Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

Not to brag but M114, M109 and M777 gunners have been, happily tossing 93 pound projectiles around since the 1960s without any mechanical assists. We've had female gunners doing it for a few decades now as well.

The Hellfire is considerably longer than a 155mm
It’s a lot more awkward to move.

 

[KevinB]

The Hellfire is considerably longer than a 155mm
It’s a lot more awkward to move.

Also one doesn’t need to lift a 155mm over one’s head.

 

[Kirkhill]

M SHORAD is starting to look like an Avenger / USMC LAV-AD but with a remotely operated turret.

Apparently the decision on the Hellfire pod has been pending since 2021.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1515311169677914117

 

[KevinB]

Honestly the Hellfire option makes too many folks think anti tank..

It a good anti helicopter option, but I think it worries some higher ups that think that crews will try to be anti tank assets.

 

[Kirkhill]

Stinger replacement was initiated in April 2022.

The FIM-92 Stinger Surface-To-Air Missile May Finally Get A Replacement

The Army says the iconic Stinger design is increasingly obsolete and its existing stockpiles are dwindling.

www.thedrive.com

US Army initiates plan to replace Stingers with next-gen interceptor

As the Army sends off Stinger and Javelin missiles to Ukraine, the service begins the process of replacing its aging Stinger missiles for short-range air defense.

www.defensenews.com

Does the US look for a more advanced missile or does it just restart production on a missile type that is scoring kills?


The advanced option? LM Miniature Hit to Kill Radar guided missile? Or the Laser guided Martlet?

Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Martlet (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New Configuration of MHTK Miniature Missile Validated In Flight Test - Defense Update:

Lockheed Martin has tested a new configuration of its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, Friday, January 26th. The test comprised a controlled flight of the miniature missile to demonstrate the interceptor's increased agility and to validate the...

defense-update.com

 

[KevinB]

Stinger replacement was initiated in April 2022.

The FIM-92 Stinger Surface-To-Air Missile May Finally Get A Replacement

The Army says the iconic Stinger design is increasingly obsolete and its existing stockpiles are dwindling.

www.thedrive.com

US Army initiates plan to replace Stingers with next-gen interceptor

As the Army sends off Stinger and Javelin missiles to Ukraine, the service begins the process of replacing its aging Stinger missiles for short-range air defense.

www.defensenews.com

Does the US look for a more advanced missile or does it just restart production on a missile type that is scoring kills?

Both

The advanced option? LM Miniature Hit to Kill Radar guided missile? Or the Laser guided Martlet?

I don’t think we’d go back to a designated system. They are pretty easy to spoof.

Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Martlet (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New Configuration of MHTK Miniature Missile Validated In Flight Test - Defense Update:

Lockheed Martin has tested a new configuration of its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, Friday, January 26th. The test comprised a controlled flight of the miniature missile to demonstrate the interceptor's increased agility and to validate the...

defense-update.com

 

[IKnowNothing]

I would essentially cut the infantry down to regular 7 Bns. 3 light Bns with full regular complements, and 4 mechanized with 70/30 constructs. The Mechanized Bdes would be supported by a motorized 10/90 Bn, and its armoured regiment would have admin control of two crew augmentation squadrons. A light Bde would have an augmenting 10/90 Bn as well. Artillery and Engineers would be 3 x 70/30. Once all that is established I think we can maybe create one more 10/90 Bde that is geographically dispersed.

At risk of aiming too low, and calling back to the UK comparison I did a week or two back are mechanized Bde's a viable, necessary target? SSE doesn't call for them, and at present time moving from lip service bde's to deployable ones seems aspirational to the point of waste. I think you mentioned F2025 got into some of this, but why not break the RegF army into two main task groupings-
-one designed to generate, deploy, and sustain, excellently equipped and maintained, fully manned mech and light battlegroups to meet the countries ongoing commitments, including falling on to pre-positioned equipment in Europe
-one designed to be the skeleton of motorized bde, returning the reserves to the job of providing manpower to be mobilized to expand the Army in a time of war.
-reserves fully tasked to to provide sub-sub units to be slotted into the above skeleton


Force A
3x 100/0 mech bn
3x 100/0 light bn
1x 100/0 Tank Regiment
1x 100/0 LRSS Regiment
3x 100/0SP 155 Bty's
3x 100/0 M777 Bty's
3x 100/0 MSHORAD Bty's
3x 100/0 MANPADS Bty's


