What do we want from Army Doctrine and Cbt Tm in Ops?

[Haligonian]

The Cbt Tm in Ops pam is being reviewed.  The fact that our Pams are no longer printed means that they can be reviewed and updated more frequently.  I've been asked to have a look at the pub and give my comments.  A couple thoughts have already been put forward such as making Cbt Tm in Ops an annex to BG in Ops which means much of the repetition between the books could be eliminated and it could focus on things like TTPs.  There will also be a "Degraded Ops" chapter which will account for things like EW, and maybe CBRN and operating without air superiority.

How should our doctrine be nested between books?  We have Land Ops as our capstone doctrine then we have a Bde (basically a word for word copy of the British one), BG, and Cbt Tm publication.  It seems to me that there is some repetition between them.  What stays and what goes between different Pams and where should the emphasis be at each level?  As an example, should the fundamentals be discussed again specifically how they can be applied at the Cbt Tm level, or should they just be listed like an aide memoir? 

What do you guys like about our doctine and what don't you like?  What needs to be in Cbt Tm Ops that isn't?

Some initial thoughts:
The defence portion needs to be fleshed out more and made less conceptual
It requires a chapter on direct fire control
The seven step KZ development drill must be enshrined in it
TTPs or templates for forms of maneuver other than frontal and flanking need to be discussed, such as how do we bypass (infiltrate)?
TTPs or templates for operations other than hasty attacks, such as defensive occupation, withdrawal, link up, etc.  The British standard orders cards are an interesting example of these.
An emphasis on being able to execute battle procedure rapidly
A better discussion on where to dismount
Put Reserve Demo Guard back in
Time estimates for Off, Def, and enabling ops
Staff data to support things like time estimates
Guidance on how to integrate sub sub units from different nations
A more explicit discussion on the roles and responsibilities of the Coy 2IC, SSM, Coy CQ and Tpt Sgt in the A1 and A2 echelons
A discussion on the factors that drive the composition of the echelons, particularly ammo storage.
Remove some of the more technical artillery pieces
Revise the Merry Up Checklist to include a few other items such as mission specific rehearsals
Formations, their adv and disadv
Night ops

 

[Infanteer]

Our doctrine is getting better, but still suffers from being too repetitive, too long, and too laden with valueless material and images.  It seems that, if it doesn't start of with a diagram displaying the spectrum of conflict, it isn't doctrine.  It'd be instructive to go back to the CAMT series of manuals produced in the 1950s and 60s to see what accurate, brief, and concise doctrine publications look like.

The USMC MCDP-series remains the benchmark for doctrinal publications.  They are well written, instructive in what doctrine should be (establishing the foundation), and relatively short.  The fact that they are still in use by the USMC 30 years after being published is a testament to the strength of these documents.  Compare this to the US Army, which has rewritten its capstone publication FM 100-5/FM 3-0/ADP 3-0 six times in the same time span.

I find it interesting that we are reopening Cbt Tm in Ops when the last version was published in late 2017.  Have combat team operations changed in the last year and half, or did we miss something as an institution?  In reality, we (should) have manuals for our various Corps/Branch sub-units and units.  Combat Team and Battle Group operations should be covered under a "Canadian Army Combined Arms Operations" manual.  Looking at the Table of Contents for both Cbt Tm and BG in Ops lends to this idea (I've also added my commentary in brackets).

BG in Ops:
(1) Understanding the Nature of Land Combat (this is superfluous, and is already described in the capstone pubs)
(2) The Combined Arms Grouping
(3) Employing the Battle Group (this is mostly stuff already covered in the Land Ops pub)
(4) Commanding the Battle Group on Operations
(5) Sustaining the Battle Group
(6) Offensive Operations
(7) Defensive Operations
(8 ) Stability Operations
(9) Enabling Operations
(10) Specific Operations in Unique Environments (This can be covered in manuals on these specific environments)

