Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

I guess the longer version would be to suggest that the solution to span of control issues, and the flood of data, is to allow more autonomy to the lower echelons and accept the 70% solution, which means a 30% failure rate, and be prepared to accommodate the failures.

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind the Division is a MANEUVER formation, Corps, Army and Theatre are not considered such, I think failure to either understand or respect that is coloring your view.

I’d like you think think about Corps and Army formations moving Divisions - and then consider what the sense-see-act requirements at that level require. Then re-read what you wrote with a view higher than the rifle squad/section.


Again if your the Div, phone a friend can mean Corps and higher assets


What you don’t consider the field, a higher formation does. Squads/Sections generally don’t act in a vacuum.


The Squad only has their own integral assets they can bring to bear (same with Platoon, Coy, Bn, Bed etc) , anything above that requires coordination, and understanding that other formations may be competing for support. This is a reason why there are planned operations and contingencies. That is a function in higher level HQ’s. The Squad/Section operates in a microcosm of the larger battlefield.

You are being unrealistic in that respect.
There is a reason why there are FDCC’s, Fireplans, etc. Keep in mind Direct Support assets exist at all levels.
The direct sphere if influence at the Squad/Section level is ~500m for a dismounted one, and ~2,500 for a Mech supported one (cannon, and potentially longer for ATGM equipped carriers) the range band extends as formations get larger.

While a UAS at the Section level helps the Section and Platoon, data from a Platoon UAS can be securely transferred higher.

Again rethink moving pieces and think of the Div as the moving piece. I think you may start to notice that there needs to be some additional pieces to sift data from the nodes to make use of it.

I would apply the same rules all the way up the chain. I believe strongly in Mission Command. At all levels. Once the task has been assigned by higher the only job higher has is to support the engaged element.

And on the Two-Up principle, Corps commander doesn't have three Divisions he has 12 Brigades, plus Fires Brigades plus his own friend on a phone. I think the analogy holds.

A Brigade Commander doesn't have 4 units he has 10 to 30 sub-units.

Ultimately, perhaps, the difference is in our personalities? I am not an All-In type of person. I don't like to gamble. I am not willing to bet my entire future on a single toss of a coin. If everything I own has come down to that single toss then I have done something seriously wrong.

I always want to keep one foot on the ground.
I always want to know what I do when I fail. And I do everything I can to ensure that failure isn't terminal.


The World's best Army can field 10 to 12 manouevering Divisions. How much of that force should be bet on a single engagement at a single place and a single point in time?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Short point? Mixing another metaphor?

Too many cooks spoil the broth!

In every kitchen.

Except that seems to be the opposite of what you are saying?

Maybe this a "Shaka, when the walls fell" situation. In an attempt at good faith I will try to communicate in your language.

It would seem that you are making everybody a cook. Which is fine when everybody is making their own meal in their own kitchen. An army operating in the field, though, is doing so in a collective setting.

Lets consider the Brigade de Cuisine. There will be a chief of the kitchen, in overall command of operations. They will have some assistants to help with command and control of the kitchen (their staff). There will also be chiefs of group and cooks that are actually cooking (the units). Assisted by specialists as required (sauciers, pastry cooks etc). So lots of cooks before we even get to the folks moving things around and delivering the effects to the tables. Those kitchen operations are guided by the chief. The cooks will use their initiative as required and in accordance with the scope of trust they have from the chief. Some will have quite a bit of latitude based on their track record, but even the most trusted cook might get some specific direction on a specific dish for a specific client.

With actual units conducting actual operations there are real matters of command.

Mission command tries to square the circle of unity of purpose with the exercise of initiative. And I am still trying to understand in practical terms what you are advising.

 

[KevinB]

I would apply the same rules all the way up the chain. I believe strongly in Mission Command. At all levels. Once the task has been assigned by higher the only job higher has is to support the engaged element.

Again how is that support processed?

