Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

I finally had a chance to read the article and think I have an alternate take on what he's taken from the Ukrainian lessons.

1. He's concluded that unit frontages will have to dramatically increase due to the "transparent battlefield" created by the proliferation of drones and satellite imagery. As a result there is no longer the possibility of massing forces along traditional frontages.
   1. I don't think that this is reflected by the reality on the ground in Ukraine. I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that Brigades are being spread out along 100km frontages.
   2. There are a number of countermeasures that can be taken to reduce the effectiveness of enemy recce efforts to locate forces (engineer prepared positions, cammo, decoys, EW and AD)
   3. It is possible to disperse units enough (even fairly close to the front) to ensure that they are not vulnerable to mass fires from the enemy but only really vulnerable to more expensive (and less plentiful) precision fires.
2. He seems to suggest that increased firepower, uncrewed systems, etc. deployed by units will be enough to compensate for their lack of point mass on the objective.
   1. The level of dispersion that he envisions prevents units from being close enough to support adjacent units without stripping away the remote fires they require to support their own offensive efforts and at the same time present the opportunity for the enemy to envelope and defeat isolated units if their efforts to isolate and suppress the enemy fails.

I would counter that concentration of forces is still possible within traditional frontages but agree that enemy AO that needs to be isolated and suppressed has been greatly increased (as a result of the increased range of enemy sense and destroy capabilities). So while a Brigade may still operate on a traditional 3-8km front the area they need to isolate and suppress may be the 100km front suggested by the author.

In order to achieve this I believe there needs to be a fundamental shift in the weight between Combat and Combat Support (and Combat Service Support) elements of a force. For example I envision needing:

• More engineering assets to prepare defensive and decoy positions along the front and the muster areas to both hide and protect allied forces from enemy recce and strike assets.
• Dedicated decoy/deception units in order to deceive the enemy as to the actual location and status if allied troops (decoys, smoke, engineered dummy positions, EM deception, smoke, etc.)
• Much more robust EW assets to interfere with enemy recce efforts and communications.
• Significantly greater AD assets of all ranges (both ground-based and airborne) to interdict aircraft of all types (from FPV's to fighters).
• Allied recce assets (ground, air, space, electronic, etc.) capable of identifying targets within the entire 100km isolation/suppression zone
• Enough precision strike assets to effectively target enemy assets throughout the isolation area.
• Enough mass fires to suppress enemy forces at/near the objective

Given the ability to provide the level of protection/deception to allow you to mass your Brigade along the 3-8km front and then isolate and suppress the enemy's 100km front there would be enough mass to seize the objective.

Furthermore, I believe the widely dispersed long-range precision recce and strike elements that make the front lines "transparent" require quite extensive central coordination to be effective and are much more effective against a fairly static front than against highly mobile forces. Once the enemy's 100km front is isolated/suppressed and an initial breakthrough is achieved, I'm guessing that the opportunity for maneuver warfare in the disrupted rear areas of the enemy would become possible.

$0.02

I hadn't seen this before....

Here is my touchstone



Question 1 - With the technology being demonstrated in Ukraine how many troops would it take to secure the site? My estimate is a Light Company with lots of RWS systems configured for APers/AT/AD defence and lots of UAVs.

Question 2 - How large of an area of interest could be covered from the site? I am going with the loadout of a Mk70 PDS equipped with Tomahawks and SM6 or 1500 km radius.

 

[Clunk]

I'm ready... they don't like it up 'em!!!

Classic!
Dad's Army didn't see much action, so made for good postwar comedy - but even after all these decades interesting to think what they would have done if the invasion had happened.

Some food for thought here, I found this an interesting read:

Canada Needs a New Civil Defence Corps | The Tyee

Trump’s aggression means it’s time to train thousands more civilians for disaster preparedness. Would you join?

thetyee.ca

 

[GR66]

I hadn't seen this before....

