Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

For the record, I am strongly of the opinion that the future of armed conflict looks a lot more like our North West Rebellion and Afghanistan, in all its phases, than the conflicts of Verdun, of the Hitler Line and the Inner German Border.

 

[McG]

Pedantic point but the lazy E inside an arena has always been used to indicate Armoured Engineers in Canada and never just Combat Engineers.

I know US doctrine has identified it as tracked mechanized combat engineers, but the US also used the name "combat engineer vehicle" to describe what Canada calls an armoured engineer vehicle. I am also aware that NATO doctrine from October 1998 until May 2011 was consistent with US but otherwise, both before and after that time, the lazy E inside an arena is explicitly Armoured Engineers. But Canadian engineers didn't change the map symbols to identify themselves through that 13 year blip. CERs and Fd Sqns shouldn't be out fighting their vehicles, so it is the mobility differences that matter to capabilities of these organizations and it was mobility that featured in the tac sign of CER, Fd Sqn, and Fd Tp:

MTVE based troops continue to use the lazy E over a tracked mobility indicator, but by about 2010 we had started importing symbols used by US SBCT Engineers for our LAV based Sqns and Tps ... but the US Army has since gotten away from using this symbol and invented something new:



The current US symbol is not in step with NATO standards. If we really, really feel that the map symbol for Cbt Engr need to show the armour protected status of mechanized elements, then NATO standards would suggest we use these:

Also, a support squadron should never be show as mechanized because they never are. They are always primarily mounted in very heavy logistics vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

'Nudder thought.

How do you keep the inventory in the warehouse fresh. Turnover.

You exploit the National Defence Act



This will also keep the production lines in Canadian factories open. 8x8 trucks from Quebec. Utility ACSVs from London. etc.

Sell or donate a portion of the inventory to Global Affairs for international donations, to the provinces, to municipalities, NGOs, Crown Surplus for sale of secure items to the general public.

That office already exists somewhere in your structure. The poor buggers just have nothing to sell except beaten and abused crap.

Pedantic point but the lazy E inside an arena has always been used to indicate Armoured Engineers in Canada and never just Combat Engineers.

I know US doctrine has identified it as tracked mechanized combat engineers, but the US also used the name "combat engineer vehicle" to describe what Canada calls an armoured engineer vehicle. I am also aware that NATO doctrine from October 1998 until May 2011 was consistent with US but otherwise, both before and after that time, the lazy E inside an arena is explicitly Armoured Engineers. But Canadian engineers didn't change the map symbols to identify themselves through that 13 year blip. CERs and Fd Sqns shouldn't be out fighting their vehicles, so it is the mobility differences that matter to capabilities of these organizations and it was mobility that featured in the tac sign of CER, Fd Sqn, and Fd Tp:

MTVE based troops continue to use the lazy E over a tracked mobility indicator, but by about 2010 we had started importing symbols used by US SBCT Engineers for our LAV based Sqns and Tps ... but the US Army has since gotten away from using this symbol and invented something new:

View attachment 66955

The current US symbol is not in step with NATO standards. If we really, really feel that the map symbol for Cbt Engr need to show the armour protected status of mechanized elements, then NATO standards would suggest we use these:

Also, a support squadron should never be show as mechanized because they never are. They are always primarily mounted in very heavy logistics vehicles.

I luv a good pedant on the weekend!

Thanks for the info McG.

 

[McG]

I can see that concern although I'm not advocating a return to a US Army DISCOM. I tend to like artillery grouping terminology and in that respect I see a bde svc bn under command of the Sust Bde but in direct support of the manoeuvre bde.

Canadian terminology was Division Support Group (DISGP). There was also a division engineer group (Div Engr Gp) and a division medical group (Div Med Gp).

At the time, brigades would have been commanded by brigadier generals but groups were only commanded by colonels. I don’t meant to advocate that we should or should not go back to this, but I do like the idea that sometimes maybe a smaller level of HQ is okay.

