# Optimal Standing Task Force (From: The Optimal Battle Group vs. the Affiliated Battle Group)



## Mountie (20 Sep 2007)

With regards to the infantry battle or battle group being 'too large', I would somewhat disagree.  Is the battle group too big, or is the task force too big?  Many posts refer to them as one in the same.  However, Task Force Afghanistan contains more than just the battle group if I'm not mistaken.  The typical battle group is around 1,200 personnel but the task force is around 2,500 and includes the PRT plus support units.  The core of the task force is the battle group, so why does it require a National Support Element of around 300 personnel, a Theatre Support Element of another 300 personnel and a Role 3 Health Services Support unit of 70?  Couldn't a full-strength adminstration company provide most of the support with a small NSE/HSS unit providing general support, theatre support and Role 3 health service support?  Likewise, in addition to the battle group headquarters, the 30 members Canada contributes to the Multi-National Brigade Headquarters and the 15 personnel Canada contributes to the ISAF there is also a 300 member National Command Element.  That is a total of 670 combat service support and health service support personnel and 300 headquarters personnel just to sustain a battle group and a PRT.  That is basically the equivalent of an entire brigade headquarters and a service battalion just to support one battle group.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2007)

This is how a lot of senior Snr NCOs and Officers get to create little 'organizations' and gain 'leadership skills' in a 'Theatre of Operations'.

PC enough for you?


----------



## McG (20 Sep 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> That is basically the equivalent of an entire brigade headquarters and a service battalion just to support one battle group.



Mountie, 

the Role 3 does not support solely the Canadians.  It supports all of the coalition in that area, and it should therefore also be looked on as a capability we are contributing to ISAF.  There is a Canadian Role 1 which is much smaller and looks after our pers only.

Full strength administration companies do not have depth/experience for providing ground crews to a continuous flow of sustainment aircraft (and TFA looks after both ends of the Hercs' route).  Full strength administration companies do not have depth/experience to look after infrastructure (like KAF).  Full strength Admin companies could maintain a static supply depot, but it would not leave them the depth to support outside the wire (and we need to be doing both).

You have also forgotten several elements of TFA.  There are the guys in Kabul & the OMLTs.  Canadian international missions only have one head & Afghanistan is under CEFCOM, therefor any CANSOFCOM presence (and the news papers have told us there is some) is linked back through TFA.

I'm not saying there is not room to "trim fat" but there is less "fat" than you might think.


----------



## pbi (1 Nov 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> With regards to the infantry battle or battle group being 'too large', I would somewhat disagree...That is basically the equivalent of an entire brigade headquarters and a service battalion just to support one battle group.



This situation is the result of two things, in my opinion. 

First, Canada does not share a lot of compatibility in vehicles or equipment with other countries. We can't piggyback onto a UK or US forward support battalion, except for some generic types of combat supplies. Therefore, if we deploy one Canadian unique AFV (not to mention a BG's worth) then we need to deploy the means to maintain it in operational readiness, along with the tools and spare parts. The personnel providing that system support need their own support requirements met, in theatre, 24/7. Now, unless we want to turn all of this over to contractors (with the inherent problems that brings), we will have to provide this support ourselves. Multiply that one vehicle by hundreds, add weapons, ammunition, supply handling, all the other support and combat functions, and it piles up pretty quick. But, each time you chop away some of the tail, I guarantee that you are losing some degree of capability, flexibility, or ability to look after our people.

Second, I think, are two lessons of history. Starting with WWI we learned to always deploy our own national HQ with enough horsepower to provide national command and administration. I don't see any reason to stop this practice, especially when I see some of the dysfunctional multinational arrangements we have been part of (and may be again...). As well, our decades of experience with unit-sized deployments on UN missions taught us beyond any doubt that we must be self sufficient. If we don't provide it, it may very well not be provided, or be provided in accordance with somebody else's' priorities.

I would rather see the operational capabilities of any force we deploy backed up by a fully capable support element, with a national command element to look after our national interests, than to cut "tail" out of some misplaced belief that it might make us "leaner and meaner".

