Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

What if every sub-unit of the Infantry and the Cavalry had its own Indirect Fire sub-sub-unit?

Eg

Light Infantry Company has a 81mm mortar platoon
Light Cavalry Squadron has a 70mm rocket troop
Medium Infantry/Cavalry Company/Squadron has a mounted 120mm mortar platoon/troop (Mjolnir)
Tank Squadron loses 5 of its 19 Leos and is pared down to a 14 tank American Squadron but adds 4x AMOS 120mm mortars and a FSCC vehicle.

 

[GR66]

Back to the Polish Leos...too bad that we're no longer a country that takes initiative. We could upgrade our 2A6M's and the Polish 2A5's to 2A7 standard for the RCD (and couple of Reserve Squadrons) and use their and our 2A4's to convert into HAPCs for the PPCLI to give us a true Heavy Brigade.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Back to the Polish Leos...too bad that we're no longer a country that takes initiative. We could upgrade our 2A6M's and the Polish 2A5's to 2A7 standard for the RCD (and couple of Reserve Squadrons) and use their and our 2A4's to convert into HAPCs for the PPCLI to give us a true Heavy Brigade.

IMHO taking the initiative would be to do as Poland is doing and divesting Canada of its Leos and adopting the M1A2. The 3 Baltic states would likely find a way to make use of the Leos. Donate a few more LAVs and replace them with Bradleys and their variants. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Dale Denton]

IMHO taking the initiative would be to do as Poland is doing and divesting Canada of its Leos and adopting the M1A2. The 3 Baltic states would likely find a way to make use of the Leos. Donate a few more LAVs and replace them with Bradleys and their variants. Again, just my opinion.

I agree, it just makes more sense at the end of the day to just acknowledge that we're tied to the USA.

This new Abrams being teased by GDLS at AUSA 2022 would be a big and quick win for GDLS with another Abrams nation. Buy into the US Abrams maintenance program for a big new facility/employer in Canada. It buys us ties to the US defence industry and its influence within the US govt through. Would get them off our backs on defence spending too. And oh ya, gives us a cutting edge yet proven tank with better Canadian industrial benefits. Give Poland (and later Ukraine) our Leos.

They're announcing a new STRYKER vehicle too, probably has a lot in common with LAV 6.0 I assume. Rebuild the vehicle fleet with new variants and be able to justify sustaining the capability financially long term.

An Army NSS.

 

[FJAG]

I meant for actual deployments.
I agree with the "should" section, but I tried to constrain my thinking to a straight tank purchase rather than a sweeping restructure. The Polish divestment could present a somewhat non-dreaming opportunity for a snap decision, but it doesn't let us go back in time to :
-have CCV go through and equip 1 CABG with Leo's and CV9035
-which leads to LAV UP taking a more Stryker/British Boxer approach to equip 5CMBG with RWS armed ISC's and a proper suite of variants
-somehow prevent TAPV from happening and instead spend that money on a mix of license built Finnish MiSu's, Ocelots, and Fennek's

I think we have the people and facilities to build two armoured brigades - one RegF heavy, one ResF heavy - within the western part of the country. At first that could be done through a shared equipment structure of one brigade's worth of equipment and eventually developed to a prepositioned brigade's worth of equipment in Europe and one back in Canada.

If you accept the LAV as the infantry carrier then we wouldn't even need much additional gear initially. Eventually they should be equipped with a better generation of tanks and IFVs.

All that said, its probably a bridge too far and too ambitious for the Army to even attempt.

 

[GR66]

IMHO taking the initiative would be to do as Poland is doing and divesting Canada of its Leos and adopting the M1A2. The 3 Baltic states would likely find a way to make use of the Leos. Donate a few more LAVs and replace them with Bradleys and their variants. Again, just my opinion.

No issue with getting M1's for our Heavy Brigade...I've said previously that we should strive for commonality of equipment with the US as much as possible for the simple reason that if we ever go to war we can make use of their massive logistics capabilities.