 

[FJAG]

Pedantic point but the lazy E inside an arena has always been used to indicate Armoured Engineers in Canada and never just Combat Engineers.

I know US doctrine has identified it as tracked mechanized combat engineers, but the US also used the name "combat engineer vehicle" to describe what Canada calls an armoured engineer vehicle. I am also aware that NATO doctrine from October 1998 until May 2011 was consistent with US but otherwise, both before and after that time, the lazy E inside an arena is explicitly Armoured Engineers. But Canadian engineers didn't change the map symbols to identify themselves through that 13 year blip. CERs and Fd Sqns shouldn't be out fighting their vehicles, so it is the mobility differences that matter to capabilities of these organizations and it was mobility that featured in the tac sign of CER, Fd Sqn, and Fd Tp:

MTVE based troops continue to use the lazy E over a tracked mobility indicator, but by about 2010 we had started importing symbols used by US SBCT Engineers for our LAV based Sqns and Tps ... but the US Army has since gotten away from using this symbol and invented something new:

View attachment 66955

The current US symbol is not in step with NATO standards. If we really, really feel that the map symbol for Cbt Engr need to show the armour protected status of mechanized elements, then NATO standards would suggest we use these:

Also, a support squadron should never be show as mechanized because they never are. They are always primarily mounted in very heavy logistics vehicles.

No problems and I've made some changes.

In 1 CER, I intended that one of the squadrons be an armoured engineer squadron. The SUP squadrons should quite rightly not be "armoured" and I've changed them to wheeled. The remaining squadron in the Res F armoured brigade and in the two mech brigades were intended to be LAV based engineer vehicles hence "engineer" inside "armoured" over "wheeled cross country/all terrain" which is why I stayed with the earlier version of the SBCT Engineer unit. My software package doesn't facilitate the 2020 Stryker version although I could probably fool around with the "tracked" modifier to achieve something like that but find it confusing. Somewhat the same with using a "CBT" modifier which I felt redundant.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Canadian terminology was Division Support Group (DISGP). There was also a division engineer group (Div Engr Gp) and a division medical group (Div Med Gp).

At the time, brigades would have been commanded by brigadier generals but groups were only commanded by colonels. I don’t meant to advocate that we should or should not go back to this, but I do like the idea that sometimes maybe a smaller level of HQ is okay.

In essence I'm not advocating a return to a DISGP either although some of the Force 2025 COAs mimic some of that structure but not the terminology.

Unless my memory is failing me, the DISGP was a hypothetical structure in support of Corps 86 doctrine, unlike the US DISCOM which was a very real organization which the US subsequently broke up into Sustainment Brigades once CBTs were formed at the turn of the century.

Even the Brits had a SISGPish structure whereby under Army 2020 Refine, the manoeuvre brigades did not have either a logistic element nor an artillery element. Those were contained within 101 Logistics Brigade which had some 21 bn sized logistics, maintenance, and transport regiments to be parceled out as needed. All the artillery was found in 1st Artillery Brigade's nine regiments and 7th Air Defence Group's three regiments. The Brits Army restructure under Integrated Review seems to get rid of the Logistics Brigade in favour of dividing up the logistics resources amongst the Manoeuvre combat teams (like we and the US have now) and retaining the more esoteric artillery (including air defence) in an artillery brigade while distributing close support artillery to the manoeuvre combat teams. I say "seems" because the restructure is still new and ongoing and I'm not sure where it will end up.

Personally I think getting rid of the Logistics brigade or Sustainment brigade is a mistake. It makes providing logistics support behind the brigade difficult regardless as to whether the brigade deploys independently or as part of a division. I'm firmly in the camp of each battlegroup having its own organic CSS A and B Echs, a brigade having its own Service bn and the Army having further logistics units to provide the core of a divisional CSS support (in an emergency) as well as theatre level national support during day-to-day operations to whatever sized force is deployed so that we do not have to rob the A Echs to form NSEs.

