Combat Support Regiment

[Mountie]

MCG,

To allow the battle groups to keep their own engineer squadrons but not lose the capabilities you are talking about what do you think of grouping the traditional engineer support squadron into a Combat Support Regiment under brigade control and leaving the field squadrons in the battle groups.

Combat Support Regiment
-Regimental Headquarters
-CSS Squadron
-Signal Squadron (including EW Troop)
-Military Intelligence Company (including TUAVs)
-Engineer Support Squadron
-Brigade Reconnaissance Squadron (in Fennek Armoured Cars)
-General Support Artillery Battery (4 x HIMARS & air defence section)
-Military Police Platoon (either here or in the service battalion)

 

[Brad Sallows]

One of the elements of our staff system is the advisory role of various combat support and service support unit COs to the commander.  This means in most cases the advisor is the person who also has the right to speak for the employment of the functional unit in question.  An intermediate headquarters (and CO) would complicate those relationships.

 

[McG]

With the exception of the Engr and Arty elements, your proposal reminds me of a few concept ORBATs for the command support battalion.  I was never convinced of the need for a Comd Sp Bn because the most frequent models only fused the HQ & Sigs Sqn with an Admin Sqn.  Do we really need to create a Bn to support one Sqn that has been able to survive on its own for so long?  I could understand if the plan was to plug additional planning capabilities into the organization (stand up additional "msn elements"), but most models did not reflect that COA.

. . . but back to your Cbt Sp Bn.  I do have a few thoughts:

1) As was pointed out, you have separated the Bde Comd from his arms advisers.  Not only that, but now the arms adviser will be a maj with significantly less experience to draw from when generating advice.  You could create the artificial position of arms adviser in the bde staff, but the narrower scope of work would result in less value added from the LCol.

2) You have eliminated the arms planning & coordination cells in the bde HQ.  Again, you could artificially create an ESCC and FSCC but, again, these officers and Sr NCO would result in less value added than when also part of a regiment.

3) You have created a bn HQ that will never deploy.  Okay, maybe you converted the Arty HQ to the Cbt Sp Bn HQ.  If that is the case, you have lost one unit HQ which may deploy.  Combat Engineer Regiments have deployed as whole units to Iraq and the FRY.

4)  Who is the technical expert that validates the Engr & Arty subunits as being fit for deployment?

Overall it is not a bad idea and it beats several other odd-ball ideas that I've heard about (shield battalion), but I don't think it is the right idea.  I'll post an Engr solution to the problem in a little while, but feel free to poke at my objections in the meantime.

 

[McG]

An Engr solution: http://army.ca/forums/threads/22585/post-157051.html#msg157051

 

[Mountie]

Since this got moved to a post of its own, future readers may not see the whole idea.  The CSR was part of a new CMBG.  The original discussion was moving the combined arms concept down to the battle group level on a permanent basis.  The direct fire support squadron, close support artillery batteries and field engineer squadrons were permanently attached to a battle group.  This left the engineer support squadron, the ESCC, the FSCC, the brigade recce squadron and all their RHQ's left independent.  I read several articles about the US Army's new Unit of Action Brigades that they are creating.  They formed a Special Troops Battalion with Signals, Military Intelligence, MPs, engineer company (in the light brigades) and so on.  I just modified this and that's where I got the CSR idea.  I just group them all together and of course created a general support artillery battery which will likely never happen, but what the hell. 

As far as creating a battalion headquarters that never deploys, I agree.  It would only deploy in an entire brigade deployment and that will never happen.  But how often did the engineer regiment or artillery regiment deploy as a whole.  1 CER in Iraq in '91, 4 CER in FRY right after that, but other than two deployments that's about it.  I could be missing something though.  My idea was, as whoever started the combined arms topic, to form permanenlty organized battle groups and eliminate the RHQ and consolidate their support units.  You still eliminate most of the artillery, engineer and armour RHQs and you gain a CSR RHQ.  The CSR RHQ was more to consolidate support and admin duties for all the independent squadrons and batteries.

 

[McG]

But how often did the engineer regiment or artillery regiment deploy as a whole. 1 CER in Iraq in '91, 4 CER in FRY right after that, but other than two deployments that's about it.

Op RECORD  included two full unit rotations (1 CER then 2 CER), and Cavalier was the same (4 CER then 1 CER).  4 ESR surged as a regiment to launch & to shut-down the Eritrea deployment, and the next two ATHENA rotations will draw much of their organization from 2 CER then 2 RCHA.  This does not even mention regimental deployments for Dom Ops.

While it may be debatable that Op ATHENA validates the use of these units HQs, the other three missions demonstrate there is deployable utility in an Engr unit.  Declaring the engineer units surplus because they have not deployed as a whole in the last 5 years is the same as declaring your car's spare tire unnecessary.  You may get away with it for a while, but eventually you will need that capability.

 

[EODSpr]

Not to mention that with the frequency that engineers are deployed to support these Battle Groups the sustainability of skill sets and career progression would become a problem. Although when an affiliated Sqn ie: 23 Fd Sqn 2 CER deploys with 1 RCR depending on the mission and the specialized skills required 23's deployed troops may come from throughout the Regt. We do not have a lot of redundancy in some of the specialized skills like EOD/IEDD, watersupply, Heavy Equipment, Combat Divers etc. For most these are additional duties to that of just Combat Engineering.

With that it would be difficult to man 2 or 3 identical mission ready Sqn's attached permanently to BG's. There would be a lot of constant trades of pers between these BG entities to resource level your needed skills. At least at an Engr Regt you are free to do this, as our CO has all his sub units and pers to organize to support the deployed missions, domestic tasks and Exercises in the most efficient manner all under one roof.

I don't believe we have enough Sappers to sustain anything but what we have right now, and we have a hard time even doing that.

E45

Chimo!

 

[Kat Stevens]

Op RECORD  included two full unit rotations (1 CER then 2 CER), and Cavalier was the same (4 CER then 1 CER).  4 ESR surged as a regiment to launch & to shut-down the Eritrea deployment, and the next two ATHENA rotations will draw much of their organization from 2 CER then 2 RCHA.  This does not even mention regimental deployments for Dom Ops.

While it may be debatable that Op ATHENA validates the use of these units HQs, the other three missions demonstrate there is deployable utility in an Engr unit.  Declaring the engineer units surplus because they have not deployed as a whole in the last 5 years is the same as declaring your car's spare tire unnecessary.  You may get away with it for a while, but eventually you will need that capability.

4CER never was part of Op Cavalier.  We deployed as CANENGBAT on OP Harmony, UNPROFOR.

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[SprCForr]

Same,Same 1 CER (less 2 Fd Tps) CANENGBAT UNPROFOR Op Harmony ROTO 1 ('92-93).

Has any staff officer crunched the numbers to find out what the strength of the units would have to be in the BG sp mode? What would the manning level be at war strength?

 

[McG]

4CER never was part of Op Cavalier. We deployed as CANENGBAT on OP Harmony, UNPROFOR.

Same,Same 1 CER (less 2 Fd Tps) CANENGBAT UNPROFOR Op Harmony ROTO 1 ('92-93).

It seems I gave the wrong mission name.  :-[  Thanks for keeping me honest.