# Possible Return of 2nd Canadian Division as Reserve Upper-Level HQ



## Gorgo (9 Sep 2011)

People out there might be interested in reading this:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports-rapports/transfo2011/_doc/Report_on_Transformation_2011_eng.pdf

In it, LGen Leslie put out a proposal to rationalise the command-and-control as part of the trimming down of all the HQs and the bloated staff at NDHQ.  One of his suggestions -- as I understand it -- is to bring back 2 CDN DIV to become the senior Army Reserve headquarters, thus effectively do away with the LF Area HQs (and possibly amalgamate the area brigades into one single brigade per old area), then have 1 CDN DIV HQ in Kingston be the upper formation for all Regular Force units and brigades.

Again, as I understand it.

Ideas?


----------



## brihard (9 Sep 2011)

OK, just looking at this with little reflection- Realistically, each brigade, for the purpose of DOMOPS, summer brigade or area exercises, etc, tends to force generate a light infantry battalion. That, at least, has seemed to be the case in Ontario, and the Territorial Battalion Group seems to be slowly, awkwardly and painfully formalizing this. We have ten CBGs currently nationwide. Creating a reserve division with three reserve brigades, each of three infantry battalions plus atts and support would give us a realistic capability of FGing nine light infantry battalions based simply on who shows up, with substantially greater turnout if Order in Council compelled reserve callup. With the existing brigade structure most of the supporting arms exist in at least reasonable strength and with at least a portion of the necessary equipment.

We face, of course, that awkward and nefarious question of 'WTF does reserve armoured recce do?', but a deliberate reroling into tasks such as mobile force protection etc whilst remaining some mounted recce capabilities would not seem to be unreasonable. The RCA and Engineers naturally speak for themselves as brigade assets, and the service battalions and sigs regiments are already part of the existing CBG structure, and could augment the echelons of the light infantry formations, form the Bde HQ & Sigs, and on an ad hoc basis form the other CSS elements necessary.

Not that any of this would be *pretty*, but it appears rational.

Challenges: The regimental system. We in the reserves are extremely prickly about identity. Tactical groupings would need to be expanded and formalized. Regiments would need to be brute forced - based on proven force generation capability - to FG a specific portion of the composite. From my very low level view, again the TBGs seem to be accomplishing this already. Not every unit frankyl justifies a LCo commanding it. When the Fort Francis Foreskin Fusiliers parade a platoon and a half on Thursday nights, they ought to be sharing a CO and regimental HQ with the Queen's Own McKamikaze Highlanders and the Royal Regiment of Goatsherds in the next couple towns down the highway. Some regiments are successfully manning and administering multiple garrisons; if a number of currently independent units are administrative amalgamated into a battalion in such a manner, that just makes sense Units such as the Hast & PER and the R Nfld R give us ample opportunity to capture lessons on how this should best work. We should accept that under a rational structure some regimental identities ought to be perpetuated by companies rather than paper battalions. I do not see that such questions as colours, battle honours, and perpetuation ought to stand in the way of formations that simply make good bloody sense.

Of course, the big question at the end of the day is whether this is a matter of administrative streamlining, saving PYs and the like, or whether this is a force that in its established structure would be intended and expected to be called up partially or wholly. Ontario providing the cleanest example with our convenient three CBGs, I'd say that yes this could be a reasonable approach, at least for DOMOPS. Nothing jumps out at me as "This is f'ing stupid!" But I've been well above my pay grade since about the second sentence of this, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2011)

I see the report is public now.

In my opinion, LGen Leslie's recommendation to move from a 4 Area Total Force structure (territorial) to a 2 Div Reg/Res structure (functional) is appealing at face value, but a closer look at things reveals it to be not as attractive as it appears.

