Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Interesting little article found yesterday.

Short form: Technology changes. Warfare is.

Drone Warfare In Ukraine: Historical Context And Implications For The Future

The Ukraine War has been dubbed the first drone war—and the first “StarLink War”—considering the publicly apparent role of advanced technologies in the conflict. However, the issue is what the Ukraine War might teach us about the future of military power.

www.hoover.org

The argument is summarized here:

A clear-eyed assessment of the battlefield realities in Ukraine demonstrates that drones are largely in continuity with the development of military capabilities coherently understood since the late 19th century. Their use in Ukraine is notable, simply because they carry to maturation concepts under long-term historical development. By generating a widespread reconnaissance-strike complex, drones in Ukraine allow both Ukraine and Russia to fight in a truly systemic manner, bringing to fruition the logic of the modern battlefield. There is much to learn from the Ukrainian case—and those that learn its lessons are likely to gain military power. But its lessons are primarily intellectual, not technical or material.

Modern military history demonstrates that, barring a decisive initial victory, most wars settle into a long-term positional rhythm, broken only by societal collapse or a well-designed, well-executed series of offensives over months or years.

The necessity of the breakthrough battle stems from changes in the character of war that began in the mid-19th century. Indirect fire artillery combined with rail-based long-range transportation and telegraphy to expand the battlespace in width and depth. This necessitated a new military logic that progressed beyond the linear tactical model that dominated early modern warfare, and which Napoleon ultimately perfected.

Moreover, the development of the modern bureaucratic state depersonalized military leadership. It is no coincidence that the final personalized battles of the 19th century occurred at the creation of the German Empire, which marked the final ascendance of bureaucratic governance and the destruction of the chivalric model that dominated from the 10th century. Campaigns had to be won over time in a series of engagements, individually disconnected, but made whole through a coherent strategic scheme.

The technology changes but the game remains the same.

....

I'm not sure how you see having Javelin in an AA platoon or company results in "deny the Javelin to the FEBA troops".

Perhaps because I didn't say that. What I was responding to was the suggestion that there be no Javelins in the section and that they should be in specialist elements. My response was why not both?

I like UAVs and missiles as much as the next guy but for some reason you seem to see a need to replace existing artillery systems.

I don't see a need to replace existing artillery systems. But those who lack existing artillery systems are looking for alternative means to deliver the same effects. And if they can't afford, or find guns, they can't afford or find aircraft either. That lack doesn't change their need or want to win wars and for that they need something that will do the same job as artillery.

 

[Rifleman62]

I doubt the rifle section can function well if it's overloaded with capabilities. It might be workable in peacetime with the advantages of long training, but everything has to also work under wartime conditions, which I predict would result in foreshortened training times.

Add the fact that Infantry Bn's, Coy, Pl, and Sect are never going to be at full strength due to casualties and possibly LOB's.
Your dedicated, experienced anti armour specialist may be one of them .

 

[daftandbarmy]

Add the fact that Infantry Bn's, Coy, Pl, and Sect are never going to be at full strength due to casualties and possibly LOB's.
Your dedicated, experienced anti armour specialist may be one of them .

If there was a coherent strategy, and operational plan with the right resourcing, for the Reserves they might be... one of these days.

Meanwhile:

Michel Maisonneuve: Neglected reserves highlight the dire state of our military​

Recent comments by the Minister of National Defence, Bill Blair, as well as several articles in the National Post and other media have highlighted the dire state of the Canadian Armed Forces. Not one of those comments or articles however has focused solely on the state of Canada’s reserves: the sailors, soldiers and air personnel who serve our country part-time, all while holding down civilian jobs. Things are especially grave in that sector.

Today, there is not much the regular-force CAF can do without reserve support. Our reserve ships are being used in operations because of a lack of naval crews. Our army reserves are essential to fulfilling our international tasks such as the enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia, and they are always at the ready for domestic operations. Our reserve RCAF squadrons employ former regular force airmen and women on many tasks including as pilots. As is the situation with the regular forces, the recruitment crisis in the reserves is crippling Canada’s capabilities and our reputation abroad. It is time for the Canadian government to give our indispensable reserves stable funding and respect.

MSN

 

[Kirkhill]

“Despite the requirement to achieve mass and concentration for decisive results, the greater lethality of weapons dictated a contradictory need for dispersion. Much of the history of modern warfare can be written as a function of attempts to reconcile these seemingly contradictory elements.”

