Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Brad Sallows]

Others have already said it: Corps '86 anybody?

Details of what was in the book fade, but Corps '86 was only ridiculous if it was held up as an example of what we intended to buy at the time and for being over-stuffed. Someone long ago described it as an incomplete document that had gone through the "what does everyone think they need" phase, but not a scrub-down phase. Reduce the 10-tube batteries, remove the tank destroyers, reduce/remove some other wish-list over-reach, and some kind of Corps '25 (or, really, Army '25) target ought to exist. It has to be anchored to an estimate of the manpower and materiel the country can sustain through at least, say, 3 years of war, and can't usefully exist in the absence of similar work for naval and air forces, including all the "home" establishments. (IOW, everything taken together). Producing and continuously updating a "plan" that reflects the maximum we think we could project at steady state for some reasonable duration at least means we're thinking about a practical upper bound, how to reach it, and how to stay there (not necessarily indefinitely). Obviously we aren't obligated to perpetually strain ourselves in relative peace-time to implement it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

An alternate organization for discussion sake. In all reality will we ever see a time when the CA deploys a full division, or even a division minus with a full division headquarters? I suggest not.

Depends on whether you believe Russia (or China) poses a threat that Europe (or east Asia, backed by the US) can't handle without us. Plenty of people are waving the threat, but that might just be political grand-standing because they've suddenly been presented with the prospect of having to spend more on military forces.

 

[FJAG]

Again agree, but what I'm referring to here is that conditions have deterioted to the point that a partial mobilization is taking place, but not to the point of "total" war. I would consider this to be comparable to the creation of the "Special Force" for the Korean War. It was for all intents and purposes a reserve force, even though many RegF individuals volunteered for it.

It's interesting that you mention Korea. A study of the creation of the special force and the problems associated with that is useful. See Strange Battleground.

The planning figures for the brigade group was based on 5,000 with a reinforcement group of 2,105. The planning assumptions were that 50% of the officers and NCMs down to [MCpl] would come from the active force. That the other 50% of the officers and NCMs down to sergeant would come from the reserves. 90% of the rank and file would come from the reserves or from veterans. Roughly 10,000 were recruited to select from.

At the time the Active army was understrength of even its restricted establishments and unable to fully do its peacetime roles.

There were also a number of discussion as to the practicality/legality of recruiting this contingent into the regular or reserve force before a decision was made to use the special force. The section on the number of discharges, desertions, apprehensions and legal proceedings on pg 36 is interesting.

The criteria for selecting officers for the brigade was heavily weighted to volunteers with war-time service. Only if a volunteer wasn't found di they turn to the Active army to appoint someone. At the brigade, unit CO and specialist officers roughly 78 of 111 officers were active force, the rest reserve or veteran. At the battalion level 86 out of 113 were reserve or veteran and only 27 were Active army.

Interestingly as well, it became quickly necessary to "call out" reservists (120 officers and 558 NCMs) to "train and administer" the special force.

Unfortunately, unlike some, I have only a limited number of reference books (You should have seen OldSweat's house) and can't pinpoint the total number of Active army that ended up in the brigade but with the intent to hold the Mobile Striking Force back in Canada and the planning figures, the vast majority were from the reserves and veterans.

The problem with using Korea as an example - and I fully agree that it should be used as an example - is that it ignores the subsequent (mid 1950s) development of the concept of "forces-in-being" as the basis of our operational (read NATO) commitments. "Forces-in-being" is what transitioned the Canadian army into a large RegF small Militia structure which remains to this day. In order to return to a mobilization model we need to wean the CAF HQ off decades of "forces-in-being" thinking.

 

[Baz]

I think there is more than semantics distinguishing between an uncommitted force that exists in some state of readiness before a crisis and a force that is created from nothing once the crisis has commenced.

No disagreement. I was just trying to use an example of “limited mobilization” that, in my mind, should still start to use “reserve type” forces.