That being said, there is clearly a reluctance in many of our elected politicians to be seen as getting too close to the United States and that shows in our military procurement. Instead of first looking at what the US is using and determining if there is a valid reason why we can't use the same we tend to want to try and reinvent the wheel to meet our "unique Canadian requirements". Those "requirements" unfortunately often seem to be more political than military.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I think

I think we have the people and facilities to build two armoured brigades - one RegF heavy, one ResF heavy - within the western part of the country. At first that could be done through a shared equipment structure of one brigade's worth of equipment and eventually developed to a prepositioned brigade's worth of equipment in Europe and one back in Canada.

If you accept the LAV as the infantry carrier then we wouldn't even need much additional gear initially. Eventually they should be equipped with a better generation of tanks and IFVs.

All that said, its probably a bridge too far and too ambitious for the Army to even attempt.

I think Ontario is the key to unlocking your 70/30, 30/70.

Its just such a perfect fit geographically and with respect to the reserve CBG's. 70/30 2 CLBGin Petawawa(Light Protected Mobility) in TAPV's( ideally JLTV or Ocelot) and MiSu's/ modernized Bisons, 30/70 3 CLBG (Light Motorized) in commercial side by sides and/ or ISV.

After that I wonder if the 30/70 reserve brigade is the best use the PY's. Use the Alberta PRes to make 1 CABG a 70/30, but then re-role and spread the Regulars around as necessary to add capabilities. BC gets a 30/70 coastal defence battlegroup (battery of surface to surface, battery of shorad, a couple companies of mountain infantry to defend them) Sask/Man provides expanded artillery with HIMARS, loitering munitions, Shorad, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think

I think Ontario is the key to unlocking your 70/30, 30/70.

Its just such a perfect fit geographically and with respect to the reserve CBG's. 70/30 2 CLBGin Petawawa(Light Protected Mobility) in TAPV's( ideally JLTV or Ocelot) and MiSu's/ modernized Bisons, 30/70 3 CLBG (Light Motorized) in commercial side by sides and/ or ISV.

After that I wonder if the 30/70 reserve brigade is the best use the PY's. Use the Alberta PRes to make 1 CABG a 70/30, but then re-role and spread the Regulars around as necessary to add capabilities. BC gets a 30/70 coastal defence battlegroup (battery of surface to surface, battery of shorad, a couple companies of mountain infantry to defend them) Sask/Man provides expanded artillery with HIMARS, loitering munitions, Shorad, etc.

Here is your biggest challenge in Ontario in particular and urban Canada in general.

The 2016 Census enumerated over 7.5 million foreign-born individuals in Canada, accounting for 21.9% of the total population. In Ontario, 3,852,145 foreign-born residents represented 29.1% of total population, the highest proportion among provinces.

Toronto's foreign-born population accounted for 46.1% of its total population in 2016, up slightly from 2011 (46.0%) and still the highest share among CMAs in Canada. Vancouver came in second at 40.8%.

The pool of recruits is not your traditional recruit pool. Many of the potentials are averse to military service and/or service to the Crown. And many of the rest are disinclined and/or incapable of meeting the traditional standards and expectations.

The switch dated from 1972. Britain left the Commonwealth for the EU. Canada left Britain.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think

I think Ontario is the key to unlocking your 70/30, 30/70.

Its just such a perfect fit geographically and with respect to the reserve CBG's. 70/30 2 CLBGin Petawawa(Light Protected Mobility) in TAPV's( ideally JLTV or Ocelot) and MiSu's/ modernized Bisons, 30/70 3 CLBG (Light Motorized) in commercial side by sides and/ or ISV.

After that I wonder if the 30/70 reserve brigade is the best use the PY's. Use the Alberta PRes to make 1 CABG a 70/30, but then re-role and spread the Regulars around as necessary to add capabilities. BC gets a 30/70 coastal defence battlegroup (battery of surface to surface, battery of shorad, a couple companies of mountain infantry to defend them) Sask/Man provides expanded artillery with HIMARS, loitering munitions, Shorad, etc.