Let’s use a Inf Platoon as an example.
Assume the Bn has a few FOO Teams and a BC with it - the largest CS entity that FOO has is ‘their’ Bty (@markppcli and @FJAG yes I know the FOO’s aren’t in a gun Bty anymore- but let’s let that go for a minute).
Beyond the Bty they need the Regiment (again hoping that mean 3x6+ tubes)
However the FOO and BC don’t have guaranteed access to the Reg’t - other Companies may need them).
Then let’s say they get a Fire Mission Reg’t
Data from the engagement needs to be processed to both account for effects on the targets - as well as the ammunition expended so replacement can be made.
At Bdeand higher (and I will be generic) S/G1 will be shuffling personnel, the S/G2 will be updating the enemy forces with the information gathered, the S/G3 will be working on new plans, the S/G4 will be resupplying the units, S/G5 is CIMIC’ing, S/G6 is busy ensuring the networks are working moving all this data, G7 is getting coffee for the CoS, and G8 is busy trying to get new (not replacement) equipment to better adapt to war fighting (typing out a furious UOR to get NLOS missiles for instance)

I didn’t even get into if you have a JTAC or other non Army external support

And on the Two-Up principle, Corps commander doesn't have three Divisions he has 12 Brigades, plus Fires Brigades plus his own friend on a phone. I think the analogy holds.

A Brigade Commander doesn't have 4 units he has 10 to 30 sub-units.

Ultimately, perhaps, the difference is in our personalities? I am not an All-In type of person. I don't like to gamble. I am not willing to bet my entire future on a single toss of a coin. If everything I own has come down to that single toss then I have done something seriously wrong.

I always want to keep one foot on the ground.
I always want to know what I do when I fail. And I do everything I can to ensure that failure isn't terminal.

There is a reason that generally Maneuver formations have at least 3 maneuver sub units and support entities.
Platoon 3 Section’s/Squad plus a Wpn Det
Coy: 3 Rifle Platoons plus a Coy Wpn Section or Platoon
Bn: 3 rifle Coy, plus Cbt Support Coy
Bde: 3 Inf Bn or 2 Inf Bn and Armor, or 2 Armor and Inf (or Canada 3 Inf and an ‘Armor’) plus support
Div: 3 Bde plus Div support
Etc.

The World's best Army can field 10 to 12 manouevering Divisions. How much of that force should be bet on a single engagement at a single place and a single point in time?

Depends what your mission is.
Maybe you don’t have a choice.

 

[Kirkhill]

Except that seems to be the opposite of what you are saying?

Maybe this a "Shaka, when the walls fell" situation. In an attempt at good faith I will try to communicate in your language.

It would seem that you are making everybody a cook. Which is fine when everybody is making their own meal in their own kitchen. An army operating in the field, though, is doing so in a collective setting.

Lets consider the Brigade de Cuisine. There will be a chief of the kitchen, in overall command of operations. They will have some assistants to help with command and control of the kitchen (their staff). There will also be chiefs of group and cooks that are actually cooking (the units). Assisted by specialists as required (sauciers, pastry cooks etc). So lots of cooks before we even get to the folks moving things around and delivering the effects to the tables. Those kitchen operations are guided by the chief. The cooks will use their initiative as required and in accordance with the scope of trust they have from the chief. Some will have quite a bit of latitude based on their track record, but even the most trusted cook might get some specific direction on a specific dish for a specific client.

With actual units conducting actual operations there are real matters of command.

Mission command tries to square the circle of unity of purpose with the exercise of initiative. And I am still trying to understand in practical terms what you are advising.

You are explaining yourself better to me than I am explaining myself to you.

I agree with your analogy.

I also agree with the need for somebody to make decisions.

We are debating the who, the where, the when and how many people are under the control of that individual - or the scope of command.

I am arguing for a broad scope and loose control. I feel that tight control and a narrow scope is not improved by lots of data and lots of decision makers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Again how is that support processed?

Let’s use a Inf Platoon as an example.
Assume the Bn has a few FOO Teams and a BC with it - the largest CS entity that FOO has is ‘their’ Bty (@markppcli and @FJAG yes I know the FOO’s aren’t in a gun Bty anymore- but let’s let that go for a minute).
Beyond the Bty they need the Regiment (again hoping that mean 3x6+ tubes)
However the FOO and BC don’t have guaranteed access to the Reg’t - other Companies may need them).
Then let’s say they get a Fire Mission Reg’t
Data from the engagement needs to be processed to both account for effects on the targets - as well as the ammunition expended so replacement can be made.
At Bdeand higher (and I will be generic) S/G1 will be shuffling personnel, the S/G2 will be updating the enemy forces with the information gathered, the S/G3 will be working on new plans, the S/G4 will be resupplying the units, S/G5 is CIMIC’ing, S/G6 is busy ensuring the networks are working moving all this data, G7 is getting coffee for the CoS, and G8 is busy trying to get new (not replacement) equipment to better adapt to war fighting (typing out a furious UOR to get NLOS missiles for instance)