 

[KevinB]

Personally I think getting rid of the Logistics brigade or Sustainment brigade is a mistake. It makes providing logistics support behind the brigade difficult regardless as to whether the brigade deploys independently or as part of a division.

My problem is it make more higher HQ when there really isn't a need/
Both those Bde's then require HQ's - and IMHO that staff should be either part of the Div G4 - or not needed.

I'm firmly in the camp of each battlegroup having its own organic CSS A and B Echs, a brigade having its own Service bn and the Army having further logistics units to provide the core of a divisional CSS support (in an emergency) as well as theatre level national support during day-to-day operations to whatever sized force is deployed so that we do not have to rob the A Echs to form NSEs.

Personally I have a hard time with NCE and NSE entities.
Simply because I see 99% of them as a waste.
Regardless of the size of the deployed entity - it should be setup to operate in a up/down construct.
If a Bde is deployed - it should be communicating with it's parent Div for C2- it shouldn't matter if the Div is deployed or not.
If a Cdn Bde is deployed with a MultiNational Div - it may require more LO pers, but it really shouldn't change that much.

The same thought goes into the NSE - if the Bde is deployed it should have robust enough support network to sustain itself - which admittedly I favor a heavy support ratio already.

The only real issue comes up with smaller than Bde organizations are deployed - and those should be supportable by the Bde forward deploying assets in support, either a Support Structure - or a Bde HQ segment - as opposed to a separate from the Bde structure.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My problem is it make more higher HQ when there really isn't a need/
Both those Bde's then require HQ's - and IMHO that staff should be either part of the Div G4 - or not needed.

Personally I have a hard time with NCE and NSE entities.
Simply because I see 99% of them as a waste.
Regardless of the size of the deployed entity - it should be setup to operate in a up/down construct.
If a Bde is deployed - it should be communicating with it's parent Div for C2- it shouldn't matter if the Div is deployed or not.
If a Cdn Bde is deployed with a MultiNational Div - it may require more LO pers, but it really shouldn't change that much.

The same thought goes into the NSE - if the Bde is deployed it should have robust enough support network to sustain itself - which admittedly I favor a heavy support ratio already.

The only real issue comes up with smaller than Bde organizations are deployed - and those should be supportable by the Bde forward deploying assets in support, either a Support Structure - or a Bde HQ segment - as opposed to a separate from the Bde structure.

Should. I was part of 2 NSE rotos for Afghanistan. I do not think these organizations would have been able to achieve any success had it not been for the augmentation from the rest of the CAF Logistics and RCEME communities.

I floored at how broken the Svc Bns were and how filled with the sick, lame and lazy they were.

It was concerning to form up for Coy or BN PT and watch the separation of those on MELs and those fit.

Little feather in my cap, I remember my CSM on TF 1-10 telling me "LS K_____ , I don't know why by my sailors are my best soldiers".

We have issues in the RCN as well, not skirting that.

 

[KevinB]

Should. I was part of 2 NSE rotos for Afghanistan. I do not think these organizations would have been able to achieve any success had it not been for the augmentation from the rest of the CAF Logistics and RCEME communities.

I floored at how broken the Svc Bns were and how filled with the sick, lame and lazy they were.

It was concerning to form up for Coy or BN PT and watch the separation of those on MELs and those fit.

Little feather in my cap, I remember my CSM on TF 1-10 telling me "LS K_____ , I don't know why by my sailors are my best soldiers".

We have issues in the RCN as well, not skirting that.

That is part of my point -- it shouldn't be that way.

 

[MilEME09]

Should. I was part of 2 NSE rotos for Afghanistan. I do not think these organizations would have been able to achieve any success had it not been for the augmentation from the rest of the CAF Logistics and RCEME communities.

I floored at how broken the Svc Bns were and how filled with the sick, lame and lazy they were.

It was concerning to form up for Coy or BN PT and watch the separation of those on MELs and those fit.

Little feather in my cap, I remember my CSM on TF 1-10 telling me "LS K_____ , I don't know why by my sailors are my best soldiers".