Cbt Tm in Ops:
(1) Command and Control
(2) Offensive Operations
(3) Defensive Operations
(4) Stability Operations
(5) Enabling Operations
(6) Cbt Tm Sustainment
(7) Hides, Harbours, and Waiting Areas

Looking at this, you could probably write a "Canadian Army Combined Arms Operations" publication with the following chapters:
(1) Combined Arms Grouping
(2) Command of Combined Arms
(3) Combined Arms Offensive Operations
(4) Combined Arms Defensive Operations
(5) Combined Arms Enabling Operations
(6) Combined Arms Stability Operations
(7) Combined Arms Sustainment

What's important is that the manual should be brief, no more than 200 pages.  If you keep it short, then you can have a realistic expectation of requiring Captains and Majors to know it cold.  One of the problems is that all of our doctrinal publications are tomes, and because they are lengthy and repetitive, they are rarely read and understood - not a good sign for the profession.  A good way to get rid of this is to get rid of the constant stream of "principles" and "fundamentals" which are fun for multiple choice tests of knowledge, but don't really add to knowledge and only take up space with needless adjectives....

As for your initial thoughts:

There will also be a "Degraded Ops" chapter which will account for things like EW, and maybe CBRN and operating without air superiority. (shouldn't this be in Land Ops?)
The defence portion needs to be fleshed out more and made less conceptual (agreed - the conceptual is for Land Ops, the prescriptive, for the Arms pubs)
It requires a chapter on direct fire control (not sure if its needs a chapter, but perhaps a section in the command chapter)
The seven step KZ development drill must be enshrined in it (drills should go in the SOP publication)
TTPs or templates for forms of maneuver other than frontal and flanking need to be discussed, such as how do we bypass (infiltrate)? (TTPs/templates should go in the SOP publication)
TTPs or templates for operations other than hasty attacks, such as defensive occupation, withdrawal, link up, etc.  The British standard orders cards are an interesting example of these. (TTPs/templates should go in the SOP publication)
An emphasis on being able to execute battle procedure rapidly (yes, but this is more appropriate in the new B-GL-335-001 Decision Making and Planning at the Tactical Level)
A better discussion on where to dismount (agreed)
Put Reserve Demo Guard back in (agreed)
Time estimates for Off, Def, and enabling ops (agreed)
Staff data to support things like time estimates (agreed)
Guidance on how to integrate sub sub units from different nations (or perhaps a multinational operations publication is more appropriate?)
A more explicit discussion on the roles and responsibilities of the Coy 2IC, SSM, Coy CQ and Tpt Sgt in the A1 and A2 echelons (yes)
A discussion on the factors that drive the composition of the echelons, particularly ammo storage. (yes)
Remove some of the more technical artillery pieces (yes, that can go in the Battery publication)
Revise the Merry Up Checklist to include a few other items such as mission specific rehearsals (checklists should be in the SOP publication)
Formations, their adv and disadv (yes)
Night ops (ok - as it pertains to combined arms grouping I guess)

In essence, a Combined Arms publication should provide the fundamentals for putting together and employing all arms of the Canadian Army.  Higher order operational stuff should go in the capstone publications of B-GL-300-000 Canada's Army and B-GL-300-001 Land Operations, while lower order TTPs, templates, and checklists should go in B-GL-334-001 SOPs for Land Operations.

 

[FJAG]

Our doctrine is getting better, but still suffers from being too repetitive, too long, and too laden with valueless material and images.  It seems that, if it doesn't start of with a diagram displaying the spectrum of conflict, it isn't doctrine.  It'd be instructive to go back to the CAMT series of manuals produced in the 1950s and 60s to see what accurate, brief, and concise doctrine publications look like.
. . .

What's important is that the manual should be brief, no more than 200 pages.  If you keep it short, then you can have a realistic expectation of requiring Captains and Majors to know it cold.  One of the problems is that all of our doctrinal publications are tomes, and because they are lengthy and repetitive, they are rarely read and understood - not a good sign for the profession.  A good way to get rid of this is to get rid of the constant stream of "principles" and "fundamentals" which are fun for multiple choice tests of knowledge, but don't really add to knowledge and only take up space with needless adjectives....
. . .

