Armoured RECCE

[KevinB]

Why send a crewed vehicle to do what an Unmanned Vehicle Can do?
Short of sending a Tank Coy - any vehicle is pretty much cannon fodder to the Enemy - and if they have more tanks, you are in trouble...

Just because something worked in the past - the advent of UAS makes vehicle recce a little more than perilous in an Near Peer conflict.
It's even sketchy for mud recce dismounts.

 

[FJAG]

At that point your Cavalry Battalion is starting to sound an awful lot like a mini-Brigade.

I think it needs to be. I think there are probably a whole lot of people revising what recce and cavalry should be in both offence and defence right now. And if they aren't, they should be.

Seriously? A Brigadier in charge of a Brigade is rank inflation?

Absolutely. If LCols run battalions then the next step up is colonel. Don't forget the origin of the term comes from a time when colonels ran regiments which were the standard combat unit. When regiments were brigaded they had a senior colonel temporarily appointment to command the brigade. It was not a substantive rank step. At Waterloo, British brigades were commanded mostly by Major Generals which, at the time was the lowest "general" rank, one Brevet Colonel and a few foreign Kolonels and even a LCol.

We've played with the term but, IMHO, once we settled on battalions being a LCol's command there was no longer any need to have a "brigadier" run the brigade. For a while we had colonels in charge of "regiments" and "brigades" but then upranked to "brigadier" for the "brigade group". We rationally (for once) stopped that nonsense. There is no magical gift of brilliance that comes with the promotion to "brigadier". All that is needed from an experience, hierarchical and legal point of view is that the commander of a gaggle of LCols be one rank up. Colonel will do nicely. Anything else is inflation.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it needs to be. I think there are probably a whole lot of people revising what recce and cavalry should be in both offence and defence right now. And if they aren't, they should be.



Absolutely. If LCols run battalions then the next step up is colonel. Don't forget the origin of the term comes from a time when colonels ran regiments which were the standard combat unit. When regiments were brigaded they had a senior colonel temporarily appointment to command the brigade. It was not a substantive rank step. At Waterloo, British brigades were commanded mostly by Major Generals which, at the time was the lowest "general" rank, one Brevet Colonel and a few foreign Kolonels and even a LCol.

We've played with the term but, IMHO, once we settled on battalions being a LCol's command there was no longer any need to have a "brigadier" run the brigade. For a while we had colonels in charge of "regiments" and "brigades" but then upranked to "brigadier" for the "brigade group". We rationally (for once) stopped that nonsense. There is no magical gift of brilliance that comes with the promotion to "brigadier". All that is needed from an experience, hierarchical and legal point of view is that the commander of a gaggle of LCols be one rank up. Colonel will do nicely. Anything else is inflation.

Nah!! You've got it wrong. The Infantry Group in a Brigade (3 Battalions) equals a Regiment. Ergo there should be an Infantry Colonel in charge of the three Lt Cols and their Battalions while the Brigadier manages the Infantry Regiment, the Cavalry Regiment, the Artillery Regiment and the Engineer Regiment (and may be the Sigs Regiment).

Then we start to get things to fall back into place. Brigadiers command groups of Regiments. Colonels command Regiments assisted by their Lt Colonels and Majors.

Captains command Companies assisted by their Lieutenants. Then God is in his heaven and all's right with the world.

 

[Kirkhill]

...Fundamentally armies are "push" organizations....

That statement took me be surprise. I had to come back to it.

Do you really want an army that you have to push towards the enemy? That sounds to me kind of like the army the Russians have.

On the other hand the Ukrainians have an army that is running towards the enemy, that has to be curbed, reined in. Their frontline is pulling them forwards and demanding more support.

Does the unit commander outrank the Brigade Chief of Staff? Or does the Chief of Staff outrank the unit commander? Does the CO make demands of the Brigade Staff or does the Brigade Staff make demands of the CO?

 

[FJAG]

Nah!! You've got it wrong.

- wouldn't be the first time.

The Infantry Group in a Brigade (3 Battalions) equals a Regiment. Ergo there should be an Infantry Colonel in charge of the three Lt Cols and their Battalions while the Brigadier manages the Infantry Regiment, the Cavalry Regiment, the Artillery Regiment and the Engineer Regiment (and may be the Sigs Regiment).

Then we start to get things to fall back into place. Brigadiers command groups of Regiments. Colonels command Regiments assisted by their Lt Colonels and Majors.

Captains command Companies assisted by their Lieutenants. Then God is in his heaven and all's right with the world.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that we do not have three battalion regiments as combat formations - we do not have "groups of regiments"; just those strange administrative entities which, for all intents and purposes screw up the Army with their continuous cap badge whinging. Get rid of those and form them into maybe eight fully independent battalions (an armoured brigade just needs two) and maybe we'd stop being so infantry centric and get to combined arms thinking.

