The Optimal Battle Group vs. the Affiliated Battle Group

[Journeyman]

Perhaps we need a higher, oh say National, level of tactical command. I can't believe that no one has sorted out this urgent lack of standardization regarding "Saddles" vs "Cougar." Apparently it's not the purview of "Army Doctrine."



Hmmmm: we're already paying someone his MGen pay to be "PROJECT DIRECTOR AND COMMANDER, JOINT HEADQUARTERS RENEWAL.... 'PROJECT'." If someone in the tribal elder world would catch on that we're not deploying Divs, let alone Bdes, maybe he could put a bit of effort into Bn-level SOPs    :brickwall:

 

[a_majoor]

You would not believe how hard it is to standardize training platoons in the various schools either... > > >

 

[vonGarvin]

You would not believe how hard it is to standardize training platoons in the various schools either... > > >

School?

Standards?

If only I knew someone....

>


In all seriousness, I understand the reason for the OBG or ABG or whatever it's called these days.  It's all about inter-arms training.  I do believe that many years ago, when 2 RCR, C Sqn RCD and so forth were here in Gagetown.  Each were their own units; however, they trained together pretty well all the time.  I'm not sure if the current model is better or worse or just different.
As for our Brigades: if they were true brigades, with semi-permanent affiliations between units and sub-units, things would perhaps be better? 

Even proximity helps.  Imagine a large parade square, and around it are all the various units of the brigade.  In the middle of the square is a building, and that's Brigade HQ.  Once weekly, the COs and RSMs come to the middle for the weekly O Gp.  Every day the staffs are coming together to the middle for all the various staff functions.  Once monthly (weekly, if the Bde Comd is an officer in The RCR), all members come to the middle to parade, paint rocks, whatever.  Once yearly, all units come to the middle with their vehicles to marshall, marry up, and head out into the training area for a month-long exercise.  Ah, yes, ideal.  Naturally, the units go back to their lines to conduct their daily business, but proximity helps, amplified by a central command, no?

 

[Mountie]

Any update on the 2 RCR BG experiment?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Any update on the 2 RCR BG experiment?

What sort of update are you seeking?

There is more to the 2 RCR BG 2021 than my piece, but I command the Reconnaissance Squadron.  We  have grown this year to include a Squadron Headquarters, two Recce Troops, one Recce Platoon, one Sniper Platoon and a small Admin Troop.  We've had the opportunity to conduct some good training and Op PODIUM saw roughly half of the Sqn deploy to BC.

As a combined arms squadron we've been able to compare/share TTP between the infantry and armoured recce communities, and we've had quite a bit of practice supporting infantry companies/combat teams.  We face resource constraints like anyone, but I'm having a great time.

 

[Mountie]

I just got a personal reply to my question saying that the whole experiment was a failure and all elements of the battle group had been returned to their parent regiments.  I assume from your post that this is incorrect then?  I was just wondering how the whole experiment was going.  If a permanent combined arms battle group was a successful concept.

Thanks for your imput, hope you have more info. 

 

[ArmyRick]

Was the source reliable? I don't see how it can be a failure? Unless people put effort into making it a failure. All operations are combined arms and thats the way we must function and think.

Funny the Canadian Airborne Regiment was an all arms regiment and it certainly was no failure.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I just got a personal reply to my question saying that the whole experiment was a failure and all elements of the battle group had been returned to their parent regiments.  I assume from your post that this is incorrect then?  I was just wondering how the whole experiment was going.  If a permanent combined arms battle group was a successful concept.

Thanks for your imput, hope you have more info. 

I'll let you judge the credibility of your source.   

We have doubled the number of armoured soldiers at the 2 RCR OBG since August.   

 

[Mountie]

Well re-reading the personal message, the source did say he wasn't 100% sure and I should seak another source to confirm.  Thanks for the replies.  Any word of creating other OBG's or is that jumping the gun a little?

 

[SeanNewman]

Funny the Canadian Airborne Regiment was an all arms regiment and it certainly was no failure.

...crickets...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't walk in the hallways of Army power, but my gut feel is that the OBG will be a Gagetown thing for the time being.  As for the experiment, I think that these things take time to assess, and by time I am thinking at least five years.

As an aside, since coming here I don't personally see this as an experiment, but rather as a Squadron that is part of a Battalion in the field force.  I focus on the people in the Squadron (their morale and careers) and on our ability to execute our tasks and leave the high end analysis to the science folks.  As for myself, I am very happy here.  Perhaps that is to be expected, but there it is.

Cheers!

