armoured regiment that could be modified into a cavalry regiment. As well each has three infantry battalions. If one battalion's worth of LAVs were passed over from 2 CMBG to 5 CMBG then 5 CMBG would have all the makings of a medium brigade while 2 CMBG turns primarily into a light brigade. IMHO, the way I see a cavalry regiment (regardless if light, medium or heavy) it does not come up to the standard as a manoeuvre unit. You still need either three infantry, tank or combined battalions as the manoeuvre element plus a cavalry regiment. (and again I throw in my caveat that CS and CSS needs work as well)

Why use the light battalion for this? This means you are losing an infantry battalion. Cavalry Squadrons are at their core Armoured Recce Squadrons and we have those existing already.

Or is this a case of we don't have enough Recce to go around and also have an Armoured Squadron (I think we use Regiment for this size of armoured formation?) formation attached to make up the CMBG.

See my comments above.

I do this solely on a reorganization of the RegF and staying PY neutral. Effectively, if you want a heavy brigade and you want a cavalry regiment with each brigade then you will need four armoured units (one tank, three cavalry) and only need eight infantry battalions (5 mech, 3 light). It's the simplest, math based shuffle available.

In truth, I think that we should make much more use of the reserves which would relieve some of the strain on the RegF because I characterize a tank regiment (like artillery) a force that could and should be served largely by reservists because they are the least likely to be needed for day to day peacetime operations. If reservists filled in some of these lower priority jobs, then such a reclassification would not be necessary.

Are you using the ABCT as your template with only 2x Mech Companies and 2x Armor Companies per Combined Arms Battalion?

Actually no.

Firstly, combined arms battalions have not been a 2 + 2 structure for some time. They gave up a tank company to the cavalry squadron and are now organized with three companies per combined arms battalion - two battalions are tank heavy (2 tank + 1 inf) and one is infantry heavy (1 tank + 2 inf)

While I would like to go in that direction (in fact I'd prefer three (2 + 1) battalions), Canada doesn't have enough tanks for that. I think Canada could squeeze a 14-tank squadron of 2A6Ms out for the cavalry regiment and three 14-tank squadrons of 2A4/2A4Ms out for the armoured regiment. That obviously falls short of the tank power of an ABCT (and not just because of the number of tanks but for a bunch of reasons), but does create a fairly robust organization which can reform into mixed battlegroups as required and provides a suitable organization for training in combined arms tactics.

If the Blue Fairey could grant me a wish I'd be looking at enough tanks and IFVs to create two proper ABCTs (mostly reservist - with one brigade's worth of equipment prepositioned overseas), take all of our LAVs and aggregate them into two medium brigades (one mostly RegF and one mostly ResF) and keep one light brigade (which is mostly RegF) all done using our current RegF and ResF strength (again plus revamp CS and CSS).

 

[Infanteer]

It just seems like they are tacked on as an afterthought.

You've answered the question.

 

[KevinB]

I appreciate the time you're putting in to educate me here.

I perhaps should have been more specific in my question. What's the point of a Light Battalion in a Mech Medium Brigade force construct? If as you say they are often not able to be effective in a mechanized conflict and provide a weak point in the CMBG should they not be able to do their B-GL-300-001 defined tasks with their own dedicated Brigade or another sort of formation instead?

It just seems like they are tacked on as an afterthought (I am aware of the history of their creation).

cap badge mafia…

No one in their right mind can defend the layout of the CA — it’s simply because the 3 regular force Infantry units prefer to bicker like children and share everything equally - especially failure.

 

[FJAG]

I'm trying to drill down here. Is a CMBG better or worse off with a Light Infantry Battalion as integral to the formation? It seems like (from what others here have mentioned) they inhibit the operations of the rest of the CMBG more than they enable them, and that the Mech Inf Battalions can provide a lot of what the Light can if they leave their rides behind.

The issue though is that in the early 2000s, the Army turned its focus on force generating battlegroups based around infantry battalions rather than force generating brigades that fight as an entity.

The Army also ended up with an imbalance on equipment (due to limited purchasing power) and a need to have a flexible, configurable force.