— Bruce Menning

The Return of the Tactical Crisis - Modern War Institute

“Despite the requirement to achieve mass and concentration for decisive results, the greater lethality of weapons dictated a contradictory need for dispersion. Much of the history of modern warfare can […]

mwi.westpoint.edu

Watch: Inside Ukraine's new fortifications built to repel Russian invasion

Along the frontline Ukrainian engineers are installing miles of defensive fortifications, from trenches to concrete bunkers.

www.forces.net

Trench warfare not consigned to history as British Army training site gets revamped

At Senny Bridge Training area there are about 300 meters of newly refurbished trenches, built in the style similar to those seen in Ukraine.

www.forces.net

As Zaluzhnyi described, “Modern sensors can identify any concentration of forces, and modern precision weapons can destroy it.”

 

[Kirkhill]

On a dispersed and sensor-saturated battlefield, the role and impact of electronic warfare has increased significantly. But besides communications frequently being hampered, there are other constraints. Contrary to popular belief, most Ukrainian commanders do not usually promote personal initiative. This is especially true regarding higher-ranking reserve officers, who still adhere to the Soviet method of top-down, centralized decision-making. Unsurprisingly, the same applies to most Russian commanders. Besides cultural limitations, heavy attrition on both sides has aggravated the shortage of experienced commanders even further. So, while the German Army a century ago was able to conduct dispersed attacks on a grand tactical scale, current actions by either side in Ukraine remain limited in scope and duration.

From the Modern War Institute article above.

I have said before that if anyone is going to win this war for Zelezny it is going to be his Intelligence director, Budanov.

And I think Kraken offers a clue.

The Kraken Regiment (Ukrainian: Спецпідрозділ «Kraken», romanized: Spetspidrozdil «Kraken») is a Ukrainian military volunteer unit, part of the spetsnaz units of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine (HUR)[3] formed in 2022 as a response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Origin​

Many of the eventual members of the Kraken Regiment were amongst those who gathered in the Kharkiv hideouts that had been stashed with arms in preparation for the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. At the same time, Kostiantyn Nemichev, who was at the time head of the local National Corps, was gathering volunteer soldiers. They took part in the defence of Kharkiv, and by March after driving out Russians of Vilkhivka the unit had started to form to the point the name ″Kraken″ was chosen after a commander of the unit suggested it based on his Naval special forces background.[15]

In April 2022, the unit dismantled the monument to Marshal Georgy Zhukov in Kharkiv.[16] In late September, it was reported that Nemichev claimed the unit had captured more than 15 Russian officers, handing them over to the Main Intelligence Directorate. He was quoted saying “All of them were thrown into the infantry. Therefore, it is indicative that Russians have big problems now. They do not know where to get people to send to death. Therefore, they gather them in different units and deploy them here. So they’re not doing well as it is, and then we come along and ‘spoil the mood’ some more.”[17]

Also in September, the regiment was reported to have played a key role in recapturing Izium.[18] In late December, the Main Directorate of Intelligence published a video showing Kraken along with the 92nd Separate Mechanized Brigade carrying out an assault on Novoselivske, successfully removing the Russian forces in the settlement and inflicting losses upon Russian equipment and personnel.[19] In January 2023, the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally thanked the regiment for their work fighting enemies in the Soledar region.[20]

In March 2023, Kraken announced the destruction of a Russian observation tower in Bryansk Oblast through the use of a kamikaze drone.[21] The unit posted a video of the operation showing the tower being destroyed, though did not specify exactly when it took place.[22][23]

According to leaked documents, in response to the worsening situation in the Battle of Bakhmut, UAF Ground Forces Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi "declared a need for HUR's elite Kraken unit to prevent the UAF from losing Bakhmut" and subsequently deployed it to the city. No further information was provided, but Bakhmut was still under Ukrainian control six weeks later.[24]

I am reminded of David Stirling and outfits like the LRDG and The Artists' Rifles - highly irregular irregulars. Just the match for Little Green Men.

Kraken Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Army Budget Invests in Lessons from Ukraine with Focus on Deterring China - Defense Opinion

The U.S. Army’s newly released budget incorporates the top lessons from combat in Ukraine and sends a powerful message as a deterrent against possible conflict with China.

defenseopinion.com

Here are four key insights about the budget starting with munitions, air defense and armored vehicles and culminating with the rising dominance of deep sensing, which is the collection of data to support targeting, situational awareness and decision-making.

 

[Kirkhill]

Gunny calls for the Skirmishers.