We have issues in the RCN as well, not skirting that.

If it is any consolation they have finally admitted CSS is broken and can't support it self.

In all seriousness though it pains me that our system is so broken, and yet it is so difficult as a tech to also augment the Reg force. CSS needs a complete over haul of how we train and manage our personal. We also need to make it easier for ARes support to work along side the reg force. There should be no reason why, with enough lead time I can't send techs to 1 SVC for a couple weeks. Frankly if I could send my platoon to 1 Svc or base maintenance in wainwright for two weeks, it would be far more beneficial for all then a brigade exercise.

 

[FJAG]

My problem is it make more higher HQ when there really isn't a need/
Both those Bde's then require HQ's - and IMHO that staff should be either part of the Div G4 - or not needed.

We'll continue to disagree on that. The issue is the size of the staff involved. If a Div G4 staff is required to look after the minutiae of administering and training the various logistics battalions and companies, it will soon grow to the size of a brigade headquarters in its own right.

Like you I despise the number of headquarters that we have. I think the Army's divisional headquarters and its numerous Res F brigade headquarters are an absolute waste of resources and an impediment to efficient administration and training. In the same way, the RCAF has a total strength of 17,000 Reg F and Res F personnel broken into 14 wings and 38 flying and 21 non flying squadrons for roughly 400 aircraft. It strikes me that functionally both the Army and the Air Force could operate more efficiently with half the number of each (and in the case of Army divisions no more than two)

But sometimes you do need an interposed headquarters to maintain overarching responsibilities for the training (and thereby maintenance of standards) and organization of its various battalions and to offload those responsibilities from the line commander and his staff. CSS and artillery comes under that rubric for me. Engineers too. Maybe what we really need is to get rid of "branches" for any of the agencies where there is a possible need to deploy them as an entity of an aggregate of several of its units. It works at all levels. Would you really want to take away a support company and a CSS company from an infantry battalion just to save the cost of two majors and their staff just because there is already an S3 and S4 in the battalion HQ? (and yes I know, our bn HQs are slightly different, but the same principle applies)

The same thought goes into the NSE - if the Bde is deployed it should have robust enough support network to sustain itself - which admittedly I favor a heavy support ratio already.

The only real issue comes up with smaller than Bde organizations are deployed - and those should be supportable by the Bde forward deploying assets in support, either a Support Structure - or a Bde HQ segment - as opposed to a separate from the Bde structure.

Again I'll keep disagreeing. Our bns, regiments etc are doctrinally designed to plug into a rear CSS element which, within the brigade, is currently the Bde svc bn. If a bn deploys independently then it needs to have a rear element supplied that takes the place of a svc bn and relieves it of the complexity of having to deal with numerous national CSS agencies and HQs. And yes, a forward deployed element of the svc bn could do that but it would do so at the cost of taking those resources away from the remainder of the brigade.

The alternative way is to have a CSS structure in Canada that is tasked with providing that forward support element and which has the resources to augment the theatre level support with additional logistics, transport etc resources regardless of the size of the deployed force or its location. In other words it has the ability to scale up if that deployed battle group needs to be expanded.

I can live with your systems by prefer my option simply because it has additional resources to draw on (in the way of its own organic Res F CSS units) without robbing resources from other manoeuvre brigades. What I can't abide is the current NSE methodology.

 

[McG]

I do wonder why you have a division support group nested inside a division support brigade.
Would this not have the effect of unnecessarily inflating the higher level HQ?

 

[KevinB]

We'll continue to disagree on that.

My belief is that everything should be setup in a deployable state - not the deplorable state that things currently are.


I'm a firm believer in J bases - in fact my only "purple" tasking would be to people posted to a base/station etc.
They don't truly belong to any element themselves -


FWIW while I am vehemently opposed to Regimental HQ's for the CBT Arms, and most HQ's, I would not remove a CSS Coy from a BN.

I am just not truly tracking what a Supply Bde would do in an Army with only 1 field Div.
I would accept Supply Depot - but I feel Bde is a deployable formation - and maybe that this where I get caught on the lingo.

