Army Reserve Restructuring

[FJAG]

The Army seems to have already decided this is not starting out as a brigade. Brigades are bigger and should have more than one type of battalion.

I'll pile on with the others who have pointed out that three battalions under one headquarters is very much a brigade. The term brigade group was coined once we started adding guns and engineers and service battalions. Same in the US for the use of the term brigade combat team.

My guess that the main problem for that brigade is finding enough sigs and gear for a brigade headquarters and signals squadron in order to make it a truly capable tactical headquarters. Maybe a few Regs and make 33 Signals Regiment in Ottawa a Total Force unit.

Firss brigade wont be stood up for a few years, not until after 3 RCHA is stood up since the brigade will be 3x gun arty, 1 x rocket arty, a Uas regiment and a service battalion.

It would make sense to set up the core of the Fires Brigade now in order that they can start being involved in the planning and raising of the new units. Three gun regiments (even if they only have the actual guns for one regiment) and a general support/fledgling air defence regiment are more than enough to start with. This is a big effort and should have more horses thrown at it than just DArty, DLR, and the RCAS.

$0.02

 

[MacNav63]

Well actually we onlu started blending types of units when we used the term Brigade Group. If you look at the Canadian Army pre the establishment of 1 CMBG its Brigades were single units types, if we don't include CSS. 1 CMBG being assigned armour, engineers, and artillery made it a Brigade Group.



Well no they'll have 5 separate regiments, three of which will be Regiments of Horse Artillery. However your earlier statement, that we can't have multiple regiments of the same type in a brigade, simply isn't true. We've made a decision to assign Bns from the same regiment to our mechanized brigade groups, but that's not some hard fast rule. Look back at our history and you'll see many instances of mixed regiments within a Brigade.

Wasn't a mix of regiments the norm for brigades/brigade groups until the 90s?

 

[markppcli]

Wasn't a mix of regiments the norm for brigades/brigade groups until the 90s?

Even in 1989 2 RCR was in 5 CMBG with the Vandoos

 

[Kirkhill]

A brigade means exactly the same as a group. It is a bunch.
You can brigade all your battalion machine guns into a group and call it a platoon or a company. English is accommodating.

And if you can get all of your bunch marching in step according to your regime you can call it a regiment.

....

As to the lack of sigs for the light infantry bunch, I thought the plan going forwards was to turn more infanteers into sigs ops and leave the Sigs proper with the repair jobs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

well you also would need supporting armour (MCAV), engineering, CS and CSS assets to make a brigade, it might be more then we can bite off and chew woth all the other competing lines of effort of standing up the Fires brigade, protection brigade and sustainment brigade.

Either those things come from division and it's a brigade, or they belong to the brigade HQ and it is a brigade group.