I didn’t even get into if you have a JTAC or other non Army external support

There is a reason that generally Maneuver formations have at least 3 maneuver sub units and support entities.
Platoon 3 Section’s/Squad plus a Wpn Det
Coy: 3 Rifle Platoons plus a Coy Wpn Section or Platoon
Bn: 3 rifle Coy, plus Cbt Support Coy
Bde: 3 Inf Bn or 2 Inf Bn and Armor, or 2 Armor and Inf (or Canada 3 Inf and an ‘Armor’) plus support
Div: 3 Bde plus Div support
Etc.


Depends what your mission is.
Maybe you don’t have a choice.

I didn't say there was no need for bodies to supply the support.

There are lots of bodies needed for support. And those bodies need to be co-ordinated and managed as well.

In my opinion we are arguing, as I have just said to T2B,

We are debating the who, the where, the when and how many people are under the control of that individual - or the scope of command.

I am arguing for a broad scope and loose control. I feel that tight control and a narrow scope is not improved by lots of data and lots of decision makers.

I continue to support autonomy. Autonomy is not the same as anarchy.

 

[KevinB]

You are explaining yourself better to me than I am explaining myself to you.

I agree with your analogy.

I also agree with the need for somebody to make decisions.

We are debating the who, the where, the when and how many people are under the control of that individual - or the scope of command.

I am arguing for a broad scope and loose control. I feel that tight control and a narrow scope is not improved by lots of data and lots of decision makers.

Control need to be relative to the situation.

GWOT allowed fairly loose control due to the relatively small size of enemy compared to the size of the AOR.

However if you’re dealing with Bde plus level of engagement, your ability to allocate assets to lower levels decrease due to the increased demand for support from increased units in contact, and the need to have focused control of resources to when those engagements occur.

I didn't say there was no need for bodies to supply the support.

There are lots of bodies needed for support. And those bodies need to be co-ordinated and managed as well.

In my opinion we are arguing, as I have just said to T2B,



I continue to support autonomy. Autonomy is not the same as anarchy.

I think we are viewing using different lenses.

There needs to be a way to do both as needed.

Loose control and greater support when appropriate, but also the ability to focus and control at higher levels for other environments

 

[Kirkhill]

Depends what your mission is.
Maybe you don’t have a choice.

Indeed!

Maybe somebody has screwed up. It happens.

 

[Kirkhill]

There needs to be a way to do both as needed.

Loose control and greater support when appropriate, but also the ability to focus and control at higher levels for other environments

I'll agree with that.

We, that is collectively you, T2B, markppcli and I, would likely each approach the same tactical problem differently. The three of you are likely to be righter more often than me. I truly hope that is the case seeing as how you are the ones we are relying on to get the answers right. But I don't believe that every mission is a successful mission no matter who is in command.

There is room, and there has to be room, to be wrong. So I prefer to plan for failure rather than success. Given that, that allows me to give the people I work with room to fail. And most often they succeed in spite of my worries.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thinking this through from my perspective, and keeping in mind that this is a thread about future force structure, how long do we think it would take to build a 15 man USMC squad from scratch civilians and make them battle ready for securit ops? For defensive ops? For assault ops?

 

[KevinB]

Thinking this through from my perspective, and keeping in mind that this is a thread about future force structure, how long do we think it would take to build a 15 man USMC squad from scratch civilians and make them battle ready for securit ops? For defensive ops? For assault ops?

The entire thing from scratch?
I don’t see that viable.
The only way to do it practically would be to use experienced troops for the leaders and then the new ones as members.
You could do that then inside 20 days for defensive limited operations and 45 days for limited offensive activities.
For more complex operations, I’d want at least 90.

Attempting to build from scratch is either a recipe for disaster, or a time consuming process.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

You are explaining yourself better to me than I am explaining myself to you.

I agree with your analogy.

I also agree with the need for somebody to make decisions.

We are debating the who, the where, the when and how many people are under the control of that individual - or the scope of command.

I am arguing for a broad scope and loose control. I feel that tight control and a narrow scope is not improved by lots of data and lots of decision makers.

There is literature on span of control and what can be effectively handled by actual human beings. This holds true even when the human being is enabled by a staff.

A commander can have a relatively narrow span of control but still employ Mission Command.

