Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Infanteer]

If increased field work isn't a viable proposition are there other opportunities to increase familiarity and integration at low levels across cap-badges and corps?

Are you assuming that this is an issue that needs to be fixed in the first place?

The posting rhythm is something that is often mentioned. Is there a fix for that so that once the unit is validated it can be kept intact at a high readiness until its replacement is ready? And while I'm thinking about it, is it just single cap-badge entities that are validated and readied for deployment or are combat teams and battlegroups validated and readied?

Level 5-7 are the milestones for a Brigade in the Build phase, so by definition, it is combined arms groupings (anything above level 4) that are readied.

In the other years, the Foundation Training (level 4) is all that is mandated, but cross-functional training is always achieved through efficient planning.

 

[markppcli]

That has been the dream for the last 15 years. CJOC won't let go of its death grip on that unit and capabilities, as the RCAF and RCN won't step up and fill the gap operationally.

I have a dream

Because we don't have enough tanks to support a full Tank Regiment? Unless you want to give up our tank capability all together it's best to find a use for them. Gives some weight for recce in force as well as providing the opportunity for the Brigade commander to parcel out the squadrons to Combat Teams.

So as was explained to you previously, divisional anti tank Bns (which is what you’ve described), do no provide the same role as armour. Anti Tank capabilities are best managed by the Bns with integral anti tank assets. There is a good reason why the bespoke Anti Armour Bns went away 60 years ago.

 

[markppcli]

Thanks for that T2B. It helps a lot.

If increased field work isn't a viable proposition are there other opportunities to increase familiarity and integration at low levels across cap-badges and corps?

On the other hand is the problem as simple as a lack of money to maintain, repair, replace equipment necessary to sustain an appropriate level of training?

The posting rhythm is something that is often mentioned. Is there a fix for that so that once the unit is validated it can be kept intact at a high readiness until its replacement is ready? And while I'm thinking about it, is it just single cap-badge entities that are validated and readied for deployment or are combat teams and battlegroups validated and readied?

And I completely understand not wanting to wear out the troops (although I suspect a married sergeant sees things differently than a first year private). I'm going to guess that the young private would rather be out and doing rather than sitting in barracks while the sergeant has a life at home on top of his administrative duties. For the sergeant a field exercise is as likely to be seen as an imposition as an excursion?

The problem is days in a year; during the build phase units will be in the field for upwards of 3-4 months, they still have PCF course to conduct, tastings to fill, and some may want to remind their families what they look like.

 

[Infanteer]

There is a good reason why the bespoke Anti Armour Bns went away 60 years ago.

That isn't entirely true. Many armies still employ these types of organizations. The Russians (and I believe the Chinese) have AT Bns as part of their Artillery Regiments. It's a divisional asset that may or may not be used en masse, situation dependent.

 

[GR66]

I have a dream

So as was explained to you previously, divisional anti tank Bns (which is what you’ve described), do no provide the same role as armour. Anti Tank capabilities are best managed by the Bns with integral anti tank assets. There is a good reason why the bespoke Anti Armour Bns went away 60 years ago.

You will note that when I posted the ORBAT I removed the dedicated AT Battalion. The LdSH remain an Armoured Recce Regiment...but with a mix of tanks and recce vehicles.

 

[markppcli]

That isn't entirely true. Many armies still employ these types of organizations. The Russians (and I believe the Chinese) have AT Bns as part of their Artillery Regiments. It's a divisional asset that may or may not be used en masse, situation dependent.

Well given that the Russians employ those Bns with Sprut AT guns, not the self propelled kind, I tend to see them as an anachronism in general. That being said, if the suggestion was Bde ATGM battery I’d be all for it.

(Yes I’m aware it’s 2x atgm 1 x gun for that at Bn)

 

[markppcli]

You will note that when I posted the ORBAT I removed the dedicated AT Battalion. The LdSH remain an Armoured Recce Regiment...but with a mix of tanks and recce vehicles.

3 x tank Sqns doesn’t make a tank regiment for you?

 

[Kirkhill]

Why does every cap badge need a silo of greatness? If we want brigades properly resourced for comms, then properly resource the signals squadrons in the brigades and the signals platoons/troops in every unit.

Is it a silo of greatness or an organizing principle around which the capability can coalesce?

The Brigade has a Sigs Squadron
It also needs Sigs Troops for 1x Armd, 3x Inf, 1x Arty, 1x Eng, 1x CSS Units. That seems to mean that the Brigade needs a Squadron plus 7 addtional Troops. Is that a Regiment's worth of signallers?

And if you go to Division, with 3 Brigades and the CCSB

NSE
1 Div Regt
3 Bde Sigs Squadrons,
21 Unit Troops
A Unit Troop for every CCSB entity
and an EW capability.

It seems to me that if any organization needs to be integrated from top to bottom it needs to be Sigs. Everybody else literally plugs into their net.

 

[Infanteer]

A Sig Sqn and 7x Pls in a Bde is fundamentally different than a Sig Regt in a Bde.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is a good reason why the bespoke Anti Armour Bns went away 60 years ago.

Cynical me believes that was a response to a particular solution - hordes of armoured and mechanized formations crossing a frontier, necessitating everyone to have AT in hand rather than consolidated somewhere to either be distributed out or concentrated to deal with a breach.

I can only guess that with the chief purchaser of hordes of armoured and mechanized formations having downsized, that threat no longer really exists. Large divisional/corps AT units aren't needed, but neither is it obvious that large numbers of AT platforms have to be distributed everywhere.

[Add: and of course aviation alters the answer to "how do we get the AT force in front of the breakout" entirely.]

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you assuming that this is an issue that needs to be fixed in the first place?

I guess I am making that assumption. Capbadges seem to feature regularly in discussions on this board.

