# Canadian Army Commander Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse : 'Comined Arms Lvl 5'



## BorisK (7 Jun 2016)

Good day.

Came across this youtube video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHhZ2XLo67Y

In it he instructs senior staff to train with units to 'Combined Arms Level 5.'  My google-fu turned up no results... Anyone able to share what this means more in depth? ...If not no worries, certainly not a 'must know', I am just curious. 

Best regards,
B


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Jun 2016)

It's a reference to the collective training levels listed in Training for Land Operations. Interestingly enough, there is no Level 1 listed in the chart.

The levels are:
Level 2 Section/Crew/Detachment
Level 3 Troop/Platoon
Level 4 Squadron/Company
Level 5 Combat Team/Company Group
Level 6 Regt/Bn/Battle Group/Bn Gp
Level 7 Brigade Group

So "train to Combined Arms level 5" means train to the Combat Team level.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jun 2016)

Level 1 is IBTS.


----------



## Lumber (7 Jun 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> It's a reference to the collective training levels listed in Training for Land Operations. Interestingly enough, there is no Level 1 listed in the chart.
> 
> The levels are:
> Level 2 Section/Crew/Detachment
> ...



Isn't a group of Companies ("company group" level 5) a "battalion"? 

What about Divisions?


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2016)

A combat team or a company group is a company of infantry with a bunch of attached troops from other arms.  A square team is a company of infantry married to a squadron of armour with a bunch of attached troops from other arms

A battalion is a pure infantry organization, a parent organization from which companies can be detached to form combat teams, or seconded to an armoured regiment to create an Armoured Battle Group (again with other attached arms).   The battalion can also be reinforced by armour and/or other arms to create an Infantry Battle Group.


So level 4 is Company, level 5 is Company +,  level 6 is Battalion +, level 7 is Brigade +. Training up to level 4 is conducted within the unit (Battalion or Regiment). All training above Level 4 is Combined Arms Training and requires coordination between units of different arms (infantry, engineers, arty, armour, log, sigs etc).


----------



## Lumber (7 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A combat team or a company group is a company of infantry with a bunch of attached troops from other arms.  A square team is a company of infantry married to a squadron of armour with a bunch of attached troops from other arms
> 
> A battalion is a pure infantry organization, a parent organization from which companies can be detached to form combat teams, or seconded to an armoured regiment to create an Armoured Battle Group (again with other attached arms).   The battalion can also be reinforced by armour and/or other arms to create an Infantry Battle Group.
> 
> ...



When the different combat arms start working together, who's in charge? Say you reinforce an Infantry Bn with armour. Does the most senior mbr of the infantry Bn get to tell the tanks where to go and what to do, or does a separate HQ have to get set up that operates outside of the original chains of command.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jun 2016)

Who's in charge?  Short answer is it depends.  The orders will dictate who is in command, and what degree of command is held.  Suppose it's a tank sqn under command of the infantry.  The orders will dictate whether the infantry commander can only employ it as a sqn, or if he/she can split them into troops.  It will say how long the command relationship will be in place.


----------



## Lightguns (7 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> When the different combat arms start working together, who's in charge? Say you reinforce an Infantry Bn with armour. Does the most senior mbr of the infantry Bn get to tell the tanks where to go and what to do, or does a separate HQ have to get set up that operates outside of the original chains of command.



All that is stated in the higher commander's orders, battle groups can be armour or infantry heavy, there is even recce heavy groups in armies with battalion sized recce units.  Usually the arm that is heaviest in the battle group is in command or provides the command asset.  Heavy usually means the base unit's arm, ie an infantry battalion is infantry heavy and an infantry battlegroup is infantry heavy with attachments in of armour, artillery, etc.


----------



## Lumber (7 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> All that is stated in the higher commander's orders, battle groups can be armour or infantry heavy, there is even recce heavy groups in armies with battalion sized recce units.  Usually the arm that is heaviest in the battle group is in command or provides the command asset.  Heavy usually means the base unit's arm, ie an infantry battalion is infantry heavy and an infantry battlegroup is infantry heavy with attachments in of armour, artillery, etc.



Is it typical of Infantry Officers believing that Armoured Officers don't really know how to properly employ them, and vice versa? Or does the combined arms training that they all get do a good job of teaching them to properly employ each other? What rank do they first get this training?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> When the different combat arms start working together, who's in charge? Say you reinforce an Infantry Bn with armour. Does the most senior mbr of the infantry Bn get to tell the tanks where to go and what to do, or does a separate HQ have to get set up that operates outside of the original chains of command.




