Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[blacktriangle]

Just because I'm a bit biased, all of your divisions better be good at mission command because there's no Sigs assets at all...

Everyone released or retired.

 

[FJAG]

This last Org Chart made me think for a second about whether or not a given reserve battalion could even provide support to a given Reg F company which made me think about the brits that pair battalion to battalion in some cases which made me look up the Brit structure again.

Our Army reserve has over twice as many battalions and regiments as the Brit Army Reserve. Considering we have given up on the concept of the "Militia" as a mobilization base for building a "great host" one has to honestly question why we keep this archaic structure alive if not to humour the politically connected old farts. That leaves me the question of whether we actually still have so many politically connected old farts?

I favour amalgamating three to four Reserve units into one fully staffed or even overstaffed battalion/regiment and then forming the consolidated units into five reserve brigades and assigning a full reserve brigade or two to support a given Reg F brigade. I think that for augmentation purposes, a company on company relationship is to granular even though it could build strong relationships. You need a larger pool and even battalion to battalion might not be sufficient as long as we rely on volunteers. Besides, I want the ability to generate deployable reserve units.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This last Org Chart made me think for a second about whether or not a given reserve battalion could even provide support to a given Reg F company which made me think about the brits that pair battalion to battalion in some cases which made me look up the Brit structure again.

Our Army reserve has over twice as many battalions and regiments as the Brit Army Reserve. Considering we have given up on the concept of the "Militia" as a mobilization base for building a "great host" one has to honestly question why we keep this archaic structure alive if not to humour the politically connected old farts. That leaves me the question of whether we actually still have so many politically connected old farts?

I favour amalgamating three to four Reserve units into one fully staffed or even overstaffed battalion/regiment and then forming the consolidated units into five reserve brigades and assigning a full reserve brigade or two to support a given Reg F brigade. I think that for augmentation purposes, a company on company relationship is to granular even though it could build strong relationships. You need a larger pool and even battalion to battalion might not be sufficient as long as we rely on volunteers. Besides, I want the ability to generate deployable reserve units.

The TA have their own strategic and political issues:

Future Reserves 2020, the British Army and the politics of military innovation during the Cameron era​

This article examines why and how the recent attempt to transform the TA was undertaken, and analyses its outcome. It shows that—contrary to the view of Edmunds and colleagues that ‘the most important long-term driver for change [in the reserves was] strategic in nature’2—the key drivers behind the restructuring of the TA were intensely political, ideological and financial; and it argues that the real factors underpinning the origins of FR2020—and the army's resistance to those motives—are crucial to understanding the policy's evolution and impact. Our analysis reveals how these ideological and financial dynamics resulted in an ad hoc defence policy and consequent intraservice and civil–military frictions, providing further evidence of incoherence in defence policy-making during Cameron's premiership. In presenting this analysis we make three important contributions to the military innovation literature, while also increasing understanding of reserve forces among international security scholars.

Future Reserves 2020, the British Army and the politics of military innovation during the Cameron era

Abstract. Since 2001 there has been an increase in the use of reserve forces in conflicts sparking a number of organizational transformations when it comes

academic.oup.com

 

[GR66]

Just because I'm a bit biased, all of your divisions better be good at mission command because there's no Sigs assets at all...

To be honest I left them out because I'm quite ignorant of the Sigs world and how much of their role is dedicated to domestic JRTF ops and how much is dedicated to the Brigades to which they are assigned.

 

[GR66]

This last Org Chart made me think for a second about whether or not a given reserve battalion could even provide support to a given Reg F company which made me think about the brits that pair battalion to battalion in some cases which made me look up the Brit structure again.

Our Army reserve has over twice as many battalions and regiments as the Brit Army Reserve. Considering we have given up on the concept of the "Militia" as a mobilization base for building a "great host" one has to honestly question why we keep this archaic structure alive if not to humour the politically connected old farts. That leaves me the question of whether we actually still have so many politically connected old farts?

I favour amalgamating three to four Reserve units into one fully staffed or even overstaffed battalion/regiment and then forming the consolidated units into five reserve brigades and assigning a full reserve brigade or two to support a given Reg F brigade. I think that for augmentation purposes, a company on company relationship is to granular even though it could build strong relationships. You need a larger pool and even battalion to battalion might not be sufficient as long as we rely on volunteers. Besides, I want the ability to generate deployable reserve units.

