Just a quick question for you.
Why does it matter?
a. I'm naturally inquisitive
b. It let's me better understand the capabilities and limitations of our light battalions. I already have a pretty good understanding of the LAV ones.
c. I note that no one has yet actually answered my question.
The US army has different equipment, personnel, and resource constraints than the CA. It also supports a nation with different strategic objectives. Canadian organizations should be built to meet Canadian requirements. Blanket copying any other nation’s model does not set us on the path to success.
Constantly reinventing the wheel when someone else has done all the preliminary research does not set us on a path to success either. Having a good understanding of how similar armies deal with the same fundamental issues of organization is very helpful in mapping out your own.
The BCT system was set up well after the Americans had our example of how we set up a Mech Brigade Group. Seeing how they refined the example is a very useful piece of information - I completely agree that we should not create a blanket copy but we should certainly examine it as an exemplar and then critically examine those places where we differ significantly to fully understand if we have a critical capability gap.
At the battalion level strategic objectives do not matter unless one of them is "we will never engage in X missions". SSE tells us we need to be ready for the full gamut. Simply put, we have no strategic limitations other then that our current mission requirements do not call for deployments above a battle group albeit in the aggregate they could require the better part of a brigade at any given time.
Canada does not have echelons above brigade. The US has echelons above corps. We may need things at the battalion or brigade level that do not exist at the same levels in the US. We may not need capabilities or equipment that the US has because we have other ways of achieving the effect. There may also be things in the US structure that we cannot afford.
The BCT is designed as a combined arms formation capable of decisive action which can operate under either a division or a task force headquarters. Fundamentally it is no different from a CMBG. Both require some form of theatre support and a guiding headquarters.
Divisions provide enablers to brigades. Canada does have above brigade enablers by way of the CCSB. You are obviously correct in that there is a substantial difference in the number and type of national above-brigade enablers available to a BCT and a CMBG. I suspect though that when you say that "we may not need capabilities or equipment that the US has because we have ways of achieving the effect" that its more rationalization than fact.
Most of the variations between Canada's CMBG and a US BCT or a UK BCT are driven by other facts most of which can be described by priorities: priorities on where cash gets spent; priorities based on risk assessments of what resources may not be needed in the near future; political direction on equipment acquisitions; and so on.
It's hard to find an offset for Canada's effects capability deficiencies of artillery, air defence, or anti-armour defence. Those are just the most obvious examples. That's just plain resource allocation. My guess is that if the LDsH ever does become a true tank regiment in 1 CMBG, 3 PPCLI will stay as the brigade's light battalion rather than become a cavalry battalion like in an ABCT (which only has three combined arms [tank/mech infantry] battalions in total) because the Army, for whatever reason, prioritizes the continuation of an infantry battalion above the creation of a brigade cavalry battalion.
