Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems

[Yard Ape]

I think we should replace all of our regular force brigades with regiments.  As part of this change, regiments will incorporate both manouvre arms (infantry & cavalry).  As with the existing infantry & armoured regiments, only those personnel of the manouver arm will wear the cap badge while everyone else will have thier respective battalion slip-on & the brigade patch will be replaced by a regimental patch.

Those who have followed my posts will know that I feel a fourth brigade is required to fix ATOF and/or meet our operational needs.  My regimental formation proposal will reflect that.

I propose that the standard building block of these formations be the mechanized battalion.  Each battalion would have three rifle companies, a recce/surveilance company, an MGS Company, and a combat support company (Pioneer, Mortar, TOW).

Each formation would still have four manouver units.  While I am showing manouver units as being identical & in line with the army's intention to go without tanks, the proposal has much more flexibility.  A regiment could be designated as heavy & have a tank Bn (with 1 rifle coy & 3 tank Coy) or heavy mech (with 2 rifle coy & 2 tank coy).  Other combinations are equally possible.

The formations of our army would be as follows:

RCR
Regt HQ & Sigs
1 RCR (Mech Bn)
2 RCR (Mech Bn)
3 RCR (Mech Bn)
4 RCR (Mech Bn)
6 RCR (Cbt Engr Bn)
7 RCR (Fd Amb)
8 RCR (Svc Bn)

PPCLI
Regt HQ & Sigs
1 PPCLI (Mech Bn)
2 PPCLI (Mech Bn)
3 PPCLI (Mech Bn)
4 PPCLI (Mech Bn)
6 PPCLI (Cbt Engr Bn)
7 PPCLI (Fd Amb)
8 PPCLI (Svc Bn)

R22eR
Regt HQ & Sigs
1 R22eR (Mech Bn)
2 R22eR (Mech Bn)
3 R22eR (Mech Bn)
4 R22eR (Mech Bn)
6 R22eR (Cbt Engr Bn)
7 R22eR (Fd Amb)
8 R22eR (Svc Bn)

1 Canadian Light Brigade Group
Bde HQ & Sigs
1 Cdn Para Bn (Airborne)
5 PPCLI (Light Bn)
5 RCR (Light Bn)
5 R22eR (Light Bn)
1 Cbt Engr Bn
1 Fd Amb
1 Svc Bn

RCHA
Bde HQ & Sigs [located in Shilo]
1 RCHA [located with 1 CLBG]
2 RCHA [located with RCR]
3 RCHA [located with PPCLI]
4 RCHA [located with R22eR]

 

[RKC73]

YardApe,

Where are the troops going to come from?  16 Battalions? Really?  Also, why does everyone in Canada think Mech forces are the best defence for a country surounded by three oceans, an Arctic, mountains, thousands of lakes and waterways and massive forests.  There are three provinces in the centre of the country where they may be of use.  I know that Saskatchewan is a tempting target, but really, couldn't we see the Army focusing on other things?

I am not saying to ignore the capability completely - but four Bdes of Mech?  What about developing the Army's woeful Airmobile capabilities, or better yet looking at amphibious capabilities which would allow the Army to move it's own troops, vehicles and equipment?

Light forces are actually in much higher demand historically - because they are relatively cheap and easier to deploy, the last two Gulf Wars notwithstanding.  Apart from WW1, WW2 and Korea (where dismounted troops were the norm) most of the 20th Century saw brushfire wars where light forces reigned supreme.  Glad to see you brought back 1 Can Para though - well done.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Where are the vehicles going to come from?

I think this order of battle was simply cut and pasted from some Australian web site, no?

 

[Kirkhill]

How about trying this one on for size.  The game plan is to try to make best use of forces available, within the numbers available, maintain regimental focus, supply a national defence main effort with significant capability to deploy forces overseas under three conditions, immediate reaction (light), warfighting (medium/heavy), sustained garrisons (peace-support)


3 Brigades (1,2 and 5 CBGs), each composed of two light battle groups optimized for peace-support/domestic security tasks.  â Å“Garrisonâ ? forces.

These battle-groups composed of 3 light infantry rifle companies, an engineer squadron, a large lt armd squadron of LAVIIIs and/or Coyotes for patrol and reaction forces with MGS and TUA troop or troops, a lt arty bty of 105s and 81s and a surveillance/mapping/obs bty.  Complete with medical support, fwd and rear logistic support and transport.  Configured to deploy easily on 1 or 2 JSS or equivalent vessels.

These would be infantry battle groups with an attached squadron of armd types (eg 1PPCLI + D LdSH and 2 PPCLI + E LdSh)


1 Brigade (4 CBG) configured around the Cavalry Regiments.

Three Regimental Groups with 1 Squadron MGS/TUA/MMEV and 2/3 Squadrons with LAVIII /MGS/TUA plus 2 attached companies of infantry (pys could be reconfigured to fill 3 coy/sqns at reduced manning levels).