I depends on how the command arrangements are spelled out in the higher formation Op Order, but, yes, in most cases ... and that's why we have special courses to teach armoured and infantry officers (and gunners and engineers and aviators and,and, and ...) how to command and fight a combined arms team.

This concept got really popular _circa_ 1960 when the Brits looked at dispersion as a key to fighting the Warsaw pact on a nuclear/chemical battlefield. The idea was that we would offer a "mobile defence in depth" with combined arms "combat teams" and "battle groups" formed from self contained "brigade groups" scattered (purposefully) across the battlefield rather then being in a  line, all "cheek-by-jowl."

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  versus


----------



## Lightguns (7 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Is it typical of Infantry Officers believing that Armoured Officers don't really know how to properly employ them, and vice versa? Or does the combined arms training that they all get do a good job of teaching them to properly employ each other? What rank do they first get this training?



Its typical of everyone believing everyone else does not know how to employ them properly.  Reality is something different. Combat Arms officers attend the same tactics and command staff courses, in theory each knows and understands the strengths and weaknesses of each other.  Employment of such Arms is an individual comprehension issue.  There have been infantry officers so engrossed in siting infantry anti armour weapons that they forget they have tanks attached.  There have been armoured officers who avoid a defile despite having infantry attached.  Nobody is perfect and inter arms practice is necessary to be proficient.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Its typical of everyone believing everyone else does not know how to employ them properly.  Reality is something different. Combat Arms officers attend the same tactics and command staff courses, in theory each knows and understands the strengths and weaknesses of each other.  Employment of such Arms is an individual comprehension issue.  There have been infantry officers so engrossed in siting infantry anti armour weapons that they forget they have tanks attached.  There have been armoured officers who avoid a defile despite having infantry attached.  Nobody is perfect and inter arms practice is necessary to be proficient.



And you forgot to add: Everyone winds up asking the gunners a) what time is it? and b) where are we?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A combat team or a company group is a company of infantry with a bunch of attached troops from other arms.  A square team is a company of infantry married to a squadron of armour with a bunch of attached troops from other arms
> 
> A battalion is a pure infantry organization, a parent organization from which companies can be detached to form combat teams, or seconded to an armoured regiment to create an Armoured Battle Group (again with other attached arms).   The battalion can also be reinforced by armour and/or other arms to create an Infantry Battle Group.
> 
> ...



A combat team can also be a squadron of armour supported by infantry 

We don't have enough armour in the Canadian Army to really form a true Armoured Battlegroup so you never really see it unless you're on a multi-national exercise.

I'd also add that Tactical Aviation should be considered a third manoeuvre arm and that we should be able to form Tactical Aviation led combat team with supporting Infantry and Armour.  Most other armies take this in to consideration in their doctrine but because Tactical Aviation belongs to the Air Force in Canada, the Canadian Army treats it like a taxi cab. 

It would nice to see this attitude change


----------



## Lumber (8 Jun 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> A combat team can also be a squadron of armour supported by infantry
> 
> We don't have enough armour in the Canadian Army to really form a true Armoured Battlegroup so you never really see it unless you're on a multi-national exercise.
> 
> ...



This was always a tactical issue in the Navy that I could never get my head around. When we sail with an embarked helo, the air det officially answers to 1 CAD in Winnipeg. If the CO of the ship needed the helicopter to do something dangerous and outside of their normal safety parameters (say for operational necessity), then technically they would have to call all the way back to Winnipeg to get permission before being allowed to do it. 

So how would that work in the army? Same thing? If a combined group of Infantry, Armour and Griffons (armed with M134s) was operating together, would the Battle Group commander have the authority to tell the Griffons, if he thought it necessary, to put themselves in danger in order to provide fire support form the air? Or would have to call back to 1 CAD because the Griffons are technically just there as glorified taxis with Miniguns for self defence?