Force B
Bde HQ
4x Inf Bn HQ's, 4x CS Coy HQ's, 13x Line Coy HQ's 51 Reserve Infantry Regiments - (assuming all 51 regiments are up to the sub-sub unit task 51 - 12 (4 per CS Coy = 39, 39/ 3 = 13 line coy's.
2x Light Cavalry Regimental HQ , 6x Sqn HQ's (18 PRes Armoured regiments, same assumption)
1x HQ Bty, 1x FO Bty, 1x STA Bty, 3x Gun Bty HQ's (9/18 Arty Regiments)
1x HQ Bty, 3x SHORAD Bty HQ's (9/18 Arty Regiments)

Equip force B modern standards so that it's deployable in part or whole when given sufficient work up notice. Vehicle selection is tricky, want to keep cost, maintenance, and training requirements low, but also be usable. License build Pasi, Protolab Misu, Eagle 6x6, modernized Bison etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would essentially cut the infantry down to regular 7 Bns. 3 light Bns with full regular complements, and 4 mechanized with 70/30 constructs. The Mechanized Bdes would be supported by a motorized 10/90 Bn, and its armoured regiment would have admin control of two crew augmentation squadrons. A light Bde would have an augmenting 10/90 Bn as well. Artillery and Engineers would be 3 x 70/30. Once all that is established I think we can maybe create one more 10/90 Bde that is geographically dispersed.

Lt Bde

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt CS Coy

Lt CS Coy

Lt CS Coy

Lt CSS Coy

Lt CSS Coy

Lt CSS Coy

Lt Cmd Coy

Lt Cmd Coy

Lt Cmd Coy

Motor Res

Motor Res

Motor Res

Mech Res

Mech Res

Mech Res

Mech Res

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Tank Sqn

Tank Sqn

Tank Sqn

Tank Sqn

Tank Res

Tank Res

CS Bty

CS Bty

CS Bty

CS Bty

AD Bty

AD Bty

Res Bty

Res Bty

Mech Bde

Mech Bde

LR Bty

LR Bty

AD Bty

Res Bty

Div Arty

Not exactly Mark's prescription but a Kirkhill 80% approximation.

I haven't filled in any of the C5ISR stuff or the Logistics.

That geographically dispersed 10/90 Brigade that you think you find room for? How about turning that into a supply and transport brigade to supply lots of 8x8 fixed frame truck drivers? And the CAF needs to tie in the RCAF 1 and 8 Wings as well.

What I notice that gives is three deployable Brigade Group HQs with 3 Light Led Battle Groups and 4 Combined Arms Battle Groups (2 LAV + 1 Tank) ready to field at shortish notice. You could just as easily dispatch a single CAB brigade as a Light Brigade reinforced with a CAB Battlegroup.


One thing I would suggest from the toy catalogue is that we add self propelled mortars to the Sub Units - especially the tank squadron

This is another Kirkhill 80% approximation. This time of the "new" Russian Assault Unit.


I read this as a D30 artillery battery and an Infantry Heavy Weapons Coy operating in support of a Rifle Coy with 12 BMPs reinforced by 6x T72 Tanks and 9x 2S9 - Self Propelled 120 mm mortars (8.7 tonnes) with a BREM-L ARV capable of recovering the BMPs and the Mortars.

The 2S9s I see as analogous to a track or LAV with the NEMO turret.

Beyond that I don't think the Russian model has much to commend itself to anyone. Its existence seems to confirm the trouble the Russians are having finding weapons, specialists and infantry.

					Wrecker
					Ambulance
					Bn HQ
					HQ Protection Team
					Reserve Gp
					Flame Gp
					12x Flame
					Fire Spt Gp
					2x AGS-17
					2x HMG Kord
					2x ATGMs
					2x Sniper Tms
					Recce Gp
					UAV Gp
					EW Gp
					2x ZU-23-2
					3x IGLA
					6x D30
					6x 2S9
					BREM-L
					3x T72
	Aslt Coy				Aslt Coy				Aslt Coy
	Fire Spt Gp				Fire Spt Gp				Fire Spt Gp
	2x 82mm				2x 82mm				2x 82mm
	2x AGS-17				2x AGS-17				2x AGS-17
	2x HMG Kord				2x HMG Kord				2x HMG Kord
	2x ATGMs				2x ATGMs				2x ATGMs
	2x Sniper Tms				2x Sniper Tms				2x Sniper Tms
	1x 2S9				1x 2S9				1x 2S9
	1xT72				1xT72				1xT72
	4x BMP2				4x BMP2				4x BMP2
Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl
15		15		15		15		15		15

 

[FJAG]

Honestly the Hellfire option makes too many folks think anti tank..

