The Optimal Battle Group vs. the Affiliated Battle Group

[McG]

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.

I am not sure that it is irony, but this element of the Optimal Battle Group experiment actually validates the principles of the Affiliated Battle Group structure and method of FG.

 

[McG]

There is a strong argument for keeping with the traditional affiliated battle groups as opposed adopting optimal battle groups in the newest Army Journal: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_37_e.pdf

 

[Old Sweat]

Good post, MCG. The author was the BC with TF 1-07, besides having an in with the boss man on this site.

 

[GnyHwy]

I believe the above pdf link is right on the mark.  So on the mark with all of us anti-optimized battle group persons that I would think he cut, pasted and used Microsoft Word thesaurus to fancy it up. 

2 simple reasons why it can't and shouldn't be done.

1. Assets (particularly longer range assets) need to be shifted to the main effort.  If 2 BGs deploy only one will be the main effort.  If a Bde deploys, one BG will always be in reserve.  Do they need their assets? No, their guns, armoured recce, ISR and maybe tanks will be shifted to the main effort.

2. No one can predict what our future enemy will look like.  If you can, you are wasting your time on this site.  Go tell the right people and make yourself a ton of cash. 

 

[McG]

If the Army chooses to stick with the traditional affiliated BG approach, then 1 CMBG should be consolidated with the Shilo units moving to join the rest of the brigade.  This would allow greater interaction between battalions and affiliated sub-units of all other arms.

For its role in supporting CTC, 2 RCR should remain in Gagetown as a both manoeuvre arm pseudo-OBG.

 

[Kirkhill]

GnyHwy:

You're successfully reiterating the argument for forming the Machine Gun Corps ca 1916.

The Germans were considered technologically advanced compared to the Brits because of their machine guns.  But the Germans only had six guns to the Regimental Brigade while the Brits had eight.  However because the Brit guns were parcelled out 2 to the Battalion and the Brigade only put 2 Battalions up there were only 4 guns on line and they were independently sited by the Battalion officers.  The other 4 guns were in the rear with the 2 Battalions in reserve and thus not contributing to the effort.

But - at the risk of creating a bridging firestorm here, that argument also applies to the brigading of other assets, such as mortars. 

If brigading makes sense for Machine Guns, and is ultimately the rationale for Affiliated Battle Group, then why doesn't it make sense to Brigade the Mortars?

Question: would it not give gunners a different appreciation of the requirements of the infantry if they were invited to pick up the mortars and walk?  And yes I do understand the need for lots of ammo but 2x 81mm TABbed into Goose Green and 1000 rounds seemed to have been a welcome addition.

 

[George Wallace]

If the Army chooses to stick with the traditional affiliated BG approach, then 1 CMBG should be consolidated with the Shilo units moving to join the rest of the brigade.  This would allow greater interaction between battalions and affiliated sub-units of all other arms.

For its role in supporting CTC, 2 RCR should remain in Gagetown as a both manoeuvre arm pseudo-OBG.

Perhaps a good idea, but I am not sure that that is really necessary.  4 CMBG operated out of two Bases in Europe, Baden and Lahr, as well as having a Tank Sqn, Eng Sqn and Inf Bn in Gagetown.  Distance did not affect interoperability between the Arms as much as you make it sound.  Time is a different matter.  It took time for the Gagetown troops and the numerous other augmentees from across the nation to fly over and deploy in Europe.   

The Two Inf Bns, one in Baden and one in Lahr were supported by a tank Sqn, Engr troops and Arty FOOs, all from Lahr.  The Gagetown troops had the opportunity to work together, both in Canada and in Europe.  When the Bde deployed, the same groupings were maintained, where familiar faces were the norm.  Why this can not be done today in our current Home Stations is the question to be asked.  I am sure the infrastructure in Edmonton does not exist to move in two or three more units.  Nor do I think another two thousand troops making the move to an area with higher costs of living will be too enthralled with the idea.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I largely agree with what George is saying.  Despite being in close geographic proximity, outside of Brigade level Ex's (when is the last time we ran a full on BTE... 2004-6?) where units garrisoned in Edmonton would be operating out of Suffield, Wainwright, or Shilo in a field environment, what'd be the benefit to having the units on the same garrison?  I see alot of costs involved in shutting down Shilo and building new infrastructure in Edmonton, and little benefit.

 

[Mountie]

To play devil's advocate, here is a pro-OBG article.  I disagree with the composition of the battle groups in question.  I think its pretty clear that three battle groups per brigade is all that can be formed regardless of whether they are OBG's or ABG's.  But the principle of the argument is well explained.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA509125

I would agree that 2 PPCLI and 2 RCR pretty much need to be located with the rest of the CMBG if they ABG concept is to work.  Isn't the whole idea of both the OBG and the ABG is to have the battle groups working together in garrison and training together on a regular basis so they can for a more cohesive battle group in a shorter time? 

 

[McG]

I am sure the infrastructure in Edmonton does not exist to move in two or three more units. 

It is two units.  1 CMBG only has two units that are not co-located with the rest.  There is no three.