1 Recce Squadron

1 Arty Regiment with 3 CS Btys, 1 GS Bty and 1 Obsn and Fire Control Bty.

1 Engr Regiment to include field, plant and armd sqns.

Necessary support.


Finally

1 Airborne Regiment of 3 rifle coys, 1 Long Range Patrol coy, 1 Eng sqn and 1 Lt Bty .

LRP Coy to include both wheeled and dismounted capabilities. Rifle coys to be independently deployable.





The Cavalry Brigade would prepare for mobile warfare.  Full Stop. They would likely find employment in counter-insurgency efforts gone bad or in allied war-fighting coalitions.


The Airborne Regiment would prepare rapid reaction in Canada AND Internationally.  Aircraft necessary.  DFAIT missions,  Evacuation of Nationals, Insertion of DART Team into a Hostile Environment (Sudan).


The â Å“Garrisonâ ? Forces would spend most of their life in Canada but could support one Afghanistan type mission indefinitely and an additional mission for one or two rotos.

These â Å“Garrisonsâ ? would train to supply security in hostile environments.  Part of their mission and structure would be to interact and train with local forces.

They could practice these skills at home with the militia, rangers and domestic police, fire and health agencies. 

To this end, of the 6 available battle groups, 4 would be assigned to the 4 areas, one would be on deployment overseas and one would be in reserve/training.

The 4 area assigned groups, manned at various levels of readiness (personnel of leave or courses) would be tasked with supplying training personnel to work with the 9 or 10 Militia Groups and the 5 Ranger Groups.

Rangers would continue doing what they do, (presence).  Militia would train for Vital Point Security and Urban Conflict as well as supplying Engineering, Transport and Communications support to Civil Powers during civil emergencies.

Area Commanders would therefore have under command 1-2 Ranger Groups for Long Range Patrols domestically, 2-3 Light Infantry Militia Groups of about 1500 personnel for domestic security tasks, 1 Reg Force "Garrison" element capable of responding to armed incidents and also passing along lessons learned.

The Federal Government would have available 2 peace-support "Garrisons", one deployed, one in reserve,  as well as  a rapid intervention force (airborne) with a large element of Green "SF" types in the LRP coy and finally a useable/deployable force capable of supplying a valuable contribution to our allies in a High Intensity conflict - maybe not in the main effort but perhaps on flanks or even forward screen/recce.


Howzat?? ;D

Cheers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

It is harder to train light forces in a mech role then vice versa IMO.

P.S.   Aren't we the last western army to still practice section attacks, ie vehicle does battle run, "DISMOUNT, DISMOUNT, DISMOUNT"

I would also add that instead of using existing regiments you might consider new regiments or previously disbanded ones such as the Black Watch.  That way those that fill these new BN that are taken out of there former unit will not fell disenfranchised.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Perhaps your thoughts should be put to paper and sent up the chain (if it hasn't happened already).

 

[Yard Ape]

16 Battalions? Really?

  ATOF is based on 12 manouvre units.  I have only added 4.

Where are the troops going to come from?

  Liberals promised them.  They'd better start sewing.

Where are the vehicles going to come from?

Fleet Managment (until we get a wiser government)

I think this order of battle was simply cut and pasted from some Australian web site, no?

It is on no Ausie site that I know of.

3 x Brigades (1,2 and 5 CBGs), each composed of two light battle groups optimized for peace-support/domestic security tasks.  â Å“Garrisonâ ? forces.

1 x Brigade (4 CBG) configured around the Cavalry Regiments.


1 x Airborne Regiment

I suggest using the regiment as a formation as it will eliminate inter-regimental rivalry as a source of friction. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Don't you think disbanding the armoured regiments and making the crewmen rebadge to infantry would not cause problems as well?

 

[Kirkhill]

Quote from: Yard Ape, Today at 09:07:32

Quote from: Kirkhill on Yesterday at 13:16:05
3 x Brigades (1,2 and 5 CBGs), each composed of two light battle groups optimized for peace-support/domestic security tasks.  â Å“Garrisonâ ? forces.

1 x Brigade (4 CBG) configured around the Cavalry Regiments.


1 x Airborne Regiment
I suggest using the regiment as a formation as it will eliminate inter-regimental rivalry as a source of friction.

Quote from: Ex-Dragoon, Today at 10:10:48

Don't you think disbanding the armoured regiments and making the crewmen rebadge to infantry would not cause problems as well?

Can't we have our cake and eat it too?

Have 1,2 and 5 Brigades configured to supply 2 Regimental Combat Teams (1/2 PPCLI, 1/2 RCR, 1/2 R22R with permanent armoured attachments) and have the Cavalry Brigade form from 3 Regiments (LdSh, RCD, 12RBC with permanent infantry attachments)

Like Ex-Dragoon, I too think that eliminating the Armoured Regiments' titles may be asking for too large a pill to be swallowed.

Besides, I like tradition and it is pretty hard to buy it or concoct it.

Cheers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Besides, I like tradition and it is pretty hard to buy it or concoct it.

Cheers.