Cheers


----------



## Mountie (1 Nov 2007)

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have our own national headquarters or support elements.  I think the question is why such large units to support a battle group?


----------



## McG (1 Nov 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> I think the question is why such large units to support a battle group?


1. The Canadian presence is more than just a BG, and the national command & support elements look after the whole Canadian presence.
2. There are fixed costs to doing operations.  Consider:
[*]We need a full-up second line maintenance capability or better (which is a Bde Svc Bn thing & not a Bn Admin Coy thing)
[*]We need movements pers to support the airbridge (again something outside the scope of a BG)
[*]We need supply pers for stock piling in theatre (because its not as easy as just going to Canadian Tire or base supply once you are in Afghanistan, and the airbridge can only respond so fast)
[*]We have infrastructure that requires pers to sustain it (I suppose you could argue that everything could be done out under the sun, but is it the right way to go?)
[*]We need pers to support the above pers (clerks, cooks, medics, etc)

Therefore, we could probably add more teeth to go with our tail but cutting our tail could negatively negatively impact the ability to sustain even our current teeth.


----------



## Mountie (2 Nov 2007)

Agreed, but I think the big question is more about why the tail is quite so big.  There are 970 headquarters and support personnel within the 2,500-member task force.  That's almost half.  Couldn't a NCE of 100-200 lead the task force rather than 300 headquarters personnel, plus the personnel attached to the brigade and coalition headquarters?  Likewise, a brigade with three battle groups requires a service battalion with supply, transport and maintenance companies.  Therefore, wouldn't it seem reasonable that a NSE/FSG of company-size with supply, transport and maintenance platoons support a task force of only one battle group and a PRT?  This of course, provided the battle group gets its administration company back.

A USMC's MEU(SOC), which is similar to a Canadian task force, consists of a battalion landing team (similar to a battle group) of 1,200 peronnel, a command element (similar to a NCE) of 200 personnel, a reinforced air squadron of light, medium, heavy and attack helicopters along with fighter/attack aircraft, Force Reconnaissance platoon (similar to a CSOR platoon) and a service support unit with a supply platoon, transport platoon, maintenance platoon, engineer support platoon, landing support platoon (similar to a movement control platoon), health services platoon, a dental detachment and a military police detachment of 300 personnel.  That is a 2,200 member MEU that is completely self-contained and includes a complete air expeditionary squadron and still comes in 300 personnel under a Canadian task force.


----------



## McG (2 Nov 2007)

I assume your numbers are comming from here - http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703

In that case, your comparison of the Canadian TF with a MEU should not cound the 250 ish in the TSE (unless you also intend to count the all US personnel in the out of theatre staging base or those Navy personnel supporting from off-shore).  This brings the overall numbers closer.  You describe the MEU support unit to be 300 pers which puts it comparable to the size given for the NSE.  So, this now brings your point of concern to be the 200 pers MEU HQ vs the 300 pers CF NCE.  Is this excess or is it because the NSE performs functions other than those required of a MEU HQ?  When the MEU disembarks, does the fleet abanon the troops it just put ashore or does it maintain some operational command over them? If the later is the case I would argue the fleet is probably providing some the the functions our additional pers do in the NCE.  Are there capabilities built into the Canadian NCE for Afghanistan which a MEU does not require in its standing organization?  How many attachments would be added to a standard MEU HQ for it to do our job in Afghanistan?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Nov 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Likewise, a brigade with three battle groups requires a service battalion with supply, transport and maintenance companies.  Therefore, wouldn't it seem reasonable that a NSE/FSG of company-size with supply, transport and maintenance platoons support a task force of only one battle group and a PRT?  This of course, provided the battle group gets its administration company back.