People talk about "flattening the command structure," but nine independent platoons are not the same as three companies.

ps - our current doctrine states that commanders are best able to have a span of command of a maximum of five direct subordinates

 

[rmc_wannabe]

There is literature on span of control and what can be effectively handled by actual human beings. This holds true even when the human being is enabled by a staff.

A commander can have a relatively narrow span of control but still employ Mission Command.

People talk about "flattening the command structure," but nine independent platoons are not the same as three companies.

Especially when we start looking at the actual TacC2IS involved in flattening command.

People complain about being over burdened at the Coy and below level about having to reach back to HHQs. As a Sig O, I can honestly say I would hate to outfit 9 Pls with the amount of systems needed to pull Bde or Div assets into the fight if things get dicey. Information travels up and down in a much more streamline manner when there is thar hierarchy of networks.

I find a lot of the drive for dispersed operations comes from our rekindled love of all things SOF. A scalpel is a great tool in the box, but to think you can chop down a tree by selling your Axe to get more scalpels is folly.

That Axe takes a lot more effort to swing, but it brings a hell of a lot of force behind it.

 

[dapaterson]

ps - our current doctrine states that commanders are best able to have a span of command of a maximum of five direct subordinates

CMP and VCDS org charts enter the chat.

 

[Ostrozac]

Thinking this through from my perspective, and keeping in mind that this is a thread about future force structure, how long do we think it would take to build a 15 man USMC squad from scratch civilians and make them battle ready for securit ops? For defensive ops? For assault ops?

The most time consuming part of that would be training the squad leader - a USMC Infantry Squad is led by an E-5 Sergeant - who would probably have a minimum of 5 years of service. It would be hard to reduce that timeline much without ‘shake-and-bake’ instant NCO courses, which have a mixed track record. Conscript forces seem to love them, but they tend to undermine the whole concept of a professional NCO corps.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is literature on span of control and what can be effectively handled by actual human beings. This holds true even when the human being is enabled by a staff.

A commander can have a relatively narrow span of control but still employ Mission Command.

People talk about "flattening the command structure," but nine independent platoons are not the same as three companies.

I understand you.

I also understand the value of three Majors assisting one Lieutenant Colonel in managing the nine platoons under his command and control. Does the Company Commander decide the number of platoons to commit to the Lt Col's Intent or does that come down from the Lt Col? Or does that depend? "That depends" wouldn't surprise me. Any more than I was surprised when the OC intervened to decide whether to man the CG-84, the 60 or the C5. And decided where they were to be placed and how they were to be grouped.

I am not arguing to get rid of commanders. I am suggesting that there are Commanders and there are Assistants. I am also suggesting that when looking at their Assets that Commanders take note of all of there assets and consider what each can achieve with minimal supervision.

3 Sections to the Platoon.
3 Platoons to the Company or 9 Sections to the Company with 3 Assistants to the OC?

3 Platoons to the Company
3 Companies to the Battalions or 9 Platoons to the Battalion with 3 Assistants to the CO

3 Companies to the Battalion
3 Battalions to the Regiment/Brigade or 9 Companies to the ..... blah, blah, blah.

Looking at that does the Brigadier count his 3 Battalions or count his 81 Sections? Again, I am sure the correct answer is that "it depends" and that it is a judgement call on the part of the person deciding whether to request permission or beg forgiveness.

When we were talking about mounting ATGMs on LAVs some time ago somebody asked why they should bother with the additional complexity and crew commander responsibilities when only adding two shots of capability. And with a long range, but slow, capability at that. My thought was that two ATGMs per each of 4 LAVs would give the Troop/Platoon Leader the ability to engage an enemy troop and make a dent in and enemy squadron (Canadian metrics). Likewise as Squadron/Company Commander would have what? - 30 to 40 ATGMs? - available and ready to fire. The CCs would not have authority over those weapons. One up and two up would. Depending on the situation.

And if the vehicles are equipped with Drones and the ATGMs are Brimstones then the game changes again.... off topic as usual.

Tight or loose? Size of unit? Capabilities of units? Number of units under control at any one time? And here I am using the term Unit in its English sense of a unified, indivisible entity, not the Military sense.

I know these things all factor into the discussion.

My opinion.

I think the 15-16 person "unit" is a very good starting point. More so than the 6-8 person section. That strikes me, whether or not they are mounted, as being as useful sized body capable of being broken into three or four teams to act on the ground, or manning crew served weapons or manning vehicles. And which can be tasked independently for short periods of time - 12, 24? 48 seems to be likely to be a bit of a stretch for most - assuming they aren't Recce/FOO-FAC-JTAC/SF types.