I do think it’s important to understand that a plan is a starting point. The plan might be: RegF forces in being, including deployments like Latvia, augmented by Reserves, but a large, equipped reserve to form the basis of mobilization. When the actual balloon goes up there might be numerous reasons to switch to something like a “Special Force,” which may or may not look like what happened in Korea.

I’d be happy if someone (in a position of authority) actually had a workable plan that Canadians understand.I think the old assumption, by some, that there will not be a major conflict is proving to be incorrect.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A lot of the current discussion in this forum is driven by Canada's NATO obligation.

I think it's wrong. There is a lot of "army" types here that want (or seem to want) the glory of WWII and the Cold War all over again.

The current situation is radically different. In WWII, as a result of France's capitulation, it was the UK versus Germany, with the assistance of the commonwealth - mostly Canada - and the rest of Europe not really being involved. Then they looked at NATO versus the Eastern Bloc.

Today's situation is "just about everybody in Europe versus Russia. This means, if you exclude the US, Canada and the UK, a population of 530 millions (the rest of NATO) versus 146 millions (Russia).

If you throw in the actual obligations of NATO's article 5 to take consider being attacked (and thus at war and to take "such action as [they] deem necessary, including the use of armed force", then you can see that Canada doesn't have to send large land forces to help Europe. This time, we don't need to be the "saviour" in term of soldiers. Contribution by being the manufacturer and shipper of weapons, and making sure it gets there by sea meets our obligation towards the other members of NATO.

It gets back to a proper discussion of what Armed Forces we need in Canada: Air defense against intrusions in our air space (NORAD), maritime defense of our sides of the oceans, and army's capability with high end weapons systems, to repel the limited incursions we may possibly experience in the edges of our country, including the Arctic..

Sorry Army, but you ain't needed to fight the next big European war, if any, ..... and a land war against China, well, that's unwinnable even by the USA so we shouldn't bother.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sorry Army, but you ain't needed to fight the next big European war, if any, ..... and a land war against China, well, that's unwinnable even by the USA so we shouldn't bother.

The reality is that our international agreements obligate us to provide a wide range of capabilities in the event of our treaty partners being threatened, and no one is really happy until they see - literally - your boots on the ground next to theirs ... in harm's way.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not if you read the actual print.

Though I agree that there is a psychological aspect to actually fighting side by side with your allies on the ground. But it is not, nor does it have to be, the primary focus of your contribution as a state.

 

[FJAG]

I think it's wrong. There is a lot of "army" types here that want (or seem to want) the glory of WWII and the Cold War all over again.

You know, If I had thinner skin I could almost get offended by being considered a "Colonel Blimp" type. Here's a link to who Colonel Blimp was for all you younger whippersnappers.

For starters my family didn't have any glory in WW2 - you might recall that they were on the other side.

As to the Cold War - well, for sure, that's one of the few the west actually won in the last half century. I tell you we all deserved medals for going for weeks in those charcoal NBCD suits. Did you know that I'm probably the only guy on this forum who was actually taught how to plan and conduct a tactical nuclear strike? Yeah. We didn't waste too much effort in those days fretting if we had the latest Gucci magazine dump pouch or aviator sun glasses. Too busy digging in. We do take some pride in the fact we won that one without massive loss of life. We credit that on a large mass of dedicated folks in green suits and heavy kit that made up a broad coalition dedicated to deterring the commies coming for a quick land grab . . . kinda the way they did in Ukraine.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the biggest modern wars to date have all been on land starting with Yom Kippur and ending with . . . hey guess what Ukraine is still going strong . . . did I mention on land.

The army types certainly see the role that air and sea have to play. Although there were ground pounders who were wondering why they didn't ever see any Canadian F-18s over their heads in Afghanistan . . . or even helicopters for a few years. We all know the value of industry in bringing the arms we need . . . although some Canadian politicians and special interest groups wring their hands in anguish if it's sold to anyone who actually deigns to uses it.

I guess what we have in this forum isn't a Canada First movement that thinks "First" means "Only." Still, we're all glad that the country is spending countless billions on new ships and new aircraft and hopefully soon, new submarines that can actually put to sea.