My thinking is that a Reserve Infantry Regiment is in all reality in manning the equivalent of a Company. That being the case we should organize it as a Company.

Each Reserve infantry unit would have three Platoons...two trained Platoons and one Recruit/PAT Platoon. In case of mobilization each Reserve Regiment would be tasked to supply one of their two trained Platoons to augment/supply replacements for their affiliated Reg Force Company. The 2nd "trained" platoon would go to standby while the Recruit/PAT Platoon is trained up to proficiency at a Battalion-level training Depot. New recruits come into the system to replace the now trained recruits.

Assuming that our three Reg Force Brigades are rotating through our deployment it should give our Reserve Regiments/Brigade Depots enough time to keep generating new trained Platoons to augment their Reg Force Companies.

 

[suffolkowner]

You would be surprised with how mobile LAV's can be. The routes they take are often different than the tracked vehicles but that's often just as much a factor of their higher centre of gravity than it is their wheels. In an 8x8 drive those things are remarkable.

That doesn't invalidate any concern regarding "matching" up the vehicles. They do limit each other somewhat. Guess we need to design an 8x8 tank then...



LAV 6 has a good balance between mobility, protection and firepower. Everyone has their own opinion on which way it should go.

slap these on the LAV6 for added mobility instead of a complete tracked suspension like in the tracked stryker, doable?

Mattracks | Agriculture & Commercial Tracks

Rubber Tracks for 4x4 Tractors, Trenchers, Commercial Vehicles

mattracks.co

 

[daftandbarmy]

You would be surprised with how mobile LAV's can be. The routes they take are often different than the tracked vehicles but that's often just as much a factor of their higher centre of gravity than it is their wheels. In an 8x8 drive those things are remarkable.

That doesn't invalidate any concern regarding "matching" up the vehicles. They do limit each other somewhat. Guess we need to design an 8x8 tank then...



LAV 6 has a good balance between mobility, protection and firepower. Everyone has their own opinion on which way it should go.

How are they in snow like, you know, in Canada and Russia?

 

[Kirkhill]

How are they in snow like, you know, in Canada and Russia?

As opposed to tracks on ice?

Mobility is also important, perhaps a balance would be a 75mm or a 90mm main gun? And an active protection system

Why not a 105mm on an armoured car?

Japan's Type 16 8x8 Maneuver Combat Vehicle - 26 tonnes
Italy's Centauro B1 8x8 Tank Destroyer - 24 tonnes
France's AMX 10 RC 6x6 Recce Vehicle - 15 to 22 tonnes
US's Stryker 8x8 Mobile Gun System - 19 tonnes.

Contemporary "heavy" guns have been mounted on armoured cars by Panhard, on the Saladin and on Staghounds.

They have their uses - just not in a stand-up fight with tanks. But they are able to keep up with the LAVs on the highway while the tanks get into the battle.

 

[Kirkhill]

...

3rd (Light) Infantry Battalions maintain their HQ and a single Company each to maintain a deployable rapid reaction capability. The rest of the 3rd Battalions are filled out by Reserve Regiments.

....

And now you are back to 1987 and Perrin Beatty's 10/90 3rd Battalions - They were to have a Reg Force Cadre and be manned by Reserves.

They morphed into 25/75 battalions with a jump company, then into 90/10 LAV battalions without LAVs and finally into Light Battalions with no purpose.

 

[Underway]

How are they in snow like, you know, in Canada and Russia?

Well I've never driven one (passenger only), but I did work with them in Shilo on pre-deployment. Armpit deep prairie snow bogged them down. I thought the LAV was stuck. Four wheels turned, churned the area to mud. The new driver then switched to 8 wheel drive. They were no longer bogged down and immediately lept forward on the advance again. I think you can also add chains to the tires as well if you need to.

 

[dangerboy]

I think you can also add chains to the tires as well if you need to.

You can add chains to the LAV, they are part of the vehicle's equipment.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

And now you are back to 1987 and Perrin Beatty's 10/90 3rd Battalions - They were to have a Reg Force Cadre and be manned by Reserves.

They morphed into 25/75 battalions with a jump company, then into 90/10 LAV battalions without LAVs and finally into Light Battalions with no purpose.