Of course the Svc Bn in Canada is at the end of a very flexible supply line, without enemy, 1000's of Kms of ocean, etc, etc.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Nov 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Agreed, but I think the big question is more about why the tail is quite so big.  There are 970 headquarters and support personnel within the 2,500-member task force.  That's almost half.  Couldn't a NCE of 100-200 lead the task force rather than 300 headquarters personnel, plus the personnel attached to the brigade and coalition headquarters?  Likewise, a brigade with three battle groups requires a service battalion with supply, transport and maintenance companies.  Therefore, wouldn't it seem reasonable that a NSE/FSG of company-size with supply, transport and maintenance platoons support a task force of only one battle group and a PRT?  This of course, provided the battle group gets its administration company back.
> 
> A USMC's MEU(SOC), which is similar to a Canadian task force, consists of a battalion landing team (similar to a battle group) of 1,200 peronnel, a command element (similar to a NCE) of 200 personnel, a reinforced air squadron of light, medium, heavy and attack helicopters along with fighter/attack aircraft, Force Reconnaissance platoon (similar to a CSOR platoon) and a service support unit with a supply platoon, transport platoon, maintenance platoon, engineer support platoon, landing support platoon (similar to a movement control platoon), health services platoon, a dental detachment and a military police detachment of 300 personnel.  That is a 2,200 member MEU that is completely self-contained and includes a complete air expeditionary squadron and still comes in 300 personnel under a Canadian task force.



While it would be wonderful to have a lower tooth/tail ratio it just isnt reality. I think the ratio is still 10-1 in most cases. As warfare became more advanced so did the requirement for more support personnel to keep the vehicles/aircraft fueled,maintained;handle supplies/ammunition; to feed the troops ect. I think the reason that western militaries are more successful than our enemies is the ability to support and sustain our combat forces.By comparison the third world militaries and even the Russians are pretty rudimentary. As has been pointed out your BG may be able to sustain itself only as long as they are supplied from higher. 

A US infantry battalion has limited means to operate without sustainment support from brigade/division/corps/theater support command/CONUS.For the supplies/ammunition/spare parts to get to theater requires transport by the Navy and Air Force as a logisitical bridge from CONUS. So you cannot only look at one piece of the organization.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Nov 2007)

Some may laugh, but I would have liked to have seen _more_ combat service support personnel overseas.  

In my view there is a fixed cost in terms of command and control, especially when multi-national operations are involved.  While we tend to look down our noses at HQs, planning, intelligence and the coordination of enablers require people to do them.  

In terms of what is in theatre now, the organization evolves over time and this is perhaps not the best means to get into specifics.

Cheers


----------



## Mountie (3 Nov 2007)

> In that case, your comparison of the Canadian TF with a MEU should not cound the 250 ish in the TSE (unless you also intend to count the all US personnel in the out of theatre staging base or those Navy personnel supporting from off-shore).  This brings the overall numbers closer.  You describe the MEU support unit to be 300 pers which puts it comparable to the size given for the NSE.  So, this now brings your point of concern to be the 200 pers MEU HQ vs the 300 pers CF NCE.  Is this excess or is it because the NSE performs functions other than those required of a MEU HQ?  When the MEU disembarks, does the fleet abanon the troops it just put ashore or does it maintain some operational command over them? If the later is the case I would argue the fleet is probably providing some the the functions our additional pers do in the NCE.  Are there capabilities built into the Canadian NCE for Afghanistan which a MEU does not require in its standing organization?  How many attachments would be added to a standard MEU HQ for it to do our job in Afghanistan?



Actually my point was that for basically the same number of personnel a USCM MEU(SOC) includes an entire composite air squadron with 12 CH-46 medium lift helicopters, 6 CH-53 heavy lift helicopters, 4 AH-1W Cobra attack helicopters, 3 UH-1N light utility helicopters, 6 AV-8B Harrier fighter/attack jets, and 2 KC-130 Hercules transport/refuelling aircraft (maintained in the US or nearby base not aboard ship).  In addition it also has a Force Recon (special forces type) platoon, and its infantry battalion group includes both an M777 artillery battery and an 81mm mortar platoon, as well as an anti-armour platoon with TOW and Javelin ATGM systems and both a platoon of LAV recce vehicles and a dismounted scout/sniper platoon to name just a few elements.