Here is my touchstone

View attachment 91841

Question 1 - With the technology being demonstrated in Ukraine how many troops would it take to secure the site? My estimate is a Light Company with lots of RWS systems configured for APers/AT/AD defence and lots of UAVs.

Question 2 - How large of an area of interest could be covered from the site? I am going with the loadout of a Mk70 PDS equipped with Tomahawks and SM6 or 1500 km radius.

The problem is that your site is static. Once identified via satellite or whatever it can be destroyed. It would need to be mobile which means it would likely have to be under armour to protect it on the move.

 

[Kirkhill]

And your problem is that the attached town is also immobile.




The template arises from placing Mk70 Payload Delivery Systems on the parade squares of the following historic defensive positions:

Fort MacAulay - Esquimalt
Fort Prince of Wales - Churchill
Fort Henry - Kington
Quebec Citadel - Quebec
Halifax Citadel - Halifax
Signal Hill Battery - St. John's

Looks like a workable template to me. Add in some SAM batteries and you're golden.

 

[Fabius]

Didn't see this posted yet but, Mods, feel free to delete if a duplicate...

Military planners map out restructuring the Canadian Army, says top soldier​

Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright says army is examining everything from 'headquarters right down to the unit level'​

The Canadian Army is about to embark on a wholesale restructuring in the face of growing demands for troops and equipment both overseas and at home, says the country's top soldier.

A military modernization team is currently studying the problem against the backdrop of a shortage of as many as 5,000 soldiers, Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright told CBC News in a recent interview at the NATO training centre in Adazi, Latvia.

"The army we have now is not the army that we need for the future," Wright said when asked if he was satisfied with the equipping of the troops on the Western military's alliance's deterrence mission in Eastern Europe.

He made his remarks against a backdrop of threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to annex Canada through economic force.

Several senior Canadian commanders have recently faced questions about how long the country could hold out if relations with Washington deteriorated further and the United States chose a military option.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-army-restructuring-latvia-1.7476793

It will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few months. They have conducted a number of surveys, senior leader interviews and working groups.
From that there seems to be consensus that the CA is badly broken and needs to be completely rebuilt. However there is also almost no consensus on how to do that and what the right structure should be.
No consensus on war fighting Div structures, nor brigades, consensus that we have two many HQs, consensus that we need another HQ, consensus that the reserves are without purpose and seeming consensus (alarmingly) that the reserves are too large.
It will be very interesting to see if CCA can force some decisions and drive the CA forward with a unified strategy in a rapid timeframe to overcome our inertia.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few months. They have conducted a number of surveys, senior leader interviews and working groups.
From that there seems to be consensus that the CA is badly broken and needs to be completely rebuilt. However there is also almost no consensus on how to do that and what the right structure should be.
No consensus on war fighting Div structures, nor brigades, consensus that we have two many HQs, consensus that we need another HQ, consensus that the reserves are without purpose and seeming consensus (alarmingly) that the reserves are too large.
It will be very interesting to see if CCA can force some decisions and drive the CA forward with a unified strategy in a rapid timeframe to overcome our inertia.

I think you've just nicely identified the biggest problem... since when has an Army (or any large corporation of any kind) worth its salt ever been run by 'consensus.'

The Army isn't broken, Army Leadership is broken

 

[IKnowNothing]

It will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few months. They have conducted a number of surveys, senior leader interviews and working groups.
From that there seems to be consensus that the CA is badly broken and needs to be completely rebuilt. However there is also almost no consensus on how to do that and what the right structure should be.
No consensus on war fighting Div structures, nor brigades, consensus that we have two many HQs, consensus that we need another HQ, consensus that the reserves are without purpose and seeming consensus (alarmingly) that the reserves are too large.
It will be very interesting to see if CCA can force some decisions and drive the CA forward with a unified strategy in a rapid timeframe to overcome our inertia.

Naive civie thought- but shouldn't that word be "make"?

