# Staff Positions - Battalion, Brigade, Division



## Michael Dorosh (7 Nov 2005)

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/staff.htm

Looking for info to flesh this out; right now I think I am getting the WW II stuff downpat but am looking for post-unification info, up to 2000.  If anyone can break down the staff (only) positions at the various HQ levels for me, I'd appreciate it.

As well as a rough idea of when we started transitioning from the British system of G, A and Q staffs to the familiar G1, G2, G3 etc. designations we have today.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Nov 2005)

Mike

A number of years ago John Grondzinski wrote a handbook on the First Canadian Army which included outline staff organizations along with a fair amount of explanation. It may be available at the Museum of the Regiments, perhaps in the library or in the LdSH(RC) archives.

I would suggest that the 2ic was not a staff appointment; his major function was to understudy the CO so that he could replace him when Sunray became a casualty. An example I am sure you are aware of was 2 PARA at Goose Green.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Nov 2005)

Or you can still get it from Maj Grodzinski. He can be found on the DWAN (at RMC), or PM me for a private e-mail address.  It's an excellent reference and has some material directly related to your current research endeavour.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Nov 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Or you can still get it from Maj Grodzinski. He can be found on the DWAN (at RMC), or PM me for a private e-mail address.   It's an excellent reference and has some material directly related to your current research endeavour.



I noticed he was still at RMC in the last journal I looked it; maybe I'll contact him there if I can ever get at a computer at work....PM on the way...thanks.


----------



## sigpig (7 Nov 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Or you can still get it from Maj Grodzinski. He can be found on the DWAN (at RMC), or PM me for a private e-mail address.   It's an excellent reference and has some material directly related to your current research endeavour.



If you talk to Grod regularly say hi from Dale in Fort Lauderdale for me. We went through Chilliwack and Armour Phase training together in 84-85 and got posted to the Strats together. I made the mistake once of helping him move. I've never seen so many boxes of books in my life  .  And he said that was just a small part of everything he had.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Nov 2005)

There is/was a study reference on the evolution of staff systems which is/was used by the JRCSC (or whatever the joint reserve staff course is called these days) at the Canadian Forces College.  Isn't one of our contributers here at army.ca on staff at CFC?  You could ask for an electronic copy; it might not be easy to find even if it isn't behind the DND firewall but I don't think it contains anything which could be regarded as sensitive information.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2005)

Are you only concerned with the "G" Staffs, or the "J" Staffs too?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you only concerned with the "G" Staffs, or the "J" Staffs too?



It's all of interest to me. 

I just thought it was weird to read through Granatstein's THE GENERALS and see reference after refernce to GSO this and GSO that and nowhere did he explain what they were or what they did - and google, wikipedia et al really didn't help much either.  A very "unsexy" topic to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2005)

Aren't we talking about General Service Officers in this case?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Aren't we talking about General Service Officers in this case?



Never heard of such a thing...but I'm inclined to say no.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Nov 2005)

Trust me on this. GSO stood for General Staff Officer.


----------



## McG (8 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you only concerned with the "G" Staffs, or the "J" Staffs too?


I've notice that "S" staffs seem to be vogue with deployed BGs.  Does anyone know how long this has been going on?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2005)

We _transitioned_ between two staff systems in about 1970:   British to Continental/American.   In the process there was a bit of a bugger's muddle.

First, the one with which most member are most familiar:

The American version of the Continental system uses a letter/number system.   The letter are *J*oint, *N*avy, *A*ir and *G* Army division and higher and *S* Army brigade and below.   The numbers were 1 = Personnel, 2 = Intelligence, 3 = Operations, 4 = Logistics, 5 = Civil Affairs, Military Government, CIMIC, etc, 6 = Signals/C3I, etc - there is now a 7 and 8, I think.   In NATO and in some Continental armed forces these branches are grouped to form a _bi-functional_ staff: 

1.	J2 and J3 become the Operations Staff; and

2.	J1 and J4 become the PANDA (Personnel and Administration) staff.

The others are _special_ staff branches.

The British system, which we used until about 1970, was _tri-functional_; there were three branches: G, A and Q - the *G*eneral Staff, the *A*djutsnat General's Staff and the *Q*uatermaster General's Staff.   In Ottawa, and in London and   Canberra too, the G staff was headed by the VCGS and there was, also, reporting to the CGS, an AG and a QMG.   In field formation the tri-functional staff continued down to corps level, after that (at division and brigade) it switched to a bi-functional system.   Thus, at 1(BR) Corps HQ we had a BGS (Brigadier General Staff) and AAG (Assistant Adjutant General and an AQMG (Assistant QMG) - all brigadiers, but, in the British system, there is also a principle of _Operations primacy_ so they are not quite equal - the BGS is a "little more equal" than the others.   At Division we had a Colonel GS, head of the G Staff, and a Colonel AQ, head of the combined A and Q staffs; at brigade we had the BM (Brigade Major) - the principle G staff officer, the chief of staff) and the DAA&QMG - the Deputy Assistant Adjutant and Quartermaster General - the principle administrative and logistics staff officer.   The three separate functions were still there, there was a Staff Captain A and a Staff Captain Q in the brigade HQ - they just reported to a combined AQ staff branch chief - for convenience.