What we have is a brigade with five battalions. three infantry, an armoured one, about half of an artillery one. Both engineers and service are marginally battalions.

We'd be better off getting rid of the brigadier appointment/rank like the did in the interwar years. All it does is bloat headquarters and create additional reporting layers that slow the decision making processes. Have a major general come after colonel, like it once did, for divisional command and Lieutenant General for Army command. Under that just staff wienies of colonel and below.

I actually favour a senior captain as a company, squadron and battery commander. Save the major rank for principal battalion staff officers.

 

[FJAG]

That statement took me be surprise. I had to come back to it.

Do you really want an army that you have to push towards the enemy? That sounds to me kind of like the army the Russians have.

On the other hand the Ukrainians have an army that is running towards the enemy, that has to be curbed, reined in. Their frontline is pulling them forwards and demanding more support.

Does the unit commander outrank the Brigade Chief of Staff? Or does the Chief of Staff outrank the unit commander? Does the CO make demands of the Brigade Staff or does the Brigade Staff make demands of the CO?

I must have misunderstood what you meant by a "push" organization vs a "pull" organization. In fact I'm not sure what a "pull" organization even is.

You are mixing a whole lot of apples and oranges here. Russians and Ukrainians have nothing to do with it and neither does a unit commander and a chief of staff.

Push merely means order come from the highest commander to the lowest. Within our military system we generally leave latitude to the lower commander as to how that order is effected but not the freedom to go in a completely different direction without first getting the concurrence of the higher commander.

Staff, whether a COS or a G3 or whatever, are merely enablers for their commander. When acting within the scope of their duties, they have the powers given to them by that commander.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just because something worked in the past - the advent of UAS makes vehicle recce a little more than perilous in an Near Peer conflict.
It's even sketchy for mud recce dismounts.

UAS isn't something countries like China is ignoring, either.

Active and passive airborne sensors are extremely hard to hide from; I recall even on ex's like COMMON GROUND and MG....we were able to see things with EOIR and RADAR (MTIs, SAR imagery), determine accurate locations quickly and report to the JTAC in very short time/task cycle. MG specifically, I remember our "customer" being pretty impressed with the data we pushed. You don't even have to be moving; radar reflectors are radar reflectors and AFVs tend to have them; you're likely going to reflect more than your surroundings. I've followed a set of footprints, at night, to a sentry position with IR...

The same sensors and TTPs were used with success in Iraq and Syria.

Some assets are very capable and specialized. P3 LSRS, JSTARs, RG-4 Block 30 type UAS, BAMS-D come to mind.

 

[Kirkhill]

Buuuut...

You want a combined arms mini-brigade for your Cavalry Regiment - Lt Col and Battle Gp II+ or Full Colonel and Regiment/Group III?
We both, I believe want bigger Artillery Regiments with more capabilities - A Colonel with an Air Def Lt Colonel with 2 or 3 batteries and a Fires Lt Colonel with 3 or 4 batteries?
And what is wrong with reinstating the Tactical Colonel of Infantry as the Brigadier's Deputy in an Infantry Brigade...

Jus' sayin'

Meanwhile, back to the Byzantine ... and a hopeful note.

US weapons makers meet with Pentagon​

As news of an additional $800 million in military assistance from the US to Ukraine was released, executives from top American weapons makers met with Pentagon officials to discuss the industrial challenges in the event of a protracted conflict.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said the discussion "focused primarily on accelerating production and building more capacity across the industrial base for weapons and equipment that can be exported rapidly, deployed with minimal training, and prove effective in the battlefield".

It's kind of late in the day but better late than never.

Key elements of a good weapons system

Effective
Minimal training
Rapidly manufactured

 

[Kirkhill]

I must have misunderstood what you meant by a "push" organization vs a "pull" organization. In fact I'm not sure what a "pull" organization even is.

You are mixing a whole lot of apples and oranges here. Russians and Ukrainians have nothing to do with it and neither does a unit commander and a chief of staff.

Push merely means order come from the highest commander to the lowest. Within our military system we generally leave latitude to the lower commander as to how that order is effected but not the freedom to go in a completely different direction without first getting the concurrence of the higher commander.

Staff, whether a COS or a G3 or whatever, are merely enablers for their commander. When acting within the scope of their duties, they have the powers given to them by that commander.

I'm wondering about the amount of latitude given to subordinate commanders and whether we play, to use the well-worn analogy, free-flowing rugby or rigidly controlled football?

In one case the players on the field exploit opportunities and request support. In the other case the managers off the field detail the taskings in response to their personal appreciations and the players wait for instruction before acting. Hence my Russians and Ukrainians reference.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The biggest problem I see in all of this, is that what we are discussing and trying to build for is international ops. Whether UN, Expeditionary Forces or working with allies, it's all offshore.

