Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Infanteer]

The last thing we need are boutique units like Anti-Tank Battalions.

What constitutes a Level 5 Combat Team?

Level 5 (from B-GL 300-008): combined arms sub-unit training.

Combat Team (from B-GL 321-006): an ad hoc and temporary combined arms organization based on a manoeuvre sub-unit headquarters and consisting of integral and attached infantry and armour sub-sub-units.

These are not necessarily the same thing. All Combat Team training is level 5, but not all level 5 training requires a combat team.

 

[markppcli]

I see an AT Battalion as a replacement for a Tank Regiment which we are extremely unlikely to get.

We have a total of 82 tanks (of various standards). As noted in a previous thread, not even enough to equip a Canadian equivalent of a single ABCT even if we reduced our Squadron size to 15 from 19. And that leaves us with ZERO replacements, etc.

Equipping a single Cavalry Regiment with 2 x Tank Squadrons leaves enough for a training squadron and an additional squadron worth of spares. maintenance losses, etc.

An ATGM-equipped AT Battalion could have Companies issued out to deployed Brigades to fill a defensive AT role similar to what a Tank Squadron would in a properly equipped mechanized Army.

Might as well just have Bn AT platoons, per our existing doctrine, if your going to employ it that way.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll take a shot...

We consolidate.

1 x Heavy Brigade in the West. 1/2/3 PPCLI all LAV Battalions and LdSH a Cavalry Regiment along the lines being discussed in the Armoured Recce threads (Tanks & Recce elements). 1RCHA would get a 3rd Battery (from 5RALC) and be equipped with SP 155mm.

1 x Light Brigade in the East with 1RCR (Petawawa)/1R22eR (Valcartier)/2RCR (Gagetown) all Light Battalions. The infantry, RCD, 2RCHA, 2 CER and 2 Service all equipped to be air transportable as our Rapid Reaction Force. 2RCHA would get a 3rd Battery (from 5RALC) and be equipped with M777s.

The following units would move to the Canadian Combat Support Brigade and be re-roled and re-equipped as follows:

• 12RBC - Re-roles as a Sense/Strike Regiment with LAV LRSS and LAV-UAV/Loitering Munitions vehicles.
• 2R22eR - Re-roles as an AT Battalion with LAV-ATGMs
• 3R22eR - Re-roles as an AA Battalion with LAV-SHORAD (vehicles from 2RCR)
• 5RACL - HQ and STA Batteries remain. 2 x Reg Force Gun Batteries to 1RCHA and 2RCHA. Gains 3 x Reserve Gun Batteries equipped with SP 155mm. Regiment to act as General Support artillery for any deployed Brigade Group.
• 5CER - Becomes the Combat Engineer Regiment for the CCSB
• 5Svc - Becomes the Service Battalion for the CCSB

3RCR would be disbanded and the troops distributed to the 6 x remaining Infantry Battalions (along with the surplus infantry troops from 2 & 3R22eR as the specialized battalions will not require as many personnel as an Infantry Battalion).

Consolidate the Reserves into 3 x Reserve Light Infantry Brigade Groups. The Infantry Regiments from each existing Reserve Brigade would be consolidated into a single Infantry Battalion. The Armoured, Artillery, Combat Engineer and Service Regiments/Battalions would be composite units from across all the existing Brigades.

• 3 (Res.) Brigade (from existing 31/32/33 Brigades)
• 4 (Res.) Brigade (from existing 38/39/41 Brigades)
• 5 (Res.) Brigade (from existing 34/35/36/37 Brigades)

All this can be done with minimal new equipment. SP 155's are already part of an indirect fire program. The LAV-AT, LAV-SHORAD and LAV-UAV's can all be obtained by using existing LAV hulls plus the same RiWP Remote Weapon Station with different weapon mounting options, but as a short-term expedient these specialty units could still be re-roled using MANPAD AT/SAM/UAV launchers until dedicated vehicle upgrades are possible.

Not a perfect solution, but a good short-term solution to reduce manning pressures, HQ overhead and key capability gaps.

An armoured car regiment used to consist of 3 Recce Squadrons equipped with lightly crewed but "heavily" armed vehicles (when compared to a Rifle Company) and a lightly armed Rifle Company in support reinforced by a large gun Support Troop.

An infantry battalion was 4 lightly armed Rifle Companies and a heavily armed Support Company reinforced by a Mortar Platoon. Together with its machine guns, Anti-Tank Platoon and its own light cavalry (the Recce Platoon) it, like the armoured car regiment was a Combined Arms organization.