1.  1 Can Div was created to Force Generate Joint HQs; it will have a harder time doing that when it is saddled with managing three CMBGs spread across the country;

2.  I'd argue that putting the three CMBGs under a single Div Comd won't relieve the "Balkanized Army" problem - the CMBGs are separated by great distance, have different priorities at any one time based upon the Managed Readiness Plan, and the Brigade level is about where we go when it comes to formation training - I'm not tracking what a Div HQ would be able to impose on the CMBGs;

3.  Having worked with CBGs, I can say there is great value in having a Regular HQ and an affiliated Regular CMBG with them to help them along.  Nothing against reservists, but managing formations requires, at some level, a Regular staff cadre with a depth of experience in Staff Duties and management.  In the current structures, we have the Areas to act as the "big brother" and the Areas can also ensure that the CMBGs don't ignore their Reserve cousins when it comes to Total Force issues.  With all the Reserve CBGs reporting to someone in Montreal, I suspect the "top cover" may be a bit more harder to find and you may see a move away from the idea of Total Force as the Regular Army has even less of a link to the Reserves; and

4.  There are some Force Generation and geopolitical realities that the Area structure satisfies best.  When floods happen in Manitoba, you have a Western Area commander on the ground right away - he is tasked with that turf before hand, so he has the ability to "lean forward" - same as SQFT when the Richeleau River floods.  So, what happens when 2 Div, which handles Reserve planning across Canada for the summer, gets dinged with Dom Ops in both Manitoba and Quebec?  The other realities are the political ones - the LFA Commanders get a lot of face time with local leadership in their Areas.  It's kind of hard to work with the Lt Governor of Alberta from Fort Frontenac.  Give that job to Comd 1 CMBG?  Sure, but now your giving a field formation tasks that were better handled by a static territorial HQ in LFWA.

As you can see in the report, LGen Leslie's venture into the L2/L3 Level (Areas, Wings and Fleets) is a bit shallow; he just says "merge these to cut HQs" without the level of analysis he pays to L1s like CMP, ADM(Mat) and the .Coms.  I think this is a bit of a hangover from his time as CLS; he was big on the 1 Div/2 Div idea back then and found the report was just a good oppurtunity to push for it again.

That being said, nobody would argue that the Army would be efficient with less HQs - folding 4 L2s (LFWA, LFCA, SQFT and LFAA) into 2 (1 Div (Reg) and 2 Div (Res)).  However, I suspect that we may be chasing efficiency at the cost of effectiveness.  Often, these two are at odds - do we want efficient HQs or effective ones?


----------



## GnyHwy (9 Sep 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 4.   The other realities are the political ones - the LFA Commanders get a lot of face time with local leadership in their Areas.  It's kind of hard to work with the Lt Governor of Alberta from Fort Frontenac.  Give that job to Comd 1 CMBG?  Sure, but now your giving a field formation tasks that were better handled by a static territorial HQ in LFWA.
> 
> As you can see in the report, LGen Leslie's venture into the L2/L3 Level (Areas, Wings and Fleets) is a bit shallow; he just says "merge these to cut HQs" without the level of analysis he pays to L1s like CMP, ADM(Mat) and the .Coms.
> 
> That being said, nobody would argue that the Army would be efficient with less HQs - folding 4 L2s (LFWA, LFCA, SQFT and LFAA) into 2 (1 Div (Reg) and 2 Div (Res)).  However, I suspect that we may be chasing efficiency at the cost of effectiveness.  Often, these two are at odds - do we want efficient HQs or effective ones?



Great topic.  Coincidentally, I was thinking of starting a debate thread. Whether or not Ops centers should be bigger or smaller.  I say bigger and will explain as I comment on your quotes above.

I would agree with a CMBG Cmdr being in total command of their area and going back to being a General.  With the elimination of the LFWA Ops, the CMBG Ops would be much larger and rightfully so.  I have always argued for larger Ops staffs.  We are currently great at gathering info, but rather poor at managing it.  A larger Ops staff, perhaps even down to the Coy is the feasible solution.

Second comment about less HQs.  Again, I agree with the same premise.  I say less, but larger Ops centers.  The CMBG Cmdr will need a heavy staff when he is handling both operational and civil affairs.

The question of who is IC of the reserves remains.  With the creation of 2 Div, it gives them a hierarchy, but how do they reach out all over the country?


----------



## Gorgo (10 Sep 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As you can see in the report, LGen Leslie's venture into the L2/L3 Level (Areas, Wings and Fleets) is a bit shallow; he just says "merge these to cut HQs" without the level of analysis he pays to L1s like CMP, ADM(Mat) and the .Coms.  I think this is a bit of a hangover from his time as CLS; he was big on the 1 Div/2 Div idea back then and found the report was just a good oppurtunity to push for it again.