My recollection is that the 10/90s were a way of preserving units and CO/RSM billets when the 4 CMBG units were stood down circa 1993. 3 RCR for example, was in Germany as a full up battalion, and then went to Borden as a 10/90 before being stood back up as a full battalion circa 96/97 (a mech battalion on light scales was the phrase I think...). The 8CH solution was a little different - Reg F RHQ and A Sqn (tanks) combined with the PRes 8CH. That got shut down in 1997 and the panzers rolled into the school.

I think, looking back from my perch as a young PRes Capt at the time, that the 10/90s were a good concept that scared the heck out of some.

 

[Kirkhill]

And now you are back to 1987 and Perrin Beatty's 10/90 3rd Battalions - They were to have a Reg Force Cadre and be manned by Reserves.

They morphed into 25/75 battalions with a jump company, then into 90/10 LAV battalions without LAVs and finally into Light Battalions with no purpose.

By the way

Beatty was also the guy that bought 200 simple Bison 8x8s as APCs for the Militia and was planning on buying 400 Bv206s from a Calgary company.

The Bisons would have allowed the Militia to respond quickly by road to any foreseeable crisis in Settler country when roads and weather permitted while the Bvs would have permitted timely response in the other 80% of the country year around.

It turned out the Army's need was greater than the Militia's. And, once again, the Militia was stripped of assets and a useful role.

Not the first time. Not the last time.

Which always brings me back to the home guard Canadian Rangers model for the Militia.

The Army has demonstrated time after time the only thing they want from the "Reserves" is their budget.

 

[Kirkhill]

My recollection is that the 10/90s were a way of preserving units and CO/RSM billets when the 4 CMBG units were stood down circa 1993. 3 RCR for example, was in Germany as a full up battalion, and then went to Borden as a 10/90 before being stood back up as a full battalion circa 96/97 (a mech battalion on light scales was the phrase I think...). The 8CH solution was a little different - Reg F RHQ and A Sqn (tanks) combined with the PRes 8CH. That got shut down in 1997 and the panzers rolled into the school.

I think, looking back from my perch as a young PRes Capt at the time, that the 10/90s were a good concept that scared the heck out of some.

Agreed. The 10/90s were, and are, a good idea. And, if the regs were to fully support the concept then I would fully support a 6 LAV battalion RCIC with one SOC light battalion.

 

[quadrapiper]

Our Army reserve has over twice as many battalions and regiments as the Brit Army Reserve. Considering we have given up on the concept of the "Militia" as a mobilization base for building a "great host" one has to honestly question why we keep this archaic structure alive if not to humour the politically connected old farts. That leaves me the question of whether we actually still have so many politically connected old farts?

Other than badges, buttons, and the possibility of unusual hats, how much of an issue is a rainbow of regiments? Battalions I get: why pay a LCol, CWO, etc. to lead a company or platoon.

 

[dapaterson]

The constant churn to produce senior personnel can lead to sub optimal selection (last man standing). Fewer LCols and CWOs means more time for more junior personnel to gain experience.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Other than badges, buttons, and the possibility of unusual hats, how much of an issue is a rainbow of regiments? Battalions I get: why pay a LCol, CWO, etc. to lead a company or platoon.

 

[MilEME09]

Agreed. The 10/90s were, and are, a good idea. And, if the regs were to fully support the concept then I would fully support a 6 LAV battalion RCIC with one SOC light battalion.

That first sentence right there lies the heart of the issue, any initiative will fail if those tasked to execute do not believe it will work or not motivated to do so. We all say we are one big army but when push comes to shove it doesn't always seem that way.

 

[Underway]

What is a 10/90?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

What is a 10/90?

It was type of unit where, in theory, there was 10% Regular Force and 90% Reserve Force. I am going back in my hazy memories as a young B(A) Capt, but 3 RCR had a Battalion HQ in Borden and several affiliated Reserve units in the area. The Regular Force Cadre was augmented in these units, especially the critical NCO rank and I believe that these units then each provided a company to the 10/90 battalion.

My impression was that the troops were happy since they had well-planned and executed exercises/courses, but that senior Reserve leadership was a little worried. Seeing as how Reserve units are having a very hard time generating their own COs I think it is something worth looking at.

I think its beyond Force 2025, but even as a young Reserve officer I saw the value in amalgamation, which could be seen in a 10/90 light. Turn each CBG into 10/90 unit. Perhaps each geographical area gets one armour and artillery 10/90.