- Reaction score
- 8,345
- Points
- 1,160
IMHO Bde Groups make sense if you don’t plan on deploying larger forces, as you can allocate additional HQ assets to coordinate the Group Enablers.
Honestly for Canada, I’ve always thought the Group makes more sense, as the odds of sending a Div are snowballs chance in hell (not enough gear, and it would take years to move them with the CAF movement assets).
I still think Canada should have Div Assets and ideally 2 Deployable Divisions (one Heavy and one Light) accepting that some of those Bde’s would be ‘Total Force’ mixtures.
The Heavy Div would consist of 2 Armored Bde’s and 1 Mech Bde plus CS and CSS Bde’s and be primarily tracked (I’m willing to accept HIMARS for the GS Regiment though)
1 Prepositioned Armored Bde and Div HQ, remaining Div equipment prepositioned in Europe with 30/70 troops for flyover).
The Light Div would have 2 Light Bde’s and 1 Cav Bde plus related CS and CSS, primarily wheeled.
But part of the reason, I believe, we don't have "enablers" is that they are all considered Div or Corps assets and we have no mechanism for co-ordinating the tasks of the Brigades or of deciding how scarce resources are allocated for a mission.
Take the tanks for example - we have 4 squadrons of 3 different models. We try to divide that among 3 Brigades and end up with gaggles of pennypackets. On the other hand if they were in the hands of the Div Commander she could allocate them to a brigade according to task or keep them as in independent tactical manoeuver unit. Keeping them as a tactical unit would have encouraged the Div Commander to agitate for more AT systems for her Brigades.
Similarly on the artillery and the air defence. With a Divisional Model then there is a structure to justify the purchase of a single AD Bty rather than three independent Troops.
Aren't you lot always harping on about mission command and unity of command?