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

Does a Regt support a Bde or does 3 Btys support 3 BGs?

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Although I do see the potential for 3 seperate BG's requiring 3 x Bty FSCCs and 1 x Regt FSCC and a larger Bde HQ to support.  Manpower would likely be the killer for 1 x Bde to pull this off.  It would probably take 2 of our Bde's to do this.

For now I will choose a side and take the potential way of the future for an Arty Regt.

2 x Gun Btys
1 x FOO Bty
1 x STA Bty
1 x HQ Bty

I have heard that 5 RALC maybe starting this process already.

I am for it. What does everyone think of this?
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
19
Points
430
GnyHwy said:
For now I will choose a side and take the potential way of the future for an Arty Regt.

2 x Gun Btys
1 x FOO Bty
1 x STA Bty
1 x HQ Bty
IF a regiment can man the above, and given that we only deploy 1 x BG at a time (and barely, at that), I would offer a minor amendment
1 x Gun Bty
1 x FOO Bty
1 x STA Bty
1 x HQ Bty
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
380
Gny's model is the one I've seen used most often, and 5 RALC did try this 2 years ago but struggled under the reality of their manning limitations to make it work. The only way, really, was to lean heavily on Reserve augmentation, and some cross training.

So there are also some qualifiers to be aware of when looking at that proposed Regt that people are using as a start point in future planning.

Both gun Bty's will have only 2 gun Tps, the third Tp will not be manned, unless the unit goes into high readiness, and then the third Tp is supposed to be force generated from Reserve units.

The reality, in actual people available, is the 2nd gun Bty is likely to be less than  half stength, at best.

A kit ditribution plan is still being debated as well, but so far the plan I've heard is that neither of the third Tps will be kitted out with anything either, just the unit deployed and the one deploying will have a third Tp kitted out and manned.

Which means as it does now, where the Regt is shifting the same people and kit from one Bty to the next to meet FG needs of the BG deploying, which itself is doing this to a certain degree.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
56
Points
480
And this means that the reserves are going to be at least as important as they are now. This to my tiny brain at least also means that they can (or should) not be given jobs such as manning mortars as a primary duty. Petard tossed out this in his previous post, "A kit ditribution [sic] plan is still being debated as well, but so far the plan I've heard is that neither of the third Tps will be kitted out with anything either, just the unit deployed and the one deploying will have a third Tp kitted out and manned." Since we only have three regiments, if an operation comes up, the units will be playing musical chairs. Presumably, even if there is no operation underway, the regiments will still be in some sort of readiness order, so even then there will be two batteries, one in each of the top two regiments kitted out with the third troop. The manning is not quite so clear. Does this also imply that reservists will be employed full time with the top one or two units in readiness rotation?

In the immediate post-integration days when the three single-service headquarters were tossed in a pot and shaken into CFHQ, the line was "if the boss calls, get his name and phone number so we can call him back." This may well be the new regimental unofficial motto for the foreseeable future.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
0
It most likely will be inevitable that all gun Btys will be short manned.  As for the FOO Bty it will be more like a troop and a half.  STA, likely the same. 

I have just talked to a 1 RCHA member and they will be making the transformation next fiscal year.  He identified a few wonky things that don't make sense,  as well he raised a few questions.

Here is one that I thought was completely wrong.

1. The FSCCs will be in the Gun Btys. 

Makes no sense to me as most FSCC pers will have come from the OPs.  Especially the FSSCO, FSCC WO and the FSCC Sgt.  Those persons would be better left in the OP Bty to train their subordinates.  As well, a large FSCC in the OP Bty would better support the Bde or any Btln if necessary.  I would even agree with a large FSCC close to 95 in HQ Bty before I would support it in a Gun Bty.

Further to that, he mentioned the OP Bty not having a BSM or BQ for manning or equipment.  Oh well, I guess the FSCC WO will have to do it.  Oh wait, he's in the Gun Bty.



One other concern, which I think is childish and extremely unprofessional but, unfortunately is sometimes true.  Further separating the OPs from the Guns will cause animosity.  There has been animosity in the past where the OPs are considered the "Hollywood" troops and the Guns have to do all the "real" work.  Hopefully, we can all just grow up and this won't be an issue.  I am focused OP now but, have done my time on the gunline and believe I have an appreciation for both.  If people would stop worrying about what the other guy is doing, that would be step 1.

I have rambled long enough.