I can live with your systems by prefer my option simply because it has additional resources to draw on (in the way of its own organic Res F CSS units) without robbing resources from other manoeuvre brigades. What I can't abide is the current NSE methodology.

My belief is that each Bde should have enough organic support - that it can deploy 3-4 Cbt Team Task Forces - and not need to reach outside itself - other than for transport to a location via the RCN or RCAF (or allies).
IF the Bde cannot do that -- how during a full Bde deployment could it truly support all its assets?

 

[FJAG]

I do wonder why you have a division support group nested inside a division support brigade.
Would this not have the effect of unnecessarily inflating the higher level HQ?

It's not so much putting a division support group inside a division support group. It's more a desire to differentiate between static and deployable resources within a single CSS CoC.

I wanted to build deployable Sustainment brigades. In my previous though processes I got rid of the CCSB and built a sustainment brigade, an artillery brigade and a manoeuvre enhancement brigade.

In this one I kept the CCSB rather than a manoeuvre enhancement brigade - tomatoe/tomahtow - and found I wanted more CSS so I took the CSS that I had previously in my manoeuvre enhancement brigade and added a few things to it and said - okay that should do BUT I then took a look at the static DSGs and said to myself why should they be a separate element. Why not have them subordinate to the sustainment brigade and if the brigade should ever need to deploy, in whole or in part, then the DSGs stay behind and provide the ongoing technical and base support for whatever elements of the division are left behind or whatever new force is constituting. Basically I wanted one chain of command for CSS within the division even if part of the structure was deployable and the other was static.

Remember too that the deployment of a full support brigade is IMHO an unlikely event. I use it more as an organization, heavy on Res F elements designed to provide individual or coy size deployed theatre level CSS support elements.

I see this bde with a BGen as bde commander (all manoeuvre bdes are Cols), a Col in charge of the DSG and every other unit a LCol. I mostly see the DSG as a Col level because by reducing the number of divisions there are now several existing DSGs being amalgamated across the regions - I thought that was beyond the scope of a single LCol to run. I could easily be talked down on all those ranks by someone more in tune with CSS than me. I could also be talked into having the DSG in overall command of all CSS in the division so long as there are several static support "bns" to look after the division's day-to-day CSS needs and several "deployable" CSS units to provide bde svc bns and other deployable CSS divisional support and so long as the DSG is capable of generating a deployable Sustainment brigade HQ to manage deployed divisional CSS elements.

I'm open to suggestions.

 

[MilEME09]

It's not so much putting a division support group inside a division support group. It's more a desire to differentiate between static and deployable resources within a single CSS CoC.

I wanted to build deployable Sustainment brigades. In my previous though processes I got rid of the CCSB and built a sustainment brigade, an artillery brigade and a manoeuvre enhancement brigade.

In this one I kept the CCSB rather than a manoeuvre enhancement brigade - tomatoe/tomahtow - and found I wanted more CSS so I took the CSS that I had previously in my manoeuvre enhancement brigade and added a few things to it and said - okay that should do BUT I then took a look at the static DSGs and said to myself why should they be a separate element. Why not have them subordinate to the sustainment brigade and if the brigade should ever need to deploy, in whole or in part, then the DSGs stay behind and provide the ongoing technical and base support for whatever elements of the division are left behind or whatever new force is constituting. Basically I wanted one chain of command for CSS within the division even if part of the structure was deployable and the other was static.

Remember too that the deployment of a full support brigade is IMHO an unlikely event. I use it more as an organization, heavy on Res F elements designed to provide individual or coy size deployed theatre level CSS support elements.