Except thst all the senior leaders in BC ignore the mountains because you only get noticed in the CAF if you pretend you’re better at Armoured operations than your peers. Funny thing though, when the CO forces you to pretend you’re doing combat team attacks amongst one of the earth‘s most extensive mountainous coastal rainforest/ Montaigne, things may not work out as intended.

 

[FJAG]

I think

I think Ontario is the key to unlocking your 70/30, 30/70.

Ontario is very important due to numbers in and around Toronto but has the difficulty of very limited training infrastructure in Meaford. Quebec is actually a bit better positioned because of the proximity of both Montreal and Quebec City to Valcartier. The West and even the Maritimes are challenged by distance and limited populations (and BC by limited training infrastructure). All but Quebec require unique compromises.

Its just such a perfect fit geographically and with respect to the reserve CBG's. 70/30 2 CLBGin Petawawa(Light Protected Mobility) in TAPV's( ideally JLTV or Ocelot) and MiSu's/ modernized Bisons, 30/70 3 CLBG (Light Motorized) in commercial side by sides and/ or ISV.

While it is far easier to create a ResF light brigade than an armoured or mech one, I tend to view that Canada's need for light forces is more one that requires high readiness which points to a primarily RegF structure. Forces that we do not need day-to-day in a peacetime force but do need in an emergency are mech and armoured forces. While it is better to have the bulk of those personnel on a reserve stand-by basis they do have the issue of the difficulty of training and maintaining ResF. Recognizing the difficulties my preference remains for 100/0 or 70/30 for light forces and 30/70 for mech and heavy.

After that I wonder if the 30/70 reserve brigade is the best use the PY's. Use the Alberta PRes to make 1 CABG a 70/30, but then re-role and spread the Regulars around as necessary to add capabilities. BC gets a 30/70 coastal defence battlegroup (battery of surface to surface, battery of shorad, a couple companies of mountain infantry to defend them) Sask/Man provides expanded artillery with HIMARS, loitering munitions, Shorad, etc.

30/70 is not the best use if you scatter the 30 around the whole battalion. If the headquarters is mixed 30/70 and one subunit is 100/0 (while the rest are 5/95 or 10/90) then you have the core of a battalion headquarters capable of deploying and one full company capable of full training and deploying. With our building block system of tailoring task forces for a mission, a 30/70 battalion headquarters as well as the 100/0 company are fully viable and fully trained full-time building blocks.

The pool of recruits is not your traditional recruit pool. Many of the potentials are averse to military service and/or service to the Crown. And many of the rest are disinclined and/or incapable of meeting the traditional standards and expectations.

Finding 5 - 10,000 reservists, regardless of ethnicity, in a Southern Ontario population pool of 12 million would not be a challenge if we offered them something meaningful and not half-assed. Even as challenged as the ResF is, SO generates over 4,000 folks many of whom have Asian and Caribbean/African heritage. BC does the same.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Finding 5 - 10,000 reservists, regardless of ethnicity, in a Southern Ontario population pool of 12 million would not be a challenge if we offered them something meaningful and not half-assed. Even as challenged as the ResF is, SO generates over 4,000 folks many of whom have Asian and Caribbean/African heritage. BC does the same, mostly in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

There, FTFY.

Outside of that region 39 CBG looks alot like a White Pride revival meeting.

 

[dimsum]

Finding 5 - 10,000 reservists, regardless of ethnicity, in a Southern Ontario population pool of 12 million would not be a challenge if we offered them something meaningful and not half-assed. Even as challenged as the ResF is, SO generates over 4,000 folks many of whom have Asian and Caribbean/African heritage. BC does the same.

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I saw a Sikh Highlander in turban and kilt front and centre, but it works.

 

[FJAG]

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I saw a Sikh Highlander in turban and kilt front and centre, but it works.

Toronto Scottish I believe based on the tartan.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Toronto Scottish I believe based on the tartan.

Correct. This is a combination of 31/32 CBG troops.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I saw a Sikh Highlander in turban and kilt front and centre, but it works.