A Company of Light Bobs per Battalion or a Battalion of Rifles per Regiment. Taking after the Chindits and the Marine Raiders with an intent to operated in self-reliant Squads armed with rifles, GPMGs, CG84s and 60mm mortars. Operating independently, not in line. In the defence conducting offensive patrols.

Force Design Is Still Too Heavy

The Marine Corps needs a small, logistically independent light infantry force.

www.usni.org

 

[WestIsle]

A Company of Light Bobs per Battalion or a Battalion of Rifles per Regiment. Taking after the Chindits and the Marine Raiders with an intent to operated in self-reliant Squads armed with rifles, GPMGs, CG84s and 60mm mortars. Operating independently, not in line. In the defence conducting offensive patrols.

Force Design Is Still Too Heavy

The Marine Corps needs a small, logistically independent light infantry force.

www.usni.org

Sounds like validation for 2 Mech and 1 Light Infantry battalion per brigade to me!/s

 

[KevinB]

Gunny calls for the Skirmishers.

A Company of Light Bobs per Battalion or a Battalion of Rifles per Regiment. Taking after the Chindits and the Marine Raiders with an intent to operated in self-reliant Squads armed with rifles, GPMGs, CG84s and 60mm mortars. Operating independently, not in line. In the defence conducting offensive patrols.

Force Design Is Still Too Heavy

The Marine Corps needs a small, logistically independent light infantry force.

www.usni.org

So SOF…

 

[Kirkhill]

So SOF…

Yeah, about that...

Assembling the Pieces​

It could be argued that the Marine Corps already possesses light infantry in the form of special operations troops such as the Marine Raider Regiment. But special operators are not infantry, and light infantry are not elite troops. In any case, the Marine Corps cannot supply every infantry battalion with special operators.

Light infantry units should work in concert with, not in place of, line infantry. Organizationally, this suggests two approaches. The first would be to include one light rifle company per battalion. The second would be to include one light infantry battalion per regiment, attaching one light company to a line battalion during the workup and deployment.

The first arrangement would make light infantry organic to every battalion, giving the battalion commander full control of the light company. However, staffing the company could prove difficult, and maintaining training and readiness standards could be an issue for those less experienced in employing light infantry.

The second method would ensure integrated training standards are maintained, but integration with line battalions might prove challenging and require longer workups. The light company would be beholden to two sets of training standards, one each from the lending and receiving battalions. Manning also could be difficult.

However the units are attached, light infantry training should be demanding and should emphasize small-unit actions. With limited logistical support, Marines will have to learn how to purify water, forage, hunt, and fish. And the Marine Corps also should reemphasize the importance of survival schools and increase funding for specialized schools such as Combat Hunter and the Mountain and Jungle Warfare Training Centers.

The author seems to be at pains to separate the tiers

Line Infantry - holding defenses and mounting assaults
Reconnaissance, snipers, or scouts, - battalion assets
Light Infantry - dispersed small unit actions
Raiders -
MARSOC?

I get the value of the light force he is talking about, especially in the 1st Island Chain but not sure how it is different to the Raiders. Why not just raise more Raiders and add a Raider Battalion to each Littoral Regiment? Then you end up with a Defensive Battalion with the anti-ship missiles and the Anti-Air missiles and a Raider Battalion conducting offensive patrols of the zone.

 

[KevinB]

I don’t think he wants to tie the Raider’ish light units to anything.
Which means they require a great amount of support outside the ‘box’ something that the Corps isn’t able/going to provide.

Despite his claims to the contrary he seems to want the capability of MARSOC’s MRB’s but inside the USMC.

I understand the need and desire for Light Forces in the GPF, but I don’t think the USMC has the ability to support individual BN’s like that outside of the Regiments.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the spoilsports in the crowd that insist in stovepiping everything ...

Honestly all three LIB’s should be Para BN’s. (Got to say Para least anyone think one is doing a CAR again).

Personally I’d opt for Coy level specialization; Mountain & Arctic basic for everyone then AMO/AC for a Mountain Coy/Bn
Urban/Subterranean Coy/Bn
Then one BN gets a Desert for Coy, Jungle for another, and Amphibious Ops for another.

Then cascade that down across the PRes units that support the Reg units.

But that is another kettle of fish in and of itself.

Do the battalions have to be Para Bns? Why not just jump qualify all members? Maybe it is a distinction without a difference but given the frequency with which parachute forces are deployed by chute, and the size of the actual forces involved (companies rather than divisions) do we need to take the focus of the LIBs away from their ability to deploy by any means, including in armoured vehicles, and fight on their feet?