The Gagetown troops [of 4 CMBG] had the opportunity to work together, both in Canada and in Europe.

During my time in 1 CMBG, I regularly worked/trained with the other Edm units in garrison and the field. It was no-cost and it did not cause (or increase) time away from family. With a common training area, it was very easy for my troop to be cut-over to our affiliated Bn (or the Armd Regt) in the middle of an exercise for a handful of days.  The same was true in garrison when said organizations were conducting TEWTs or CAXs.

Through that same period, the only time that I saw the guns come up to train was for a BTE and a CP crew for a TF 1-06 CPX, and the only time I recall Engrs going to Shilo was for a major base construction project.

I see alot of costs involved in shutting down Shilo ...

I would not shut down Shilo, but I would not keep the 1 CMBG units there either.  See the base closures thread for some ideas on what to do with the base & I beleive that providing a new home for LFWATC was suggested as another use for Shilo in another thread.

 

[George Wallace]

I would agree that 2 PPCLI and 2 RCR pretty much need to be located with the rest of the CMBG if they ABG concept is to work.  Isn't the whole idea of both the OBG and the ABG is to have the battle groups working together in garrison and training together on a regular basis so they can for a more cohesive battle group in a shorter time?

You are forgetting the other units as well.  22 Fd Sqn has changed names over the years, but it is still in Gagetown.  W Bty is still in Gagetown.  A whole Regt, 1 RCHA is in Shilo.  You are not just moving an Inf Bn or two, you are moving thousands more troops. 

2 RCR also provides support to the CTC, as do the rest of the units posted to Gagetown.  2 RCR is also an experiment and has its own integral Armour Recce Sqn. 

If you want to be cost effective, move an Engr Troop to Shilo and then you would have the core of a Cbt Team/OBG or whatever.

 

[McG]

22 Fd Sqn has changed names over the years, but it is still in Gagetown. 

22 Fd Sqn still goes by the same name.  It is a sub-unit of 4 ESR which is a 1 Cdn Div asset and would not move even as part of a suggestion to consolidate 2 CMBG.

W Bty is still in Gagetown ...

... as a sub-unit of the Arty School.

You are not just moving an Inf Bn or two, you are moving thousands more troops. 

No.  His suggestion is not moving "thousands more troops."  He is suggesting moving 2 PPCLI, 2 RCR and 1 RCHA.

If you want to be cost effective, move an Engr Troop to Shilo and then you would have the core of a Cbt Team/OBG or whatever.

This might be efficient, but it would not be effective.  Such a move would rapidly see the Engr Fd Tp capabilities erode to it being just a pioneer platoon with another capbadge.  The BG would not get the value it needs from such an organization while the Tp Comd & Tp WO would not get the development they need to progress within the branch.

 

[Infanteer]

I largely agree with what George is saying.  Despite being in close geographic proximity, outside of Brigade level Ex's (when is the last time we ran a full on BTE... 2004-6?) where units garrisoned in Edmonton would be operating out of Suffield, Wainwright, or Shilo in a field environment, what'd be the benefit to having the units on the same garrison?  I see alot of costs involved in shutting down Shilo and building new infrastructure in Edmonton, and little benefit.

1 CMBG just finished a Brigade level ex.

Having the Brigade consolidated would greatly facilitate peacetime management.  Emails and VTCs only get you so far.

 

[dapaterson]

1 CMBG just finished a Brigade level ex.

Having the Brigade consolidated would greatly facilitate peacetime management.  Emails and VTCs only get you so far.

... and we all know that in the modern CF it's all about ease of peacetime management, not practicing dispersed command and control on a routine basis.  Why would those skillsets be useful in modern, dispersed operations?

 

[Infanteer]

Peacetime management and battlefield command are two different things.  Brigade's don't cover 3 Canadian provinces of battlespace <edit to add, except the obvious ISAF RC(S) in 2006, which was a Brigade across 5 provinces  :-X)

 

[dapaterson]

Peacetime management and battlefield command are two different things.  Brigade's don't cover 3 Canadian provinces of battlespace.

There are differences; but there are also common skillsets and practices between the two - managing time and space with subordinate units, co-ord via other than face-to-face means.  Though it's easier to do admin over a larger space with fixed comm links as opposed to relying on DND's occasionally ornery tactical communications systems.

Given the geography of Canada there will always be formations with dispersed subordinate units.  Maintaining a national presence is a reality that one can tilt at endlessly, but will remain the CF reality.  Ultimately, I think the best summation of the situation was explained to me by directing staff on a course long, long ago.  Paraphrased (and cleaned up) - "Suck it up, buttercup."

 

[Mountie]

I read an article this week (can't find it again to post the link, sorry) that indicated that the Affiliated Battle Groups were to transition into Permanent Battle Groups in five years.  Has anyone else heard of this?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

That runs counter to what I have been hearing.

 

[Mountie]

What have you been hearing?

 

[old fart]

For those interested but not aware, the DLCD - Formation and Battle Group 2021 Study Summary Report 2007-2010 has been released and is available on the DWAN.