For most of army folks it goes back to things like me when I was twelve-years-old and my uncle taught me how to play war games. I still remember my first war game that I ever played. I dutifully set up all my defences strung out along my borders. Needless to say I got my ass handed to me that day because you don't win wars by stringing your defences along your border. At best what you get is a long war. At worst, you get your ass handed to you. Seems our politicians realize that too as over the last half century or more they've managed to scrape together a few bucks on army to help push the enemy as far away from the borders of our homeland as they can - with their allies.

 

[GK .Dundas]

You know, If I had thinner skin I could almost get offended by being considered a "Colonel Blimp" type. Here's a link to who Colonel Blimp was for all you younger whippersnappers.

For starters my family didn't have any glory in WW2 - you might recall that they were on the other side.

As to the Cold War - well, for sure, that's one of the few the west actually won in the last half century. I tell you we all deserved medals for going for weeks in those charcoal NBCD suits. Did you know that I'm probably the only guy on this forum who was actually taught how to plan and conduct a tactical nuclear strike? Yeah. We didn't waste too much effort in those days fretting if we had the latest Gucci magazine dump pouch or aviator sun glasses. Too busy digging in. We do take some pride in the fact we won that one without massive loss of life. We credit that on a large mass of dedicated folks in green suits and heavy kit that made up a broad coalition dedicated to deterring the commies coming for a quick land grab . . . kinda the way they did in Ukraine.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the biggest modern wars to date have all been on land starting with Yom Kippur and ending with . . . hey guess what Ukraine is still going strong . . . did I mention on land.

The army types certainly see the role that air and sea have to play. Although there were ground pounders who were wondering why they didn't ever see any Canadian F-18s over their heads in Afghanistan . . . or even helicopters for a few years. We all know the value of industry in bringing the arms we need . . . although some Canadian politicians and special interest groups wring their hands in anguish if it's sold to anyone who actually deigns to uses it.

I guess what we have in this forum isn't a Canada First movement that thinks "First" means "Only." Still, we're all glad that the country is spending countless billions on new ships and new aircraft and hopefully soon, new submarines that can actually put to sea.

For most of army folks it goes back to things like me when I was twelve-years-old and my uncle taught me how to play war games. I still remember my first war game that I ever played. I dutifully set up all my defences strung out along my borders. Needless to say I got my ass handed to me that day because you don't win wars by stringing your defences along your border. At best what you get is a long war. At worst, you get your ass handed to you. Seems our politicians realize that too as over the last half century or more they've managed to scrape together a few bucks on army to help push the enemy as far away from the borders of our homeland as they can - with their allies.

That's actually rather impressive.

 

[MilEME09]

Some highlights from the Unclassified Cdn Army Modernization Order;

