Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[MilEME09]

There is a structural problem with CBG battle schools which simply comes from the career profile of the average reservist.

There is a perpetual problem in finding enough Class A reservists to properly man these structures. Vacancies aren't enough, you need warm bodies senior enough to do the teaching and those are typically the ones who have jobs and don't have much time to give during the winter on Class A and certainly not in the summer on Class B.

Conversely, full-time positions, whether Class A or RegF, are generally underemployed in the winter and looking for leave in the summer.

I'll admit my info on this is purely anecdotal and on only a few sample that indicates its a universal problem.

Agreed I would say we need a handful of full timers in the battleschools to run them, followed by class B and class A augmentation

 

[Brad Sallows]

From "Canada's tanks":

Let's be clear. The CA is positioning itself to generate a expeditionary deployable division and another to generate forces for operations in Canada and for augmentation to the expeditionary division.

Bear in mind my response is for "I have no trouble with administrative battalions, brigades, divisions and corps." (@Kirkhill). It's possible to have all kinds of divisions: infantry, armoured, artillery, air, etc - even training divisions. The "domestic" division is going to be some kind of employment organization. I did not get the impression it will command various bases and schools and depots and whatnot all over Canada. There is a point to regionally-based administrative/support/mobilization commands and calling them something that does not militate confusion with combat formations.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Adding in Army specific Areas and Districts just adds to HQ bloat with doing nothing to support or field the Operational Army.

I suppose I'm looking a bit beyond. Canada should crunch some numbers well before a big war starts just how big it's forces are going to be, and plan ahead for that. For the army, a two-corps, six-division force might be the aim. A regionally-based framework for mobilizing to a target and sustaining it is one solution, particularly if it mitigates the need to move large numbers of people around (here for recruit training, there for IT, that place for levels 3-5, etc).

 

[boredtoon]

If we can't get troops onto DP1 because we don't have enough staff (or equipment) to run the course, then I'm not sure how we expect to run an entire additional course as a stopgap until they can get into DP1. Unless the plan is to let units sign people off on certain things locally done on parade nights and weekends, but that further burdens the unit. Are there any details on how this will work?

No details yet on the proposed SQ that I could find. But based on the broad scope of the course, I would be confident betting that staff who can teach BMQ can teach this. At least on the ARes side, we aren't struggling to get troops through BMQ. Its the DP1s.

When you look at staff requirements, for a BMQ its 1x Off, 2Lt-Capt, 1x Sgt-WO Crse 2IC, 3x MCpl-Sgts as sect comds, 3x MCpls as Sect 2ICs, 2x Admin NCO/Drivers. For an RQIP, its the same staff requirements, except now all have to be qualified infanteers, plus a section of demo. In theory, your CBG battleschool staff could teach a BMQ then teach an SQ. The individual units would staff their various DP1s for the summer.

It is for sure a band-aid solution, but with every unit being told to grow, there just isn't enough NCOs/Offiers to run enough DP1s. They need something to do with the new troops until the NCO backlog is handled.

 

[Remius]

No details yet on the proposed SQ that I could find. But based on the broad scope of the course, I would be confident betting that staff who can teach BMQ can teach this. At least on the ARes side, we aren't struggling to get troops through BMQ. Its the DP1s.

When you look at staff requirements, for a BMQ its 1x Off, 2Lt-Capt, 1x Sgt-WO Crse 2IC, 3x MCpl-Sgts as sect comds, 3x MCpls as Sect 2ICs, 2x Admin NCO/Drivers. For an RQIP, its the same staff requirements, except now all have to be qualified infanteers, plus a section of demo. In theory, your CBG battleschool staff could teach a BMQ then teach an SQ. The individual units would staff their various DP1s for the summer.

It is for sure a band-aid solution, but with every unit being told to grow, there just isn't enough NCOs/Offiers to run enough DP1s. They need something to do with the new troops until the NCO backlog is handled.

If it is anything like the last time, SQs were disproportionately manned by combat arms and specifically infantry types which had an adverse effect on manning those DP1s

 

[Seyek]

And from my personal experiences I wouldn't trust the vast majority of non-combat arms to run the SQ, and there aren't a lot to begin with either. If we brought SQ back for combat arms in general and stripped those elements out of our DP1s we could still achieve the same goal but open the instructor pool to all the combat arms (with a couple non-combat arms tossed in to help supplement if needed).

I'm going to beat the same drum I've been beating for years, if you want to run training full time for six months (Co-Op and summer) and almost every weekend outside of that you basically need a full time staff*. You could also run a full time course or two outside the usual schedule if the candidates are there. Same staff would have to understand from the beginning their summers are their busy periods, but for half of the eyar tehy can get most of the week off. Same pers could run PAT platoons for some evenings to to take that burden off units.