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2016)

The FO attached to say an infantry company is responsible to the company commander.If a tank platoon was attached to a rifle company then that officer would be responsible to the company commander.In an infantry-armor combined arms team the senior officer would command if both units were say company level.In any event it is covered in the Ops Order.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This was always a tactical issue in the Navy that I could never get my head around. When we sail with an embarked helo, the air det officially answers to 1 CAD in Winnipeg. If the CO of the ship needed the helicopter to do something dangerous and outside of their normal safety parameters (say for operational necessity), then technically they would have to call all the way back to Winnipeg to get permission before being allowed to do it.
> 
> So how would that work in the army? Same thing? If a combined group of Infantry, Armour and Griffons (armed with M134s) was operating together, would the Battle Group commander have the authority to tell the Griffons, if he thought it necessary, to put themselves in danger in order to provide fire support form the air? Or would have to call back to 1 CAD because the Griffons are technically just there as glorified taxis with Miniguns for self defence?



This sounds strange to me, you would think an embarked air det would be OPCOM to the Captain of the ship?

As for planning when conducting an operation using tactical aviation.  We use what's called a five-stage reverse planning process, here is the coles notes on it:

1.  Ground Tactical Plan:  Actions on the objective by the ground force (What everything else is based off of)
2.  Landing Plan:  Actions on the Landing Zone (Must support ground tactical plan/make sure all troops get where they need to go)
3.  Air Movement Plan:  Actions during flight (routes from Pickup Zone to Landing Zone, formations, flight altitudes, control points, etc)
4.  Loading Plan:  Actions on the Pickup Zone (make sure kit and troops are loaded in the correct choppers/supports Air Movement Plan)
5.  Staging Plan:  Actions prior to mission (ground force shakeout at the Pickup Zone, Air Load Tables/Air Mission Brief, etc)

You've also got all sorts of other sub-plans that go in to these five main plans but I won't go in to great detail about those.  

For fires, you usually have a pre-planned fire plan that supports your ground force as it arrives at the objective.  This fire plan is all-encompassing and involves Artillery, CAS, CCA (Attack Helicopters), Tanks, etc...  

After that, you'll have additional resources which will be available to you for certain lengths of time, usually in windows.  These assets are controlled by different commanders.  For artillery, CAS, CCA, this is done by the Forward Observation/Forward Air Control Party (Artillery/Air Weapons guys) who direct fires for the ground force commander.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This was always a tactical issue in the Navy that I could never get my head around. When we sail with an embarked helo, the air det officially answers to 1 CAD in Winnipeg. If the CO of the ship needed the helicopter to do something dangerous and outside of their normal safety parameters (say for operational necessity), then technically they would have to call all the way back to Winnipeg to get permission before being allowed to do it.
> 
> So how would that work in the army? Same thing? If a combined group of Infantry, Armour and Griffons (armed with M134s) was operating together, would the Battle Group commander have the authority to tell the Griffons, if he thought it necessary, to put themselves in danger in order to provide fire support form the air? Or would have to call back to 1 CAD because the Griffons are technically just there as glorified taxis with Miniguns for self defence?



Lumber does not have this quite correct.

HELAIRDETS are given OPCOM to the Ship, when they embark. There are residual authorities which are retained by the RCAF (things like flight safety, airworthiness, maintenance policy). When the ship chops to CJOC, the JFACC (double-hatted as Comd 1 Cdn Air Div) exercises a command function over the HELAIRDET (which becomes known as an Air Task Force, in RCAF parlance).

Because the institutional RCAF knowledge of Naval Doctrine and the realities of life onboard an RCN ship is poor (at best), it leads to a lot of uncomfortable moments for the HELAIRDET Commander when the CAOC in Winnipeg begins to ping him/her directly to either gather information (daily quad slide  : ) or to issue direction that would impact the Ship's movement without first consulting the CO of the ship, or (a more recent tendency) attempt to place the HELAIRDET under the nearest RCAF Air Task Force and then task them on the daily ATO- despite the fact that naval helicopters are an organic asset and tasked by every other navy in the world in a completely differ the fashion.

It is a buggers mess as the RCAF tries to fit the HELAIRDET concept into its USAF centric C2 structure, to put it mildly...


----------



## Lumber (9 Jun 2016)

Yes, that's what I really meant...


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2016)

SKT, you post has "Fleet Air Arm" written all over it....


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jun 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> SKT, you post has "Fleet Air Arm" written all over it....



Or 'USMC'


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jun 2016)

I have the worst job in the world- on a daily basis, I have to try and explain ships to Air Force Officers and airplanes to Naval Officers.

It is to weep....


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have the worst job in the world- on a daily basis, I have to try and explain ships to Air Force Officers and airplanes to Naval Officers.
> 
> It is to weep....