I'm with you on all of that. As part of the generation that was there when we switched from CAMTs to CFPs our main observations at the time were that the CFPs were all too long and instead of teaching fundamental procedures or principles were teaching us how to suck eggs. In addition the 8 X 11 and bilingual formats made them more than twice as large (and heavy) then they needed to be and impractical to take into the field in battleboxes. (In the artillery we had a lovely interim process for our new CFPs whereby the English and French were published back to back rather than in side by side columns so that you could take out the part with the other official language and leave it back in the office)

I also remember that at the time that we were getting them we were comparing them to US Army FMs. Remember this was in the 1970s so we were dealing with a different US Army then. What was particularly striking was the language level and pictorial content. Basic field manuals were at a basic, easy to understand level (what I remember especially was that while our CFP stated that a slit trench had to be "609mm [or whatever now rounded up to .75 metres]" wide, the US FM said "two bayonets" wide] Higher end manuals were more complex (I think at the time the standard was that basic US Army manuals were at the grade school level, battalion and below manuals at the high school level and anything higher than that at a graduate level). In particular, they built on each other progressively. A cbt tm manual would be separate and distinct from that of the battle group and the latter would presuppose the reader had read and was conversant with the former and therefore not repeat its contents.

I should note that as part of my research for my novels, I've been reading many of the recent US Army FMs, ATPs, ATTPs etc and they no longer are as good as they used to be. Quite frankly they are terribly verbose. As an example FM 3-21.20 The Infantry Battalion goes on for some 600 pages (in only one official language) and reads like a Command and Staff Collage treatise on all phases of war and anything else that you can think of. CAMT 7-84 The Infantry Battalion in Battle on the other hand was 187 pages and in a smaller format (again in one official language)

I'm a firm believer that less is more although all too frequently my lawyer mode kicks in and I think that I'm being paid by the word.  ;D

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just going from memory here, so take it FWIW from the cheap seats:

1. Obstacles. Anything and everything about creating/ breaching obstacles etc.

2. Logistics. Ammo/Cas/ Maint.

3. Anti-Air stuff. We're pretty thin on that everywhere in our doctrine, as I recall, but Cbt Tm Comds will probably be the lowest command level 'on the hook' for this.

4. MOUT & Complex Terrain. As I recall, anything outside of the usual 'rolling plains' scenario 'a la Wainwright' wasn't well covered.

 

[ballz]

A more explicit discussion on the roles and responsibilities of the Coy 2IC, SSM, Coy CQ and Tpt Sgt in the A1 and A2 echelons
A discussion on the factors that drive the composition of the echelons, particularly ammo storage.

Certainly required and a lot of good can be done here, but... what is our doctrine on this, does it truly exist, or are you being asked to help make it up? And who is going to decide what it is if it doesn't / if there are conflicting views?

I ask because, as an example, I think we've all had numerous arguments about what a CSM does, where he should be located, and what kind of vehicle he should be in. Personally, I think he should be in the A1 echelon, with an armoured bison full of ammo, probably with a second armoured bison also with ammo, and 2x armoured bisons with a medical team in each (and no medics embedded in the platoons). He's then ready to conduct emergency re-supply and/or consolidation. But, in practice, I've seen the CSM riding around in the OC's vehicle with a medic putting both in an utterly useless position. I also know this isn't isolated to 2 CMBG as there is currently at least one mech company in 1 CMBG that has the CSM in the OC's vehicle doing.... battle tracking.... I mean, the companies received 16x LAV 6.0s and we were told the LAV 6.0 was going to be the CSM's. :stars:

I've also seen more often than not the Tpt Sgt being left in the Bn echelon where he also serves no purpose, because the Coy 2IC is not only acting as a CP but also commanding the Coy A1... and because the B fleet is usually so sparse the Tpt Sgt mostly does LAV stuff in garrison that should be the responsibility of a LAV Capt, and then that transfers over to how we operate in a field environment.

