FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,828
- Points
- 1,160
I've been giving some thought to next steps since publishing "Unsustainable at Any Price" (sales are doing fairly well, by the way. Thanks to anyone who's bought a copy) and particularly to a small debate Infanteer and I had last year about whether or not restructured reserve infantry battalions and armoured and artillery regiments should have full scale headquarters companies (i.e. the service support elements).
My previous position was that they should be established the same way as a regular force battalion with a complete headquarters coy/bty/sqn. (Remember that my basic premise is that we should have far fewer reserve brigades and units but that all of our current reservists should be organized into full sized, fully equipped and deployable units and formations)
Since then, I've become more tilted towards restructuring ourselves along the line of US Brigade Support Battalions (BSB) and their Forward Support Companies (FSC). Basically, in a US Brigade Combat Team (BCT), none of the manoeuvre, artillery or engineer battalions have what we would call a headquarters company. The BSB has a transport company, a supply company, a maintenance company, a medical company and one FSC for each inf, armor, arty or engr battalion in the BCT. Each FSC is configured specifically for the type of battalion it supports and is generally always assigned to the same battalion. Within the National Guard, the specific FSCs would be located in the same armory or very close to the battalion HQ that it supports.
There are some advantages to this system that I can see:
1. Since the FSCs are a subunit of the BSB, the BSB becomes responsible for the technical training and basic career management of the FSC specialist personnel;
2. During garrison (and even in combat) the BSB can temporarily shuffle resources (especially maintenance) around to where they are most needed;
3. There is a tighter chain of communication/coordination between the battalion's 1st and BCT's 2nd line support since it is within the same battalion;
4; It allows Bn/regt comds (especially reserve ones) to concentrate on the core functions of the bn/regt;
A possible disadvantage is that the FSC Coy Comd is generally a Log/RCEME officer rather than an inf/arty/armoured/engr officer as would be for a HQ Coy/bty/sqn. Is that really a disadvantage though?
Final question: should the Fd Ambulance come under command of the Service Bn (like in a BSB) and, more importantly, should the medical platoons/sections be part of the Fd Amb and forward deployed/attached with their respective bns/regts as per the FSC (i.e. the forward deployed med platoon would be a sub/sub unit of the FSC?
Have at it.
:stirpot:
My previous position was that they should be established the same way as a regular force battalion with a complete headquarters coy/bty/sqn. (Remember that my basic premise is that we should have far fewer reserve brigades and units but that all of our current reservists should be organized into full sized, fully equipped and deployable units and formations)
Since then, I've become more tilted towards restructuring ourselves along the line of US Brigade Support Battalions (BSB) and their Forward Support Companies (FSC). Basically, in a US Brigade Combat Team (BCT), none of the manoeuvre, artillery or engineer battalions have what we would call a headquarters company. The BSB has a transport company, a supply company, a maintenance company, a medical company and one FSC for each inf, armor, arty or engr battalion in the BCT. Each FSC is configured specifically for the type of battalion it supports and is generally always assigned to the same battalion. Within the National Guard, the specific FSCs would be located in the same armory or very close to the battalion HQ that it supports.
There are some advantages to this system that I can see:
1. Since the FSCs are a subunit of the BSB, the BSB becomes responsible for the technical training and basic career management of the FSC specialist personnel;
2. During garrison (and even in combat) the BSB can temporarily shuffle resources (especially maintenance) around to where they are most needed;
3. There is a tighter chain of communication/coordination between the battalion's 1st and BCT's 2nd line support since it is within the same battalion;
4; It allows Bn/regt comds (especially reserve ones) to concentrate on the core functions of the bn/regt;
A possible disadvantage is that the FSC Coy Comd is generally a Log/RCEME officer rather than an inf/arty/armoured/engr officer as would be for a HQ Coy/bty/sqn. Is that really a disadvantage though?
Final question: should the Fd Ambulance come under command of the Service Bn (like in a BSB) and, more importantly, should the medical platoons/sections be part of the Fd Amb and forward deployed/attached with their respective bns/regts as per the FSC (i.e. the forward deployed med platoon would be a sub/sub unit of the FSC?
Have at it.
:stirpot:
). We had Civilian Doctor and Nurse driving our decently equipped ambulance. A proper kitchen trailer and kitchen in our armoury, making meals in the field and every saturday. A Line laying truck and enough radios (Lacking Nestor though), 2 full OP parties, 2 truck Ammunition party, dedicated QM vehicle, 6 guns and tractors and a primary and secondary CP (with vehicles for survey party.) We had 3 RSS (Captain, WO and M/Bdr) and 3 Class B. 