Add onto that a managed readiness plan that needs to turn out a similarly structured ready force in three-year cycles and what you end up with is three symmetrical brigades that turn out two mech battalions, a light battalion, a recce regiment and wimpy artillery regiment, an engineer regiment and a conflicted service battalion organized as much for base support as field support. What's more, during Afghanistan, each brigade had to turn out a roto for six month deployment often while preparing another simultaneously. Even more complicated was the fact that some of the force was mechanized while other elements like the PRT and even one of the three rifle companies were "light".

The system was stressed during Afghanistan and required significant ResF augmentation.

During this period, however, the need to organize and fight as a brigade took a back seat. If you take a close look at SSE you'll see that there is no task for the Army to deploy a full combat brigade. The numbers set out are basically varying sizes of battle groups. We've limped along for years like this, and it looks like we will for a few more yet.

 

[Infanteer]

Even more complicated was the fact that some of the force was mechanized while other elements like the PRT and even one of the three rifle companies were "light".

Only for Roto 0. By Roto 1, all elements were starting to mechanize. Roto 2 had a motorized company, but after that, they were pretty much all mechanized.

 

[KevinB]

The issue though is that in the early 2000s, the Army turned its focus on force generating battlegroups based around infantry battalions rather than force generating brigades that fight as an entity.

The Army also ended up with an imbalance on equipment (due to limited purchasing power) and a need to have a flexible, configurable force.

Add onto that a managed readiness plan that needs to turn out a similarly structured ready force in three-year cycles and what you end up with is three symmetrical brigades that turn out two mech battalions, a light battalion, a recce regiment and wimpy artillery regiment, an engineer regiment and a conflicted service battalion organized as much for base support as field support. What's more, during Afghanistan, each brigade had to turn out a roto for six month deployment often while preparing another simultaneously. Even more complicated was the fact that some of the force was mechanized while other elements like the PRT and even one of the three rifle companies were "light".

The system was stressed during Afghanistan and required significant ResF augmentation.

During this period, however, the need to organize and fight as a brigade took a back seat. If you take a close look at SSE you'll see that there is no task for the Army to deploy a full combat brigade. The numbers set out are basically varying sizes of battle groups. We've limped along for years like this, and it looks like we will for a few more yet.

I think you are giving the CA too much credit.
@Infanteer points out that realistically only the Roto 0 for Op Apollo was Light.

At the end of the day Canada could have moved all the Light Infantry BN’s to one Bde should they wanted to years ago.
Remember just before 9/11 the LIB’s and Para Coy’s where going to be chopped. The CMBG’s don’t need a LIB and have been trying to sink them since the end of the CAR.

I’d argue that the CA has been derelict WRT that - the farce of managed readiness and has not conducted an honest review of the needs of the CA in decades

 

[Underway]

In a Canadian construct would this be a Battle Group?



Because in the US construct that's a proposed Cavalry Squadron.

 

[Infanteer]

In a Canadian construct would this be a Battle Group?

Because in the US construct that's a proposed Cavalry Squadron.

Again, I'll refer to doctrine. Land Ops states that a battle group (BG) is a combined arms tactical organization task tailored for operations based upon a unit headquarters (usually an armour, mounted recce, or infantry unit), consisting of manoeuvre subunits with integral cbt sp and CSS, a cbt sp subunit and an integral CSS subunit, organized to complete a specific mission or task.

The key is that its task tailored for a specific mission or task. Its a temporary organization. For example, a Bde is conduct an assault water crossing, and forms two battle groups from its elements to act as a Bridgehead Force and a Breakout Force, while using an infantry battalion as the In Place Force. Following this task, the bde could simply revert to standard unit organizations, or reorganize into different battle groups for a different mission.

In the case of your diagram, I would offer that it is not a battle group if it is permanently organized that way. It is simply a battalion/squadron/regiment/etc.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Again, I'll refer to doctrine. Land Ops states that a battle group (BG) is a combined arms tactical organization task tailored for operations based upon a unit headquarters (usually an armour, mounted recce, or infantry unit), consisting of manoeuvre subunits with integral cbt sp and CSS, a cbt sp subunit and an integral CSS subunit, organized to complete a specific mission or task.