Of course, throw the armour corp's two cents into this and it might sort itself out as they seem to understand using the echelon system better than mech infantry who are still trying to figure out how to employ a LAV Captain.

The other thing to consider... is this doctrine going to be based on a square combat team with a "full" echelon and what does a "full" echelon consist of? If you go by our current pubs, it's likely none of us has ever actually employed a full echelon and so should doctrine be based off of equipment/manning we may never have?

EDIT: Also, is the Coy Ops WO going to be added since it's an entirely made up position but now seems pretty institutionalized due to our love of trackers and creating inefficient processes in garrison...

 

[Infanteer]

Certainly required and a lot of good can be done here, but... what is our doctrine on this, does it truly exist, or are you being asked to help make it up? And who is going to decide what it is if it doesn't / if there are conflicting views?

I ask because, as an example, I think we've all had numerous arguments about what a CSM does....

Part of the problem is that all of the answers on position duties and tasks are described in the Occupation Specification, but the occupation specification is 25 years out of date.  At the last Infantry Advisory Board, the ongoing Military Employment Structure review to update the document was discussed.  All these positions (CSM, Tpt NCO, 2IC, LAV Capt) are being reviewed and will have their job descriptions and tasks codified in an updated Occupation Specification.  Between this and doctrine, both approved by Director Infantry as the Army Commander's advisor on Corps matters, there should be a clear path going forward as to who does what.

All of these positions you are talking about, however, don't need to be discussed in the Cbt Team/Combined Arms publication.  They need to be in the Infantry Company in Operations publication that is currently being rewritten by the ADC/Infantry Corps.

 

[Haligonian]

All of these positions you are talking about, however, don't need to be discussed in the Cbt Team/Combined Arms publication.  They need to be in the Infantry Company in Operations publication that is currently being rewritten by the ADC/Infantry Corps.

I imagine by a team of 1?

 

[Infanteer]

I imagine by a team of 1?

I can't remember, but I think a battalion had taken the lead on this, and was working with the Infantry rep at ADC.

We definitely don't do the US approach and employ reams of contractors to spit stuff out on a constant basis...that approach also has its problems.  I've heard US complaints that their doctrine is written by contractors for contractors.

 

[Haligonian]

I can't remember, but I think a battalion had taken the lead on this, and was working with the Infantry rep at ADC.

We definitely don't do the US approach and employ reams of contractors to spit stuff out on a constant basis...that approach also has its problems.  I've heard US complaints that their doctrine is written by contractors for contractors.

You might be seeing that come in.  What I'm reviewing is a draft written by contractors from the Tactics School.

 

[Haligonian]

Certainly required and a lot of good can be done here, but... what is our doctrine on this, does it truly exist, or are you being asked to help make it up? And who is going to decide what it is if it doesn't / if there are conflicting views?

I ask because, as an example, I think we've all had numerous arguments about what a CSM does, where he should be located, and what kind of vehicle he should be in. Personally, I think he should be in the A1 echelon, with an armoured bison full of ammo, probably with a second armoured bison also with ammo, and 2x armoured bisons with a medical team in each (and no medics embedded in the platoons). He's then ready to conduct emergency re-supply and/or consolidation. But, in practice, I've seen the CSM riding around in the OC's vehicle with a medic putting both in an utterly useless position. I also know this isn't isolated to 2 CMBG as there is currently at least one mech company in 1 CMBG that has the CSM in the OC's vehicle doing.... battle tracking.... I mean, the companies received 16x LAV 6.0s and we were told the LAV 6.0 was going to be the CSM's. :stars:

I've also seen more often than not the Tpt Sgt being left in the Bn echelon where he also serves no purpose, because the Coy 2IC is not only acting as a CP but also commanding the Coy A1... and because the B fleet is usually so sparse the Tpt Sgt mostly does LAV stuff in garrison that should be the responsibility of a LAV Capt, and then that transfers over to how we operate in a field environment.

