Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

Based on recent conversations in the C3 Howitzer thread I decided I would bring my axe over here
C3 Howitzer Replacement

Reforming the Regimental Structures. If I where King...


Light Brigade Combat Team
1 x BCT HQ
2x Light Regimental Combat Team
1x Med Regimental Combat Team

BCT HQ. - Col
Command and Signals Squadron LtCol CoS, Maj sub units and Staff rank positions.
Svc Squadron
Support Squadron
Tac Hel Squadron
Medium Hel Squadron
Cbt Engineer Squadron
ACSS (see FJAG I'm relearning)
2x GS Arty Bty
AD Bty
ISR Squadron
Int Coy
MP Coy

Light Regimental Combat Team (Airborne/Airmobile): LtCol, sub unit commands all majors
1 HQ Coy
4 Light Rifle Coy
1 Cbt Engineer Sqn
1 Artillery Bty
1 Svc & Spt Squadron
1 Recce Platoon
1 Sniper troop
1 Tac Hel Squadron
1 AH Hel Squadron
1 AD Troop
1 ISR/Int Sqn

Medium Regimental Cbt Team: Lt Col, sub unit all Maj
1 HG Coy
3 LAV Rifle Coy
1 Armored Recce Sqn+ (combining both Black hat and Inf Recce)
1 Sniper Troop - light vehicle
1 Tank Sqn
1 Cbt Engineer Sqn - Armored vehicle based
1 Svc&Spt Sqn
1 Arty Bty (Armored vehicle - either LAV tow or SPA)
1 Tac Hel Sqn
1 MH Hel Sqn
1 AH Hel Sqn
1 AD Troop
1 ISR/Int Sqn


Then I'd flop the Light to Med RCT #'s for the Medium Brigade Combat Team.


Heavily invested in more Rotary Wing - but if I was King, the Army would own those - and the RW Pilot Career would be a 00XA MOC.
I'd also ensure the RCAF was subservient to the CA in terms of supplying airlift.

*A number of the Medium BCT PY's would be reserve billets - and a reimagined 10/90 concept (maybe 20/80) - as staging the Medium BCT would take time - while the Light units could be wings up inside 48hrs.

And for the rank conscious - you can inflate all command ranks for deployment so they can work in a coalition structure as needed.

 

[CBH99]

IIRC Wainwright has a railhead as well - I was admittedly drunk during most of the Wainwright portion of RV92 - but I recall that vehicles came in and out by rail.

Honestly due to the Brits - Suffield should be a fantastic training area *other than their absolutely nasty habit of crapping in cut out old road wheels and leaving it for people to find latter.

Of course I am the guy who's still wondering WTF on getting rid of the runway in Edmonton and the why of moving CABC to Trenton (and rebrand it) as opposed to the main base when Greisbaugh (spelling) was shuttered. Because the Mountain Ops side of CABC does so much better in Trenton I guess (sarcasm). Admittedly I have been shaking my head for 25 years on that and still never gotten a good answer on that logic.

Sometimes there just isn’t a good answer to be found. Your comment at the end just bluntly reminded me of a file I am investigating right now…sometimes there simply is no logic to be found in a decision, it just…”is”….

Silly decisions by silly people who don’t think things through, or who don’t think about the bigger picture. (Personally I think they messed up. Shilo would have been the better place for a Mountain Ops course.)

 

[FJAG]

Heavily invested in more Rotary Wing - but if I was King, the Army would own those - and the RW Pilot Career would be a 00XA MOC.
I'd also ensure the RCAF was subservient to the CA in terms of supplying airlift.

Same here ... if I was king.

Small change to your idea: - I'd create an aviation brigade - 3/4 of all pilots would be warrants (yeah I'd change the rank structure in the army too ... if I were king.

WOs would go back to being staff sergeants; MWOs get the rank of Sergeant Major (Battery, coy, sqn whatever); and CWOs get the rank of Regimental/Brigade/Div Sergeant Major. Warrants would be a whole different intermediate structure. Any SMs who isn't old enough to retire or able to further climb up the ladder becomes a WO.