It a good anti helicopter option, but I think it worries some higher ups that think that crews will try to be anti tank assets.

I'll be honest. I'm one of those. The whole anti-helicopter Hellfire functionality made me think someone was pulling a fast one trying to push with a bit of an ADATs agenda.

The two Stinger pods make a lot more sense and if that can in the future be upgraded to a more functional longer range AD missile so much the better.

 

[GR66]

I'll be honest. I'm one of those. The whole anti-helicopter Hellfire functionality made me think someone was pulling a fast one trying to push with a bit of an ADATs agenda.

The two Stinger pods make a lot more sense and if that can in the future be upgraded to a more functional longer range AD missile so much the better.

The other big plus of the Stinger pod vs Hellfire is 4 missiles vs. 2. Heck, since a lot of the targets they'll be shooting at are likely to be on the smaller end of the scale I'd love to see 4 x Stingers and another pod with 8 x small missiles.

 

[markppcli]

Lt Bde

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt Coy

Lt CS Coy

Lt CS Coy

Lt CS Coy

Lt CSS Coy

Lt CSS Coy

Lt CSS Coy

Lt Cmd Coy

Lt Cmd Coy

Lt Cmd Coy

Motor Res

Motor Res

Motor Res

Mech Res

Mech Res

Mech Res

Mech Res

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Mech Coy

Tank Sqn

Tank Sqn

Tank Sqn

Tank Sqn

Tank Res

Tank Res

CS Bty

CS Bty

CS Bty

CS Bty

AD Bty

AD Bty

Res Bty

Res Bty

Mech Bde

Mech Bde

LR Bty

LR Bty

AD Bty

Res Bty

Div Arty

Not exactly Mark's prescription but a Kirkhill 80% approximation.

I haven't filled in any of the C5ISR stuff or the Logistics.

That geographically dispersed 10/90 Brigade that you think you find room for? How about turning that into a supply and transport brigade to supply lots of 8x8 fixed frame truck drivers? And the CAF needs to tie in the RCAF 1 and 8 Wings as well.

What I notice that gives is three deployable Brigade Group HQs with 3 Light Led Battle Groups and 4 Combined Arms Battle Groups (2 LAV + 1 Tank) ready to field at shortish notice. You could just as easily dispatch a single CAB brigade as a Light Brigade reinforced with a CAB Battlegroup.


One thing I would suggest from the toy catalogue is that we add self propelled mortars to the Sub Units - especially the tank squadron

This is another Kirkhill 80% approximation. This time of the "new" Russian Assault Unit.


I read this as a D30 artillery battery and an Infantry Heavy Weapons Coy operating in support of a Rifle Coy with 12 BMPs reinforced by 6x T72 Tanks and 9x 2S9 - Self Propelled 120 mm mortars (8.7 tonnes) with a BREM-L ARV capable of recovering the BMPs and the Mortars.

The 2S9s I see as analogous to a track or LAV with the NEMO turret.

Beyond that I don't think the Russian model has much to commend itself to anyone. Its existence seems to confirm the trouble the Russians are having finding weapons, specialists and infantry.

					Wrecker
					Ambulance
					Bn HQ
					HQ Protection Team
					Reserve Gp
					Flame Gp
					12x Flame
					Fire Spt Gp
					2x AGS-17
					2x HMG Kord
					2x ATGMs
					2x Sniper Tms
					Recce Gp
					UAV Gp
					EW Gp
					2x ZU-23-2
					3x IGLA
					6x D30
					6x 2S9
					BREM-L
					3x T72
	Aslt Coy				Aslt Coy				Aslt Coy
	Fire Spt Gp				Fire Spt Gp				Fire Spt Gp
	2x 82mm				2x 82mm				2x 82mm
	2x AGS-17				2x AGS-17				2x AGS-17
	2x HMG Kord				2x HMG Kord				2x HMG Kord
	2x ATGMs				2x ATGMs				2x ATGMs
	2x Sniper Tms				2x Sniper Tms				2x Sniper Tms
	1x 2S9				1x 2S9				1x 2S9
	1xT72				1xT72				1xT72
	4x BMP2				4x BMP2				4x BMP2
Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl		Aslt Pl
15		15		15		15		15		15

Slightly more readable format for anyone else.