The key is that its task tailored for a specific mission or task. Its a temporary organization. For example, a Bde is conduct an assault water crossing, and forms two battle groups from its elements to act as a Bridgehead Force and a Breakout Force, while using an infantry battalion as the In Place Force. Following this task, the bde could simply revert to standard unit organizations, or reorganize into different battle groups for a different mission.

In the case of your diagram, I would offer that it is not a battle group if it is permanently organized that way. It is simply a battalion/squadron/regiment/etc.

Because making it a permanent organization would break too many rice bowls. You would have just about every Corps Mafia family screaming bloody murder.
Strangely enough I think the RCAC would be the loudest in objecting.

 

[Infanteer]

That depends. There is a balance to be struck between combined arms interoperability and the efficiency of managing and training for a capability. In many cases, it is easier to break down into smaller, temporary combined arms teams than it is to build up larger groups.

In some cases, you wouldn't even want to push specific functions down too low. There is a reason we don't push artillery batteries down to units.

 

[KevinB]

Because making it a permanent organization would break too many rice bowls. You would have just about every Corps Mafia family screaming bloody murder.
Strangely enough I think the RCAC would be the loudest in objecting.

The RCAC feels entitled to own Cav.
I never really understood that, as a CAV Sqn is really a fantastic combined arms unit.

I also think part of the issue is the refusal of the CA to split certain trades
Armour - for tanks
CAV - for LAV or other Armoured not tank vehicles.
Part of that is no doubt self preservation due to the tanks on, tanks off nature of the CA…

But in the same vein that I don’t think Mech Inf should really be the same MOSID either as Light.

 

[GK .Dundas]

In a Canadian construct would this be a Battle Group?

View attachment 71397

Because in the US construct that's a proposed Cavalry Squadron.

I'll take ummm... four please , don't bother to wrap them up to go.
Oh! And could I get some attack helos for scouting and what not on side ?
Please and thank you !

 

[Underway]

Because making it a permanent organization would break too many rice bowls. You would have just about every Corps Mafia family screaming bloody murder.
Strangely enough I think the RCAC would be the loudest in objecting.

also think part of the issue is the refusal of the CA to split certain trades
Armour - for tanks
CAV - for LAV or other Armoured not tank vehicles.
Part of that is no doubt self preservation due to the tanks on, tanks off nature of the CA…

That's sort of what I was getting at. It's mainly armour units but the 6x36 could easily be an infantry cap badge, sniper infantry, 120mm artillery, UAS artillery etc...

Conversely, there is no reason you can't train armoured soldiers on a mortar system, or do dismounted work in the 6x36 scout platoon. The snipers are specialized and should be attached, as the UAS and the various support elements like med etc...

 

[KevinB]

That's sort of what I was getting at. It's mainly armour units but the 6x36 could easily be an infantry cap badge, sniper infantry, 120mm artillery, UAS artillery etc...

Conversely, there is no reason you can't train armoured soldiers on a mortar system, or do dismounted work in the 6x36 scout platoon. The snipers are specialized and should be attached, as the UAS and the various support elements like med etc...

I think for CAV the Black hats drive and the green hats sit in back works best.
It’s not a Inf Bn or a Tank Sqn - it’s a mix and needs a bunch of different skillsets IMHO.

 

[GR66]

I think for CAV the Black hats drive and the green hats sit in back works best.
It’s not a Inf Bn or a Tank Sqn - it’s a mix and needs a bunch of different skillsets IMHO.

Or they could all just take off their coloured hats and wear helmets instead. One Army...many Trades.

 

[FJAG]

Only for Roto 0. By Roto 1, all elements were starting to mechanize. Roto 2 had a motorized company, but after that, they were pretty much all mechanized.

I'm still stuck in 2007. TF 1-07 with 2 RCR had two LAV companies H and I and had C Coy 3 PPCLI attached which was mounted in RG 31s which is mechanized of a sort. Task Force 3-07 reorganized themselves with A Company (1 R22eR) giving up a platoon each to B Coy (2 R22eR) and C Coy (3 R22eR) and then forming a new coy with its remaining platoon and the ANA which I think was basically Ranger mounted and maybe some RG 31s. (Just starting into 3-07s story this week so not too sure yet)