Both entities internally had the components to practice Combined Arms operations. Tanks attached to the AT and Recce Platoons. Arty attached to the Mortar Platoons. Infantry attached to the Assault Troops.

People were moved from troop to troop, platoon to platoon as the required skills changed. Mortars, Pioneers and AT Gunners could become rifles if necessary.

I think there is still a rational argument to be made in that regard for separating the vehicle crews from the rifle sections and treating the vehicle crews as the Support Company.

 

[Kirkhill]

A Cmbt Team is defined in Canada as either a Tank Sqn or an Infantry company supported by other arms. That usually takes the form of an infantry company supported by half a tank Sqn, an engineer tp, and foo det. Plus CSS of course.

In terms of capabilities how would that stack up with, for example, the Swedish Pansarbattalion?

 

[GR66]

Might as well just have Bn AT platoons, per our existing doctrine, if your going to employ it that way.

One should not be exclusive of the other. In fact, if there were the money to equip at least one or two LAVs per Platoon with a vehicle mounted ATGM you probably wouldn't need a separate AT unit.

The last thing we need is boutique units like Anti-Tank Battalions.

You're probably correct. What we need is one (or more) Tank Regiments with enough tanks to field the full complement of vehicles and have spares, reserves, a replacement Regiment, etc. We also need APCs that are equipped with ATGMs but unfortunately we don't have either.

An AT-Battalion would be the poor man's solution to a missing key capability. If that capability could adequately be devolved into the Infantry Battalion structure then drop the AT-Battalion and roll those PYs back into the remaining Infantry Battalions to ensure full manning, complete CS units (Pioneers, Mortars, AT, etc.) and staff for the schools.

 

[Infanteer]

A tank and an ATGM are two different things that offer two separate capabilities. One should not confuse one with the other.

In terms of capabilities how would that stack up with, for example, the Swedish Pansarbattalion?

This is a pointless exercise. To paraphrase a very smart analyst "you can't evaluate capability without context."

 

[Kirkhill]

The last thing we need are boutique units like Anti-Tank Battalions.



Level 5 (from B-GL 300-008): combined arms sub-unit training.

Combat Team (from B-GL 321-006): an ad hoc and temporary combined arms organization based on a manoeuvre sub-unit headquarters and consisting of integral and attached infantry and armour sub-sub-units.

These are not necessarily the same thing. All Combat Team training is level 5, but not all level 5 training requires a combat team.

So how often does Level 5 get exercised? And in how many of the infinite combinations and permutations that that formulation permits?

A Recce squadron minus with a LAV platoon attached? An artillery battery with a Recce troop attached? An Engineer Squadron with a LAV troop?

 

[Kirkhill]

This is a pointless exercise. To paraphrase a very smart analyst "you can't evaluate capability without context."

I agree. So, in how many different contexts does the Canadian Army exercise its available assets?

 

[Infanteer]

So how often does Level 5 get exercised?

Depends on what phase of the managed readiness plan a unit/brigade is in.

And in how many of the infinite combinations and permutations that that formulation permits?

Whatever makes tactical sense.

 

[markppcli]

So how often does Level 5 get exercised? And in how many of the infinite combinations and permutations that that formulation permits?

A Recce squadron minus with a LAV platoon attached? An artillery battery with a Recce troop attached? An Engineer Squadron with a LAV troop?

Almost always a maneuver sub unit, with enabling attachments. So infantry or tanks with the rest. An artillery battery isn’t usually conducting an attack unless it’s an attack by fire so that interaction would be characterized the same way. Similarly recce Sqn may be involved but likely in find the objective and reporting it up.

 

[markppcli]

This is a pointless exercise.

Well yeah, it’s talking about the army in the internet. I don’t think anyone is under the impression the CDS is taking this thread into account; nor is it the army journal or some other academic publications. Just people talking, no point really required.

 

[WLSC]

An armoured car regiment used to consist of 3 Recce Squadrons equipped with lightly crewed but "heavily" armed vehicles (when compared to a Rifle Company) and a lightly armed Rifle Company in support reinforced by a large gun Support Troop.

An infantry battalion was 4 lightly armed Rifle Companies and a heavily armed Support Company reinforced by a Mortar Platoon. Together with its machine guns, Anti-Tank Platoon and its own light cavalry (the Recce Platoon) it, like the armoured car regiment was a Combined Arms organization.

Both entities internally had the components to practice Combined Arms operations. Tanks attached to the AT and Recce Platoons. Arty attached to the Mortar Platoons. Infantry attached to the Assault Troops.