Of course, throw the armour corp's two cents into this and it might sort itself out as they seem to understand using the echelon system better than mech infantry who are still trying to figure out how to employ a LAV Captain.

The other thing to consider... is this doctrine going to be based on a square combat team with a "full" echelon and what does a "full" echelon consist of? If you go by our current pubs, it's likely none of us has ever actually employed a full echelon and so should doctrine be based off of equipment/manning we may never have?

EDIT: Also, is the Coy Ops WO going to be added since it's an entirely made up position but now seems pretty institutionalized due to our love of trackers and creating inefficient processes in garrison...

I actually like the way it is currently doctrinally laid out.  The 2IC should be squarely focussed on maintaining comms with higher and being prepared to take over.  He isn't commanding the ech.  The Tpt Sgt does this and in a Cbt Tm context then it's the SSM with the Tpt Sgt supporting him.  The Coy CQ is back in the BG A2 ensuring the trucks are getting loaded with the right Adrep items and what's required at the nightly DP is getting on the right trucks and doing general coordination.  He is the Coy's link with C/S 8.

The Coy CSM is a different matter and I believe he should have his own vehicle with the ability to potentially do some emergency resupply of small arms.  HIs focus is really on casualties and PW handling, however, and then the eventual reorganization of the Coy following contact as well as the integration of replacements.

These are my take aways thus far:

1. Don't repeat things from higher level doctrine.  Assume people have read that stuff and if they haven't they know which Pam to go to.
2. It should be short.  It should not be onerous to bring it to the field with you, and it should actually be useful in the field.

I think the idea of having one SOP publication is an interesting idea, however, if we accept that there should be one SOP publication, and more theoretical concepts will be discussed in the higher level Pams then what's left to talk about in the Cbt Tm pam?  As an example why would the time estimate for off/def/enabling ops be in the Cbt Tm Ops Pam and not in the SOP pam?  Same thing as formations?  Fomations are defiantly an SOP and so by that logic would belong in the SOP Pam. 

Does anyone have a digital CAMD pub I could take a look at?

 

[ballz]

I actually like the way it is currently doctrinally laid out.  The 2IC should be squarely focussed on maintaining comms with higher and being prepared to take over.  He isn't commanding the ech.  The Tpt Sgt does this and in a Cbt Tm context then it's the SSM with the Tpt Sgt supporting him.  The Coy CQ is back in the BG A2 ensuring the trucks are getting loaded with the right Adrep items and what's required at the nightly DP is getting on the right trucks and doing general coordination.  He is the Coy's link with C/S 8.

I agree with you, however, that is not what was practiced from at least 2012 - 2017 in our Bn and from what I can tell also not what's being practiced out west. If you ran it that way in the past year than it'd be interesting to hear how it worked but it wasn't the norm which begs the question was it truly our doctrine or was it just what was written down in a PAM no one knew / read / understood?

And the Coy Ops WO remains a question mark and the last ORBAT I saw which was being proposed as the new ORBAT for battalions had a Coy Ops WO on it. Personally I despise the fact that we've created a position to facilitate our inefficiencies but I liked the way I Coy circa 2017 used the Ops WO in the CP with the Coy 2IC, seemed to be the most practical use and was far better than H Coy's employment.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree with you, however, that is not what was practiced from at least 2012 - 2017 in our Bn and from what I can tell also not what's being practiced out west. If you ran it that way in the past year than it'd be interesting to hear how it worked but it wasn't the norm which begs the question was it truly our doctrine or was it just what was written down in a PAM no one knew / read / understood?

And the Coy Ops WO remains a question mark and the last ORBAT I saw which was being proposed as the new ORBAT for battalions had a Coy Ops WO on it. Personally I despise the fact that we've created a position to facilitate our inefficiencies but I liked the way I Coy circa 2017 used the Ops WO in the CP with the Coy 2IC, seemed to be the most practical use and was far better than H Coy's employment.