Ever heard of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?  Do you think 260 seperate battalions really all  perpetuated pre-war infantry regiments?  You had all kinds of regimental traditions, just add water, in a very short time - cap badges and all.  Concocted?  You bet your ass.

Ever heard of Hamilton Gault?  Seems to me he paid for an entire regiment out of thin air (was the last one to do that, incidentally, but the point is, it was done, and hey - someone in this thread is even advocating that they be one of just four infantry regiments in Canada).

I don't agree that we should do it, but take a look at the CEF and tell me half the units didn't pull traditions out of their asses.  The Tenth Battalion certainly did, and won more glory for itself than just about anyone.  Not to mention 60 MMs in a single battle, at Hill 70.  Not bad for a unit with no history and no name other than "Tenth Canadians."

 

[Kirkhill]

You would have to bring up "The Fighting Tenth".

Fair Comment Michael.  However now that we have those traditions isn't there advantage to nurturing them?

As I said I like tradition.  For me it supplies something of an anchor, a steadying influence.  A sense that whatever is happening today people just like us have gone through it all before and have survived it.

I think that is worth something.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Tradition and history makes for co-hesion and moral.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

You would have to bring up "The Fighting Tenth".

Fair Comment Michael.  However now that we have those traditions isn't there advantage to nurturing them?

As I said I like tradition.  For me it supplies something of an anchor, a steadying influence.  A sense that whatever is happening today people just like us have gone through it all before and have survived it.

I think that is worth something.

I agree completely, but in order for us to preserve it, we need to better identify reasons why we should do so.  And those reasons need to be acceptable not to us, but to the majority of civilians in this country, who are the ones who really make the decisions.

 

[AmmoTech90]

There is an interesting submission to the new Canadian Army Journal that suggests something similiar to this, but takes it a bit further.  The author suggests splitting the Army into basically field and non-field branches, never the two to meet.
There is an equally interesting rebuttal to the article further on in the journal.
I know the Army Electronic Library is available through the internet but I'm not sure of the address.  I'm sure its available through this website's wonderful search feature.

 

[Gunner]

The Canadian Army Journal can be found at:

http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/adtb/vol_7/CAJ_vol7.1_e.pdf

 

[Yard Ape]

Don't you think disbanding the armoured regiments and making the crewmen rebadge to infantry would not cause problems as well?

I had thought on this.  One option is for the PPCLI to be the light formation and keep the RCD as the third mech formation.

12 RBC exists in the reserves, so it would not be lost if it left the regular order of battle.  Unfortunattly, I cannot find a place for the LdSH.

 

[McG]

I suggest using the regiment as a formation as it will eliminate inter-regimental rivalry as a source of friction.

You may eliminate rivalry within the formation, but is it likely to become more competative between regimental "mafias" at the Army level?

 

[Infanteer]

I don't think you could ever get beyond "regimental mafias"; it seems to be the price you pay for building around a unit affiliation.  We can only rely on professionalism to work against regimental patronage.  An example would be the Airborne Regiment CO in Somalia; Col Kenward was deemed to be the best choice to take over the Regiment, however, the Vandoo Colonel got the job because it was the Vandoo's "turn" at assuming command of the unit.  In this case regimental patronage won over professionalism, the bedrock of our profession, and the CF as a whole ended up wearing it.

I agree fully with Yard Ape in most respects; my idea on the matter is to move Regimental Affilation from being branch related to being formaton related.  For example, all soldiers within 1 CMBG would be PPCLI, regardless of trade.  Perhaps any Light Infantry formation can be drawn from the Infantry Corps while a mechanized or armoured formation would draw its names from the current Armoured Corps.

As someone mentioned earlier, it might be expedient to use regiments besides the ones that exist now in order to prevent any accusations of favoritism.  In fact, as Michael mentions, we could probably name our Regiments after a numbered regiment (ie: 1st Regiment, 2nd Regiment, etc).  It makes no difference if a regiment is named or numbered, the US Marine Corps possess many illustrious number regiments (heck, we have R22R, 8CH, and 48Highlanders).

The crux of a Regimental system is how it manages both individual career patterns and unit manning in order to build stronger cohesion and how this system fits into your doctrine and organization.

 

[pbi]

Yard Ape: the concept and ORBAT you propose has some strong similarities to the USMC. In the Marines there are not really separate "branches" as we know them, although separate MOCs exist. All Marine battalions are (usually) part of a numbered Marine Regiment, but all Marines are just that: Marines. There is one cap badge and one USMC heritage (of which Marines are very aware and fiercely proud), although the subordinate regiments and battalions are aware of their own individual battle honours and histories, there is none of the divisiveness we experience in our tiny army with numerous branches and corps competing with each other. There are exceptions to this system, such as USMC aviation units and some special organizations, but in general they follow this structure in a Marine Corps of four divisions (three Active, one Reserve). Cheers. (And keep on thinking...!!)

 

[Michael Dorosh]

But if there is a perceived problem with the way the regiments are doing business now, and if renaming them (or simply numbering them) isn't going to "make a difference" - then why would we think renaming them would change the problems, either?