Oh, that must have been a spill-over when the Air Force brought in 2 CDN AIR DIV to handle all the training wings and units.  Well, if he wanted to do that, all he had to do was re-desigate LFDTS into 2 CDN DIV and go from there!


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2011)

No, when LGen Leslie was CLS, he floated the idea of moving 1, 2 and 5 CMBG under 1 Can Div in Edmonton and all the Reserve CBGs (in some reformed type) under 2 Div in Montreal.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Sep 2011)

I'm still confused at why we have 1 Can Div and CEFCOM when they are both concerned with international deployments.... having the PRes units all fall under 2 Can Div is an interesting idea though.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Sep 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm still confused at why we have 1 Can Div and CEFCOM when they are both concerned with international deployments....



CEFCOM is not intended to be a deployable HQ and technically speaking, manages *all *international operations (Their ability to do so effectively notwithstanding). 1 Div HQ is intended to be a deployable joint HQ for a single overseas operation and will manage things on the ground.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm still confused at why we have 1 Can Div and CEFCOM when they are both concerned with international deployments.... having the PRes units all fall under 2 Can Div is an interesting idea though.



Cdn Aviator has the right of it.  CEFCOM manages international deployments for the CDS.  They are basically charged with ensuring things like policy, strategic lines of communication and the like are maintained once we launch forces overseas.

1 Can Div is a child of LGen Lessard's appointment as Comd RC(S) in 2008.  Canada, with a real seat at the table, could be expected to provide coalition HQs to large operations.  We've done this in Afghanistan and Bosnia.  Since it was responsible for force generating HQs, the idea is to have it unhindered by routine management of the Regular Force Brigades (the Land Force Areas do this) so they aren't in a lurch should 1 Can Div deploy.

1 Can Div is supposed to be a "Joint" HQ, but I can't see it suddenly swooping in to handle a Naval operation (navies have their own way of running operations) or taking over an Air Operation (these seem to fall into standing arrangements like NATO and NORAD); the naming of a joint HQ with a "land-centric" title such as 1 Can Div has only confirmed that fact.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2011)

If we want "efficiency" and a streamlined structure, then "I CANDIVHQ" should be something that is already incorporated into CEFCOM, and can be deployed by handing out the "green" passports at a DAG and pushing people from their desks onto the bus waiting to take them to Trenton ("Don't forget to pick up your bug-out bags from the CQ's locker room").

I have always thought of the Area HQ's as being DIV HQ's, since they control one Regular Force Brigade and two or three Reserve Brigades (as attenuated as they are). In the interests of efficiency (and ignoring historic precedent), we would have 1 Div HQ located in Edmonton and controlling the formations in LFWA, 2 Div HQ in Toronto and so on (LFAA would need some serious reorganization but a Div HQ structure based on commanding a resurrected 4 CMBG and the two Reserve Brigades seems doable). This construct eliminates the need for the current 1 Div HQ; should there be a need to deploy an expeditionary headquarters the appropriate Div HQ augmented by CEFCOM HQ pers would head out; based on the same managed readiness plan timetable everyone else is on. Shoud we decide that a separate deployable Div HQ is needed, then go the other way, "3 Div HQ" is incorporated into CEFCOM (see above) augmented by pers from the deploying Division HQ.

As for "jointness", should there be a need for a Joint TF for some sort of DOMOPS then cells from the RCN or RCAF get attached for the duration (similarly, if the mission is largely Naval or Air Force in nature then the Div HQ attaches a cell to the appropriate HQ for the duration to supply the Army support).


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we want "efficiency" and a streamlined structure, then "I CANDIVHQ" should be something that is already incorporated into CEFCOM, and can be deployed by handing out the "green" passports at a DAG and pushing people from their desks onto the bus waiting to take them to Trenton ("Don't forget to pick up your bug-out bags from the CQ's locker room").