I see this bde with a BGen as bde commander (all manoeuvre bdes are Cols), a Col in charge of the DSG and every other unit a LCol. I mostly see the DSG as a Col level because by reducing the number of divisions there are now several existing DSGs being amalgamated across the regions - I thought that was beyond the scope of a single LCol to run. I could easily be talked down on all those ranks by someone more in tune with CSS than me. I could also be talked into having the DSG in overall command of all CSS in the division so long as there are several static support "bns" to look after the division's day-to-day CSS needs and several "deployable" CSS units to provide bde svc bns and other deployable CSS divisional support and so long as the DSG is capable of generating a deployable Sustainment brigade HQ to manage deployed divisional CSS elements.

I'm open to suggestions.

One thing I have noticed with CSS, look at a service battalion ORBAT, it should be a much larger organization. However it seems like we try to apply a combat arms ORBAT structure to non combat organizations.

 

[FJAG]

My belief is that everything should be setup in a deployable state - not the deplorable state that things currently are.

I'm a firm believer in J bases - in fact my only "purple" tasking would be to people posted to a base/station etc.
They don't truly belong to any element themselves -

FWIW while I am vehemently opposed to Regimental HQ's for the CBT Arms, and most HQ's, I would not remove a CSS Coy from a BN.

For the record - neither would I.

I am just not truly tracking what a Supply Bde would do in an Army with only 1 field Div.
I would accept Supply Depot - but I feel Bde is a deployable formation - and maybe that this where I get caught on the lingo.

A sustainment brigade is a deployable asset. Here's a couple of snippets from "ATP 4-93 - Sustainment Brigade"

1.1 The sustainment brigade is a multifunctional headquarters integrating and employing all assigned and attached units while planning and synchronizing sustainment operations. It is the Army's primary brigade level sustainment headquarters. The sustainment brigade supports Army forces at the tactical and operational levels, providing support to brigade combat teams (BCTs), multifunctional and functional support brigades, deployable, self-contained division and corps headquarters, and other units operating in its assigned support area. Depending upon operational and mission variables, the sustainment brigade commands between three and seven battalions. Sustainment brigades are usually assigned or attached to a sustainment command. The sustainment brigade and its attached units will normally have a general support relationship with supported organizations.

1-10 The sustainment brigade executes logistics and personnel services functions associated with theater opening, sustainment, distribution, and theater closing missions. A function is a practical grouping of tasks and systems (people, organizations, information, and processes) united by a common purpose (ADP 1-01).
Properly task organized, a sustainment brigade could be conducting theater opening tasks, sustainment and theater distribution tasks during the early phases of an operation or if it is the only sustainment brigade in the joint operations area (JOA). This same sustainment brigade, with a different task organization, can transition
to conducting a theater distribution mission or sustainment mission.

A sustainment brigade is fully deployable and designed to be specifically tailored through atts to the mission. In the US there are numerous CSS bns, coys and dets that can be grafted into a Sustainment Brigade. Because of the small size of our Army I have given some of those a home within the brigade itself. Whether or not any or all of those elements deploy in any given circumstance depends on the situation.

My belief is that each Bde should have enough organic support - that it can deploy 3-4 Cbt Team Task Forces - and not need to reach outside itself - other than for transport to a location via the RCN or RCAF (or allies).
IF the Bde cannot do that -- how during a full Bde deployment could it truly support all its assets?

That's not the question though.

I agree fully that the Bde, through its svc bn should be able to support itself with all of its 1st and 2nd line needs whether deployed in whole or in part. But, even an Army as small as ours needs to fulfil the functions being provided by a US Sustainment brigade. We do it in part through CFJOG, 1 Cdn Div HQ and ad hoc Theatre Activation Teams, NSEs and Mission Draw-Down Teams. All I'm doing is putting those existing elements into a deployable formation which uses existing Reg F personnel already providing those functions as its core and adding a Res F structure around that specifically so that the activities can be scaled up in time of need.

To put all of those capabilities into Bde Svc bns is inefficient. The existing Svc bns are not structured for that and would be overwhelmed, and if so structured would have resources that would sit idle for most of the time when the brigade has no elements forward deployed.

One thing I have noticed with CSS, look at a service battalion ORBAT, it should be a much larger organization. However it seems like we try to apply a combat arms ORBAT structure to non combat organizations.