It worked in 1990 as well when the Calgary Highlanders were presented new Queen's Colours by Her Majesty. One of the colour party, wearing Government Tartan was a Sikh Captain with turban and Calgary Highlanders cap badge. Unfortunately I can't remember his name. He had more active service than anyone else on parade that day.

He shared the parade ground with Piper General John de Chastelain.

 

[GR66]

I'm going to suggest that maybe due to our unique geographical location and the expeditionary nature of our military that the way we structure our Reg Force and Reserves might be different than in the past and different than many other nations.

Realistically if we're in a conflict with a lesser power like North Korea or Iran, etc. it's likely to be a Reg Force (with augmentation) show and not a situation where we're going to mobilize the Reserves. A war against China is going to be an Air Force and Navy conflict. A war against a nuclear armed Russia would be a matter of stopping and reversing a Russian attack rather than an invasion of Russian territory. European NATO and the US realistically have enough manpower available to retake allied territory...it's not the same as having to occupy enemy territory.

So perhaps instead of designing an Army that can expand the number of Brigades we have in time of war we can instead focus on a) providing the Reserve forces required to MAINTAIN (as opposed to expand) our Reg Force formations and b) generate the supporting forces required to support our forces.

Does that mean we should focus our Reserve forces on Artillery, AD and Logistics/CSS forces rather than additional Armoured Regiments and Infantry Battalions?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm going to suggest that maybe due to our unique geographical location and the expeditionary nature of our military that the way we structure our Reg Force and Reserves might be different than in the past and different than many other nations.

Realistically if we're in a conflict with a lesser power like North Korea or Iran, etc. it's likely to be a Reg Force (with augmentation) show and not a situation where we're going to mobilize the Reserves. A war against China is going to be an Air Force and Navy conflict. A war against a nuclear armed Russia would be a matter of stopping and reversing a Russian attack rather than an invasion of Russian territory. European NATO and the US realistically have enough manpower available to retake allied territory...it's not the same as having to occupy enemy territory.

Lesser powers? Are you kidding? We are now the 'third world' military... e.g.,

North Korea:

The Korean People's Army operates a very large amount of equipment, including 4,100 tanks, 2,100 APCs, 8,500 field artillery pieces, 5,100 multiple rocket launchers,[49] 11,000 air defence guns and some 10,000 MANPADS and anti-tank guided missiles[62] in the Ground force; about 500 vessels in the Navy[49] and 730 combat aircraft in the Air Force,[49] of which 478 are fighters and 180 are bombers.[63] North Korea also has the largest special forces in the world, as well as the largest submarine fleet.[64] The equipment is a mixture of World War II vintage vehicles and small arms, widely proliferated Cold War technology, and more modern Soviet or locally produced weapons.

North Korea possesses a vast array of long range artillery in shelters just north of the Korean Demilitarized Zone. It has been a long-standing cause for concern that a preemptive strike or retaliatory strike on Seoul using this arsenal of artillery north of the Demilitarized Zone would lead to a massive loss of life in Seoul. Estimates on how many people would die in an attack on Seoul vary. When the Clinton administration mobilised forces over the reactor at Yongbyon in 1994, planners concluded that retaliation by North Korea against Seoul could kill 40,000 people.[65] Other estimates projects hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of fatalities if North Korea uses chemical or nuclear munitions.[66] RAND Corporation conducted an extensive study in 2020 on a range of potential artillery bombardment scenarios and concluded that a strike on Seoul alone could result in over 100,000 casualties in the first hour of bombardment.[67]

Korean People's Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Weinie]

Lesser powers? Are you kidding? We are now the 'third world' military... e.g.,

North Korea:

The Korean People's Army operates a very large amount of equipment, including 4,100 tanks, 2,100 APCs, 8,500 field artillery pieces, 5,100 multiple rocket launchers,[49] 11,000 air defence guns and some 10,000 MANPADS and anti-tank guided missiles[62] in the Ground force; about 500 vessels in the Navy[49] and 730 combat aircraft in the Air Force,[49] of which 478 are fighters and 180 are bombers.[63] North Korea also has the largest special forces in the world, as well as the largest submarine fleet.[64] The equipment is a mixture of World War II vintage vehicles and small arms, widely proliferated Cold War technology, and more modern Soviet or locally produced weapons.

