# How many soldiers in the army are combat arms?



## Blake Castelein (27 Apr 2015)

The most recent statistic I can find online for the size of the army is 21,600 (active), but when I counted up the size of all the infantry, armoured, artillery, engineer, and service support battalions/regiments using usual size definitions (ie: 600 in a battalion) the number I came up with was around 11,000. So does that mean that around half the army is combat focused and the rest are cooks, intelligence, mechanics, etc?

Apologies in advance if I've answered my own question, or is this has been answered before.


----------



## LightFighter (27 Apr 2015)

I think you'd have a hard time finding a full strength battalion anywhere in Canada unless it's about to deploy. 


Also, in a Combat Arms unit, every single member isn't Combat Arms. In a Infantry battalion for example, you would have Signallers, Vehicle Techs, Clerks, etc in addition to all the Infantry pers.


----------



## Blake Castelein (27 Apr 2015)

Oh, I didn't know that was the case haha, thank you!


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2015)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> I think you'd have a hard time finding a full strength battalion anywhere in Canada unless it's about to deploy.
> 
> 
> Also, in a Combat Arms unit, every single member isn't Combat Arms. In a Infantry battalion for example, you would have Signallers, Vehicle Techs, Clerks, etc in addition to all the Infantry pers.



Not to mention the numbers of Combat Arms personnel posted to HQs, support to the Reserves, the various Schools, Base and Range postings, etc.


----------



## crseo (27 Apr 2015)

There are actually only two trades that are combat arms - Armour and Infantry. Engineers and Artillery are called Combat Support (CS) not to be confused with Combat Service Support (CSS).


----------



## dapaterson (27 Apr 2015)

crseo said:
			
		

> There are actually only two trades that are combat arms - Armour and Infantry. Engineers and Artillery are called Combat Support (CS) not to be confused with Combat Service Support (CSS).



Can of worms.  Artillery and Engineers are considered as combat arms.


----------



## crseo (27 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Can of worms.  Artillery and Engineers are considered as combat arms.



I realize its a can of worms and not trying to start a debate on it, but by definition (Ref: Land Operations), there are only two trades that are combat arms. 

The point is just to clarify if the OP wanted combat arms or combat arms and combat support.


----------



## Lumber (27 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Can of worms.  Artillery and Engineers are considered as combat arms.



And Pilot and MARS :cdnsalute:...


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2015)

crseo said:
			
		

> There are actually only two trades that are combat arms - Armour and Infantry. Engineers and Artillery are called Combat Support (CS) not to be confused with Combat Service Support (CSS).



Now the great debate begins again.  It all depends on whose 'yardstick' you want to follow.

In some books relating to the Land Forces, Combat Arms consist of Armour, Infantry, Engineers, and Artillery; Combat Support includes the Sigs and Int; and CSS covers all the Maintainers and Supply in the Service Bns and other Branches and Corps of the Army who support from as far back as 'national' locations.


----------



## crseo (27 Apr 2015)

If we consider B-GL-300-001/FP-001 Land Operations to be the de facto "bible" for conducting land operations then:

2. Force Elements. Combat, combat support, combat service support, and command
support are the possible elements of a land force. The proportion of each element within a
specific land force will be task-tailored and therefore will vary for different operations:

a. Combat Elements. Combat (cbt) elements consist of those elements that
engage the enemy directly. They fight and typically employ direct fire weapons
and manoeuvre, and include armour, infantry, and direct fire units. They are
considered ground manoeuvre forces.

b. Combat Support Elements. Combat support (cbt sp) elements consist of
those elements that provide fire support, operational assistance, and enablers to
combat elements through designated command and control and fire support
relationships. Cbt sp elements include fire support, air defence,
reconnaissance, combat engineer, some electronic warfare elements, and some
aviation assets. They may be referred to as simply support elements.

c. Combat Service Support Elements. Combat service support (CSS) elements
primarily provide administration and logistics support to Cbt or Cbt Sp elements.
CSS elements include log, HSS, LEM, and PSS. Force support engineers that
normally provide water, electrical power, infrastructure, and main supply route
(MSR) maintenance are classified as CSS elements.

d. Command Support Elements. Command support (Comd Sp) elements assist
commanders in the exercise of command. It includes staff of all types,
communications, intelligence, information systems, and other elements
assigned to protect, sustain, and move the commander or the headquarters.
They include signals and headquarters organizations.