A agree about the TSE.  Fair is fair, they shouldn't be counted in comparison to a MEU(SOC).  So that makes it about equal at 2,200 personnel each.  However, the MEU(SOC) has a reinforced helicopter squadron included within that number.

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing that I'm necessarily right, as I have no experience.  I'm just asking questions and giving my personal opinion.  This is a very interesting topic.


----------



## McG (3 Nov 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Actually my point was that for basically the same number of personnel a USCM MEU(SOC) includes...


but it does not include ISAF HQ pers, MNB(S) HQ pers, OMLT, a PRT, a TUAV flight, etc.


----------



## Mountie (3 Nov 2007)

True, but that was sort of the point.  A MEU(SOC) is the multi-functional unit that can do the 3-block war as organized.  They may not have a PRT, but it has an engineer support platoon, military police, medical, dental, and force protection assets that could form a PRT-type element when required.  It can do it all.  Perhaps not as good as a specifically designed task force, but it is a perfect sized unit for a military the size of Canada.  Not only would it be nice to have either Optimal or Affiliate battle groups, but it would be nice to have optimal task forces with permanent joint NSE/NCE and a composite air force squadron.  Maybe this is pushing it, but it would at least be nice to see medium lift helicopters, armed reconnaissance helicopters and CF-18's attached to a task force for deployment.  Or in essence it would be a combined arms battle group and a combined arms air squadron supported by a joint NCE and NSE.  Maybe something like:

Canadian Joint Task Force
Joint Command Support Group
Combined Arms Battle Group
Combined Air Group
Joint Support Group


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2007)

Remember that a MEUSOC is, in theory, deployed and supported from an Amphibious Battle Group.  Are you including the pers of this large naval task force?


----------



## McG (3 Nov 2007)

Mountie said:
			
		

> They may not have a PRT, but it has an engineer support platoon, military police, medical, dental, and force protection assets that ...


You are grasping at things here.  All of these are also in a Canadian TF, but if you trim away from them to form an ad hoc PRT then you also trim away at the capability of the BG to fight & be supported.  However, what of all the other skill sets required for COIN?  Within the MEU what exists for CIMIC, PsyOps, HUMINT, etc?  As Infanteer pointed out (and I've previously alluded too) how many essential capabilities are provided to the MEU through its supporting Navy contingent (numbers hidden in the MEU count but not hidden in the Canadian TF)?  If you are counting Hercs, what about the Hercs supporting TFA (I don't even know where the numbers fit in our scheme)?  But, this detail would start to bring us into a grey area.  To truely bring this to a comparison of apples to apples would likely require details unfit for internet distribution.  Capabilities are more than a shopping list of sexy equipment posted on open internet sites.

... still, there are a few fundamental capabilities than are derived from "tail size" which remain unclear if the MEU possesses.



			
				Mountie said:
			
		

> service support unit with a supply platoon, transport platoon, maintenance platoon,


Is maint pl a first or second line capability?  Does the supply pl operate a theater depot or is that on a ship? Can the MEU operate & sustain itself over an AO the size if Kandahar province?  Could it, on a moments notice, deploy and sustain a mechanized company for a month in a neighbouring province.  Are the ships required to support from offshore in order for the MEU to be sustainable?


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Nov 2007)

The MEU is a warfighting organization that is capable of doing humanitarian work. Dont lump the PRT in with the BG or MEU. I dont think its fair to compare the MEU which in effect is a small regiment to the Canadian BG, rather compare the BG to a Marine BLT [battalion landing team] a marine infantry battalion plus add ons.


----------



## Mountie (3 Nov 2007)

I agree.  That's what I was trying to do.  Compare the Canadian battle group to the USMC battalion landing team and likewise compare the MEU(SOC) to a Canadian task force.  I also agree that to be fair we should compare the threatre support level personnel that support the MEU(SOC) as well.  So I guess in the end the only real difference is the lack an air group in the Canadian task force.  Once the new Chinooks arrive maybe that will change.


----------