1. Defence of Canada Division. Primary force for Dom Ops. Basis for mobilization and provide tactical, operational and strategic reserves. Primarily ARes augmented with Reg F. Backbone for TBGs, IRUs, ARCGs. Will Comd all 10 existing CBGs. Will be the CA link to CJOC RJTFs. Will have a deployable Div HQ for territorial operations and Dom ops. Will have new Combined Arms Reserve Battalions formed from established ARes units.
2. Manoeuvre Division. Expeditionary operations, high readiness forces and the ability to operate as a war fighting division.
3. Main Effort of modernization is to continue to enable force generation and OFP production during structural modernization.
4. ARes Tactical Reserve; individual augmentation if the manoeuvre Div
5. Ares Operational Reserve; unit size capabilities (primarily the CARB) in support of Bde size operations by the manoeuvre Div.
6. ARes Strategic Reserve; national basis for CA mobilization.
7. ARes must be self sufficient in terms of limited second line support.
8. Integrated Air and Missile Defence Bde (being developed as a RCAF lead) will be in the Defence of Canada Division eventually.
9. Manoeuvre Div will have 6 deployable Bde HQs. For generalist independent tasks the manoeuvre Bdes and Specialist Bdes are being considered equal.
10. Manoeuvre Div will have several total force units such as CBRN, PSYOPS, CIMIC.
11. 6 CCSB will be in charge of GBAD, Int, ISR, Signals, Psyops, CIMIC, CBRN and the Div Engrs.
12. Fires Bde will have the tubes and rockets.
13. The Light Infantry Regiment will have the GRTF role into a SEMI- PERMISSIVE environment.
14. The LIR will be prepared to C2 as a light Bde.
15. The LIR will be airmobile and specialist parachute capable with organic light engineers and indirect fires. ( 1x light engineer SQN is envisioned here)
16. The LIR will be prepared to C2 an A2AD force in the Arctic with attached enablers.
17. CRBN might become its own trade eventually.
18. A new pre OFP thing will be created. Termed employment functional point, it will be a general soldier level of training with the aim of enabling employment pre OFP in trade.
19. AI assisted targeting like Maven is envisioned.
20. A Land EW centre will be established.
21. An Army signals regiment is envisioned.
22. 2 GBAD regiments not to include the IAMD Bde potential.
23. Rangers are all being grouped under a new rangers formation.
24. With the Level 0 explore reserve call out authorities, job protection legislation etc.
25. CARBs persistently deployed OUTCAN by 2030.
26. All Arms soldiers trained to preform tactical signals functions. Signals MOS updated to enable all arms attendance on signals MOS courses.
27. Renewed focus on operator maintenance. Potential specialist pay for operator maintenance qualifications.

How many jokes can we make about CARBs? Ill be interested to see how high readiness reserve battalions look like.

 

[Halifax Tar]

A lot of the current discussion in this forum is driven by Canada's NATO obligation.

I think it's wrong. There is a lot of "army" types here that want (or seem to want) the glory of WWII and the Cold War all over again.

The current situation is radically different. In WWII, as a result of France's capitulation, it was the UK versus Germany, with the assistance of the commonwealth - mostly Canada - and the rest of Europe not really being involved. Then they looked at NATO versus the Eastern Bloc.

Today's situation is "just about everybody in Europe versus Russia. This means, if you exclude the US, Canada and the UK, a population of 530 millions (the rest of NATO) versus 146 millions (Russia).

If you throw in the actual obligations of NATO's article 5 to take consider being attacked (and thus at war and to take "such action as [they] deem necessary, including the use of armed force", then you can see that Canada doesn't have to send large land forces to help Europe. This time, we don't need to be the "saviour" in term of soldiers. Contribution by being the manufacturer and shipper of weapons, and making sure it gets there by sea meets our obligation towards the other members of NATO.

It gets back to a proper discussion of what Armed Forces we need in Canada: Air defense against intrusions in our air space (NORAD), maritime defense of our sides of the oceans, and army's capability with high end weapons systems, to repel the limited incursions we may possibly experience in the edges of our country, including the Arctic..

Sorry Army, but you ain't needed to fight the next big European war, if any, ..... and a land war against China, well, that's unwinnable even by the USA so we shouldn't bother.

I nice to know I'm not alone.

 

[ueo]

A lot of the current discussion in this forum is driven by Canada's NATO obligation.

I think it's wrong. There is a lot of "army" types here that want (or seem to want) the glory of WWII and the Cold War all over again.

The current situation is radically different. In WWII, as a result of France's capitulation, it was the UK versus Germany, with the assistance of the commonwealth - mostly Canada - and the rest of Europe not really being involved. Then they looked at NATO versus the Eastern Bloc.

Today's situation is "just about everybody in Europe versus Russia. This means, if you exclude the US, Canada and the UK, a population of 530 millions (the rest of NATO) versus 146 millions (Russia).

If you throw in the actual obligations of NATO's article 5 to take consider being attacked (and thus at war and to take "such action as [they] deem necessary, including the use of armed force", then you can see that Canada doesn't have to send large land forces to help Europe. This time, we don't need to be the "saviour" in term of soldiers. Contribution by being the manufacturer and shipper of weapons, and making sure it gets there by sea meets our obligation towards the other members of NATO.

