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.

 

[Kirkhill]

Single arm brigades have advantages. They simplify admin and training.

If those brigades are grouped in a division under a competent commander then they can be practiced in grouping and regrouping, learning to work with other arms and developing associations.

Edit: forgot something - money
should have said a competent commander with money

 

[McG]

Well no they'll have 5 separate regiments, three of which will be Regiments of Horse Artillery.

The word “regiment” has many meanings, and we are seemingly talking past each other because of those different means … perhaps one more good reason that we should not import the Franco-American use of the word to describe a formation which is more accurately called a group. Anyway …

I am saying there can be only one regiment of a given type in a brigade. In that context, a regiment is a branded identity that is assigned to one or more units but which transcends organizational structure and follows a soldier through their career. You are using the word “regiment” where it is a synonym for battalion. All the artillery units in the fires brigade will be the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery.

Armoured Regiments don't have Battalions, they have Regiments. For example, 1st Regiment, Fort Garry Horse.

We went through this recently. There have been examples of armoured battalions in Canada & UK. But sure, hide behind tradition as the reason to do the stupid thing.

Well actually we onlu started blending types of units when we used the term Brigade Group.

I said are smaller & should be homogeneous, and you fully committed your rebuttal to the sometimes criteria. We did have combined arms groups before any still-existing CMBG was stood-up. Look up 1 CCG or 3 CCG. Also, 4 CMBG was combined arms when it was “just” a brigade because it was bigger than a group. The “Brigade Group” label was not for being combined arms, it is because the formation was granted a bunch of division level resources (arty, engineers, aviation, etc) to operate independently of a division.

On a related note; if CA wants to restructure as a war fighting division, maybe it is also time to restructure back to brigades and groups. There is a lot of crap in a CMBG tail that would make the manoeuvre commander’s job easier if someone else managed it.

RE: the RCD moving, my understanding is it was both through a desire to locate tanks together, but more importantly due to the lack of maint pers and facilities in Gagetown once techs were posted out (or not there in the first place). There simply wasn't the resources to maintain them in Gagetown.

It’s only the power of hindsight sight that allows the missed opportunity to be seen. There were good reasons to move the tanks when the decision was made. But, for training area utility, the RCDs would probably have been better moving themselves to C Sqn as opposed to moving C Sqn to them. They then would have been in a good position to argue to become the second tank unit. Wainwright will not be an easier location to keep tank maintainers than Gagetown.

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.

Thank Merriam-Webster. I think you also understand that professions have their own technical vernacular, and words that may be interchangeable to a layman have distinct and significant difference within the profession.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The word “regiment” has many meanings, and we are seemingly talking past each other because of those different means … perhaps one more good reason that we should not import the Franco-American use of the word to describe a formation which is more accurately called a group. Anyway …

I am saying there can be only one regiment of a given type in a brigade. In that context, a regiment is a branded identity that is assigned to one or more units but which transcends organizational structure and follows a soldier through their career. You are using the word “regiment” where it is a synonym for battalion. All the artillery units in the fires brigade will be the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery.

I'll just assume this is all part of a plan to reconstitute the Canadian Airborne Regiment

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll just assume this is all part of a plan to reconstitute the Canadian Airborne Regiment

I thought that was CSOR...

 

[markppcli]

The word “regiment” has many meanings, and we are seemingly talking past each other because of those different means … perhaps one more good reason that we should not import the Franco-American use of the word to describe a formation which is more accurately called a group. Anyway …

I am saying there can be only one regiment of a given type in a brigade. In that context, a regiment is a branded identity that is assigned to one or more units but which transcends organizational structure and follows a soldier through their career. You are using the word “regiment” where it is a synonym for battalion. All the artillery units in the fires brigade will be the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery.

I've actually used it in both contexts. In the case of the fires brigade you are correct, regiment and bn are synonymous. However your point on branded identies is something I also addressed as its simply not true that you can only have one in a brigade. Please see the structure of 1989 for a modern Canadian example, and any British brigade for an allied example.

We went through this recently. There have been examples of armoured battalions in Canada & UK. But sure, hide behind tradition as the reason to do the stupid thing.

Well if your argument is that Bdes can only have one regimental identity per arm because that's how we've done it since 1994 I'm not sure you're in the position to use maintenance of tradition as an attack.