Level 5-7 are the milestones for a Brigade in the Build phase, so by definition, it is combined arms groupings (anything above level 4) that are readied.

In the other years, the Foundation Training (level 4) is all that is mandated, but cross-functional training is always achieved through efficient planning.

Thank you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regarding our ability to form an armoured unit or formation and still have a training establishment, we're still wedded to a very large number of tanks in an armoured unit. Do we know, or have we validated, something that many others have not?

 

[markppcli]

Cynical me believes that was a response to a particular solution - hordes of armoured and mechanized formations crossing a frontier, necessitating everyone to have AT in hand rather than consolidated somewhere to either be distributed out or concentrated to deal with a breach.

I can only guess that with the chief purchaser of hordes of armoured and mechanized formations having downsized, that threat no longer really exists. Large divisional/corps AT units aren't needed, but neither is it obvious that large numbers of AT platforms have to be distributed everywhere.

I see your point there but we’re supposed to have anti armour platoons. With ALAWS and the atgm replacement coming, albeit slowly, I’d rather see that manned than a divisional atgm Bn.

 

[markppcli]

Regarding our ability to form an armoured unit or formation and still have a training establishment, we're still wedded to a very large number of tanks in an armoured unit. Do we know, or have we validated, something that many others have not?

Are we really that far outside the general NATO tank Bn / Rgt size ?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Agreed. Just not certain that the "middle" solution - brigade AT "company/squadron/battery" isn't better for the heavy SP weapons than unit platoons.

 

[Infanteer]

Are we really that far outside the general NATO tank Bn / Rgt size ?

Yes. We are the only NATO Army that maintains a 19-tank sub-unit as a doctrinal template.

Most armies use something between 12-15, and the Russians use 10.

 

[Kirkhill]

A Sig Sqn and 7x Pls in a Bde is fundamentally different than a Sig Regt in a Bde.

I wasn't referring specifically to organization as much as I was referring to the resourcing of capablities.

From here it looks as if every field unit needs the means to communicate with every other field unit, as well as RCAF, RCN, SOF and allied assets as well as higher.

Is the Sigs Platoon a Battalion asset or is it a Brigade asset on loan to the Battalion?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Thanks for that T2B. It helps a lot.

If increased field work isn't a viable proposition are there other opportunities to increase familiarity and integration at low levels across cap-badges and corps?

On the other hand is the problem as simple as a lack of money to maintain, repair, replace equipment necessary to sustain an appropriate level of training?

The posting rhythm is something that is often mentioned. Is there a fix for that so that once the unit is validated it can be kept intact at a high readiness until its replacement is ready? And while I'm thinking about it, is it just single cap-badge entities that are validated and readied for deployment or are combat teams and battlegroups validated and readied?

And I completely understand not wanting to wear out the troops (although I suspect a married sergeant sees things differently than a first year private). I'm going to guess that the young private would rather be out and doing rather than sitting in barracks while the sergeant has a life at home on top of his administrative duties. For the sergeant a field exercise is as likely to be seen as an imposition as an excursion?

Plenty of low-level training and familiarization occurs within the CMBGs every year. At a minimum, the UR series tends to involve most of the junior officers where they will work together. Units look for opportunities to include other arms and Bde Comds also tend to mandate that this occurs.

Tempo is a question of balance. Folks in the army do like to train, but they don't necessarily want to be in the field forever. Repetition is good to get things down, but doing the same thing every time in the same place can get wearing. Some variety and imagination is useful as long as the requirements are met.

Postings are a fact of life - we are an army of people. We try to avoid too much churn between Build and Hold but it happens. The alternative is a shorter cycle like we had earlier which had a lot of training churn (2 x Ex MR a year). The training conducted during the Hold year compensates for skill fade and posting churn.

In all honesty I think that training is one thing that we do well.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Is it a silo of greatness or an organizing principle around which the capability can coalesce?

The Brigade has a Sigs Squadron
It also needs Sigs Troops for 1x Armd, 3x Inf, 1x Arty, 1x Eng, 1x CSS Units. That seems to mean that the Brigade needs a Squadron plus 7 addtional Troops. Is that a Regiment's worth of signallers?

And if you go to Division, with 3 Brigades and the CCSB

NSE
1 Div Regt
3 Bde Sigs Squadrons,
21 Unit Troops
A Unit Troop for every CCSB entity
and an EW capability.

It seems to me that if any organization needs to be integration from top to bottom it needs to be Sigs. Everybody else literally plugs into their net.

100 percent. The problem I have seen is that in the dispersed model, the Brigade's workload is not evenly managed by having "Out Dets."

Sigs Pl 1 RCR may have little to do apart from "Set up CP, maintain comms, ensure eqpt is serviceable..." while the Bde HQ & Sigs Sqn is trying to accomplish everything with nothing, including RRB, HC/B LOS, TacNet, and any other C5ISR affects you want at the Bde Level.

I would love to see a robust Sigs Regiment at all Bdes, with strategic comms assets as well. I would also love to take the Brit model and apply it to our forces: Bn comms and below are operated and set up by Bn CP operators (Infantry who know how to comms), with maintenance and repair capabilites on demand from the Bde Signals Regiment. This would allow the Bde G6 the ability to prioritize capabilities and staffing, without having a platoon of Jimmies under employed at a Bn, while their HQ & Sigs brethren are running around like chickens with their heads cut off putting out fires.

 

[markppcli]

Agreed. Just not certain that the "middle" solution - brigade AT "company/squadron/battery" isn't better for the heavy SP weapons than unit platoons.

Yeah I’ll buy that for a dollar. I don’t know how “heavy” atgms need to be effective anymore though. Javelins are proving to be very effective and have a range band that’s near enough to tow as to make no difference.