All problems solved.

 

[ueo]

Same here ... if I was king.

Small change to your idea: - I'd create an aviation brigade - 3/4 of all pilots would be warrants (yeah I'd change the rank structure in the army too ... if I were king.

WOs would go back to being staff sergeants; MWOs get the rank of Sergeant Major (Battery, coy, sqn whatever); and CWOs get the rank of Regimental/Brigade/Div Sergeant Major. Warrants would be a whole different intermediate structure. Any SMs who isn't old enough to retire or able to further climb up the ladder becomes a WO.

All problems solved.

Sounds alot like the US Proposals late50s early 60;sThe WO discussion was totally accepted as was the helo bde (subsequently upgraded). Both are in play today.

 

[GR66]

Are we limiting ourselves by designing our proposed Brigades as strictly geographically centered (e.g. "the heavy Brigade will be in 3 Division in the West" etc.) when the Divisions, like our Regiments, are force generation structures rather then force employment structures?

Wouldn't it be just as possible for CJOC to field a Battle Group consisting of RCD (Petawawa), 1 PPCLI (Edmonton), 2 RCR (Gagetown), 1 RCHA (Shilo) and 5 CER (Valcartier) as it would to field a basically identically structured Battle Group consisting of 12 RBC, 1 & 2 R22R, 5 RALC and 5 CER all from Valcartier/Quebec?

How does that change the options we have for how the Army is reorganized?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Are we limiting ourselves by designing our proposed Brigades as strictly geographically centered (e.g. "the heavy Brigade will be in 3 Division in the West" etc.) when the Divisions, like our Regiments, are force generation structures rather then force employment structures?

Wouldn't it be just as possible for CJOC to field a Battle Group consisting of RCD (Petawawa), 1 PPCLI (Edmonton), 2 RCR (Gagetown), 1 RCHA (Shilo) and 5 CER (Valcartier) as it would to field a basically identically structured Battle Group consisting of 12 RBC, 1 & 2 R22R, 5 RALC and 5 CER all from Valcartier/Quebec?

How does that change the options we have for how the Army is reorganized?

Good point.

We continually constrain ourselves geographically so that, for example, 1 CBG is the 'PPCLI Brigade'.

It's weird that we allow regimental affiliations to dominate formation level units to the extent we do.

Probably yet another reason why the Navy and Air Force think we're odd

 

[Kirkhill]

In many respects I think your mixed group is the most likely.

Especially if casualties are expected.

 

[MilEME09]

In many respects I think your mixed group is the most likely.

Especially if casualties are expected.

We already did it in Afghanistan, regularly you had X regiment have a company from Y regiment.

Why do we don't start moving Regiments around? Why not swap say 2VP and 2 RCR? Having different Regiments in different divisions would encourage cross training and encourage the sharing of ideas outside the regimental family

 

[daftandbarmy]

We already did it in Afghanistan, regularly you had X regiment have a company from Y regiment.

Why do we don't start moving Regiments around? Why not swap say 2VP and 2 RCR? Having different Regiments in different divisions would encourage cross training and encourage the sharing of ideas outside the regimental family

 

[Kirkhill]

We already did it in Afghanistan, regularly you had X regiment have a company from Y regiment.

Why do we don't start moving Regiments around? Why not swap say 2VP and 2 RCR? Having different Regiments in different divisions would encourage cross training and encourage the sharing of ideas outside the regimental family

Heck. Great idea. All it would take is money.

Oh wait!



Edit. But don't you cross train with USMC, 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, III Armored Corps etc? And you don't cross train with your own brigades?

 

[Infanteer]

Why do we don't start moving Regiments around? Why not swap say 2VP and 2 RCR? Having different Regiments in different divisions would encourage cross training and encourage the sharing of ideas outside the regimental family

So, you mean like every Brigade in the Canadian Army prior to 1993?

 

[FJAG]

I sometimes envy the US for its flexibility in its uniform. Basically the uniform is a standard one for everyone without a whole lot of "quiffs" apparent yet provides for insignia that personalizes it.

