• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army doctrine and its Implementation

You can have your light system, logistics and all and still play with buttons and bows. Once again, and risking being redundant, I offer you Spain's light forces:

spanish-legionnaire-parade-to-mark-the-spanish-armed-forces-news-photo-1584994773.jpg


gcp-uniform-legion.jpg


:giggle:

The problems come when you adopt a "Can't Do" attitude and immediately reject every progressive idea with a dozen hastily jacked-up reasons for maintaining the status quo.

🍻

@rmc_wannabe I will make to include my CS brethren. ;)

In our (CS/CSS) defence we do have a can do attitude. Its probably the way things are, if we would let something fail once in a while it might be a good teaching point.
 
Agree 100% on understanding our allies doctrine in this particular American and I do get that interoperability is a means to an end. I don’t think we are keeping up on interoperability with the US, the digitalization of their forces is quickly hindering our ability to integrate effectively without US SFAB personnel and equipment.
In terms of how we fight I do mean the CAF and the CA. I would like to see a firm well informed and broadly discussed doctrine established that informs TO&E ORBATS and force structures vs current discussion of those items without the doctrine of how we will fight.

Fair point. Obviously a Light or motorized IBCT has a different msn set than the IBCT (Airborne) that is more in line with the capabilities of the Light Bns but I grant that it’s possible that a light Bn could end up beside a 82nd BCT doing something Hati or Kabul like.
Again though I will highlight that to me the expected msn sets drive TO&E and ORBAT and then training something that to me gets forgotten often.
A potential example is the light Bn mobility project. Currently I understand it to be focused for use in the Cdn North in the current threat environment there, hence not armoured or armed. All good but if we expect to drop that same Bn into Latvia to hold a village maybe it should be armoured and armed as a relatively random example.
There is ongoing work regarding the GRTF which indeed looks at expected roles/mission sets to inform training, doctrine, equipment and organization. Although what is available also drives what can be done at any given time. I am optimistic about this current initiative.

At the risk of summoning the usual suspects with their copy-pastas from Google, there are two mobility projects, one of which is DAME (for the arctic) and the other is a vehicle for all theatres. All that to say, work is afoot...

The White Paper focuses on the Armor Division (Reinforced) and Airborne Division in the interests of brevity to show the contrasts, but the structure of the Air Assault and Light/Motorized Divisions are quite similar to the Airborne. All have their Combat Support pulled up to Division level. The Airborne Division is highlighted as JFE capable, but the vignette is an airborne turning movement to support a US Army Corps consisting of Armor and Light Divisions.

Of note, the Air Assault Division is also tagged as JFE capable. For Canadian purposes, the Airborne and Air Assault Divisions have the roles of world-wide strategic deployment and joint forceable entry. So they are not just JFE. The Light/Motorized Divisions are to be capable of task organizing to respond to contingencies worldwide. So I think it's relevant to understand where the US is going and how we might integrate with them with our GRTF.

As a complete aside that may upset some folks, Canadian LIBs have participated in the JFE stage of JRTC/JPMRC rotations. Anyhoo. JPMRC and JRTC afford our light infantry outstanding collective training opportunities while fostering interoperability.

I think the US model of doctrine development is itself something to study. They have a process, and when they put their mind to it they get after it.
 
@TangoTwoBravo we also do the craziest shit too, and invent new things out of doctrine because someone thought it was a good idea, even if no logic can be found for a supporting doctrine - the answer is then ignore doctrine and do it anyway.
#NGSW
 
Meanwhile, a recent photo from a 2 PARA lad to put all this 'Airborne capability' stuff into context:

"That’s capability. The US largest launch of 24 C17s from one base at Charleston as part of an exercise involving 60 aircraft. And only 15% of the US total C17 fleet."