That must be crazy talk.  We destroyed such an organization in order to create 1 Cdn Div:  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17656.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/96954.0.html


----------



## Sythen (11 Sep 2011)

I enjoy reading these discussions, but just a quick question.. What are DOMOPS? Probably something very simple, but can't figure it out. Its not in the military terms on this site, and google has a ton of links to Final Fantasy XI forums.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2011)

Domestic Operations (Cadence, Podium, Ice Storm, Floods, etc)


----------



## Sythen (11 Sep 2011)

ok yea should have figured that out.. Thanks though, guess I'm slow today lol


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> That must be crazy talk.  We destroyed such an organization in order to create 1 Cdn Div:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17656.0.html
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/96954.0.html



Bureaucracy in action: Watch the ball in the middle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jid7Nlzfet8


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Sep 2011)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I would agree with a CMBG Cmdr being in total command of their area and going back to being a General.  With the elimination of the LFWA Ops, the CMBG Ops would be much larger and rightfully so.  I have always argued for larger Ops staffs.  We are currently great at gathering info, but rather poor at managing it.  A larger Ops staff, perhaps even down to the Coy is the feasible solution.



The quantifiable and measurable output of a CMBG is Combat Teams.  That is their primary function in this era of Managed Readiness Plans and mix and match deployments where the Force Generation base is divorced form the Force Employment concept.  If we give a Bde Comd (even a one star) responsibility for all the crap that an Area HQ has to deal with, he (or she) will lose the ability (indeed luxury) of concentrating on that singularly important output.  Essentially, the role of an Area HQ is suck up all the bullshit so that a CMBG Comd can focus on the task at hand. 

We have a model that works.  We are under all kinds of pressures to find cuts (NB - not the same as inefficiencies).   The last thing we need now is a model that distracts us from our primary purpose: the generation of general-purpose combat capable troops.


----------



## dogger1936 (26 Sep 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We face, of course, that awkward and nefarious question of 'WTF does reserve armoured recce do?', but a deliberate reroling into tasks such as mobile force protection etc whilst remaining some mounted recce capabilities would not seem to be unreasonable. The RCA and Engineers naturally speak for themselves as brigade assets, and the service battalions and sigs regiments are already part of the existing CBG structure, and could augment the echelons of the light infantry formations, form the Bde HQ & Sigs, and on an ad hoc basis form the other CSS elements necessary.



Armd recce requires you to ask Awkward and Nefarious questions as to their role? You cannot understand what Armd recce does as a brigade asset?


----------



## aesop081 (26 Sep 2011)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> You cannot understand what Armd recce does as a brigade asset?



He said "Reserve armoured recce"............


----------



## dogger1936 (26 Sep 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He said "Reserve armoured recce"............



Either way the role doesnt change. The equipment may, but not the role.


----------



## ArmyRick (26 Sep 2011)

It seems as though former general Leslie has left quite a mark with his reports..

What if 1 CAN DIV and 2 CAN DIV were divided up a little different in stead of Reg F Brigades and P Res Brigades belonging to an appropriate Div, how about 1 CAN DIV being former LFWA and LFCA, then have 2 CAN DIV take on SQFT and LFAA? 

Nah, never mind, 2 CMBG is split between Pet and Gagetown, it would get too confusing.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Nah, never mind, 2 CMBG is split between Pet and Gagetown, it would get too confusing.



And your plan is more confusing how?......


----------



## Mountie (15 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> OK, just looking at this with little reflection- Realistically, each brigade, for the purpose of DOMOPS, summer brigade or area exercises, etc, tends to force generate a light infantry battalion. That, at least, has seemed to be the case in Ontario, and the Territorial Battalion Group seems to be slowly, awkwardly and painfully formalizing this. We have ten CBGs currently nationwide. Creating a reserve division with three reserve brigades, each of three infantry battalions plus atts and support would give us a realistic capability of FGing nine light infantry battalions based simply on who shows up, with substantially greater turnout if Order in Council compelled reserve callup. With the existing brigade structure most of the supporting arms exist in at least reasonable strength and with at least a portion of the necessary equipment.
> 
> We face, of course, that awkward and nefarious question of 'WTF does reserve armoured recce do?', but a deliberate reroling into tasks such as mobile force protection etc whilst remaining some mounted recce capabilities would not seem to be unreasonable. The RCA and Engineers naturally speak for themselves as brigade assets, and the service battalions and sigs regiments are already part of the existing CBG structure, and could augment the echelons of the light infantry formations, form the Bde HQ & Sigs, and on an ad hoc basis form the other CSS elements necessary.
> 
> ...



