"Task Force" v.s "Battle Group" - The Newest Twist

[McG]

I recently read a CANLANDGEN published in May of this year.  It specifically banned the terms Bn Gp, Coy Gp, and CAT.  It indicated that BGs would be called BGs, and all sub-unit groups would be called Cbt Tms (though I think Coy Gp makes more sense when there is not a pairing of sub-units into a team). 

It also directed that "TF" (along with JTF, CTF and CJTF) would be reserved for use in a joint setting as it is part of a joint vernacular (note that by its definition a TF is comprised of only one element; air, land or sea).

Does this mean that TF ORION will be the Army's last (and first) named BG/TF?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Will the Battle Groups that Shall Not be Named conduct Full Specturm Operations or operate in Three Block War context?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

They're two different things.  "TF ORION" is designed to fit US (CJTF-76) terminology - it isn't Canadian and AFAIK the title isn't in use in Canada.

TF terminology is for deployed ops.  Thus TF Afghanistan is not (strictly speaking) a formal joint operation - it's an Army operation; the NCE has "G" rather than "J" staff.  As an example of the alternative, JTF Southwest Asia was indeed a joint operation, as it commanded the Army, Navy and AF from Tampa as part of OP APOLLO.

The CANLANDGEN merely discarded the very odd terminology that was creeping into the system - thank God.

 

[McG]

I believe the NCE has started using "J"

I assume this CANLANDGEN will rid us of TFs within TFs?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

TFA does indeed use the J.

Not that it really matters, but I wonder if deployed terminology (Task Force etc) is actually within CEFCOM's purview. 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Oddly, I had this very discussion during OP PEREGRINE.  There, we had TF PEREGRINE as the main HQ working for DCDS, with subordinate "TFs" working for us - simply because the tactical grouping didn't appear to fit into any traditional terminology...  The use of TF in two different contexts created no end of confusion, especially with the civvies.

After we added a air component and naval firefighters, I asked if we weren't now a "JTF"...  Ottawa said "no" as it wasn't truly a joint op.  :-\

Frankly, it's all madness as far as I'm concerned.  It should be quite simple.  If you're employing land, air and naval components, then you're a Joint TF.  If you're not, then you're simply a TF.  There should never be TFs within TFs, it just creates havoc.

Not that it really matters, but I wonder if deployed terminology (Task Force etc) is actually within CEFCOM's purview.

I should think SJS should still rule the roost with terminology.  After all, we have TFs domestically too...

 

[McG]

After we added a air component and naval firefighters, I asked if we weren't now a "JTF"... 

It was in (sub)TF 2 where we had both an air & a navy sub-unit.  Had you gotten an "o.k." to use J, there could have been some fun had with that in Kelowna.