At risk of aiming too low, and calling back to the UK comparison I did a week or two back are mechanized Bde's a viable, necessary target? SSE doesn't call for them, and at present time moving from lip service bde's to deployable ones seems aspirational to the point of waste.

Disagree. We have more than enough core equipment to achieve that. The maintenance situation ish the Leopards.. I can’t speak too but I’ve been on more MR / Bde exes with them than without so I dunno. Either way I don’t think generating two regiments with two Sqns of 14 tanks (56) is a huge ask.

I think you mentioned F2025 got into some of this,

Force 2025 included units in RFA 1/2/3. Each Bn was to have one of its three companies at RFA 2.

but why not break the RegF army into two main task groupings-
-one designed to generate, deploy, and sustain, excellently equipped and maintained, fully manned mech and light battlegroups to meet the countries ongoing commitments, including falling on to pre-positioned equipment in Europe
-one designed to be the skeleton of motorized bde, returning the reserves to the job of providing manpower to be mobilized to expand the Army in a time of war.

I think this is a flawed concept in general. The idea of mass mobilization has only worked for Ukraine because the whole western world is providing equipment and safe training locations.

-reserves fully tasked to to provide sub-sub units to be slotted into the above skeleton

this is agree with. The reserves needs to be given achievable tasks by the army. They need to be in the same formations and we can start breaking down the us / them.

Force A
3x 100/0 mech bn
3x 100/0 light bn
1x 100/0 Tank Regiment
1x 100/0 LRSS Regiment
3x 100/0SP 155 Bty's
3x 100/0 M777 Bty's
3x 100/0 MSHORAD Bty's
3x 100/0 MANPADS Bty's


Force B
Bde HQ
4x Inf Bn HQ's, 4x CS Coy HQ's, 13x Line Coy HQ's 51 Reserve Infantry Regiments - (assuming all 51 regiments are up to the sub-sub unit task 51 - 12 (4 per CS Coy = 39, 39/ 3 = 13 line coy's.
2x Light Cavalry Regimental HQ , 6x Sqn HQ's (18 PRes Armoured regiments, same assumption)
1x HQ Bty, 1x FO Bty, 1x STA Bty, 3x Gun Bty HQ's (9/18 Arty Regiments)
1x HQ Bty, 3x SHORAD Bty HQ's (9/18 Arty Regiments)

Equip force B modern standards so that it's deployable in part or whole when given sufficient work up notice. Vehicle selection is tricky, want to keep cost, maintenance, and training requirements low, but also be usable. License build Pasi, Protolab Misu, Eagle 6x6, modernized Bison etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

Slightly more readable format for anyone else.

View attachment 76602

Thanks for that...

Disagree. We have more than enough core equipment to achieve that. The maintenance situation ish the Leopards.. I can’t speak too but I’ve been on more MR / Bde exes with them than without so I dunno. Either way I don’t think generating two regiments with two Sqns of 14 tanks (56) is a huge ask.

Sounds reasonable to me

Force 2025 included units in RFA 1/2/3. Each Bn was to have one of its three companies at RFA 2.

I think this is a flawed concept in general. The idea of mass mobilization has only worked for Ukraine because the whole western world is providing equipment and safe training locations.

This would suggest a MacKenzie King solution to increasing Canada's NATO contribution. More training areas. More Trainers. More Ammunition. More factories - all underwritten by Canadian dollars.

The hard part is maintaining a supply of qualified Canadian trainers. That means keeping troops engaged with the enemy so as to keep absorbing the most current lessons. and finding Canadian solutions.

this is agree with. The reserves needs to be given achievable tasks by the army. They need to be in the same formations and we can start breaking down the us / them.

Common ground again.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Disagree. We have more than enough core equipment to achieve that. The maintenance situation ish the Leopards.. I can’t speak too but I’ve been on more MR / Bde exes with them than without so I dunno. Either way I don’t think generating two regiments with two Sqns of 14 tanks (56) is a huge ask.

Heh, you're right, I was locked on the Canadian rule of three. More at bottom. Suffice to say Mark wins.

I think this is a flawed concept in general. The idea of mass mobilization has only worked for Ukraine because the whole western world is providing equipment and safe training locations.