Just don't add trying to explain the golden rivet to army guys. If they're from Nova Scotia, they already get it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jun 2016)

SKT, do you mean that when the ship deploys on operation (and is therefore choped to CJOC), the ship's CO loses OPCOM of the HELAIRDET?  That's insane! 

(And pardon my ignorance: This CJOC over everything on operation stuff came on line after I left active service).

And for those who jokingly refer to Fleet Air Arm, please note that one big advantage of such system that was lost with their disappearance, was that as those naval officers who were flyers were also expected to learn naval lore and learn the requirements for watch keeping/naval operations generally/command, they were able to achieve such command and to find themselves "embedded" (to use a modern term) in all aspects of the Navy. This means that everyone, as a result, knew more about proper use of air assets as part of naval operations, and the aviators that were flying with the FAA knew a lot more about ships. When everything went Air Force, this osmosis of knowledge was lost to both "services" and in my opinion, knowledge of one another's "service" capability has been declining ever since.

So, yes, it may not be a bad idea to reintroduce some form of Fleet Air Arm. The RCAF could retain responsibility for training, maintenance, air worthiness orders, etc., so everyone works from the same playbook (so to speak), but the personnel would be integrated into and part of the RCN full time, with the capacity to access all of the RCN various position that their trade would not restrict them from (for instance: NCM's could become Coxn's, Pilots could become ship's CO, both could fill shore and sea based operational or staff positions in the RCN, etc.).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lumber does not have this quite correct.
> 
> HELAIRDETS are given OPCOM to the Ship, when they embark. There are residual authorities which are retained by the RCAF (things like flight safety, airworthiness, maintenance policy). When the ship chops to CJOC, the JFACC (double-hatted as Comd 1 Cdn Air Div) exercises a command function over the HELAIRDET (which becomes known as an Air Task Force, in RCAF parlance).
> 
> ...



Another great example of a staffer interjecting themselves in to what should be a Commanders business.  I feel sorry for you Helicopter pilots, this sort of crap boggles my mind.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> SKT, do you mean that when the ship deploys on operation (and is therefore choped to CJOC), the ship's CO loses OPCOM of the HELAIRDET?  That's insane!
> 
> (And pardon my ignorance: This CJOC over everything on operation stuff came on line after I left active service).
> 
> ...



In the UK, there was never a question about who we would prefer to lug us around on operations etc. Fly Navy!


----------



## dimsum (9 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And for those who jokingly refer to Fleet Air Arm, please note that one big advantage of such system that was lost with their disappearance, was that as those naval officers who were flyers were also expected to learn naval lore and learn the requirements for watch keeping/naval operations generally/command, they were able to achieve such command and to find themselves "embedded" (to use a modern term) in all aspects of the Navy. This means that everyone, as a result, knew more about proper use of air assets as part of naval operations, and the aviators that were flying with the FAA knew a lot more about ships. When everything went Air Force, this osmosis of knowledge was lost to both "services" and in my opinion, knowledge of one another's "service" capability has been declining ever since.
> 
> So, yes, it may not be a bad idea to reintroduce some form of Fleet Air Arm. The RCAF could retain responsibility for training, maintenance, air worthiness orders, etc., so everyone works from the same playbook (so to speak), but the personnel would be integrated into and part of the RCN full time, with the capacity to access all of the RCN various position that their trade would not restrict them from (for instance: NCM's could become Coxn's, Pilots could become ship's CO, both could fill shore and sea based operational or staff positions in the RCN, etc.).



Now *that* sounds like a great briefing note, etc which would result in "Leading Change" and a promotion for some MH person.   :nod:  

Whether the RCAF would like the loss in budget, PYs, etc is another matter.


----------



## Loachman (9 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is a buggers mess as the RCAF tries to fit the HELAIRDET concept into its USAF centric C2 structure, to put it mildly...



Tac Hel suffers similarly.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And for those who jokingly refer to Fleet Air Arm



I wasn't joking.  1 Wing and 12 Wing should change Services.


----------



## Loachman (9 Jun 2016)

I vote you for God Emperor.


----------



## dimsum (9 Jun 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I wasn't joking.  1 Wing and 12 Wing should change Services.



Just whisper that a few times to media, and just like the SH hoopla, it'll make its way to the news as "certain members of DND have suggested that..."   ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jun 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I vote you for God Emperor.



I second that motion


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I second that motion



Ave! Dominus et Deus, Restitutor Orbis!   [


----------