I'm guessing that it's because, in Canada, we tend to want to put a Sergeant Major's pace stick in our Officers' rucksacks

 

[Infanteer]

The Coy CSM is a different matter and I believe he should have his own vehicle with the ability to potentially do some emergency resupply of small arms.  HIs focus is really on casualties and PW handling, however, and then the eventual reorganization of the Coy following contact as well as the integration of replacements.

This is one that the Corps has kicked around.  I'm loathe to simply make the Infantry and Armoured SSM and stick him in the echelon.

Having a separate vehicle has merit, especially as the company should have some dismounted fire support in it as well.  That being said, the vehicle comes at a cost - a crew of three.  Multiply that by the 18 mech companies and you have a 54 PY requirement to fill.  Where does sit on the priority list with Transport Platoons, Combat Support Capabilities, etc, etc.

2. It should be short.  It should not be onerous to bring it to the field with you, and it should actually be useful in the field.

Yes.  The term pam is short for pamphlet.  These things literally started as 10-20 page pamphlets that were distributed in the trenches of WWI. 

I think the idea of having one SOP publication is an interesting idea, however, if we accept that there should be one SOP publication, and more theoretical concepts will be discussed in the higher level Pams then what's left to talk about in the Cbt Tm pam?

It simply needs to describe the specifics of higher order doctrine as they apply to combined arms groupings.  For example, higher order doctrine describes forms of manoeuvre for the offence.  A Combined Arms pub can lay out current BG and Cbt Tm formations for these forms of manoeuvre.  This is why you can put BG and Cbt Tm together and why it doesn't have to be a 400 page brick.

 

[Haligonian]

I agree with you, however, that is not what was practiced from at least 2012 - 2017 in our Bn and from what I can tell also not what's being practiced out west. If you ran it that way in the past year than it'd be interesting to hear how it worked but it wasn't the norm which begs the question was it truly our doctrine or was it just what was written down in a PAM no one knew / read / understood?

And the Coy Ops WO remains a question mark and the last ORBAT I saw which was being proposed as the new ORBAT for battalions had a Coy Ops WO on it. Personally I despise the fact that we've created a position to facilitate our inefficiencies but I liked the way I Coy circa 2017 used the Ops WO in the CP with the Coy 2IC, seemed to be the most practical use and was far better than H Coy's employment.

Some shittery happened in the background during work up training where my CQ ran the Cbt Tm ech with the SSM mentoring him.  Not sure how that came about and I failed to shut it down but it gave him some good experience.  In Latvia we ran it as per above and it worked well.

The problem with the Coy Ops WO is that there isn't a job for him in the field.  We just made the position up, and, of course, you can always find people work but you're usually just shaving off other peoples duties and responsibilities to give to him.  There is no bona fide requirement.  It's honestly pretty ridiculous that rifle coys have now gained LAV Capts/Ops Capts and now an Ops WO all in the last 20 years.  The LAV Capt was required to fight the LAVs and had a convenient niche in garrison in Coy Ops but the Ops WO is just bloat.

Having a separate vehicle has merit, especially as the company should have some dismounted fire support in it as well.  That being said, the vehicle comes at a cost - a crew of three.  Multiply that by the 18 mech companies and you have a 54 PY requirement to fill.  Where does sit on the priority list with Transport Platoons, Combat Support Capabilities, etc, etc.

Agreed.  Probably not worth it.  It's an ideal world capability.

Yes.  The term pam is short for pamphlet.  These things literally started as 10-20 page pamphlets that were distributed in the trenches of WWI. 

It simply needs to describe the specifics of higher order doctrine as they apply to combined arms groupings.  For example, higher order doctrine describes forms of manoeuvre for the offence.  A Combined Arms pub can lay out current BG and Cbt Tm formations for these forms of manoeuvre.  This is why you can put BG and Cbt Tm together and why it doesn't have to be a 400 page brick.

I'll keep that in the back of my head.  I see this applying for some principles too.  A Cbt Tm doesn't achieve depth in the same way that a Brigade does.

 

[Haligonian]

What if Cbt Tm in Ops was an annex to the new Infantry Coy and Armoured Sqn manuals?  BG could be the same way for Infantry Battalion and Armoured Regiment.