Not Ukrainian style mass mobilization, just a Bde and/or other capabilities that can be called on in fairly short order. Reg bones, Reserve mass, fully formed formations and units but only usable by act of government.

this is agree with. The reserves needs to be given achievable tasks by the army. They need to be in the same formations and we can start breaking down the us / them.

The math to move from my construct to yours actually perfect. One of the Motorized Bn HQ sets moves to mech to create 4, 3 RegF platoons from each of the existing get chopped build the 4th. All 4 have 2x RegF rifle coy's and a RegF CS coy. Geography game gets tough to site the 4 though, balancing tank capable training areas with bases that have enough co-located reserve mass to generate the 3 platoons per.

The only other hang up is that based on the sub-sub unit per reserve regiment there isn't enough to have BOTH motorized reserve round out Bn's and a full Bde, have to choose. I think I'd choose the Bde.

The Mech bde's would be somewhat lacking in depth, but if they're organized in peacetime as 4 CAB's (to prevent the need for reserve use to deploy), then you could organize the reserve mech coy's into a single Coy+ Bde reserve by having each substitute their 3rd rifle platoon for an AT and mortar platoon respectively. Commander would also have the option to mass tanks and split that reserve to the mech bn's. We'd need to go on a CS variant shopping spree but we could pre-position the whole Bde's worth in Latvia. Though to maintain that flyover force would we not have to decide between keeping up the eFP commitment with the 2nd Bde or having mech available for anything else that might come up?

So you'd have a "peacetime" army with 4x CAB's 3xLIB's with proper support, wartime surge to a mech Bde with a 2nd to replace/sustain, and a motorized Bde.

 

[KevinB]

Heh, you're right, I was locked on the Canadian rule of three. More at bottom. Suffice to say Mark wins.

Not Ukrainian style mass mobilization, just a Bde and/or other capabilities that can be called on in fairly short order. Reg bones, Reserve mass, fully formed formations and units but only usable by act of government.


The math to move from my construct to yours actually perfect. One of the Motorized Bn HQ sets moves to mech to create 4, 3 RegF platoons from each of the existing get chopped build the 4th. All 4 have 2x RegF rifle coy's and a RegF CS coy. Geography game gets tough to site the 4 though, balancing tank capable training areas with bases that have enough co-located reserve mass to generate the 3 platoons per.

The only other hang up is that based on the sub-sub unit per reserve regiment there isn't enough to have BOTH motorized reserve round out Bn's and a full Bde, have to choose. I think I'd choose the Bde.

The Mech bde's would be somewhat lacking in depth, but if they're organized in peacetime as 4 CAB's (to prevent the need for reserve use to deploy), then you could organize the reserve mech coy's into a single Coy+ Bde reserve by having each substitute their 3rd rifle platoon for an AT and mortar platoon respectively. Commander would also have the option to mass tanks and split that reserve to the mech bn's. We'd need to go on a CS variant shopping spree but we could pre-position the whole Bde's worth in Latvia. Though to maintain that flyover force would we not have to decide between keeping up the eFP commitment with the 2nd Bde or having mech available for anything else that might come up?

So you'd have a "peacetime" army with 4x CAB's 3xLIB's with proper support, wartime surge to a mech Bde with a 2nd to replace/sustain, and a motorized Bde.

The problem with any ‘peacetime’ Army concept in Canada is Canadians have zero interest in kitting it out properly or with any depth of equipment to sustain even 1 Bde in Cbt.

Part of the CAF’s main issue with the budget it currently has is the cost of personnel.

They needs to be a major restructure of the Reg/Res construct to make any meaningful changes in the CAF IMHO, as unlike down here the tax payer isn’t willing to bear the cost.
If you extrapolate our (American) population with that of Canada you’d have a 100k Army, of which 50% was PRes and fully kitted out like the Regular Army, and fairly well integrated into it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The British have recently reorganized their Divisions to break up their formerly geographical focus.

Might be a good place for us to start, wihtout having to buy new kit etc, to avoid perpetuating self-defeating geographical 'siloes':

On exercise with the Army's newly reorganised Queen's Division​

Soldiers from Queen's Division, one of the newly reorganised divisions of the British Army, are working together for the first time on exercise in Otterburn, Northumberland.

The infantry has been reorganised from five divisions down to four and the traditional grouping of battalions based on geography has been changed to make sure each division contains a range of skills.

When Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced the restructure to the Commons in 2021, he said "these divisions are designed to reflect historic ties, while also balancing their number of battalions and unit roles, offering greater flexibility and opportunity for soldiers of all ranks".