What formations, manning, equipment and doctrine are we going to need in defence of our own soil. I'm sure there's plans out there (?) for the defence of Canada. However, honestly, in 37 years service, I have never saw or heard what our defence of the country doctrine and plan is. Rather than build and equip for far away actions, perhaps we should be figuring out what we need to do for defence of the realm. I do know we used to kid (?) that if shit hit the fan everyone would grab a vehicle, ammo, arms, rations and some petrol to get rolling. Then everyone would just head for the hills to harrass and make ourselves a pain in the ass and when everything was over, we'd all come home and drink beer.
I don't think that's what the CAF has planned though.

Edit: I do recall something going around in case of invasion by the US, but forget whether it was,a serious endeavor or not.

 

[KevinB]

I don't think that's what the CAF has planned though.

Plan????

 

[Eye In The Sky]

if shit hit the fan everyone would grab a vehicle, ammo, arms, rations and some petrol to get rolling. Then everyone would just head for the hills to harrass and make ourselves a pain in the ass and when everything was over, we'd all come home and drink beer.
I don't think that's what the CAF has planned though.

Agree

• there would be no beer.
• missing kit result in UDIs (you didn’t indicate kit was properly signed out…)
• monthly trip tickets would be checked and those not filled out would have their 404s suspended until remedial trg was complete
• everyone would be required to log onto the DLN and complete their “Safe Composting Practices” and “Butterflies; our friends” mandatory courses before being dismissed.

 

[Weinie]

Agree

• there would be no beer.
• missing kit result in UDIs (you didn’t indicate kit was properly signed out…)
• monthly trip tickets would be checked and those not filled out would have their 404s suspended until remedial trg was complete
• everyone would be required to log onto the DLN and complete their “Safe Composting Practices” and “Butterflies; our friends” mandatory courses before being dismissed.

Which would make me "fightin mad."

 

[GR66]

The biggest problem I see in all of this, is that what we are discussing and trying to build for is international ops. Whether UN, Expeditionary Forces or working with allies, it's all offshore.

What formations, manning, equipment and doctrine are we going to need in defence of our own soil. I'm sure there's plans out there (?) for the defence of Canada. However, honestly, in 37 years service, I have never saw or heard what our defence of the country doctrine and plan is. Rather than build and equip for far away actions, perhaps we should be figuring out what we need to do for defence of the realm. I do know we used to kid (?) that if shit hit the fan everyone would grab a vehicle, ammo, arms, rations and some petrol to get rolling. Then everyone would just head for the hills to harrass and make ourselves a pain in the ass and when everything was over, we'd all come home and drink beer.
I don't think that's what the CAF has planned though.

Edit: I do recall something going around in case of invasion by the US, but forget whether it was,a serious endeavor or not.

I'm curious as to what type of ground-based threat you expect us to potentially face and prepare for? The Russians are hesitant to make an amphibious landing at Odessa, virtually on their doorstep. They failed to succeed in an airborne assault to capture, secure and hold a single airfield in Ukraine that's only 900km from Moscow. The Chinese are dedicating a huge portion of their military to prepare to attack an island that's 100km offshore while Canada is over 9,000km away.

There certainly are military risks to the Canadian homeland but I'm not sure what kind of Army force structure you'd propose to deal with the kinds of threats we're likely to face. And as to the question of expeditionary forces vs. homeland defence forces I'd suggest that due to the vast size of Canada and the distance between our military establishments that any defence of Canada will in effect be "expeditionary".

 

[FJAG]

Buuuut...

You want a combined arms mini-brigade for your Cavalry Regiment - Lt Col and Battle Gp II+ or Full Colonel and Regiment/Group III?
We both, I believe want bigger Artillery Regiments with more capabilities - A Colonel with an Air Def Lt Colonel with 2 or 3 batteries and a Fires Lt Colonel with 3 or 4 batteries?

No. No. No. A combined arms cavalry battalion run by a LCol.

I don't want a bigger artillery battalion (I think its time to stop calling battalions regiments. It's annoying) I just want a proper one - three gun batteries and a UCAV/loitering munitions battery (for the cavalry, i.e one per manoeuvre unit), the requisite FSCCs and FOO/JTACs and an STA troop in the HQ. Easily a LCols command with the responsibility of coord all indirect fire resources for the brigade regardless of whether its organic or reinforcing.

Precision rockets and AD should be an above brigade resource because of the scope of its effects. Time to get the ASCC back up to where it belongs. Elements of them could be delegated downward if a brigade was ever deployed independently of a div.

And what is wrong with reinstating the Tactical Colonel of Infantry as the Brigadier's Deputy in an Infantry Brigade...