North Korea possesses a vast array of long range artillery in shelters just north of the Korean Demilitarized Zone. It has been a long-standing cause for concern that a preemptive strike or retaliatory strike on Seoul using this arsenal of artillery north of the Demilitarized Zone would lead to a massive loss of life in Seoul. Estimates on how many people would die in an attack on Seoul vary. When the Clinton administration mobilised forces over the reactor at Yongbyon in 1994, planners concluded that retaliation by North Korea against Seoul could kill 40,000 people.[65] Other estimates projects hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of fatalities if North Korea uses chemical or nuclear munitions.[66] RAND Corporation conducted an extensive study in 2020 on a range of potential artillery bombardment scenarios and concluded that a strike on Seoul alone could result in over 100,000 casualties in the first hour of bombardment.[67]

Korean People's Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And North Korea would, IMO, cease to exist about a day after that attack.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I'm going to suggest that maybe due to our unique geographical location and the expeditionary nature of our military that the way we structure our Reg Force and Reserves might be different than in the past and different than many other nations.

Geography isn't a defense strategy in the age of hypersonic missiles and melting Arctic ice. I agree we do need to restructure, but mainly a consolidation vice a total reorg.

Realistically if we're in a conflict with a lesser power like North Korea or Iran, etc. it's likely to be a Reg Force (with augmentation) show and not a situation where we're going to mobilize the Reserves.

Our entire Reg Force would be wiped out within 6 hours of convention war with either of those countries. "Lesser Power" for us is South Sudan or Lesotho at this point. Like @daftandbarmy illustrates, they have personnel and equipment in spades. Doesn't matter if it's Cold War vintage; the still fire very real munitions and dead is dead.

Having the belief we can have a CMBG come in and rule the day is a fallacy.

A war against China is going to be an Air Force and Navy conflict.

Until it isn't. China has made far more strides in amphibious warfare than we give them credit for. They know they need a way to get that million man army around if it's going to be effective.

A war against a nuclear armed Russia would be a matter of stopping and reversing a Russian attack rather than an invasion of Russian territory. European NATO and the US realistically have enough manpower available to retake allied territory...it's not the same as having to occupy enemy territory.

See how well Ukraine is doing pushing back the Russian advance? I commend the UA for being able to halt the Russians, but there has not been a push back or breakthrough of scale because the Russians have had more depth of forces (for now, the cupboard is pretty bare).

We can instead focus on a) providing the Reserve forces required to MAINTAIN (as opposed to expand) our Reg Force formations

Our Reg Force formations are anemic as they are. We would drain those Reserve Bdes in a matter of months if that were their role in this scheme. Better to have the Command Struture in place to expand out, rather than have a Reservist's sole purpose being to plug holes in a Reg F Bde structure.

and b) generate the supporting forces required to support our forces.

Supporting forces are specialized forces. It takes time and experience to have that maintainer or technician be capable of fixing the thing. It's why we have such varied success with Reserve Svc Bns and Sig Regts; those that have the time and ambition are awesome techs and can mesh into a Reg Force support role with little to no issue. Others don't have the experience or training. Add in the transitory nature of the Reserves and ita not a viable option.

Does that mean we should focus our Reserve forces on Artillery, AD and Logistics/CSS forces rather than additional Armoured Regiments and Infantry Battalions?

What we need to do is consolidate our formations and cut down on HQs. We need to ensure every PY in the CAF is devoted to an operationalnor strategic output. Anything else needs to be looked at really hard with an objective eye.

 

[Kirkhill]

If we filled every authorized PY and consolidated we would still only be talking about deploying the equivalent of a NATO division ... once ... for a very short time ... with no kit ... and no way to deploy it.