The Optimal Battle Group vs. the Affiliated Battle Group

[AIC_2K5]

I agree, I think Infanteer is right on the mark. This is what I've been supporting for some time, form BGs around infantry battalions with other combat arms and combat support units providing sub-units to support them. Now do you really need to get rid of those unit RHQs instead of having tasked sub-units coming together for pre-deployment training? I don't know.

Now could we take this one step further by raising 6 inf battalions instead of the original 3? Assuming the bulk of the 13,000 new reg force pers are going to the Army, we could effectively double the size of the Army's deployable force. Manpower might be tight, that fourth Rifle Coy in each inf battalion might have to be scratched. Form those infantry inf battalions and supporting sub-units, with maybe 6 BGs being light and the other 6 comprising mechanized forces. This would prevent the Army from needing to make alot of major vehicle purchases. Now with this you could sustain these BGs indefinetly overseas in two seperate deployments or one larger deployment under a brigade headquarters along with brigade support forces, forming a sort of composite brigade. This would fit nicely in the Army Managed Readiness Plan and would provide the CDS with those 2 deployable task forces he's been talking about.

 

[blacktriangle]

I agree, I think Infanteer is right on the mark. This is what I've been supporting for some time, form BGs around infantry battalions with other combat arms and combat support units providing sub-units to support them. Now do you really need to get rid of those unit RHQs instead of having tasked sub-units coming together for pre-deployment training? I don't know.

Now could we take this one step further by raising 6 inf battalions instead of the original 3? Assuming the bulk of the 13,000 new reg force pers are going to the Army, we could effectively double the size of the Army's deployable force. Manpower might be tight, that fourth Rifle Coy in each inf battalion might have to be scratched. Form those infantry inf battalions and supporting sub-units, with maybe 6 BGs being light and the other 6 comprising mechanized forces. This would prevent the Army from needing to make alot of major vehicle purchases. Now with this you could sustain these BGs indefinetly overseas in two seperate deployments or one larger deployment under a brigade headquarters along with brigade support forces, forming a sort of composite brigade. This would fit nicely in the Army Managed Readiness Plan and would provide the CDS with those 2 deployable task forces he's been talking about.

Where are all these additional BN's coming from? I think you may want to re-read the last few posts...

 

[Infanteer]

Lest I be given credit for someone elses idea, here is the editorial from the Army Journal from which I expanded on here:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_2/CAJ_vol10.2_23_e.pdf

As for raising 6 battlegroups, that seems to be heading the other way - let's focus on what we got on hand....

 

[AIC_2K5]

Where are all these additional BN's coming from? I think you may want to re-read the last few posts...

Why? I've read both CSA-105's and Infanteer's posts introducing the topic. I've also read the Army Journal topic Infanteer referenced. Perhaps you don't understand the concept...?

EDIT: I see in Infanteer's referenced article it doesn't talk about the inf battalion expansion, I had a brainfart and got it mixed up with another article. Working nonstop all weekend on a term paper will do that...I'll try to fix that, and I'll try to find the article.

 

[McG]

Does anybody have any feedback/info on how the OBG experiment is going in 2 RCR?  So far I've heard the only thing they've done was plug in an engineer squadron from 4 ESR (no guns or armour though).

 

[vonGarvin]

So, we have six battalions, but we ensure that each one is manned with 4 rifle companies manned to 100% (this is both our doctrinal amount and that required by a "Robust TF" such as Afghanistan). 

Actually, since the late 1990's, our doctrinal strength of rifle coys/bn went from 4 to 3.  This was a PY thing.  I've advocated going from 9 to 3 bns to get rid of "overhead" and to focus on "the big battalion", what with them God favouring those with the Big Battalions, and all....

 

[Infanteer]

Actually, since the late 1990's, our doctrinal strength of rifle coys/bn went from 4 to 3.  This was a PY thing.  I've advocated going from 9 to 3 bns to get rid of "overhead" and to focus on "the big battalion", what with them God favouring those with the Big Battalions, and all....

As far as I understand it, the Infantry Battalion in Battle and the Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle both show four rifle companies, and these are the documents that the Infantry School hands to us.  Now, Corps 2000 or whatever its called shows three.

Obviously, since we don't use any of these today for our Infantry Battalions, we have some doctrinal dissonance.

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep it up and you will be arguing for 10 Company Regiments: 1 Light, 1 Heavy and 8 Line with the Line Companies and specialists parcelled out under the Colonel's Lieutenants according to need.