I said are smaller & should be homogeneous, and you fully committed your rebuttal to the sometimes criteria. We did have combined arms groups before any still-existing CMBG was stood-up. Look up 1 CCG or 3 CCG. Also, 4 CMBG was combined arms when it was “just” a brigade because it was bigger than a group. The “Brigade Group” label was not for being combined arms, it is because the formation was granted a bunch of division level resources (arty, engineers, aviation, etc) to operate independently of a division.

Yes but youre still ignoring that we absolutely did operate single arm Ndes, and in fact that was the norm until Ilwe adopted CMBGs. While you argue that yhe division CS assets make it a Brigade Group, there's as much argument that the addition of the Armoured regiment (previously from the Divs armoured Bde) was equally instrumental.

On a related note; if CA wants to restructure as a war fighting division, maybe it is also time to restructure back to brigades and groups. There is a lot of crap in a CMBG tail that would make the manoeuvre commander’s job easier if someone else managed it.

We operated combat groups for what 4 years? Take a look at the history of 1 CCG ( i think its actually just 1 CG?).
1 Infantry Bde the 1 Infantry Bde Group then from 1972 to 1976 its 1 Combat Group before going to 1 CMBG. We'd just be adopting a very short lived name that probably confused more allies than anything.

It’s only the power of hindsight sight that allows the missed opportunity to be seen. There were good reasons to move the tanks when the decision was made. But, for training area utility, the RCDs would probably have been better moving themselves to C Sqn as opposed to moving C Sqn to them. They then would have been in a good position to argue to become the second tank unit. Wainwright will not be an easier location to keep tank maintainers than Gagetown.

Isn't the rheinmetal maintenance facility going to be built in Edmonton? Seems an easier move to 3rd line.

Thank Merriam-Webster. I think you also understand that professions have their own technical vernacular, and words that may be interchangeable to a layman have distinct and significant difference within the profession.

In this case he's correct, and there was no reason to be rude. Certainly no one's been uncurteous to you in this conversation.

 

[FJAG]

We operated combat groups for what 4 years? Take a look at the history of 1 CCG ( i think its actually just 1 CG?).
1 Infantry Bde the 1 Infantry Bde Group then from 1972 to 1976 its 1 Combat Group before going to 1 CMBG. We'd just be adopting a very short lived name that probably confused more allies than anything.

I'll second that. I served in both 1 and 2 Combat Groups during those years and even we didn't know what it was supposed to mean. We were a bit lighter. We did have tanks - Centurions - and one M113 equipped battalion but the other was light and we didn't have M109s like 4 CMBG - we had little L5s and only one or two batteries rather than three (but at least each had six guns).

I guess that "lightness" and the potential for air mobility which was lacking in 4 CMBG made us different enough to be given a different name. But then it was a strange time, where the army - under the guise of Mobile Command's 10 TAG owned not only its own helicopters but also its own CF-5 jet fighters. OTOH, Mobile Command didn't own 4 CMBG - CFE owned that.

 

[markppcli]

I'll second that. I served in both 1 and 2 Combat Groups during those years and even we didn't know what it was supposed to mean. We were a bit lighter. We did have tanks - Centurions - and one M113 equipped battalion but the other was light and we didn't have M109s like 4 CMBG - we had little L5s and only one or two batteries rather than three (but at least each had six guns).

I guess that "lightness" and the potential for air mobility which was lacking in 4 CMBG made us different enough to be given a different name. But then it was a strange time, where the army - under the guise of Mobile Command's 10 TAG owned not only its own helicopters but also its own CF-5 jet fighters. OTOH, Mobile Command didn't own 4 CMBG - CFE owned that.

4 CMBG at time being made up of Bns from at least two different infantry regiments.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Canada got into the habit of having an army too small for divisions and it warped institutional thinking.

The principle that it is easier to "break down" than to "group up" applies. A formed unit will be able to execute unit-level tasks more effectively than having to always compose one on the fly from sub-units. A formed division will fight more effectively than three independent brigade groups thrown together from a pool of independent brigade groups. It is particularly important to cleave to this principle with combat support and service support. Commanders can't be yanking pieces from their subordinates every time they need to concentrate a capability.

"Brigade" units don't have to be a single arm of service (eg. mixed armour/infantry, service support if you acknowledge the composition of functions/capabilities). A "brigade" may have some sub-units (eg. sigs for sure, recce/cav for manoeuvre arms brigades maybe, and that's about it).

