# Maneuver Sub-Units



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

I know we've touched on this in various degrees in many other forums, but I thought I'd create a thread focusing on this.   We've been focusing alot of energy on Sections, Platoon/Troops, and Company support - how about the ideal layout for a maneuver unit?

What is the consensus on the number of sub-units within a Brigade?   Should an Infantry Battalion have 4 Rifle Companies, or are 3 enough to suffice?   Same for an Armoured Regiment.   Going off some of our "Regimental" and "Cavalry" debates, perhaps this could be stretched to that domain as well (2 Mounted Rifle Coy and 2 Recce Sqdn in a Cav Battalion).

If the Army was indeed to get a share of the 5,000 promised soldiers, would they be better used to fill the existing 12 maneuver units out with 4 maneuver sub-units or to be put towards three additional Units in a new Brigade (as it stands, I think that the new soldiers will go towards filling out the existing subunits, but I'm just posing the question).

I'm sure the argument can be made for the Artillery and the Engineers as well, but I'm a little unfamiliar with how they organize subunits.   I guess the general question I'm trying to raise is:

Is manpower more effective when directed towards increasing capability at the unit level or increasing overall number of units.

Thoughts?
Infanteer

PS: Here is a similar discussion that was directed towards the Infantry Battalions.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22487.15.html

I chose to post a new thread so as to look at sub-unit requirements for Combined Arms functions.


----------



## McG (2 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the Army was indeed to get a share of the 5,000 promised soldiers, would they be better used to fill the existing 12 maneuver units out with 4 maneuver sub-units or to be put towards three additional Units in a new Brigade.
> 
> ...
> 
> Is manpower more effective when directed towards increasing capability at the unit level or increasing overall number of units.


I would recommend against creating a whole new brigade including manoeuvre units (that is not to say we could not create a new brigade by moving existing manoeuvre units over to it).   I would sooner see the new PYs go into creating new sub-units in the existing manoeuvre units.

All our mech infantry and cavalry units should convert to manoeuvre battalions.   I've attached a diagram to illustrate the transformation that would take place in each Bde.   This would require the creation of one cavalry unit to allow the PPCLI to transform and not gobble-up the national DFS unit in the process, however that would be the only requirement for additional manpower.

The manoeuvre battalions do not look very robust and that is because they are not.   However, that is the basic force structure that the Army is planning to use for the foreseeable future.   With the additional 5,000 soldiers I would add a third rifle company to each of my manoeuvre battalions to make them the combat capable units that they should be.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Mar 2005)

Infanteer,

Just to clarify before I wade in, are you talking about Force Employment ORBAT, of Force Generation? Let's not ofrget that there are a finite number of LAVs etc with which to play with, a la Whole Fleet Management.

Dave


----------



## George Wallace (2 Mar 2005)

Now you have brought up the Fleet Management Question? which we were discussing at:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24604.0.html

It does have an affect on where we can go in developing Maneuver Units, unless we want to create those units using 'notional' vehicles.

GW


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now you have brought up the Fleet Management Question? which we were discussing at:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24604.0.html



Interesting thread.  Thanks for the steer.

Dave


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would recommend against creating a whole new brigade including manoeuvre units (that is not to say we could not create a new brigade by moving existing manoeuvre units over to it).  I would sooner see the new PYs go into creating new sub-units in the existing manoeuvre units.
> 
> All our mech infantry and cavalry units should convert to manoeuvre battalions.  I've attached a diagram to illustrate the transformation that would take place in each Bde.  This would require the creation of one cavalry unit to allow the PPCLI to transform and not gobble-up the national DFS unit in the process, however that would be the only requirement for additional manpower.
> 
> The manoeuvre battalions do not look very robust and that is because they are not.  However, that is the basic force structure that the Army is planning to use for the foreseeable future.  With the additional 5,000 soldiers I would add a third rifle company to each of my manoeuvre battalions to make them the combat capable units that they should be.



I agree for the most part, but I would suggest the third "Infantry" company in the manoeuvre battalion be the Combat Support Coy; with mortars, pioneers and some form of anti-armour platoon to give the battalion commander a greater degree of flexibility and independent action. It is too bad there is only one DFS regiment (and a pretty notional one at that), but _cest la vie_.


----------



## Zipper (4 Mar 2005)

Just to add my part and of course to learn a thing or two. A question...

I noticed MCG's chart only showed 3 sabre squadrons (or mech inf coy's) in each formation? And yet you refer to 2 and 2 in your explanation Inf?

Which is it?

For myself, I would like to propose your idea Inf except to go 3 and 1 instead. Why do we need so much recce when we are going towards the ISTAR ideal? Every unit on the field would be capable of being recce under the ISTAR idea. Although I say beware of technology dependency. So I say try to have 3 Cav/mounted Inf squadrons and 1 recce squadrons like it is already with A,B, and C as sabre and D as recce. Then attach CSS to it.

This of course is more LAV intensive which I do not know if it is possable or not.

Of course it may be able to be done if you also create your "light" units which then would free up LAV's that would otherwise go to them.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I noticed MCG's chart only showed 3 sabre squadrons (or mech inf coy's) in each formation? And yet you refer to 2 and 2 in your explanation Inf?
> 
> Which is it?


Both!
Real world is three.  Doctrine is four.


----------



## Zipper (4 Mar 2005)

Thanks MCG. So whats the chance of us having doctrine?Or is this another one of my pipe dreams?


----------

