How I Corps Fights -

[Kirkhill]

How I Corps Fights: Movement and Maneuver

Military Review September-October 2024

www.armyupress.army.mil

Noteworthy Comments -

The lead author is a Canadian Brigadier General (Eric Landry) with a USA Col and Lt Col and an Aussie Major.
I Corps operations predicated on Jointery - working with allies and competitors (like the USN and the USMC)
The Aussies basis of planning appears to be the 1 (AS - Australian) Div.

Also note worthy - I Corps includes the 11th Airborne Div in Alaska

.....


A Canadian Division - focused on the North Pole capable of swinging from Nordkapp to Attu would mesh with I Corps, North Command, NORAD and NATO.
It would also align with the Aussie scale of contribution.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some other interesting integrations -

Secrets don't make friends: Space Force making strides on allied info sharing, Canadian general says - Breaking Defense

Brig. Gen. Kyle Paul told Breaking Defense that rather than being a problem, technology now is helping the Space Force to find "opportunities" to enable wider information sharing through the ability to "compartmentalize" data within computer systems.

breakingdefense.com

NATO considering Arctic combined air operations center to deal with Russian threats

“We intercept Russians once or twice per week,” Norway's air chief said.

www.defenseone.com

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

How I Corps Fights: Movement and Maneuver

Military Review September-October 2024

www.armyupress.army.mil

Noteworthy Comments -

The lead author is a Canadian Brigadier General (Eric Landry) with a USA Col and Lt Col and an Aussie Major.
I Corps operations predicated on Jointery - working with allies and competitors (like the USN and the USMC)
The Aussies basis of planning appears to be the 1 (AS - Australian) Div.

Also note worthy - I Corps includes the 11th Airborne Div in Alaska

.....


A Canadian Division - focused on the North Pole capable of swinging from Nordkapp to Attu would mesh with I Corps, North Command, NORAD and NATO.
It would also align with the Aussie scale of contribution.

Are you saying that the USMC and USN are viewed as competitors? The authors certainly do not refer to those services as competitors. They say that the nature of the operating environment make cooperation with the USAF, USN and USMC very important. Yes, Jointness is critical to operate in the Pacific!

Regarding your comparison to Canada: Australian scale of contribution to what? They are not part of I Corps. Elements of 1st Australian Division could certainly be integrated into a multi-national force operating in the Indo-Pacific on a mission that aligned with Australian governmental priorities with I Corps as a LCC (Land Component Command). 1st Australian Division is essentially their three regular brigades under a single HQ. Those Bdes are geographically displaced from each other. It would be like putting our three CMBG under 1st Canadian Division for day-to-day C2 and administration. At the risk of making this a F2025 thread, its a viable COA with some benefits, but it wouldn't materially change our operational output to our allies.

On the topic of integration with the US Army, the Canadian Army has, since 2022, integrated elements from sub-unit to unit level into 11th Airborne at JPMRC Alaska. We have many activities with the US Army to further security cooperation and interoperability. These are worked out between CADTC and US ARNORTH on a regular basis. There is a long-term strategy that guides all of this.

To your point about a Canadian Division focused on the North Pole, Canada has committed to being the framework for the eFP Latvia Brigade. That NATO mission takes plenty of effort on our part. In terms of deterrence, actual boots on the ground can mean more than a commitment to send boots on the ground somewhere. I am not sure what a division would do at the North Pole, but rest assured that each year Canadian Army units train/operate in the Canadian Arctic to include places such as Resolute Bay. Some of this is under the Op NANOOK series, while others are CA exercises.

Back to the article, though, an interesting view into I Corps.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

How I Corps Fights: Movement and Maneuver

Military Review September-October 2024

www.armyupress.army.mil

Noteworthy Comments -

The lead author is a Canadian Brigadier General (Eric Landry) with a USA Col and Lt Col and an Aussie Major.
I Corps operations predicated on Jointery - working with allies and competitors (like the USN and the USMC)
The Aussies basis of planning appears to be the 1 (AS - Australian) Div.

Also note worthy - I Corps includes the 11th Airborne Div in Alaska

.....


A Canadian Division - focused on the North Pole capable of swinging from Nordkapp to Attu would mesh with I Corps, North Command, NORAD and NATO.
It would also align with the Aussie scale of contribution.

Note that as far as I remember, I Corps is not a warfighting Corp...that role is held by 18 AB and 3 Corps

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you saying that the USMC and USN are viewed as competitors? The authors certainly do not refer to those services as competitors. They say that the nature of the operating environment make cooperation with the USAF, USN and USMC very important. Yes, Jointness is critical to operate in the Pacific!

Are the USMC and the USN viewed as competitors? Arguably, yes. Although it is recognized that nobody can go it alone I find it difficult to discern a common course of action. The Sea Services are debating uncrewed and crewed, surface and sub-surface, air power and amphibs. The Marines are debating tanks and howitzers, stand-in forces and expeditionary forces, rotary wing employment.