You may even want to consider retaining the option of Brigading the Light and Heavy Companies of the three Regiments as separate entities:  Perhaps the Canadian Rifles and the Canadian Grenadiers?  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

As far as I understand it, the Infantry Battalion in Battle and the Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle both show four rifle companies, and these are the documents that the Infantry School hands to us.  Now, Corps 2000 or whatever its called shows three.

Obviously, since we don't use any of these today for our Infantry Battalions, we have some doctrinal dissonance.

I believe that those documents are under review.  392-001 (Inf Bn in Battle), for example still refers to Mortar Platoons, Assault Pioneer Platoons and Anti-Armour Companies.  I don't have a source for the three coy battalion, but it was done in the late 1990s, though....

 

[dapaterson]

In fact, as recently as a month ago, the Reg F had nine Infnatry bns with nine different establishments - no two were the same.

It's remarkable that with a force this small we somehow manged to have dissimilar tactical units.

 

[McG]

As far as I understand it, the Infantry Battalion in Battle and the Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle both show four rifle companies, and these are the documents that the Infantry School hands to us.  Now, Corps 2000 or whatever its called shows three.

The 20CMBG model that I was seeing in the 2001 timeframe was down to only 3 rifle companies per battalion.  Currently, the 4CMBG model that I've seen come out of CLFCSC is also three rifle companies. (Infanteer, you may want to visit the CLFCSC website to create an AJOSQ profile for yourself.  While going through the course, you will see this model).

 

[Infanteer]

The 20CMBG model that I was seeing in the 2001 timeframe was down to only 3 rifle companies per battalion.  Currently, the 4CMBG model that I've seen come out of CLFCSC is also three rifle companies. (Infanteer, you may want to visit the CLFCSC website to create an AJOSQ profile for yourself.  While going through the course, you will see this model).

I've done that and went through that stuff.  It's already out of date with its Light and Mech battalions - the stuff I see in coming out now in Infantry corners is fixed on the new concept of 9 equal infantry battalions with two mechanized companies and a motorized company.

As I said, doctrinal dissonence.  We can't even decide what our own infantry units should look like.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I've said it before, but surprise is a principle of war.  If I'm surprised by unit structures you can imagine the effect on the enemy.

As an aside we serve in a personality-based army.  Doctrine pales in comparison to ego and personal experience.  We're like crazy frontier Protestant preachers.  The good book give some basis but for the most part we make it up as we go along.

In all seriousness, I've advocated a collapse of three battalions to make six good ones back on page three of this thread.  I doubt it would fly due to my second point about egos and personalities, but you never know.  Maybe I'll be surprised...

 

[vonGarvin]

I've done that and went through that stuff.  It's already out of date with its Light and Mech battalions - the stuff I see in coming out now in Infantry corners is fixed on the new concept of 9 equal infantry battalions with two mechanized companies and a motorized company.

Pet Peeve alert: motorised infantry are infantry who have integral motor transport (eg: trucks).  Remember, our non-mechanised infantry are *cough* *hack*  "light"

As I said, doctrinal dissonence.  We can't even decide what our own infantry units should look like.

And that, my friend, is the problem.

 

[McG]

Pet Peeve alert: motorised infantry are infantry who have integral motor transport (eg: trucks).  Remember, our non-mechanised infantry are *cough* *hack*  "light"

Motorized is what I've seen too.  I think the vision is that it will be GWagon infantry (eventually whatever the FFCV light platform is).  They even use the right tac symbol: 

 

[blacktriangle]

Question;

If the Bn's were ever to go back to 4 rifle companies, would it 3 mech, 1 light/motorized or an equal amount of each. What would be best/likely?

 

[vonGarvin]

Question;

If the Bn's were ever to go back to 4 rifle companies, would it 3 mech, 1 light/motorized or an equal amount of each. What would be best/likely?

Answer
I doubt that they would go back to four rifle companies; however, if they did, it would best serve the unit if all four were mech OR all light OR all whatever.  IMHO, homogenous units work better.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

We only have a company worth of LAVs on the floor these days....

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Good old Whole Fleet Management. 

 

[vonGarvin]

We only have a company worth of LAVs on the floor these days....

You have a whole company's worth?  You guys are lucky.....


Which goes of course to my argument that they all be the same.  Not enough LAVs?  Fine: go light.  But, if you GO light, do it right!