# 4CMBG CEOI



## NSDreamer (14 Mar 2013)

Evening All,

 Working on a bit of professional development for the leadership in my unit, and I'm trying to track down a generated copy of a complete net diagram for our favorite 4CMBG, to show them what a doctrinal net would look like. If anyone happens to have the file sticking around would you let me know? 

  Otherwise, long night of making net diagrams heh.

 Cheers,
     NSDreamer


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Mar 2013)

Why not a current CMBG?


----------



## NSDreamer (14 Mar 2013)

Because I don't get to choose heh. They're using radio scenario's already designed for 4CMBG notionally.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Mar 2013)

Good luck with that....


----------



## MikeL (14 Mar 2013)

If you search/know where to look you should be able to find a template net diagram on DWAN.

Shouldn't be a long night if you have to make your own,  essentially it is just circles connected by lines with a number(C/S) and unit name in them. 


Do you just have to make a Bde Comd Net or diagrams for multiple nets?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Mar 2013)

Do you mean 4 CMBG from the Canadian Forces Europe days? Or the 4 CMBG from the training model?  (Similar to the 20 CMBG training model)?


----------



## Loachman (15 Mar 2013)

"Generated" by what? A computer? I do not even know if there was one of those in the whole Brigade when it met its end. There was only one in the whole SSF (now 2 CMBG) HQ when I got there from 4 CMBG in 1989 - a very unreliable Unix-based mainframe with perhaps a dozen terminals, and only two of us were masochistic enough to use it.

The odds that there was ever a "file" back then, let alone a surviving one in a useable electronic format, is quite remote. Can your machine read quarter-inch magnetic tape on a reel?

The Brigade CP carriers each had a piece of white Bristol board with the diagram neatly drawn out in black, as described above, with a circle for each unit. Each circle was divided in two. The top half had the unit printed in, and the bottom half was left blank. The daily-changing four-character callsigns would be written in the bottom half with a Chinagraph.


----------



## Sf2 (15 Mar 2013)

Guys guys.....4CMBG is a notional formation used by the staff college during AOC and the like.  He's not looking for legacy real-world stuff.

OP, Go to the Staff College website and search for "SOH".

I'm sure you'll find it there.


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Mar 2013)

Or if you can track down an old copy of the ACP-125, Cansupp-1 Bravo, Annex B has the fixed call sign table for a Standard Brigade Group, you could probable sort it from there.


----------



## Loachman (15 Mar 2013)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 4CMBG is a notional formation used by the staff college during AOC and the like



Well, that's just foolish.

Why can't they create a completely fictional corps as they did in the Golden Years of Notionality?


----------



## Sf2 (15 Mar 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Well, that's just foolish.
> 
> Why can't they create a completely fictional corps as they did in the Golden Years of Notionality?



I have no idea what you just said....lol.  But I assume it was full of sarcasm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Well, that's just foolish.
> 
> Why can't they create a completely fictional corps as they did in the Golden Years of Notionality?



Didn't we used to call it Corps 87 or something like that?


----------



## Loachman (16 Mar 2013)

Corps 86. More powerful than the rest of NATO combined, except for the nukes.



			
				SF2 said:
			
		

> I have no idea what you just said....lol.  But I assume it was full of sarcasm.



Me? Sarcastic?

We did much more pretending in the past than we have done of late.

Sadly, we may be rapidly approaching a new Golden Age.

I never found out who it was in 2 PPCLI during their last rotation in the real 4 CMBG that wrote their weekly column in Der Kanadier, but they had a delightful sense of humour. One such column was entitled "Notionality". A copy is in a box in my basement, somewhere.


----------



## Wolseleydog (16 Mar 2013)

@ Recceguy: Corps 86 (he typed showing his age).  Don't get me started on my opinion as to how realistic it ever was, even granting all of their premises...

One wonders what it indicates that even our notional standards have gone from corps to bde level.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Mar 2013)

Combat development had been scrapped when the single service headquarters were integrated and some fairly wild force structure stuff was happening. Corps 86 was a product of FMC re-inventing the combat development process in the army in the mid-to-late seventies with a pilot study that focused on the mechanized infantry battalion. Unfortunately no planning constraints on manpower, costs or anything else were imposed as guidelines. As a result, the battalion was in the range of 1500 pers with huge sub-units and sub-sub-units and lots and lots of highly effective kit.

This precedent was then copied by the other branches/functions and what eventually fell out of the melting vat (it was too big for a pot or even a witch's cauldron) was Corps 86. Even the brigade group (which was all that Canada was tied to) had no chance of being implemented because of the huge resource bill.  

The army had realized it had erred badly, but at least the process had been established. All it needed was realistic criteria and adult supervision (ahem).


----------



## Wolseleydog (16 Mar 2013)

Old Sweat, quite so.  

But my beef with Corps 86 was always more fundamental than the cost of the resource bill.  Even if we *had* had the resources to implement it, I would argue that Corps 86 would not have been an efficient or effective construct for the utilization of those resources.  Note that many armies did field resources on the scale that Corps 86 called for, and yet none of them had such patently ridiculous organization.

As you stated, adult supervision...


----------



## larry Strong (16 Mar 2013)

I have a copy of the ACP-125, Cansupp-1 Bravo, if you wish a scan of Annex B feel free to PM me with your email addy.



Larry


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2013)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> @ Recceguy: Corps 86 (he typed showing his age).  Don't get me started on my opinion as to how realistic it ever was, even granting all of their premises...
> 
> One wonders what it indicates that even our notional standards have gone from corps to bde level.



I'm aware of it's ridiculousness, having had to try and memorize it (in part) for an SSM course. :facepalm:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Mar 2013)

I am going to play the heretic.

I liked Corps 86.  Not because it was realistic ( it wasn't) or had any chance in hell of being implemented.

In my case, Corps 86 presented functions and equipment that we did not have in the Army and made  me learn more about them. The delta between the real world and Corps 86 world made me wonder and question our (then) current orbat- which made me learn even more.  The Fantasian side was pretty well laid out, I thought, too.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Mar 2013)

I just wished we would use a common enemy model.....

ATOC uses 20CMBG and BEOC/6B uses 4CMBG......


----------



## ajp (18 Mar 2013)

Correct.  ATOC is Using 20.  CTCC and IDCCC are using 4.


----------



## NSDreamer (24 Mar 2013)

See this is why I love asking questions on here. 

Ask if anyone has a link for a CEOI set of net diagrams, learn about this Corps 86. I wonder what knowledge would fall out of this tree if we actually shook it  ;D .

 That being said, thanks all found some of what I needed thanks to the comments here, and created the rest from scratch!

 -NS


----------