Regardless, like I said, just clarifying OP intent.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2015)

crseo said:
			
		

> Regardless, like I said, just clarifying OP intent.




Actually, I think you built a mountain out of a molehill........but it is now out there; a broad explanation to a simple question.


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2015)

crseo said:
			
		

> If we consider B-GL-300-001/FP-001 Land Operations to be the de facto "bible" for conducting land operations then:


If that is what you want to quote, then you will note it claims that "combat arms" do not exist except as a colloquialism.

... you left off sub-para e in your snippet.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Apr 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> If that is what you want to quote, then you will note it claims that "combat arms" do not exist except as a colloquialism.
> 
> ... you left off sub-para e in your snippet.


and to include it (though if my pdf version dated 2008-01-01 is superceded, apologies)

e. Combat Arms. The term “combat arms” is a colloquial term that refers to a
slightly wider description of “combat elements.” It includes armour, infantry, field
engineers, and artillery.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> and to include it (though if my pdf version dated 2008-01-01 is superceded, apologies)
> 
> e. Combat Arms. The term “combat arms” is a colloquial term that refers to a
> slightly wider description of “combat elements.” It includes armour, infantry, field
> engineers, and artillery.



a.k.a. those who inflict, and sustain, the majority of casualties in any armed conflict


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> And Pilot and MARS :cdnsalute:...



While they are classed as OPS GEN positions, CBT ARMS positions are limited to land environment occupations as detailed earlier in this thread.


----------



## Loachman (28 Apr 2015)

Which would include Tac Hel, were the CF properly organized.


----------



## Shamrock (28 Apr 2015)

crseo said:
			
		

> I realize its a can of worms and not trying to start a debate on it, but by definition (Ref: Land Operations), there are only two trades that are combat arms.
> 
> The point is just to clarify if the OP wanted combat arms or combat arms and combat support.



Don't forget those pathetic sadsacks armour and infantry employ as reconnaissance.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Apr 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> a.k.a. those who inflict, and sustain, the majority of casualties in any armed conflict



So in The First Great Global Misunderstanding rats and dysentery were combat arms?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So in The First Great Global Misunderstanding rats and dysentery were combat arms?



If they paid their mess dues, absolutely!  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Apr 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If they paid their mess dues, absolutely!  ;D



If not we need to go after the estates of rats and dysentry to collect overdue mess dues. >


----------



## bick (28 Apr 2015)

My answer to the original question, NOT ENOUGH


----------



## cavalryman (28 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So in The First Great Global Misunderstanding rats and dysentery were combat arms?


That's no way to speak of headquarters staff


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Apr 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> That's no way to speak of headquarters staff



Well played sir!!  ;D


----------



## Blake Castelein (28 Apr 2015)

I had no idea I'd be starting such a big debate  but it makes for good reading. Thanks for all the replies!



			
				Rhodesian said:
			
		

> My answer to the original question, NOT ENOUGH



Hahahaha ;D I thought that might be the situation ^


----------



## Loachman (28 Apr 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> That's no way to speak of headquarters staff



No helicopter ride for you - ten months.


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

OP...just so to add to the ongoing popcorn moment, you should know that special forces (JTF-2, CSOR, CJIRU) is made up of different trades also, with everyone not being a door kicker. A lot of "combat arms" folks have been jumping ship lately to other trades for obvious reasons.


----------



## Blake Castelein (14 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> OP...just so to add to the ongoing popcorn moment, you should know that special forces (JTF-2, CSOR, CJIRU) is made up of different trades also, with everyone not being a door kicker. A lot of "combat arms" folks have been jumping ship lately to other trades for obvious reasons.



Noted! Thanks I don't keep up too much with the special forces because how sneaky secret they are makes that difficult  Why are people jumping to other trades? Is there not a lot going on right now for the "combat arms" folks?


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2015)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Don't forget those pathetic sadsacks armour and infantry employ as reconnaissance.



- The gloves are now off...


----------



## blackberet17 (8 Jun 2015)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Don't forget those pathetic sadsacks armour and infantry employ as reconnaissance.





			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - The gloves are now off...



I was going to add, "Hey, I resemble that remark!"

I've been off these pages a little too much lately, I'm missing all the good stuff...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I was going to add, "Hey, I resemble that remark!"
> 
> I've been off these pages a little too much lately, I'm missing all the good stuff...



That's OK.  Shamrock was a Strat when the only tracks they saw were the CPR Mainline.


----------