And if a Light Infantry Battalion (Parachute) can be reinforced by an Artillery Battery and an Engineer Troop (or Squadron), why can't it be reinforced by a Light Cavalry Squadron and an Armoured Transport Squadron/Company when the occasion demands or permits?

Edit - wrong thread, again. Everything is connected to everything.

You are advocating to focus on the easy and ignore the hard parts until it is too late. A battalion that jumps into a fight will have a substantially different sustainment train than a battalion that marched in, and both will be different than one that came in over the beach or the one that stepped off helicopters. Inside the rifle platoon, it might all look the same. But at the battalion HQ, there are tangible differences for which knowledge and experience is needed.

A parachute is just another means to deliver troops onto an objective. In my mind well trained light infantry would be trained to jump out of perfectly serviceable aircraft mid flight.

Until it comes to needing have riggers, JM, and PI spots, plus the facilities to continue training them. Nice idea, ignores practical realities. And has little to do with SOCEM.

Oh good some reserve structure comments. Anyone care to bring up hair cuts?

@McG

I sense an opening.

Inside the rifle platoon, it might all look the same

Is that enough to get started with? To suggest that there should be one common Infantry Platoon throughout the Canadian Army? That all infantry platoons should be trained to a common standard and commonly equipped, regardless of the means of transport?

If that, then...

Three bog-standard infantry platoons under the command of a Captain = 1x Infantry Company. Suitable for allocation to any battalion, with any specialty, with any transport?

If that, then...

Battalion is responsible for ensuring that their bog-standard companies are properly trained to work with the support assigned and tasked appropriately. The Battalion would supply both service and combat support and the Majors who would take command of the companies after they were assigned and reinforced. The Captain's job is to supply three well-trained bog-standard rifle platoons that can work together. The Major's job is to integrate the Captain's platoons into a specialized Combat Team.

The assigned support could be transport (armoured or unarmoured), transport (marine - boats and craft), transport (air - rotary and fixed).

The assigned support would include a Joint Ops and Trg Cell responsible for developing plans and training structures to ensure that any assigned bog-standard troops could be brought up to speed in a hurry and would be appropriately supported. They would also be responsible for ensuring that the troops weren't over-stretched and asked to do things they weren't prepared for.

 

[markppcli]

For the spoilsports in the crowd that insist in stovepiping everything ...











@McG

I sense an opening.



Is that enough to get started with? To suggest that there should be one common Infantry Platoon throughout the Canadian Army? That all infantry platoons should be trained to a common standard and commonly equipped, regardless of the means of transport?

I think you should probably have a read of the Infanntry Platoon in battle before suggesting such sweeping changes.

If that, then...

Three bog-standard infantry platoons under the command of a Captain = 1x Infantry Company. Suitable for allocation to any battalion, with any specialty, with any transport?

If that, then...

Battalion is responsible for ensuring that their bog-standard companies are properly trained to work with the support assigned and tasked appropriately. The Battalion would supply both service and combat support and the Majors who would take command of the companies after they were assigned and reinforced. The Captain's job is to supply three well-trained bog-standard rifle platoons that can work together. The Major's job is to integrate the Captain's platoons into a specialized Combat Team.

Well I suppose those three rifle platoons will need equipment, so we’ll have to tack on a Quartermaster, probably they’ll want to be able to talk to each other, I guess we’ll need signals. Likely that equipment will have to be moved so we should have a couple truck s and some drivers to. Well gee. I guess with those supports we’ll probably have to have some one ensuring it’s all taken care of, you know the admin side, they could also run the command post (gonna want one of those), so probably a bit more experience than an LT. Well I suppose it’ll have to be a captain and we can call them a company 2 IC. This is ground breaking stuff.

The assigned support could be transport (armoured or unarmoured), transport (marine - boats and craft), transport (air - rotary and fixed).

The assigned support would include a Joint Ops and Trg Cell responsible for developing plans and training structures to ensure that any assigned bog-standard troops could be brought up to speed in a hurry and would be appropriately supported. They would also be responsible for ensuring that the troops weren't over-stretched and asked to do things they weren't prepared for.

Yeah maybe they could regularly train and become intimately familiar with their most likely method of deployment while also conducting training without it?

 

[KevinB]

@Kirkhill cas para doesn’t cut it for actual airborne operations. You need to continually train for that insertion method — yeah pretty anyone can fall out of an airplane static line - but there is a ton more than goes into a jump especially a potentially forcible entry jump than just exiting the plane.

Then there is the fact jumping with combat loads is a slew different than Hollywood bareass jumps.