We indicated staff _rank_ by grade numbers in the G staff: GSO3 = captain, GSO2 = major and GSO1 = LCol.   It was a bit more complicated with AQ staffs but, typically, a DAAG (Plans) was a LCol at Corps and a AA&QMG was a LCol assistant to the Col AQ at Division - all clear, right?   : It made for good memory tests on promotion exams but it all made good, fairly simple sense in the field, as I recall.

There were, at every level, _specialist_ staffs - the CRE, CRSigs, etc.

Another major difference between the British and US systems was the principle of _superiority_.   In the British system the principle staff officers at any HQ were always outranked by the subordinate commanders:

"¢	The LCols commanding units in a brigade outrank the BM and the DAA&QMG;

"¢	The Brigadiers commanding brigades in a division outrank the Col GS and Gol AQ; and

"¢	The MGens commanding divisions outrank the BGS and AAG and AQMG at Corps HQ.

The purpose of this principle is to ensure that the chain of command is always clear; the staff do not command, they exercise _control_ on behalf of their commander.

The Americans see things differently.   Commanders are, frequently, outranked by staff officers - it starts within the battalion where the S3 is a major while the company commanders are captains.   There is no doubt that staff officers and deputy (and assistant) commanders can, and do, give orders - their own orders - to subordinate commanders.

(There is no room, here, to discuss how the respective 19th century military experiences - small units in colonial operations for the British/small units on the Western frontier for the Americans - shaped their staff systems.   Someone doing a History MA at might want to investigate.)

We began the switch in 1969 when we prepared to move from Soest/British to Lahr/US - first the BM became the SSO Operations, a LCol, to conform to the US system.   I think 4CMGB actually experimented with S1, S2, S3 etc - but my recollection is that during the '70s and '80s we adhered to a uniquely Canadian _tri-functional_ system.

The big difference between the British (and uniquely Canadian) and US systems was the _position_ of the _specialists_.   In the US system the G2, G5 and so on are staff branches _comme les autres_; in the British system the Intelligence and Signals staffs, for example, are specialist staffs, with direct access to the commander, reporting through the operations staff chief.

I hope that helps some of you.

Edit: corrected typos


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Nov 2005)

Thanks Edward - looks like a had a large chunk of that on my webpage already, but confirmation is always good.  Plus some other great stuff in there I will add and credit you with.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Nov 2005)

Further to Edward's post, we're adding staff branches all the time.  Current branches are as follows:

G1 - Personnel
G2 - Intelligence
G3 - Operations
G4 - Logistics (Service Support)
G5 - Future Plans
G6 - Communications
G7 - Training, Validation and Lessons Learned
G8 - Financial, Comptroller and "business" planning
G9 - CIMIC

In addition to these are the "advisors" - medical, legal, engineering and public affairs are the typical ones.  They routinely report directly to the commander, although (like the others) they will have their activities coordinated by the Chief of Staff.

Operations staff now consists of G2, G3 and G5 (sometimes reporting to an A/COS Ops), while G1 and G4 remain the "admin" staff (again sometimes under an A/COS Adm).

In Canada, much like the UK, "staff" is outranked by "Command" every time.  The staff cannot, in theory (and largely in practice) say "no" to a subordinate unit (which always has the right of appeal on the "command net" anyway) - only the Commander can do that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2005)

Thanks for the update, TR.  One gets out of touch very quickly and I haven't been paying close attention to the changes at Fort Fumble.

_"Anyone can say 'Yes' but only I (the commander) can say 'No'"_ is a very good rule of thumb for command/staff relationships.  In principle the staff should have their hands on everything except the commander's reserve(s) - which, by definition he has 'reserved' to himself - and they should be _able_ (both through knowledge of the situation and the commander's intentions) to apportion those resources (say 'Yes!') on an ongoing basis.  When staff officers find themselves in a 'No' position they must consult with the commander.  They (the staff) may be right - the subordinate commander requesting/demanding something may have other, _good enough_, courses open and it might be better to husband resources for a greater need, but that must be a commander's decision, not one taken by a staff officer.

Remember, please, especially you aspiring staff officers/NCOs, that the staff has two primary duties:

o	To relieve commanders of detail; and

o	To help subordinates carry out their assigned tasks.

One is not markedly more important than the other.

The _staff_ is a single entity, from the most lowly staff captain to the CDS, himself, (that's one of the reasons the British did and the Germans still do have special, unique badges and gorget patches for the staff); the staff serves all of the army/armed forces, equally.  Thus the staff have a _right_ to communicate amongst themselves - including 'jumping' levels when they are gathering information aimed at helping to coordinate and _control_ operations.


----------