Agreed to an extent.

I take a look at things from the viewpoint of a US brigade support battalion (BSB) and factor out that it includes a medical company, which in our establishment is the Field Ambulance. I also factor out the Forward Support Companies, which in our establishments are the HQ or admin or CSS companies organic to each regiment or battalion.

That basically leaves an ABCT's BSB with

• a headquarters company (85 all ranks, 24 vehicles);
• a field maintenance company (118 all ranks, 46 vehicles); and
• a distribution company (140 all ranks, 75 vehicles)
• Total 343 all ranks and 145 vehicles
• (and just as an aside each of the six FSCs have approximately 150 pers in them for an additional appx 900 personnel and another 170, give or take, vehicles).

By contrast a Reg F Cdn Svc Bn already hovers between 800 and 900 all ranks (even though it has no FSCs) and I have no idea how many vehicles, nor do I have any idea as to how many of those personnel are in static only roles. If my memory serves me correctly, the deployable element of a Cdn Service Bn now has a transport company, a supply company, a maintenance company and an administration company. That's a bit of a change because in my day transportation and supply, if I recall correctly, was combined in one S&T company which operated like a US distribution company.

I have absolutely no idea why a Svc bn needs an admin company at all. But then again I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue the case one way or the other - I'm just left wondering why a full sized armoured BCT can get by with 343 people fulfilling all functions of the brigade's 2nd line support as well as its own 1st line without the need of its own admin coy. It should be sufficient to just have a small HQ and two companies - one S&T and one maintenance.

I'm a great fan of CSS but our structure leaves me wondering as to its efficiencies.

 

[MilEME09]

For the record - neither would I.

A sustainment brigade is a deployable asset. Here's a couple of snippets from "ATP 4-93 - Sustainment Brigade"



A sustainment brigade is fully deployable and designed to be specifically tailored through atts to the mission. In the US there are numerous CSS bns, coys and dets that can be grafted into a Sustainment Brigade. Because of the small size of our Army I have given some of those a home within the brigade itself. Whether or not any or all of those elements deploy in any given circumstance depends on the situation.

That's not the question though.

I agree fully that the Bde, through its svc bn should be able to support itself with all of its 1st and 2nd line needs whether deployed in whole or in part. But, even an Army as small as ours needs to fulfil the functions being provided by a US Sustainment brigade. We do it in part through CFJOG, 1 Cdn Div HQ and ad hoc Theatre Activation Teams, NSEs and Mission Draw-Down Teams. All I'm doing is putting those existing elements into a deployable formation which uses existing Reg F personnel already providing those functions as its core and adding a Res F structure around that specifically so that the activities can be scaled up in time of need.

To put all of those capabilities into Bde Svc bns is inefficient. The existing Svc bns are not structured for that and would be overwhelmed, and if so structured would have resources that would sit idle for most of the time when the brigade has no elements forward deployed.


Agreed to an extent.

I take a look at things from the viewpoint of a US brigade support battalion (BSB) and factor out that it includes a medical company, which in our establishment is the Field Ambulance. I also factor out the Forward Support Companies, which in our establishments are the HQ or admin or CSS companies organic to each regiment or battalion.

That basically leaves an ABCT's BSB with

• a headquarters company (85 all ranks, 24 vehicles);
• a field maintenance company (118 all ranks, 46 vehicles); and
• a distribution company (140 all ranks, 75 vehicles)
• Total 343 all ranks and 145 vehicles
• (and just as an aside each of the six FSCs have approximately 150 pers in them for an additional appx 900 personnel and another 170, give or take, vehicles).

By contrast a Reg F Cdn Svc Bn already hovers between 800 and 900 all ranks (even though it has no FSCs) and I have no idea how many vehicles, nor do I have any idea as to how many of those personnel are in static only roles. If my memory serves me correctly, the deployable element of a Cdn Service Bn now has a transport company, a supply company, a maintenance company and an administration company. That's a bit of a change because in my day transportation and supply, if I recall correctly, was combined in one S&T company which operated like a US distribution company.