Engagement has its place, but sometimes a leader just needs to set the path and say go.

 

[FJAG]

seeming consensus (alarmingly) that the reserves are too large.

Too many people - no way.

Too many units - one can certainly argue that - but amalgamation is also the history of unsuccessful reserve restructures.

 

[Fabius]

Too many people - no way.

Too many units - one can certainly argue that - but amalgamation is also the history of unsuccessful reserve restructures.

Agreed. I don’t get the sense that the working groups were thinking about the number of Res units.
I’m getting the sense that it’s the too many people for what the reserves offer, hopefully I am wrong.

It would be a terrible move by the CA to give up on reforming the reserves to be an integral force structure capable of scaled mobilization and just cut its size to focus on Reg F PYs. I don’t rule out the CA leadership making that choice though.

 

[Fabius]

Naive civie thought- but shouldn't that word be "make"?

Engagement has its place, but sometimes a leader just needs to set the path and say go.

I don’t get a sense that the Canadian Army does much without at least a majority of Army Council agreeing. CCA is a key driver but if the other parties on the Army Council and others such as Corp Directors don’t cooperate it seems to fall apart.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I don’t get a sense that the Canadian Army does much without at least a majority of Army Council agreeing. CCA is a key driver but if the other parties on the Army Council and others such as Corp Directors don’t cooperate it seems to fall apart.

Seems like the military chastising the GoC for resting our national laurels on convening is a pot/ kettle situation

 

[Seyek]

Too many people - no way.

Too many units - one can certainly argue that - but amalgamation is also the history of unsuccessful reserve restructures.

Some kind of amalgamation needs to happen. I'm from the reserve world and as much as opposition to reserve amalgamation has been mentioned in places like here before, at least from my unit there seems to be plenty of people who agree that there should be. Units ranging from pl(-) to coy(+) isn't a recipe for success.

I don’t get a sense that the Canadian Army does much without at least a majority of Army Council agreeing. CCA is a key driver but if the other parties on the Army Council and others such as Corp Directors don’t cooperate it seems to fall apart.

Really applicable to any large organization. Even if there's authority to force a change, doing so without the people who are living it buying into that change isn't a recipe for success. A truly successful reorg is going to be best achieved by getting everyone from on high to the lowest level to understand and agree with the need and end goal of that change.

Hopefully consolidating the light units together is on the table as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some kind of amalgamation needs to happen. I'm from the reserve world and as much as opposition to reserve amalgamation has been mentioned in places like here before, at least from my unit there seems to be plenty of people who agree that there should be. Units ranging from pl(-) to coy(+) isn't a recipe for success.



Really applicable to any large organization. Even if there's authority to force a change, doing so without the people who are living it buying into that change isn't a recipe for success. A truly successful reorg is going to be best achieved by getting everyone from on high to the lowest level to understand and agree with the need and end goal of that change.

Hopefully consolidating the light units together is on the table as well.

As always, the lack of a higher level vision and mission - and the right leadership with supporting resources - will tend to hamstring any meaningful amalgamation efforts in any organization.

Even in the business world, mergers and amalgamations are always the most difficult operations to get right.

 

[Rifleman62]

It will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few months. They have conducted a number of surveys, senior leader interviews and working groups.
From that there seems to be consensus that the CA is badly broken and needs to be completely rebuilt. However there is also almost no consensus on how to do that and what the right structure should be.
No consensus on war fighting Div structures, nor brigades, consensus that we have two many HQs, consensus that we need another HQ, consensus that the reserves are without purpose and seeming consensus (alarmingly) that the reserves are too large.
It will be very interesting to see if CCA can force some decisions and drive the CA forward with a unified strategy in a rapid timeframe to overcome our inertia.

Get rid of Army leadership and take a number of Forum members here to do the task. A better chance of success rather than convening at Army HQ where everyone is protecting their back. More common sense here.

Nominations. Let's keep it a Section str.