Jus' sayin'

You're just shitting with me now aren't you.

 

[FJAG]

Edit: I do recall something going around in case of invasion by the US, but forget whether it was,a serious endeavor or not.

See:

Defence Scheme No. 1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and its counterpoint:

War Plan Red - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Underway]

The biggest problem I see in all of this, is that what we are discussing and trying to build for is international ops. Whether UN, Expeditionary Forces or working with allies, it's all offshore.

What formations, manning, equipment and doctrine are we going to need in defence of our own soil. I'm sure there's plans out there (?) for the defence of Canada. However, honestly, in 37 years service, I have never saw or heard what our defence of the country doctrine and plan is. Rather than build and equip for far away actions, perhaps we should be figuring out what we need to do for defence of the realm. I do know we used to kid (?) that if shit hit the fan everyone would grab a vehicle, ammo, arms, rations and some petrol to get rolling. Then everyone would just head for the hills to harrass and make ourselves a pain in the ass and when everything was over, we'd all come home and drink beer.
I don't think that's what the CAF has planned though.

Edit: I do recall something going around in case of invasion by the US, but forget whether it was,a serious endeavor or not.

Even the US doesn't have a plan for their Army in the event of a continental invasion. The plan has been since Mahan wrote "Sea Power" to have enough Naval (and now Air) threats that no external power could build up enough forces to even threaten the continent.

As the US is essentially a security guarantor of their own sphere of influence Canada's plan is the US plan. We just point to the USN and USAF (and the arctic...lol). Which frankly is an amazing plan. We're best buds with the meanest nastiest navy and airforce on the planet by a wide wide margin and are sitting on a continental island far away from inflammable materials.

And in the event of a US invasion (and why would they, that makes zero sense, its much better to just dominate economically) we are undefendable. The Canadian strategic problem is undefendable against the US and unattackable by the rest of the world.

The army for both the US and Canada has to be essentially (like the UK) expeditionary. It's too hard and dangerous to get here, so we should be planning for expeditionary operations as the most likely COA.

Back to the RECCE!

 

[KevinB]

Even the US doesn't have a plan for their Army in the event of a continental invasion.

False, we stream "Red Dawn" on multiple channels weekly

 

[Kirkhill]

No. No. No. A combined arms cavalry battalion run by a LCol.

I don't want a bigger artillery battalion (I think its time to stop calling battalions regiments. It's annoying) I just want a proper one - three gun batteries and a UCAV/loitering munitions battery (for the cavalry, i.e one per manoeuvre unit), the requisite FSCCs and FOO/JTACs and an STA troop in the HQ. Easily a LCols command with the responsibility of coord all indirect fire resources for the brigade regardless of whether its organic or reinforcing.

Precision rockets and AD should be an above brigade resource because of the scope of its effects. Time to get the ASCC back up to where it belongs. Elements of them could be delegated downward if a brigade was ever deployed independently of a div.


You're just shitting with me now aren't you.

Kindofish!

I really don't get bothered about the rank inflation bit. I figure jobs have to be done and somebody has to do them. In a small army the issue is going to be more a case of whether the job requires a section or a brigade. The rank of the body in charge could be anything.

Which kind of brings me back around to the issue of scrimmaging. On exercise how often does the OiC die? How often is the command handed off to subordinates in the know or a new OiC that has to be read in? Do the subordinates know enough to complete the mission when the Chain of Command ceases to exist?

Substantive Captains acting Brigadier, Sergeants acting OC are not unknown in Canadian history.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Even the US doesn't have a plan for their Army in the event of a continental invasion. The plan has been since Mahan wrote "Sea Power" to have enough Naval (and now Air) threats that no external power could build up enough forces to even threaten the continent.

As the US is essentially a security guarantor of their own sphere of influence Canada's plan is the US plan. We just point to the USN and USAF (and the arctic...lol). Which frankly is an amazing plan. We're best buds with the meanest nastiest navy and airforce on the planet by a wide wide margin and are sitting on a continental island far away from inflammable materials.

And in the event of a US invasion (and why would they, that makes zero sense, its much better to just dominate economically) we are undefendable. The Canadian strategic problem is undefendable against the US and unattackable by the rest of the world.

The army for both the US and Canada has to be essentially (like the UK) expeditionary. It's too hard and dangerous to get here, so we should be planning for expeditionary operations as the most likely COA.

Back to the RECCE!

Unless you have an unbalanced, geriatric POTUS that makes every decision a wrong one.
And never say never. Currently, with the mess on their southern border, they now have millions of undocumented illegal aliens from some 150 countries, currently wandering free in the US with no supervision or surveillance. And the current administration has no intention of stopping it. Matter of fact, they are set to drop Title 42 which will massively increase that influx of undocumented illegals. Why fight blockades if you can just walk in?