I have absolutely no idea why a Svc bn needs an admin company at all. But then again I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue the case one way or the other - I'm just left wondering why a full sized armoured BCT can get by with 343 people fulfilling all functions of the brigade's 2nd line support as well as its own 1st line without the need of its own admin coy. It should be sufficient to just have a small HQ and two companies - one S&T and one maintenance.

I'm a great fan of CSS but our structure leaves me wondering as to its efficiencies.

FJAG, Admin Coy looks after the battalion it self, while the Coys look after the brigade. One could argue admin coy could be folded into the companies and just provide all support regardless.

This would reduce battalion HQ to essentially being LogOPs,

 

[KevinB]

FJAG, Admin Coy looks after the battalion it self, while the Coys look after the brigade. One could argue admin coy could be folded into the companies and just provide all support regardless.

I prefer to call it HQ Coy
I detest the term Admin - as it removes the Command aspect, unless you are making yet another Coy for the sake of making a Coy.

I guess I will concede to @FJAG as his Bde does make sense in the larger construct.

Because If I have a:
BN with a: HQ Coy, Point Stick Coy's, Support Coy
Bde with a: HQ, Pointy Stick Bn's, Reg't etc and a Support/Service Bn (and hopefully a few other those)

I guess it follows that the Div will have:
DIV HQ, Pointy Stick Bde's, a Support Bde
and higher etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

And working from the macro to the micro

Following the all arms construct, then each section will have its own Fire Controller and its Communicator. Much like the USMCs new Expeditionary Squads of 16.

Squads that are dispersed ISR packages that can concentrate fires from all launchers in range.

In fact you could call a new Littoral Battalion an ISR Battalion.

 

[FJAG]

FJAG, Admin Coy looks after the battalion it self, while the Coys look after the brigade. One could argue admin coy could be folded into the companies and just provide all support regardless.

This would reduce battalion HQ to essentially being LogOPs,

I prefer to call it HQ Coy
I detest the term Admin - as it removes the Command aspect, unless you are making yet another Coy for the sake of making a Coy.

I guess I will concede to @FJAG as his Bde does make sense in the larger construct.

Because If I have a:
BN with a: HQ Coy, Point Stick Coy's, Support Coy
Bde with a: HQ, Pointy Stick Bn's, Reg't etc and a Support/Service Bn (and hopefully a few other those)

I guess it follows that the Div will have:
DIV HQ, Pointy Stick Bde's, a Support Bde
and higher etc.

I dislike the term Admin coy as well but at the same time dislike the term HQ Coy too. We're anything but consistent in the use of our terminology.

Back when I was a young pup all we had was a regimental headquarters and three gun batteries. Part and parcel to the regimental headquarters were the Maint O, the RQM, the MO together with the Sigs O, the Adjt, the Ops O and the RCPO. All captains with their own troops or sections and all but the Ops O and the RCPO (who generally responded direct to the CO) generally corralled under the DCOs direction. - and it worked fine. I think there was a time when every battalion level and even brigades worked that way.

And then someone said, let's form a Regt HQ Bty which did nothing really except add a new major and another MWO and another clerk to the organization. I see the service bn something like that. With the main CSS functions already inherent within the S&T company and the maintenance company, all you really need to do is add a sig troop to the svc bn headquarters and Bob's your uncle.

So I do see your point too, Kevin. We don't always need a new HQ entity if you already have functioning hierarchy inherent in the basic organization. Mind you it makes the line diagram look neater.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have also seen the Command and Support reference.

But then that can either be Command and Staff with the Sigs and Recce

Or it could be Command and Staff with the Sigs and Service Support while Recce and Mortars and Anti Air join Machine Guns and Anti Tank in Combat Support.

Or the mortars can be in the C&S as well while Recce and Sigs go to CS. And occasionally Pioneers find themselves in CSS rather than CS or, even sometimes C&S.