T2B

 

[SeanNewman]

It's tough to really judge the overall effectiveness in it until you make it 100% all-inclusive.  Needs tanks, ESCC, FSCC, etc.  Not to mention things like CIMIC/PRT/PsyOps.

 

[Mountie]

How is it organized then?  Without breaching security.  I read a paper online that listed the sub-units.  Although it listed some as organic and others as attached.  But it had an artillery battery and an engineer squadron, so wouldn't it have a FSCC and ESCC from those sub-units?  It did have the CIMIC, etc 'attached'.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_11/iss_3/CAJ_Vol11.3_05_e.pdf

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

There are:

a.  Golf, Hotel and India Coy (rifle companies)
b.  Kilo Coy (Sigs, BG HQ etc)
c.  Lima (Admin) Company (with a CSS Major as the OC)
d.  Recce Squadron (described a few posts above)

The HQ company has an FSCC, FOO and an ASCC (there is an ALO position as well).  There is also an IA cell with CIMIC/Psyops.  These are all positions posted into the OBG which work and train with the BG.  The BG HQ is pretty big when it deploys.  There is an affiliated engineer squadron here in Gagetown.

 

[Mountie]

Excellent.  Thanks for that.  I thought the engineer squadron and artillery battery were part of the battle group.  You mentioned the engineers were attached.  Is there an attached artillery battery as well?

 

[SeanNewman]

When the BG deploys overseas, yes the actual Engineers and Arty guns are attached (although for practical employment it's a bit of a tightrope as to who really owns them, the BG or the Bde).

At least training with an integrated ESCC/FSCC allows the HQ to function in the mindset that they are there, even if there aren't actual M777s and Engr assets moving about the battlespace as they would be in a deployment.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Excellent.  Thanks for that.  I thought the engineer squadron and artillery battery were part of the battle group.  You mentioned the engineers were attached.  Is there an attached artillery battery as well?

Regarding the engineers, although they still have a parent Regiment here in Gagetown from whom they take their day to day orders, that Sqn is the one who works with us in the field.  As a result, for example, my Recce Tps/Pls work with the same Eng Recce Dets when we go to the field, and the companies work with the same guys from the field troops.  There is no artillery battery affilated here in Gagetown, but as I mentioned there is an FSCC, FOO party and ASCC inside the BG HQ.

 

[SeanNewman]

T2B,

From the other Pioneer thread, in the big picture is the 2 RCR BG meant to have an "in stone" OrBat?  For example, one of the concerns in getting rid of Pioneers/Mortars was that while the theory worked if you could guarantee Arty/Engineer support, the gap wasn't necessarily filled that way.

Is the OrBat fixed to remedy that issue?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

T2B,

From the other Pioneer thread, in the big picture is the 2 RCR BG meant to have an "in stone" OrBat?  For example, one of the concerns in getting rid of Pioneers/Mortars was that while the theory worked if you could guarantee Arty/Engineer support, the gap wasn't necessarily filled that way.

Is the OrBat fixed to remedy that issue?

For this experiment I am a lab rat and not one of the scientists in a white coat directing the experiment!  Having said that, my understanding of the OBG/BG 2021 experiment is that the Army is looking at what is the best mix of capabilities to be found at BG level and what is the best way to force generate those capabilties.  I don't think that they were looking specifically at the pioneer/mortar issue.  I believe, though, that one of the things being looked at as part of the second question is whether other arms should reside in the battalion or be attached. 

We are straying into the pioneer thread, but we do have engineer field troops supporting the companies when they conduct attacks. One thing, though, that should be considered is that whatever BG construct we come up for the future will be working for some higher tactical level HQ.  That higher level tactical HQ will, no doubt, attach and detach things to suit their estimate of the situation.  All that to say that just because an engineer squadron is part of a BG that does not mean that they will always be available.

 

[SeanNewman]

Understood, thank you.

What I was trying to get a grasp of was whether or not it was a command relationship or a fundamental OrBat change. (like having a weapons det in a platoon).

If it is still just a command relationship that can be taken at any time, then yes the Infantry Pioneer side gets more oomph behind their argument.  If the commander was always guaranteed Engr assets they wouldn't, and I'm actually surprised the new concept isn't going in that direction.

Heck, in WW2, Germany had some units that employed integrated platoon combat teams.  In those units a platoon commander would have his platoon driving around in trucks, a tank shadowing them, and one of the trucks would be towing an artillery piece.  The heavy assets could still be grouped at tactical levels to establish concentration of force if required, but as per the OrBat they were little teams.