I think this would cut down on the number of manuals and page count.  An infantry OC then knows he can go to one location to find information on employing his sub unit whether its task organized as a Coy, Coy Grp, or Cbt Tm.  Same for the Armd Sqn Comd and Bn/Regt CO's.

 

[Infanteer]

But the Artillery and the Engineers have a role in Combined Arms groupings too, do they not?

 

[Haligonian]

But the Artillery and the Engineers have a role in Combined Arms groupings too, do they not?

100%  So two options:  They refer to either the Bn/Regt in Battle or Coy/Sqn in Battle (depending if they were looking for BG or Cbt Tm) or we include the BG/Cbt Tm annex in their respective pub too.

It would be one common annex to all the requisite corps publications.  The more I think about it the more I like it. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

But the Artillery and the Engineers have a role in Combined Arms groupings too, do they not?

Yes but, like the Infantry, doctrinally speaking, should probably be subordinate to/ in support of the armoured units :

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GERMAN DOCTRINE AND COMMAND AND CONTROL AND ITS APPLICATION TO SUPPORTING

"Liddell Hart deserves credit for recognizing that infantry, including paratroops, would play a significant part in a future war despite the growing importance of tanks and aircraft. He wanted infantry units provided with trucks or armored cars for increased mobility. Thus, he was more realistic than Fuller, but still behind Guderian who developed the combined arms principle to its full potential by adding substantial engineer and signal support to the armored nucleus. Guderian developed the tactics which the German Army would employ so effectively in Poland and France during 1939 and 1940. He would have all units advance at the maximum speed. Instead of slowing down the speed of tanks to the pace of infantry as the French High Command advocated, he would speed up the advance of infantry by mechanized means to keep pace with the armor. He would not assign tanks to infantry divisions; rather, he would organize armored divisions to include motorized infantry and all the other supporting arms. Tanks would play the primary role
in these formations, but the cooperation of all arms was the essential feature. In these armored divisions the infantry and artillery would function as subordinate, but not "second line" troops as envisaged by General Fuller. Guderian's armored division would be an
elite unit of the combined arms relying primarily on the speed and shock action of tanks for maximum initial effect."

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a242215.pdf

 

[FJAG]

But the Artillery and the Engineers have a role in Combined Arms groupings too, do they not?

Not so sure about this question. With artillery we're talking apples and oranges a bit. FSCC and observer resources are grouped with their supported arms generally to company level and thereby there is a small issue which may need to be discussed in your manual. e.g. does a rifle company being attached to an armored battalion take it's FOO with them or receive a new one from the armd regt's allotment and what happens when a combat team is formed e.g. the FOO stays with his sqn/coy headquarters.

On the other hand the allocation of fire support is a whole different matter that really happens above the cbt tm and will vary from case to case and the supported units overall tactical mission. Does a combat team manual/annex really need anything further there than already set out in the master manual.

Engineers are a bit more complex because there may be more physical regrouping required but again wouldn't the overall issue be addressed at the master manual level. Are there any significant engineer differences to be discussed in a manual/annex for a combat team that aren't already covered in the battalion/regimental manual for a company or squadron?

Incidentally (I'm not sure if I've posted this before) here's US ATP 3-90.1 Armor and Mechanized Infantry Company Team (ie the equivalent of our Combat Team)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp3_90x1.pdf

And ATP 3-90.5 Combined Arms Battalion (all US ABCTs no longer have separate armored and mechanized infantry battalions but combined arms battalions with a mixture of tank and mechanized infantry companies - note that the establishment has changed slightly from what is in the publication)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp3_90x5.pdf

Having Battalions that are already a mixture of integral tank and mechanized infantry companies makes the whole concept of forming combat teams (company teams) much easier at both the bn and coy level.

:cheers:

 

[Infanteer]

Not so sure about this question. With artillery we're talking apples and oranges a bit.

Note, I said combined arms groupings.  Battle groups frequently have artillery and engineer elements attached.