If that then....

16 people in a unit
64 people in 4 units in a group
256 people in 16 units in 4 groups in a bunch
1012 people in 64 units in 16 groups in 4 bunches in a lot.

Sometimes the whole may be committed en masse to a 72 hour battle. But that risks an awful lot in my view. Conversely how much damage can be done by a "modern" unit - properly equipped to the standards favoured by Kevin with NVGs, drones and sharks with lasers - how much damage could be done by a long, wearing, campaign of skirmishing.

Allow me 10 units.

1 up, three back, 6 in reserve?
Or 6,3,1?
And when to go tight and when to stay loose.


Tangent.....

This stuff is your bread and butter. I know you lot are thinking about this all the time. Can you take pity on the amateurs and the civilians that don't understand your world and take some time to put into English how the game is played and what you can do and what you need to succeed more often than you fail?

You have the support of everybody on this board. Now you just need to explain yourself to the other 32,000,000 Canadians that are relying on you to defend them and that are deciding on buying another Squadron of Tanks or sacrifice a large black coffee at Timmy's.

2.7 cups of coffee per day.
29% at drive throughs
$1.99 per large cup.
32,000,000 Canadians.

32,000,000 x 0.29 x 2.7 x 1.99 = $49,861,440 per day.

How many days of coffee do they have to sacrifice to buy you 19 tanks?

Occasionally reporters used to stop by this site. I don't know if they still do. Suppose we assume that they did and try to keep them in the conversation. Maybe they can find a story to tell.

 

[Kirkhill]

The entire thing from scratch?
I don’t see that viable.
The only way to do it practically would be to use experienced troops for the leaders and then the new ones as members.
You could do that then inside 20 days for defensive limited operations and 45 days for limited offensive activities.
For more complex operations, I’d want at least 90.

Attempting to build from scratch is either a recipe for disaster, or a time consuming process.

The most time consuming part of that would be training the squad leader - a USMC Infantry Squad is led by an E-5 Sergeant - who would probably have a minimum of 5 years of service. It would be hard to reduce that timeline much without ‘shake-and-bake’ instant NCO courses, which have a mixed track record. Conscript forces seem to love them, but they tend to undermine the whole concept of a professional NCO corps.

Fair comments. So you need one experienced leader for a unit of 16. Do you need 3 experienced leaders and how much experience is necessary?

Could one unit is 16, after one "campaign/battle" generate 16 leaders for 16 more units?

How fast can you scale up?

 

[KevinB]

I understand you.

I also understand the value of three Majors assisting one Lieutenant Colonel in managing the nine platoons under his command and control. Does the Company Commander decide the number of platoons to commit to the Lt Col's Intent or does that come down from the Lt Col? Or does that depend? "That depends" wouldn't surprise me. Any more than I was surprised when the OC intervened to decide whether to man the CG-84, the 60 or the C5. And decided where they were to be placed and how they were to be grouped.

I am not arguing to get rid of commanders. I am suggesting that there are Commanders and there are Assistants. I am also suggesting that when looking at their Assets that Commanders take note of all of there assets and consider what each can achieve with minimal supervision.

3 Sections to the Platoon.
3 Platoons to the Company or 9 Sections to the Company with 3 Assistants to the OC?

3 Platoons to the Company
3 Companies to the Battalions or 9 Platoons to the Battalion with 3 Assistants to the CO

3 Companies to the Battalion
3 Battalions to the Regiment/Brigade or 9 Companies to the ..... blah, blah, blah.

Looking at that does the Brigadier count his 3 Battalions or count his 81 Sections? Again, I am sure the correct answer is that "it depends" and that it is a judgement call on the part of the person deciding whether to request permission or beg forgiveness.

When we were talking about mounting ATGMs on LAVs some time ago somebody asked why they should bother with the additional complexity and crew commander responsibilities when only adding two shots of capability. And with a long range, but slow, capability at that. My thought was that two ATGMs per each of 4 LAVs would give the Troop/Platoon Leader the ability to engage an enemy troop and make a dent in and enemy squadron (Canadian metrics). Likewise as Squadron/Company Commander would have what? - 30 to 40 ATGMs? - available and ready to fire. The CCs would not have authority over those weapons. One up and two up would. Depending on the situation.