For Techno, the 1 x Gun Bty couldn't work as we support 1 level up.  It would be the equivalent of having only 1 x Inf Btln or 1 x Armoured Sqn in a Bde. 


 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
440
Points
910
GnyHwy said:
For Techno, the 1 x Gun Bty couldn't work as we support 1 level up.  It would be the equivalent of having only 1 x Inf Btln or 1 x Armoured Sqn in a Bde.
Ya, didn't you learn anything at Ft Frontenac?  ;D

Although since the thread is about doctrine vs reality, and ongoing evolutions, I think Techno's formulation is perfectly valid. With a thread title of "3 Btys support 3 BGs," if you're down to one Bty, you support one BG. While it may be nice to have another Bty or two, it's looking like that may not be the way ahead.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
56
Points
480
Actually, JM, that is not how it has worked in theatre certainly from as far back as TF 1-07. At various times Canadian gun troops have found themselves detached for considerable amounts of time supporting Allied units. In these cases the Commander JTFA had been approached by other commanders who requested Canadian artillery support because the M777s brought a new capability to the battlefield.

I won't get into the challenges these detachments created, but they were real and considerable. This in part at least is why a proper FSCC with a gunner adviser who could talk directly to the Commander was deployed with HQ JTFA fron fairly early on in the game. There is some innuendo there that you probably have detected, which we can discuss face to face when next we meet and are still reasonably sober so inclined to engage in a professional discussion.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
440
Points
910
I was wrong once before too......but the divorce lawyer sorted that one out.  ;D
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I must have missed a side discussion on this one but,  I must repeat that only 1 Gun Bty could not work.  Standing down 2 of our 3 Gun Btys would be the equivalent of standing down 2 of the Inf Btlns from all Bdes.  2 and 3 PPCLI, 22s or RCR alike.

I believe it was only less than a decade ago that someone thought that our Army didn't need Arty OR Armoured.  To do believe that IMO, you would have to disregard every great military leader that has ever lived.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
56
Points
480
GnyHwy said:
I believe it was only less than a decade ago that someone thought that our Army didn't need Arty OR Armoured.  To do believe that IMO, you would have to disregard every great military leader that has ever lived.

That would not be the first time we blazed the wrong trail. I recently received an email from a senior officer who had an important appointment in TF 1-06. In it he (no names, no pack drill) stated that the heavy use of the guns during his tour came as a complete surprise to him. He added that he, along with most of the rest of the army's brain trust, had pretty well written off the artillery as no longer required on the modern battlefield.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Yes, I have heard this same issue personally from a Snr Cmdr myself and only replied that I thought he was wrong.  The conversation kind of ended there.

The way I took it from there was, we need to improve our accuracy and better understand repercussions.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
380
Old Sweat said:
That would not be the first time we blazed the wrong trail. I recently received an email from a senior officer who had an important appointment in TF 1-06. In it he (no names, no pack drill) stated that the heavy use of the guns during his tour came as a complete surprise to him. He added that he, along with most of the rest of the army's brain trust, had pretty well written off the artillery as no longer required on the modern battlefield.

And unfortunately a good number of that "brain trust" is still around, and their thinking has changed little.

Gny, today there is a confab with LSEC and Arty stakeholders on how messaging between the Tp CP's, Bty's, FSCC, OP's and to higher through LCSS will work, and its format.
The School has only one rep in attendance, far as I know, if what you've been saying is correct about the School revising the cornerstone documents "duties at RHQ and the Bty" and "duties of the BC and Observers",  then now is the time to make sure planners are aware of any prospective key changes in how users want to do business
 

rampage800

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Regiments have always been designed to support Bdes, I'd say just by the title of this thread that maybe theres too much mission creep in that train of thinking.

I think everyone has basically conceded that the Regt or in our current fight, bty, should be held at the Bde level more than the BG, why should one manoeuvre in a TF unit hold all the Canadian indirect fire assets ? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
0
For Rampage,

I agree with supporting 2 levels higher.  Which is one of my arguements against the OBG.  For my TF, we cut a troop to the yanks which made pefect sense and they were utilized effectively.

For Petard,

Gny, today there is a confab with LSEC and Arty stakeholders on how messaging between the Tp CP's, Bty's, FSCC, OP's and to higher through LCSS will work, and its format.

I am hoping to find myself in the middle of that madness.  A huge complex problem but, if no one gives a crap we'll never get there.  LCSS should be a much easier sell than SAS, we just need to get the EPLRS training moving ahead of the game before it becomes a panic.
 
Top