The individual wears small badges which designate which corps/branch he/she belongs to regardless of where posted and also wears a small "distinctive unit insignia" badge that designates the current battalion he/she is assigned to. Get posted from the 2nd battalion 121st infantry to the 1st battalion 239th infantry and you just change a badge.

With something like that you could easily create hybrid Reg F/ Res F units where everyone wears the same uniform and the same DUI but still somewhere have a small badge that reflects your actual branch or corps or even a regimental affiliation.

I like traditions and uniform do-dads as much as the next guy (maybe more than some) but not when they get in the way of organizational efficiency. I've pondered how to amalgamate company-sized reserve battalions into one battalion with integrated "RSS" staff as part of the chain of command and pictured parades where everyone wears a mish-mash of highland and rifle and line regimental uniforms with homeless PPCLI guys out front - not pretty. But if you changed to the designation of affiliation through smaller badges, the uniforms could be identical but folks could still wear a badge identifying the first unit/regiment or branch they enrolled (however you want to use those regimental affiliation badges) and still have an identical cap badge and shoulder or breast pocket badge of the current battalion. That would also apply to service support folks etc posted into the battalion. On posting, you just change the DUI badge(s) for the new unit/assignment.

While we're at it, why not issue everyone one pair of the standard combat boots, like the ones coming off the line now, for parade wear and still leave them bootforgen for real boots for real work? That way at least on parade everyone would look the same and not like a collection of vagabonds gathered together.

Are we limiting ourselves by designing our proposed Brigades as strictly geographically centered (e.g. "the heavy Brigade will be in 3 Division in the West" etc.) when the Divisions, like our Regiments, are force generation structures rather then force employment structures?

Wouldn't it be just as possible for CJOC to field a Battle Group consisting of RCD (Petawawa), 1 PPCLI (Edmonton), 2 RCR (Gagetown), 1 RCHA (Shilo) and 5 CER (Valcartier) as it would to field a basically identically structured Battle Group consisting of 12 RBC, 1 & 2 R22R, 5 RALC and 5 CER all from Valcartier/Quebec?

How does that change the options we have for how the Army is reorganized?

Locating a brigade's units close to each other facilitates the necessary inter-unit collective training that is needed without adding too much expense when bringing them together.

I think for things like a support or service support brigade it would be fairly easy to be geographically dispersed.

Same for reserve brigades which would only train collectively on one exercise per year and would have to move to a centralized training base anyway.

While we're at it with the uniform stuff, I could see reducing each Reg F infantry regiment to one battalion and redesignating each of the remaining six to a battalion name currently at nil strength (especially one with some regional affiliation and some war-time record). There's too much of a voting block within the Army the way things are now. If those three infantry regiments are broken up reorganizing structures and even rerolling a battalion or two to new skill sets becomes much simpler. "Divide and conquer!"

 

[Kirkhill]

I think for things like a support or service support brigade it would be fairly easy to be geographically dispersed.

Does that really work in practice though? Does it work for the Service Battalions? The Engineers? For 1 Wing? Does it even really work for the Gunners? Or do the Brigade's and the local command structure create so much gravitational pull that each regiment becomes a unique entity making it harder for the whole to combine? Conversely, do some entities work so hard at countering that pull that the local units are unresponsive to the needs of the their co-located "clients"?

I don't know the answer. I don't know that there is one.

I think GR66 and MilEME probably have the best one. Regular travel and exercise. Even if it does cost money.

 

[MilEME09]

Our biggest problem with CSS is we diversified too much, Service Battalion, tech services, base support, etc.... As a result we cannot support our selves (something the army has admitted). While resources can't be centralized, we need to decrease the number of organizations to reduce over head to free space for additional techs turning wrenches.

 

[ballz]

Geography is a real constraint and has a huge impact on your ability to train together. It also matters for understanding the constraints each unit faces. I used to think 2 RCR was probably pretty similar to 2VP, being separated from the Brigade, having a big training area next door, etc. After one intro/SAV to Shilo, boy was I ever wrong.