Res F formations are administrative and not operational (fighting). Insistence on use of "brigade" for the HQs puzzles me, but we seem to be stuck with it even though most serious warfighting powers have managed to get by with some variation of "district" for their internal regional military organization. Composite groupings of Res F sub-units into battalions is an expedient solution for a pinch-penny nation.

If we had two regiments of light infantry we could form them into a brigade and call them demi-brigades...

 

[Ostrozac]

4 CMBG at time being made up of Bns from at least two different infantry regiments.

And sometimes that battalion was actually called a Commando from the Canadian Airborne Regiment. We have a rich tradition of unusual naming conventions — some of which make little sense.

Even today, the term ‘Group’ is being used for formations in the joint world — but it isn’t an indication of size. The Army, Navy and Air Force MP Groups are subordinate elements of CF MP Group. So a Group Commander can command other Group Commanders.

Not to mention Centre — where we can have a unit (Advanced Warfare Centre) subordinate to a L3 formation (Combat Training Centre) subordinate to a L2 formation (CADTC). The Centre CO works for the Centre Commander who works for the Centre Commander.

 

[McG]

I've actually used it in both contexts. In the case of the fires brigade you are correct, regiment and bn are synonymous. However your point on branded identies is something I also addressed as its simply not true that you can only have one in a brigade. Please see the structure of 1989 for a modern Canadian example, and any British brigade for an allied example.

There is research linking competing regimental identities to dysfunctions within mixed formations. You can leverage those identities to enhance collaboration between groups of different functions, but not so much between groups who do the same thing. Fragmentation via excessive regimental identities has been documented as contributing to problems in 27th Canadian Infantry Brigade through to the SSF. There is similar documentation showing balkanized identities, which actually benefited remote colonial outpost, became a hindrance to unity of effort from industrial era warfare through to recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are leveraging “has been done” to defend can and should be done. This is not the case.

We operated combat groups for what 4 years? Take a look at the history of 1 CCG ( i think its actually just 1 CG?).

2 CCG was ‘66 to ‘77 when it became SSF. I have seen both “Combat Group” and “Canadian Combat Group” used by different usually reliable sources, and I have no primary sources against which to verify. However, I do note that we started putting “Canadian” in the naming of brigades starting in the 50s so continuing that onto combat groups seems reasonable. Especially at a time when “CG” was the Canadian Guards.

Well if your argument is that Bdes can only have one regimental identity per arm because that's how we've done it since 1994 I'm not sure you're in the position to use maintenance of tradition as an attack.

This is a strawman. I making no argument based on “because that's how we've done it since 1994”. It is quite fair to reject executing a bad idea for the sake of tradition while simultaneously pointing out a false claim of something having never been done.

I served in both 1 and 2 Combat Groups during those years and even we didn't know what it was supposed to mean.

I assume you were cognizant of the doctrinal difference of a group being smaller than a brigade, and I understand there was also a real world distinction that the Brigade was commanded by a brigadier while the groups were commanded by colonels?

In this case he's correct, and there was no reason to be rude. Certainly no one's been courteous to you in this conversation.

I would say he is not correct. There is extant NATO doctrine that tells us groups and brigades are different. We ignore that often in branding different formations, but the distinction is there. The Merriam-Webster comment was unnecessary. But dismissing doctrinally extant distinctions is a bit much from a guy who splits hairs about the modern day organizational implications of Napoleonic era nuances between meanings of Cuirassiers, Hussars, Lancers, and Dragoons.

 

[McG]

Isn't the rheinmetal maintenance facility going to be built in Edmonton? Seems an easier move to 3rd line.

I believe it is KNDS. Maybe, but the FRG facility for AEVs is still in NB, and Wainwright will do nothing for first and second line support of any type of tank.

 

[markppcli]

Sorry @McG im trying to find an example of a "group" outside of the previously mentioned Canadian ones. Certainly army groups exist, or have existed, but im struggling to find any other examples. Can you point me to the NATO, or Canadian, doctrine source for a group?

 

[FJAG]

4 CMBG at time being made up of Bns from at least two different infantry regiments.

I can't off-hand think of a time when it was made up of battalions from the same regiment. Initially they rotated battalions after several years and it was always very regional. By the time I came on line the rotations had shifted to individual replacements with the units staying put. The battalions then were 1 R22eR and that quaint poliglot 3 Mech Cdo which had both PPCLI and RCR in it. 1 RCHA always had folks from all the regiments in Canada rotate through. I can't speak for the RCD but I do know they had folks from 8 CH there and, I presume, the LdSH and 12 RBC.