The Army is acquiring sub-orbital munitions. It too is struggling with the role of Drones in all terrains and environments. It is looking at reneging on its USAF agreement to build its own manned fixed wing ISR fleet.

Command and Control systems are works in progress.

Traditional weapons suppliers are protecting their iron rice bowls.

The Special Ops community is proceeding with it fleet of crop dusters.


....

I suggest that there is a lot of flux in the aether at this time and a whole lot of competing visions as to how the next decade is going to play out.

Even when everybody was working from the one hymn book competition occured.

Regarding your comparison to Canada: Australian scale of contribution to what? They are not part of I Corps. Elements of 1st Australian Division could certainly be integrated into a multi-national force operating in the Indo-Pacific on a mission that aligned with Australian governmental priorities with I Corps as a LCC (Land Component Command). 1st Australian Division is essentially their three regular brigades under a single HQ. Those Bdes are geographically displaced from each other. It would be like putting our three CMBG under 1st Canadian Division for day-to-day C2 and administration. At the risk of making this a F2025 thread, its a viable COA with some benefits, but it wouldn't materially change our operational output to our allies.

Do we have the ability to co-ordinate a Division with our own resources? Even if that means taking under command a lot of allied resources?

Whether we, or the Aussies, served under/with I, III, V, VII or XVIII Corps, the USMC, JSDF or JEF.

On the topic of integration with the US Army, the Canadian Army has, since 2022, integrated elements from sub-unit to unit level into 11th Airborne at JPMRC Alaska. We have many activities with the US Army to further security cooperation and interoperability. These are worked out between CADTC and US ARNORTH on a regular basis. There is a long-term strategy that guides all of this.

Good to hear. I have been following that with interest. I look forwards to hearing that we have supplied a Brigade to 11th Airborne.

To your point about a Canadian Division focused on the North Pole, Canada has committed to being the framework for the eFP Latvia Brigade. That NATO mission takes plenty of effort on our part. In terms of deterrence, actual boots on the ground can mean more than a commitment to send boots on the ground somewhere. I am not sure what a division would do at the North Pole, but rest assured that each year Canadian Army units train/operate in the Canadian Arctic to include places such as Resolute Bay. Some of this is under the Op NANOOK series, while others are CA exercises.

Reference North Pole. Left of Arc - Attu. Right of Arc - Nordkapp.

I understand the Latvian commitment. It seems like it is taking a lot of time and effort to achieve that and doesn't seem to leave a lot of bandwidth left over for any other tasks.

Back to the article, though, an interesting view into I Corps.

 

[KevinB]

Note that as far as I remember, I Corps is not a warfighting Corp...that role is held by 18 AB and 3 Corps

I and V have war fighting theatre responsibilities now (or again).

I had Korea before, but wasn’t truly a war fighting entity (okay technically 8th Army has Korea, but that’s a bit of a stretch to call it anything more than a office as it’s subservient to USFK, which I Corps runs), and V had vanished after CFE, but both are now back with combat Divisions affixed as well as Arty Bde’s and sustaining elements.

III remains the Armored contingency force, with XVIII Airborne as the RDF without specific theater tasks.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Are the USMC and the USN viewed as competitors? Arguably, yes. Although it is recognized that nobody can go it alone I find it difficult to discern a common course of action. The Sea Services are debating uncrewed and crewed, surface and sub-surface, air power and amphibs. The Marines are debating tanks and howitzers, stand-in forces and expeditionary forces, rotary wing employment.

The Army is acquiring sub-orbital munitions. It too is struggling with the role of Drones in all terrains and environments. It is looking at reneging on its USAF agreement to build its own manned fixed wing ISR fleet.

Command and Control systems are works in progress.

Traditional weapons suppliers are protecting their iron rice bowls.

The Special Ops community is proceeding with it fleet of crop dusters.


....

I suggest that there is a lot of flux in the aether at this time and a whole lot of competing visions as to how the next decade is going to play out.

Even when everybody was working from the one hymn book competition occured.



Do we have the ability to co-ordinate a Division with our own resources? Even if that means taking under command a lot of allied resources?

Whether we, or the Aussies, served under/with I, III, V, VII or XVIII Corps, the USMC, JSDF or JEF.




Good to hear. I have been following that with interest. I look forwards to hearing that we have supplied a Brigade to 11th Airborne.



Reference North Pole. Left of Arc - Attu. Right of Arc - Nordkapp.

I understand the Latvian commitment. It seems like it is taking a lot of time and effort to achieve that and doesn't seem to leave a lot of bandwidth left over for any other tasks.

I won't engage in line-by-line, but I will try to address the Divisional question.

Regarding the Division level, what do you mean by "coordinate a Division within our own resources?" Do you mean the command and control of a fighting division on operations, or the coordination of day-to-day activities at home stations? Why do you ask?