And if the vehicles are equipped with Drones and the ATGMs are Brimstones then the game changes again.... off topic as usual.

Tight or loose? Size of unit? Capabilities of units? Number of units under control at any one time? And here I am using the term Unit in its English sense of a unified, indivisible entity, not the Military sense.

I know these things all factor into the discussion.

My opinion.

I think the 15-16 person "unit" is a very good starting point. More so than the 6-8 person section. That strikes me, whether or not they are mounted, as being as useful sized body capable of being broken into three or four teams to act on the ground, or manning crew served weapons or manning vehicles. And which can be tasked independently for short periods of time - 12, 24? 48 seems to be likely to be a bit of a stretch for most - assuming they aren't Recce/FOO-FAC-JTAC/SF types.

If that then....

16 people in a unit
64 people in 4 units in a group
256 people in 16 units in 4 groups in a bunch
1012 people in 64 units in 16 groups in 4 bunches in a lot.

Sometimes the whole may be committed en masse to a 72 hour battle. But that risks an awful lot in my view. Conversely how much damage can be done by a "modern" unit - properly equipped to the standards favoured by Kevin with NVGs, drones and sharks with lasers - how much damage could be done by a long, wearing, campaign of skirmishing.

Allow me 10 units.

1 up, three back, 6 in reserve?
Or 6,3,1?
And when to go tight and when to stay loose.


Tangent.....

This stuff is your bread and butter. I know you lot are thinking about this all the time. Can you take pity on the amateurs and the civilians that don't understand your world and take some time to put into English how the game is played and what you can do and what you need to succeed more often than you fail?

You have the support of everybody on this board. Now you just need to explain yourself to the other 32,000,000 Canadians that are relying on you to defend them and that are deciding on buying another Squadron of Tanks or sacrifice a large black coffee at Timmy's.

2.7 cups of coffee per day.
29% at drive throughs
$1.99 per large cup.
32,000,000 Canadians.

32,000,000 x 0.29 x 2.7 x 1.99 = $49,861,440 per day.

How many days of coffee do they have to sacrifice to buy you 19 tanks?

Occasionally reporters used to stop by this site. I don't know if they still do. Suppose we assume that they did and try to keep them in the conversation. Maybe they can find a story to tell.

Perhaps try to stay to one topic at a time.
It’s getting exceedingly hard to follow your points as they seems to jump around all over.

Fair comments. So you need one experienced leader for a unit of 16. Do you need 3 experienced leaders and how much experience is necessary?

I would want 1 well experienced leader, and 2 somewhat experienced A/TL’s.

Could one unit is 16, after one "campaign/battle" generate 16 leaders for 16 more units?

Potentially, I’d suggest 4 more units, instead of 16, as you don’t want to totally dilute the experience, and it also gives a backup if the TL is killed or otherwise incapable of leading.

To me that sort of thinking needs to be part of any larger mobilization strategy.

How fast can you scale up?

How much equipment and time do you have.

Going off on a tangent that I accuse you of, part of my like of the Brigade Group concept for Canada is that it could allow for that Brigade to become a Div upon a mobilization— because it at least has the bones of the concept.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I understand you.

I also understand the value of three Majors assisting one Lieutenant Colonel in managing the nine platoons under his command and control. Does the Company Commander decide the number of platoons to commit to the Lt Col's Intent or does that come down from the Lt Col? Or does that depend? "That depends" wouldn't surprise me. Any more than I was surprised when the OC intervened to decide whether to man the CG-84, the 60 or the C5. And decided where they were to be placed and how they were to be grouped.

I am not arguing to get rid of commanders. I am suggesting that there are Commanders and there are Assistants. I am also suggesting that when looking at their Assets that Commanders take note of all of there assets and consider what each can achieve with minimal supervision.

3 Sections to the Platoon.
3 Platoons to the Company or 9 Sections to the Company with 3 Assistants to the OC?

3 Platoons to the Company
3 Companies to the Battalions or 9 Platoons to the Battalion with 3 Assistants to the CO

3 Companies to the Battalion
3 Battalions to the Regiment/Brigade or 9 Companies to the ..... blah, blah, blah.

Looking at that does the Brigadier count his 3 Battalions or count his 81 Sections? Again, I am sure the correct answer is that "it depends" and that it is a judgement call on the part of the person deciding whether to request permission or beg forgiveness.