Re-organize the existing 10 CBG's into 3 actual Canadian Reserve Brigade Groups as indicated above.  The current LF Area HQ's have both a Reg Force BGen and a Res Force BGen if I'm not mistaken.  Move the Reg Force BGen to command the CMBG and the Res Force BGen to command the new Reserve Brigade Group.  This new CRBG HQ is the liaison with the provinces for Domestic Ops and allows the CMBG to focus on expeditionary operations.

3 x Canadian Reserve Brigade Groups - Western (LFWA), Central (LFCA) & Eastern (LFQA & LFAA)
- Brigade Headquarters (formerly Area HQ)
- 3 x Canadian Territorial Battalion Group (former CBGs)
- Arctic Response Battalion Group (1 ARGC from each former CBG & a Canadian Ranger Patrol Group)

Canadian Territorial Battalion Group (former CBG)
- Battalion HQ (former CBG HQ)
- Command Support Squadron (signal troop, military intelligence platoon, military police platoon)
- 4 x Rifle Companies (maintaining the regimental identity of 4 infantry regiments)
- Armoured Squadron (armoured regiment identity)
- Field Artillery Battery
- Combat Engineer Squadron
- Service Company
- Field Ambulance Platoon

Canadian Arctic Response Battalion
- Battalion Headquarters 
- Arctic Response Company Group from each former CBG (companies can fill this role on a rotational basis with companies in their respective CTBG)
- Canadian Ranger Patrol Group


----------



## Mountie (21 Apr 2013)

The Australian Army uses the two division Regular/Reserve organization.  Granted, the geography of Australia is a little smaller than Canada.  But the Reserve 2nd Division still controls 6 Reserve brigades.

1st Australian Division (Regular)
- Division Headquarters & Signal Regiment
- 3  Multi-Role Brigade Groups (2 infantry battalions)

2nd Australian Division (Reserve)
- Division Headquarters & Signal Regiment
- 6 Reserve Brigade Groups (2 infantry battalions)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2013)

Mountie said:
			
		

> The Australian Army uses the two division Regular/Reserve organization.  Granted, the geography of Australia is a little smaller than Canada.  But the Reserve 2nd Division still controls 6 Reserve brigades.
> 
> 1st Australian Division (Regular)
> - Division Headquarters & Signal Regiment
> ...



For years we've been slowly hacking away at the walls of disparity and difference between the Regs and Reserves. Now that the war is effectively over, there seems to be a feeling that the wall is thickening once again. Especially as both components struggle with how to survive the budget cuts, which seem to be pointed at the coal face vice the front office.

I believe, forming two new orgs as Australia has, will only serve to further the growing gap, as each tries to pull in and consolidate it's own assets like a protective mother hen with her chicks.


----------



## Mountie (21 Apr 2013)

The Australian Army also has a Regular/Reserve pairing of brigades.  Each of the three brigades, which are re-forming to Multi-Role Brigades.  Each Regular Multi-Role Brigade is paired with two Reserve Brigades.  So although they report to separate division headquarters they have a Regular/Reserve integration.  Just because they report to a different division headquarters doesn't mean there will be a divide between Regular and Reserve.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2013)

Mountie said:
			
		

> The Australian Army also has a Regular/Reserve pairing of brigades.  Each of the three brigades, which are re-forming to Multi-Role Brigades.  Each Regular Multi-Role Brigade is paired with two Reserve Brigades.  So although they report to separate division headquarters they have a Regular/Reserve integration.  Just because they report to a different division headquarters doesn't mean there will be a divide between Regular and Reserve.



I don't know what the Aussie system is like, but as a former Reg Force, now reservist, I can see that divide starting.


----------



## DG-41 (23 Apr 2013)

There are enough challenges as it is trying to keep Reserve Brigade HQs properly manned without adding yet another layer of HQ to train/staff/maintain.

I can see the LFC HQs being renamed "Divisions" (after all, that's what they are) but I see no appetite to split off the CBGs to a new HQ. 

The order of the day is the consolidation of HQs (thank Lob) not fragmentation.

DG


----------