On exercise with the Army's newly reorganised Queen's Division

The traditional grouping of battalions based on geography has been changed to make sure each divison contains a range of skills.

www.forces.net

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem with any ‘peacetime’ Army concept in Canada is Canadians have zero interest in kitting it out properly or with any depth of equipment to sustain even 1 Bde in Cbt.

Isn't that where we should expect our GO/FOs and politicians to think beyond the populace and do what's right while articulating why to the populace regardless of their short sighted wants ?

 

[KevinB]

Isn't that where we should expect our GO/FOs and politicians to think beyond the populace and do what's right while articulating why to the populace regardless of their short sighted wants ?

You’d think so, but I think PET broke that concept for Canadians. It may have been sooner, but the last responsible White Paper was Perrin Beatty’s in 1987.
CHALLENGE & COMMITMENT LOST: Part 1: Looking Back At The Defence White Paper Of 1987 - A Made-In-Canada Policy — espritdecorps

It died on the vine of indifference.

 

[GK .Dundas]

You’d think so, but I think PET broke that concept for Canadians. It may have been sooner, but the last responsible White Paper was Perrin Beatty’s in 1987.
CHALLENGE & COMMITMENT LOST: Part 1: Looking Back At The Defence White Paper Of 1987 - A Made-In-Canada Policy — espritdecorps

It died on the vine of indifference.

That and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

[markppcli]

The British have recently reorganized their Divisions to break up their formerly geographical focus.

Might be a good place for us to start, wihtout having to buy new kit etc, to avoid perpetuating self-defeating geographical 'siloes':

On exercise with the Army's newly reorganised Queen's Division​

Soldiers from Queen's Division, one of the newly reorganised divisions of the British Army, are working together for the first time on exercise in Otterburn, Northumberland.

The infantry has been reorganised from five divisions down to four and the traditional grouping of battalions based on geography has been changed to make sure each division contains a range of skills.

When Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced the restructure to the Commons in 2021, he said "these divisions are designed to reflect historic ties, while also balancing their number of battalions and unit roles, offering greater flexibility and opportunity for soldiers of all ranks".

On exercise with the Army's newly reorganised Queen's Division

The traditional grouping of battalions based on geography has been changed to make sure each divison contains a range of skills.

www.forces.net

You’re obviously aware the Queens Division is administrative just like the Prince of Wales division and that there hasn’t been geographic divisions ins decades. They’re just ways of massing regiments to efficiently run career courses and posting plots.

The only tactical divisions in the British Army are 1st, 3rd, and 6th.

 

[IKnowNothing]

If you extrapolate our (American) population with that of Canada you’d have a 100k Army, of which 50% was PRes and fully kitted out like the Regular Army, and fairly well integrated into it.

I was going to do a proxy/pro-rated comparison same as the UK but the post was getting long, here it is vs the US. Simplified to RegF maneuver units (don't have time to hunt arty kit numbers), proxied off 3 bn's + cav squadron per BCT.
US GDP 23 trillion, % Spend = 3.3
CAN GDP 2 trillion, % Spend = 1.3

GDP ratio = 11:1 % Spend ratio = 29:1, % Spend @ 2% ratio = 20:1

	US Actual	GDP Prorated	Spend Controlled (Actual)	Spend Controlled 2% GDP
Armoured Cavalry Squadrons	11	1	.38	.55
Stryker Cavalry Squadrons	7	.64	.24	.35
Light Cavalry Squadron	13	1.18	.45	.65
Mechanized CAB	33	3	1.14	1.65
Stryker Bn	21	1.9	.72	1.05
Light/Air Bn	39	3.5	1.35	1.95
Total Combat Arms Units	124	11.22	4.28	6.2

Extremely rough proxies, but things that jump out at me

A. The American military model is quite expensive per fielded combat arms unit, driven by all of -high end unit costs, high end enablers, CS, CSS, lots of them plus kit to the reserves.

B .At our current budget any comparison to the US model is farcical, expectations based on straight population comparison are setting the CA up for failure.

C. Even at 2% spend, and accounting for matching the factors noted in A, Canada would need a major RegF consolidation, which coupled with reserve reform and utilization would get us back to 3 bde's. Those numbers (if you aggregate SBCT and IBCT units) has the RegF turning our a full 100/0 IBCT and slightly over 50% of an ABCT, so a slight boost to get to 2x 30/70's.