It gets back to a proper discussion of what Armed Forces we need in Canada: Air defense against intrusions in our air space (NORAD), maritime defense of our sides of the oceans, and army's capability with high end weapons systems, to repel the limited incursions we may possibly experience in the edges of our country, including the Arctic..

Sorry Army, but you ain't needed to fight the next big European war, if any, ..... and a land war against China, well, that's unwinnable even by the USA so we shouldn't bother.

Glory of the Cold War!!! Ever froze your butt off in Graph or its equivalents in Jan/Feb? Not much glory there!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think some people took my use of "glory" a little too literally.

And, yes, I did freeze my butt in Valcartier in those days, and I can also attest that freezing your butt - while all wet - on an open bridge in mid Atlantic in winter is not glorious either.

All I wanted to allude to is that there seems to be people around - and with the numbers being brandied about by the CDS, it appears to include her - who see big Divisions, possibly Corps, and who knows with those numbers even Army (as a fighting unit) being fielded by Canada. What I am saying (and to that extent, Trump is correct) is that the continental European countries of NATO have triple the population of Russia and a tradition of large land forces. If the balloon goes up, they can do that land fighting heavy lifting, and other than for psychological support, don't need Canadian soldiers to carry out and win the fight.

Similarly, large Divisions, Corps or even Army are not needed for the defense of our own realm. But please don't get me wrong: we can and should still be able to participate in expeditionary operations, such as Afghanistan and now the Baltic's, in a meaningful manner. You just don't need 200,000 to 300,000 soldiers or more to do so.

 

[Mountie]

How is the Defence of Canada Division going to be structured? It sounds like the ten CBGs are staying. One division commander and headquarters is going to manage ten brigades? Doesn't seem efficient.

 

[Kirkhill]

5162 Municipalities in Canada
9372 Average population

300,000 divided by 5162 is 58.

58 local volunteers to assist Federal forces in a local emergency

Not 58 volunteers to go save Europe.

 

[GR66]

My latest ponderings have me envisioning something like this:


One Reg Force Mechanized Division with two Brigades (1 x Tank and 2 x Mechanized Battalions in each) with a supporting Fires Brigade.

The personnel from the two remaining Mech Battalions and the 3rd Armoured and Artillery Regts from the existing force structure would be split in half to form the core of a 50/50 Mechanized Division matching the Reg Force Division.

The Light Battalions would form the core of a three Brigade Light Division with 1 x Reg Force Battalion and 2 x Reserve Battalions in each.

The Rangers would have dedicated CA Reserve units attached in support.

6 CSSB and a Divisional Sustainment Brigade (each with a Reserve Light Infantry Battalion attached for Force Protection) would support a single Divisional deployment (I don't envision Canada deploying more than a single Division).

The primary expeditionary role of the Army would be to support and sustain our Multinational Brigade in Latvia and still be able to deploy a Battlegroup elsewhere if required. The Light Division would focus both on defence of Canada as well as supplying the flyover Light Infantry Battalion to fill out the Latvia Brigade in case of war.

This structure would require additional equipment and reorganization but would not require a substantial increase in full-time personnel.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think some people took my use of "glory" a little too literally.

Dude.... 'Hearts of Oak' literally has that word in the first line...

 

[MilEME09]

How is the Defence of Canada Division going to be structured? It sounds like the ten CBGs are staying. One division commander and headquarters is going to manage ten brigades? Doesn't seem efficient.

Thats exactly how its going to go, originally there was going to be a play for area HQs to help manage things but that idea was dropped, all 10 deport directly to div hq

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Dude.... 'Hearts of Oak' literally has that word in the first line...

I was thinking more along the lines of "Tunes of Glory", right Jock!

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was thinking more along the lines of "Tunes of Glory", right Jock!

Now you're just quoting medieval history, which lives on vigorously in various Infantry/ Other army units and makes them so effective.... at some things