I'd also assume that 2VP and 1 RCHA would receive even less favourable base services from 3 CDSG. Right now if something is falling off the rails, Comd 1 CMBG is across the street from both Comd 3 CDSG and Comd 3 Div, it can be easily addressed. I don't think it would work so well if it was Comd 2 CMBG fielding complaints and having to try and get them addressed.

Having 2 RCR/C Sqn or 2VP/1 RCHA seperated from their Brigades already has pros/cons (for the units), but increasing the distance seems like it would only magnify the cons and not come with any additional benefits. It would everything more difficult logistically, the displaced units would be less able to get support from their Bde HQ, etc.

I don't know why we wouldn't organize geographically and then try to force generate, to the extent possible, from established and cohesive formations, rather trying to throw a mix of things together which would lead to an awful lot of C2 problems at the start. Bolting one rifle company onto a cohesive Battlegroup is one thing and I doubt there weren't some C2 issues to be worked out.... but bolting together various parts from various different regions/HQs to try and stand up a cohesive formation, methinks would be a C2 disaster.

 

[Kirkhill]

Geography is a real constraint and has a huge impact on your ability to train together. It also matters for understanding the constraints each unit faces. I used to think 2 RCR was probably pretty similar to 2VP, being separated from the Brigade, having a big training area next door, etc. After one intro/SAV to Shilo, boy was I ever wrong.

I'd also assume that 2VP and 1 RCHA would receive even less favourable base services from 3 CDSG. Right now if something is falling off the rails, Comd 1 CMBG is across the street from both Comd 3 CDSG and Comd 3 Div, it can be easily addressed. I don't think it would work so well if it was Comd 2 CMBG fielding complaints and having to try and get them addressed.

Having 2 RCR/C Sqn or 2VP/1 RCHA seperated from their Brigades already has pros/cons (for the units), but increasing the distance seems like it would only magnify the cons and not come with any additional benefits. It would everything more difficult logistically, the displaced units would be less able to get support from their Bde HQ, etc.

I don't know why we wouldn't organize geographically and then try to force generate, to the extent possible, from established and cohesive formations, rather trying to throw a mix of things together which would lead to an awful lot of C2 problems at the start. Bolting one rifle company onto a cohesive Battlegroup is one thing and I doubt there weren't some C2 issues to be worked out.... but bolting together various parts from various different regions/HQs to try and stand up a cohesive formation, methinks would be a C2 disaster.

But,

Politically, what is the effect if the 1 CMBG is tasked to a major effort and then takes casualties at the rate of the First Day of the Somme, or even Verrieres Ridge?

I can easily see the infantry battalions switched around even if the rest of the brigade structure is shipped over, and employed, intact.

 

[ballz]

But,

Politically, what is the effect if the 1 CMBG is tasked to a major effort and then takes casualties at the rate of the First Day of the Somme, or even Verrieres Ridge?

I can easily see the infantry battalions switched around even if the rest of the brigade structure is shipped over, and employed, intact.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It seems to be an argument about symmetrical vs. asymmetrical, but that's not really the same argument as having geography dictate who falls under what Brigade vs. having 1 CMBG consist of 1 VP, 2 RCR, and 3 R22R.

 

[dapaterson]

Pull all bases out of the RCN, CA, RCAF, VCDS and CMP, put them under Support Command. Toss the supply depots there as well, the MP group, HS group, recruiting group.

Voila. The Army can divest the four Areas turned Divs, recycle them into one Reg F div and one Res F Div HQ. Lots of savings possible there...

 

[FJAG]

Pull all bases out of the RCN, CA, RCAF, VCDS and CMP, put them under Support Command. Toss the supply depots there as well, the MP group, HS group, recruiting group.

Voila. The Army can divest the four Areas turned Divs, recycle them into one Reg F div and one Res F Div HQ. Lots of savings possible there...

Lord!

I sure hope you just forgo to add the "Sarcasm" emoji.

 

[dapaterson]

Why do we need five different organizations running bases (poorly)?

Why not a single one that can actually do it properly?