People were moved from troop to troop, platoon to platoon as the required skills changed. Mortars, Pioneers and AT Gunners could become rifles if necessary.

I think there is still a rational argument to be made in that regard for separating the vehicle crews from the rifle sections and treating the vehicle crews as the Support Company.

We've thru that separation route couple of years ago. You have to understand than in mecanised inf, the section is consider fully deployed when debuss of the now Zulu. That need some synergy that tag along group do acheive well quickly.

You will not ask the same task to a Ligth Inf Batt than to a Mech in the same theater. Their employement is different. For example, think of the Falkland war which was Light vs Light or if you need to send a Bn to protect something and wait to be releive. You cannot compare the to and mix their individual capability.

 

[Kirkhill]

We've thru that separation route couple of years ago. You have to understand than in mecanised inf, the section is consider fully deployed when debuss of the now Zulu. That need some synergy that tag along group do acheive well quickly.

You will not ask the same task to a Ligth Inf Batt than to a Mech in the same theater. Their employement is different. For example, think of the Falkland war which was Light vs Light or if you need to send a Bn to protect something and wait to be releive. You cannot compare the to and mix their individual capability.

Thanks Winston

But we have spent years trying to figure out how to make 9 battalions out of 5 battalions worth of equipment AND at the same time make sure that all 9 battalions can do everything infantry - being able to drive LAVs and drop out of planes and be deployed by ship.

I haven't seen much evidence of a hardening of a course of action.

 

[WLSC]

Thanks Winston

But we have spent years trying to figure out how to make 9 battalions out of 5 battalions worth of equipment AND at the same time make sure that all 9 battalions can do everything infantry - being able to drive LAVs and drop out of planes and be deployed by ship.

I haven't seen much evidence of a hardening of a course of action.

Your welcome

We tried to reinvent the wheel to fit our ressource when it's suppose to be the opposite, we like the luxury of having the 9 Bn ''equal''. Formalizing the LIB was a step in the good direction. Then, Cap badge... so we are stuck with 3 x CMBC with a LIB.

We know the solution because it already exist. Look around, it's all a variation on the same theme.

I'll go further, LIB and Mech, even if both infantry the required skill set are the same, the depth is not equal in each type. Not better, different. Going from one to the other was also tried. You have if you do that unit of lesser quality because of skill fade.

 

[Kirkhill]

.... Then, Cap badge...

It begins and ends there.

 

[markppcli]

Thanks Winston

But we have spent years trying to figure out how to make 9 battalions out of 5 battalions worth of equipment AND at the same time make sure that all 9 battalions can do everything infantry - being able to drive LAVs and drop out of planes and be deployed by ship.

I haven't seen much evidence of a hardening of a course of action.

When have we tried to do that? We have 3 jumpable companies, that’s it’s, an no one trains for amphibious operations. We have 6 mechanized Bns that very much do mechanized things, and 3 light Bns that do light stuff. We move people between the two for cross integrations, and they have re roled for deployments. Additionally mechanized infantry will do light tasks, and guys from light Bns will cover mechanized stuff on 5b.

 

[WLSC]

It begins and ends there.

It's not a bad thing. It demand only that the '' Canada first'' thing being apply...

 

[WLSC]

When have we tried to do that? We have 3 jumpable companies, that’s it’s, an no one trains for amphibious operations. We have 6 mechanized Bns that very much do mechanized things, and 3 light Bns that do light stuff. We move people between the two for cross integrations, and they have re roled for deployments. Additionally mechanized infantry will do light tasks, and guys from light Bns will cover mechanized stuff on 5b.

We are two small right now to ''specialise'' even if it has been discuss.

 

[Kirkhill]

When have we tried to do that? We have 3 jumpable companies, that’s it’s, an no one trains for amphibious operations. We have 6 mechanized Bns that very much do mechanized things, and 3 light Bns that do light stuff. We move people between the two for cross integrations, and they have re roled for deployments. Additionally mechanized infantry will do light tasks, and guys from light Bns will cover mechanized stuff on 5b.

We/You/They have experimented with companies and battalions working with the USMC and the USN, (R22eR and PPCLI), with allied light and airborne troops, with mountain troops, with helicopters....and with LAVs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canadian Armed Forces and USMC conduct Amphibious Assault Training During RIMPAC 2018

180627-O-N0842-3004 CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (June 27, 2018) – Staff Sergeant Steven Mathews of the United States Marine Corps briefs members of the Canadian 2nd Battalion Royal 22e Régiment Bravo on the AAVP7A1 RAM/RS Assault Amphibious Vehicles during the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC)...

www.dvidshub.net