Multi Domain Task Force - Canada

[FJAG]

That's an interesting structure. Graphically it looks like this in Wikipedia.

There are a few comments I have:

1. The SBCT structures are relatively unchanged since SBCTs haven't gone through a major Transformation in Contact review (That was IBCTs --> MBCTs and currently ABCTs). 1 SBCT has lost its engineer battalion and 2 SBCT have gained an MFRC but that seems to be it.

2. Note that there is no divisional sustainment brigade. Each of the four brigades retain their organic brigade support battalions (BSB) in roughly the same way that three of them retain their own artillery. It makes you wonder if a fires bde and a sustainment brigade will consolidate those in the future and, eventually, a sustainment brigade formed with the addition of a maintenance and logistics battalions and consolidation of the BSBs.

3. IMHO, 1 MDTF should become a fires brigade by retaining all of its own assets and having the two M777 battalions and their respective forward support companies moved over. The current issue may be the limited range of the M777 supporting the mobile Strykers. IMHO the US Army's stalled plan to buy wheeled SPs like Archer or MGS Boxer needs to move forward. Maybe now that GDLS has shown off the GDLS 10x10 MGS Grizzley, it will make sense to the US to buy a few hundred of those for their remaining Stryker brigades. That would provide sufficient mobility for the CS battalions to join the rocket battalion in a proper fires brigade, which function can easily be added in 1 MDTF.

(Not to toot my own horn but you'll have seen structures similar to this one in my own previous napkin forces like this one for an expeditionary armoured division - Note the size of ~11,340 personnel and the absence of the aviation brigade which I consider a corps asset. Note also the inclusion of the 2nd Pan-Domain Regiment (2 PD) - in my 2 Fires Brigade (2 FB). 2 PD is a beefed up version of 7 ID's 1 MDEB.)

 

[Kirkhill]

That's an interesting structure. Graphically it looks like this in Wikipedia.

There are a few comments I have:

1. The SBCT structures are relatively unchanged since SBCTs haven't gone through a major Transformation in Contact review (That was IBCTs --> MBCTs and currently ABCTs). 1 SBCT has lost its engineer battalion and 2 SBCT have gained an MFRC but that seems to be it.

2. Note that there is no divisional sustainment brigade. Each of the four brigades retain their organic brigade support battalions (BSB) in roughly the same way that three of them retain their own artillery. It makes you wonder if a fires bde and a sustainment brigade will consolidate those in the future and, eventually, a sustainment brigade formed with the addition of a maintenance and logistics battalions and consolidation of the BSBs.

3. IMHO, 1 MDTF should become a fires brigade by retaining all of its own assets and having the two M777 battalions and their respective forward support companies moved over. The current issue may be the limited range of the M777 supporting the mobile Strykers. IMHO the US Army's stalled plan to buy wheeled SPs like Archer or MGS Boxer needs to move forward. Maybe now that GDLS has shown off the GDLS 10x10 MGS Grizzley, it will make sense to the US to buy a few hundred of those for their remaining Stryker brigades. That would provide sufficient mobility for the CS battalions to join the rocket battalion in a proper fires brigade, which function can easily be added in 1 MDTF.

(Not to toot my own horn but you'll have seen structures similar to this one in my own previous napkin forces like this one for an expeditionary armoured division - Note the size of ~11,340 personnel and the absence of the aviation brigade which I consider a corps asset. Note also the inclusion of the 2nd Pan-Domain Regiment (2 PD) - in my 2 Fires Brigade (2 FB). 2 PD is a beefed up version of 7 ID's 1 MDEB.)

View attachment 100894

I am starting to think that one of the reasons the "cavalry" debate is so fraught is that given all the ISR assets being pushed downwards to the infantry battalions it appears as if the infantry is taking over thee recce and shield roles of the cavalry.

Concurrently long range precision fires are squeezing the airforce and army aviation.

The net result is that more formations are starting to look like the British Recce Strike Brigade.

7ID MDC-Pac = 7 Recce Strike Div.

 

[Kirkhill]

It is interesting to look at this alignment in conjunction with the sister divs in I Corps.

All of them, 4, 7, 11 and 25 are based on two triangular infantry brigades with no cavalry and a developing MFRC.

4 and 7 are based on Strykers and 11 and 25 are based on ISVs.

11 retains a parachute qualified brigade as one of its two MBCTs.

4 has an ABCT attached. The only one available to I Corps.

So I Corps 4 divs command 4 Stryker Brigades, 4 ISV based MBCTs with one of them airborne qualified and a single Bradley-Abrams ABCT.

All divisions retain a Combat Aviation Brigade or similar.

All have integral sustainment brigades.

The Arty picture seems to be developing.

11 and 7 have not formed a DivArty complex but 7 has the MDTF and retained arty battalions in the brigades with 18 M777s each.

4 and 25 have DivArties with 4 holding 36 M777s for its two Stryker Brigades and 18 M109s for its ABCT. 4 has no HIMARS or MRLS but I Corps also has 17 Field Artillery Brigade with two rocket battalions. I am guessing that the ABCT and the FAB would likely be paired in the main effort. Recce Strike.

Meanwhile 25 Divarty now comprises 16 M119, 12 M777s and 16 HIMARS. It also has an Int and EW Battalion which seems to be moving into MDEB terrain and the Div GOC is looking for long range UAVs like Gray Eagle so that he can fully exploit his LRPF HIMARS.

The only thing missing is an IFPC GBAD battalion for 25 ID