329308430_555544879849506_5897899292724539377_n.jpg
 
Meanwhile, a recent photo from a 2 PARA lad to put all this 'Airborne capability' stuff into context:

"That’s capability. The US largest launch of 24 C17s from one base at Charleston as part of an exercise involving 60 aircraft. And only 15% of the US total C17 fleet."

329308430_555544879849506_5897899292724539377_n.jpg
And a lot of them from the reserves, I bet. About a quarter of the US C-17 fleet is with their Air National Guard and Air Reserve air lift wings.

🍻
 
And a lot of them from the reserves, I bet. About a quarter of the US C-17 fleet is with their Air National Guard and Air Reserve air lift wings.

🍻

I once jumped into Hawaii with the 5th SF Group, delivered by reserve crews flying C-141s

The only Regular on the plane, I think, was the Crew Chief who made it very clear that it was 'his plane', and he was looking forward to getting some good training for 'his pilots' ;)
 
I once jumped into Hawaii with the 5th SF Group, delivered by reserve crews flying C-141s

The only Regular on the plane, I think, was the Crew Chief who made it very clear that it was 'his plane', and he was looking forward to getting some good training for 'his pilots' ;)
That's every crew chief's viewpoint regardless of who is Reg and Res.

:giggle:
 
From the Forbes article

With little advance notice, the leadership of the 437th Airlift Wing directed its airmen to get 24 C-17s - 15% of the USAF fleet - in the air for a two-day maximum effort exercise early this month. The sight, sound and reality of 24 C-17s taking off in 16 minutes was meant to send a message about an Air Force seen as struggling. It can still fly.

On January 5th, two days after personnel from the 437th AW based at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina reported back to work for the New Year, two dozen C-17 Globemaster IIIs flew in trail-formation over the landmark Ravenel Bridge in Charleston Harbor before dispersing to take on different missions across five operating locations in concert with other Air Force, Army, and Marine forces.




The Air Force claims 157 Globemasters in its inventory (the Air National Guard has 47, the Air Force Reserve, 18) so the flight represented a notable proportion of the nation’s fleet.

I don't know if that is 157 total or 222 but either way - applying the 10% rule to Canada/US affairs would it have been ridiculous to contemplate Canada buying a fleet of 15 to 22 C17s?

And the C17s are in addition to the 250 to 300 C130s. We just about meet our 1:10 ratio there.



 
From the Forbes article








I don't know if that is 157 total or 222 but either way - applying the 10% rule to Canada/US affairs would it have been ridiculous to contemplate Canada buying a fleet of 15 to 22 C17s?

And the C17s are in addition to the 250 to 300 C130s. We just about meet our 1:10 ratio there.



24 C-17 IMHO would have been a good number of Canada.
You could drop an Airborne Bde in one lift and have some left for support drops of supplies.
 
Or Canada needs to admit that its military interests are better served by a larger RCAF, both fighters and strat / tac lift, and a larger RCN (as a three ocean nation), and therefore downsize the Reg F Army to invest in the other two services.
But are Pilots and NWOs going to go in to old folks homes and wipe people's asses?

They also aren't going to shovel snow. Everyone knows these tasks are what we require an Army for.
 
This poor thread.

Hey, if you had 24 C17s at your disposal then you could write doctrine calling for a troop of Gun tanks, an ARV, an AEV and a couple of M109s to accompany the JFE Battle group. ;)

And you could be delivering parkas and blankets, and Little Birds on the off days.

Doctrine starts with the possible.
 
Meanwhile, a recent photo from a 2 PARA lad to put all this 'Airborne capability' stuff into context:

"That’s capability. The US largest launch of 24 C17s from one base at Charleston as part of an exercise involving 60 aircraft. And only 15% of the US total C17 fleet."

329308430_555544879849506_5897899292724539377_n.jpg
Looks like JOAX. You quickly realize we aren't even playing "house league" when you see a JOAX exercise.
It is a very classic army.ca thread
Ok I was being an ass but you know there are many Canadians who actually think that 😉
 
Back
Top