*Staff should all be competent, experienced, supervised by equally competent leadership and properly supported with all required kit

No details yet on the proposed SQ that I could find. But based on the broad scope of the course, I would be confident betting that staff who can teach BMQ can teach this. At least on the ARes side, we aren't struggling to get troops through BMQ. Its the DP1s.

When you look at staff requirements, for a BMQ its 1x Off, 2Lt-Capt, 1x Sgt-WO Crse 2IC, 3x MCpl-Sgts as sect comds, 3x MCpls as Sect 2ICs, 2x Admin NCO/Drivers. For an RQIP, its the same staff requirements, except now all have to be qualified infanteers, plus a section of demo. In theory, your CBG battleschool staff could teach a BMQ then teach an SQ. The individual units would staff their various DP1s for the summer.

It is for sure a band-aid solution, but with every unit being told to grow, there just isn't enough NCOs/Offiers to run enough DP1s. They need something to do with the new troops until the NCO backlog is handled.

Maybe its a regional thing but is it not also primarily combat arms, heavy emphasis on infantry, teaching the BMQs where you're at as well?

 

[Kirkhill]

How fast are Ukraine and Russia burning through infantry?

How long does it take to train them?

How long does it take for the shock to wear off and becomr acclimatized to operations at the front?

 

[Underway]

. Are there any details on how this will work?

Of course not. PRes is as always regional and how this works in each region will likely differ. Consider this a warning order. Standby for GI.

 

[boredtoon]

If it is anything like the last time, SQs were disproportionately manned by combat arms and specifically infantry types which had an adverse effect on manning those DP1s

Maybe! SQ was a bit before my time. I taught either the last BMQ-L or the second last BMQ-L to run in the brigade, and only two of the staff were infantry, myself and the Crse 2IC. The rest of the staff were a mix between armoured and artillery (which make up the bulk of the reserve units in that area).

 

[FJAG]

From "Canada's tanks":

Bear in mind my response is for "I have no trouble with administrative battalions, brigades, divisions and corps." (@Kirkhill). It's possible to have all kinds of divisions: infantry, armoured, artillery, air, etc - even training divisions. The "domestic" division is going to be some kind of employment organization. I did not get the impression it will command various bases and schools and depots and whatnot all over Canada. There is a point to regionally-based administrative/support/mobilization commands and calling them something that does not militate confusion with combat formations.

I also have the impression that short of some "all-in" necessity neither division will deploy and command brigades. My expectation is that in ordinary situations we are dealing with the existing CJOC and regional JTF system. My understanding from elsewhere though is that there will be a separate system for infrastructure and support management. In addition definitely the RegF division may need to deploy on an expeditionary operation, like 1 Div is now and that possibly the ARes division may need to deploy as a HQ on a domestic op (remember we did deploy a div HQ on the 1997 Winnipeg flood)

One can have training divisions. But when your aim is to develop deployable brigades and battalions, then the framework needs to be more realistic than an admin headquarters. It should be one where the various battalion and brigade headquarters can be exercised in a realistic setting. Otherwise you are giving up a significant part of the combat potential of the force in exchange for administrative ease. Same issue for equipment. Why buy something limited to domestic training use when you really need a line of serviceable military pattern equipment to replace the hundreds of vehicle casualties you have and to deploy a further expanded combat capable force when necessary. One of the secrets of allied success was how rapidly they could replace combat casualties, both personnel and equipment. The Germans couldn't match that rate.

While districts did exist during WW2 and after until 1953, the formation organizations were all divisions and districts until the the Kennedy board changed everything into commands, areas and militia groups.

Personally I think that one of the tricks of deterrence is to look as combat capable as you can. Districts neither make you look combat capable nor make you combat capable. Canada needs all the help in can get. I'm perfectly happy with JTF's as the employment arms in domestic ops. But the army structure needs proper brigades and battalions.

 

[MilEME09]

Maybe its a regional thing but is it not also primarily combat arms, heavy emphasis on infantry, teaching the BMQs where you're at as well?

The continental division as it is currently being referred to as, isn't that much different from the current reserve structure. The key difference is the CBG's report to an area HQ (3 of them total) who then report to Div HQ. Over all though by 2040 the goal is a massive increase in the ARes footprint. With most brigades doubling in size, no new units, simply increasing authorized strength of units doing well, and allowing them to grow potentially up full peace time strength of 80-90% of what of regiment/battalion should be. This increase in manpower in turn will increase the pool available for domestic and expeditionary ops, and for training. I am also hearing many of schools will once again establish branches in western Canada to suit the needs of the western units.