 

[daftandbarmy]

@Kirkhill cas para doesn’t cut it for actual airborne operations. You need to continually train for that insertion method — yeah pretty anyone can fall out of an airplane static line - but there is a ton more than goes into a jump especially a potentially forcible entry jump than just exiting the plane.

Then there is the fact jumping with combat loads is a slew different than Hollywood bareass jumps.

And then there's the little details, like Air Superiority, to enable 'Airborne' anything

 

[KevinB]

And then there's the little details, like Air Superiority, to enable 'Airborne' anything

Admittedly one really just needs local Air Supremacy to conduct drops unfettered.

If the mission is critical enough, air parity would still be an option.
*I may be sick that day

 

[Brad Sallows]

@Kirkhill cas para doesn’t cut it for actual airborne operations. You need to continually train for that insertion method — yeah pretty anyone can fall out of an airplane static line - but there is a ton more than goes into a jump especially a potentially forcible entry jump than just exiting the plane.

Then there is the fact jumping with combat loads is a slew different than Hollywood bareass jumps.

Surely a few hours with "Medal of Honor - Airborne" will do?

 

[PrairieFella]

Do we have any SALH or KOCRs here? I'm wondering how the merger/redistribution is going.

 

[Kirkhill]

Article describing the latest events in the US and its Transformation in Contact efforts.

Army puts its 'transforming in contact' concept to biggest test yet

2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division put new technologies and concepts to the test in the most realistic battlefield scenario the Army has.

defensescoop.com

FORT JOHNSON, La. — It seemed like a long shot: soldiers using small drones with MacGyvered tech that cost less than $100 to serve as decoys to divert the attention of a highly capable enemy.

During a recent area defense operation, an Army unit had two possible paths it needed to take. With the opposition force closely following, the unit deployed around 50 decoys — commercial raspberry pi’s available for hobbyists on Amazon with SSID cards. The technology allowed the unit to load electronic signatures for anything from the brigade’s command post to a commander’s cell phone and mount it on small drones with a power supply, in an attempt to draw away the adversary.

As a result, the enemy spent about 50 percent of its artillery targeting what it thought was the Army unit, but in fact, was just dirt, making the foe not only easier to find for the Army forces given it exposed its position with its artillery, but it expended valuable munitions for naught.

“The thing that surprised me was actually the effectiveness of the decoys that were put out … I underestimated, personally, the effectiveness that we would see out there. It really did create some real dilemmas for [the enemy] during this fight,” Maj. Gen. Brett Sylvia, commander of the 101st Airbourne Division, told reporters during a trip to the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Johnson, Louisiana. “A tactical advantage there, because he has to unmask his guns in order to be able to execute that fire mission.”

What made this such an impressive feat was that it was done successfully at a combat training center rotation — the most realistic combat scenarios the Army can create for units to train — against 1st Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment, know as “Geronimo” and serving as a highly capable opponent for units rotating into these centers, rather than just a home-station training event.

This type of bottom-up innovation is exactly what Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George is trying to foster with the so-called transforming-in-contact concept, where the service plans to use deployments and troop rotations to test new equipment — mainly commercial off-the-shelf gear — that could allow units to be more responsive on a dynamic battlefield.

The transforming-in-contact units include: 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division — the first mobile brigade combat team — 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division and 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division.

Officials explained that in the past, units would generate a requirement based on a gap, send that to the enterprise, which would work that in a lab and undergo a rigorous design-and-testing process before getting it back to the unit. Now, the Army is trying to take capabilities before full maturity, let soldiers use them and provide more accurate feedback regarding how it could be used or identify additional, better-informed gaps that need to be addressed.

Lots more in the article...

Trying to keep up with the enemy.

Interesting comment about how both Iraq and Afghanistan were enabled by troop driven modifications.

Former officials explained that there was constant innovation during the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan because the terrain or the tactics the enemy was using would adapt rapidly.

Others have commented here and elsewhere about the difference between a wartime and a peacetime army. (Or navy or air force for that matter).

 

[FJAG]

Just thought I'd drop this here. It's a bit of confirmation bias in line with my thoughts on urban units/brigades which would allow members to serve their career in one area with any postings restricted to within the area. I was quite surprised at the expense of personnel moves within the US Army in comparison to other budget items. I presume the Canadian army has similar challenges not to mention the human turbulence costs.

Move Soldiers Less: A Divisional System in the U.S. Army - War on the Rocks

The Army spends over $1.8 billion on permanent change-of-station moves annually. That’s 40 percent of what the Army receives each year to purchase weapons

warontherocks.com