When we were talking about mounting ATGMs on LAVs some time ago somebody asked why they should bother with the additional complexity and crew commander responsibilities when only adding two shots of capability. And with a long range, but slow, capability at that. My thought was that two ATGMs per each of 4 LAVs would give the Troop/Platoon Leader the ability to engage an enemy troop and make a dent in and enemy squadron (Canadian metrics). Likewise as Squadron/Company Commander would have what? - 30 to 40 ATGMs? - available and ready to fire. The CCs would not have authority over those weapons. One up and two up would. Depending on the situation.

And if the vehicles are equipped with Drones and the ATGMs are Brimstones then the game changes again.... off topic as usual.

Tight or loose? Size of unit? Capabilities of units? Number of units under control at any one time? And here I am using the term Unit in its English sense of a unified, indivisible entity, not the Military sense.

I know these things all factor into the discussion.

My opinion.

I think the 15-16 person "unit" is a very good starting point. More so than the 6-8 person section. That strikes me, whether or not they are mounted, as being as useful sized body capable of being broken into three or four teams to act on the ground, or manning crew served weapons or manning vehicles. And which can be tasked independently for short periods of time - 12, 24? 48 seems to be likely to be a bit of a stretch for most - assuming they aren't Recce/FOO-FAC-JTAC/SF types.

If that then....

16 people in a unit
64 people in 4 units in a group
256 people in 16 units in 4 groups in a bunch
1012 people in 64 units in 16 groups in 4 bunches in a lot.

Sometimes the whole may be committed en masse to a 72 hour battle. But that risks an awful lot in my view. Conversely how much damage can be done by a "modern" unit - properly equipped to the standards favoured by Kevin with NVGs, drones and sharks with lasers - how much damage could be done by a long, wearing, campaign of skirmishing.

Allow me 10 units.

1 up, three back, 6 in reserve?
Or 6,3,1?
And when to go tight and when to stay loose.


Tangent.....

This stuff is your bread and butter. I know you lot are thinking about this all the time. Can you take pity on the amateurs and the civilians that don't understand your world and take some time to put into English how the game is played and what you can do and what you need to succeed more often than you fail?

You have the support of everybody on this board. Now you just need to explain yourself to the other 32,000,000 Canadians that are relying on you to defend them and that are deciding on buying another Squadron of Tanks or sacrifice a large black coffee at Timmy's.

2.7 cups of coffee per day.
29% at drive throughs
$1.99 per large cup.
32,000,000 Canadians.

32,000,000 x 0.29 x 2.7 x 1.99 = $49,861,440 per day.

How many days of coffee do they have to sacrifice to buy you 19 tanks?

Occasionally reporters used to stop by this site. I don't know if they still do. Suppose we assume that they did and try to keep them in the conversation. Maybe they can find a story to tell.

I'm not 100% sure that we understand each other here, but I will declare "Sokath, his eyes uncovered."

There is too much in your post to unpack, but I will try to hit the theme as I assess it to be.

We plan down two and task down one. So as a battalion commander we visualize the operation in terms of platoons. How many platoons will it take to achieve a given task? Do we have the right combat power in our groupings to achieve the tasks we have given them? We game it out and make adjustments. I might assume that a company commander might do his attack as a right flank, but I will only tell him to do it that way if the rest of the plan would be unhinged by his choice (restraints and constraints).

So we've thought through the battle in terms of platoons but we task companies and then let them get on with it. The same principle applies as we go up: brigades plan down to companies in the wargame but task battalions in the order.

To try to answer your question, maybe my analysis is that a given task requires four platoons of combat power, but there is only room for those four. Rather than have two companies converge on that task I might detach a platoon from one company and attach it to the other for that task (or the whole operation if I don't want regroupings on the fly). If there is plenty of uncertainty then we have a larger reserve where I have already pulled a platoon from an OC to have it ready to reinforce one of them.

Those OCs are in Command, though, of their entities during the battle. They are not assistants. An Ops O is an assistant. When I was a Chief of Staff of a Brigade I was an "assistant", there to help my Comd exercise command and (mostly) control. But an OC is in command and we have that because our battles are fought by real people on behalf of national authority. And real people need motivation from time to time.

 

[markppcli]

I find a lot of the drive for dispersed operations comes from our rekindled love of all things SOF. A scalpel is a great tool in the box, but to think you can chop down a tree by selling your Axe to get more scalpels is folly.

I find it comes from a desire to find some use for the light Bns.