Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown

At 05:16 PM 10/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> Canada presently uses a modified version of the British system.
>> Australia does too.	In Canada, a Regiment of infantry is three
battalions
>> (Regular force, the reserve regiments are only one nominal battalion,
most
>> are actually a reinforced company in size),
>
>If that. I've been with Regiments that had 40 people (armoured recce) 
>and others that had about 100 effectives (infantry). Reinforced 
>company is hopeful in many cases. 
>

Kinda' sad, ain't it?  A good friend of mine was in a reserve infantry
regiment in Nova Scotia (the North Nova Scotia Regiment, I believe), and
it
had about 500 effectives.  That's the largest I've ever heard for a
Canadian reserve unit in peacetime.  'Course, there's not a whole lot to
do
out there in the Maritimes, now that the Spanish caught all the fish... 
:)

>> I would suggest a system something like this:
>> 
>> Armoured Regiments:	would be 1 battalion size, numbered (with name)
>> ie:	347th Armour (The Fort Garry Horse)
>
>Yeah, but in the future, whats a Battalion? For cost and mobility 
>reasons, probably smaller than that of today.	

You bet!  Still, there is no getting over the need for grunts on the
ground
to do the work.  If you have a high-tech force with 10 guys, and a
low-tech
force with 100 guys, the high-tech force must have a BIG edge in tech or
skill or both, 'cause 1 casualty is 10% losses.  Modern doctrine says a
unit suffering 20 - 30% casualties should be retired (at least
temporarily)
as combat innefective, for rest, refit and resupply.  With 10 guys, take
2
and you're out??  There is still something to be said for numbers.  On
"modern" (here I go using that again) naval vessels, they use many times
the number of crewmen to do what a merchant vessel can do with only a
few.
Not counting all the extra stuff like weapons and EW that happens on a
naval vessel, they still want all kinds of extra guys so that when the
ship
takes a hit, there are enough people left to pick up the pieces and keep
fighting.  Even in the future, there will be a need to keep a certain
volume of live bodies in fighting units, or even minor casualties will
have
a major effect on combat effectiveness...

A "battalion" in the future may have less troops, but I figure it will
fulfil the same general tactical place on the battlefield.  Actually - I
think what I mentioned earlier about "Battle Groups" is more likely.  I
could see a Battle Group of hi-tech troops being sent in as the
"stiffeners" working with larger formations of local militia.  Certainly
Battle Groups or Brigade Combat Groups (which is what the Aussies are
building - see my earlier posting).

>> And so on.  Brigades and Divisions would be numbered formations,
drawn from
>> the available Regiments.  In Canada, we do not have any normally
formed
>> Divisions (though there is a HQ unit for 1 Canadian Division - it has
no
>> assigned forces, or perhaps I should say it has ALL the forces,
'cause the
>> regular Canadian army all together makes up about one modern
mechanized
>> division).
>
>I quibble with the word Modern.....

Well, "modern" is a relative thing...  we have higher tech than the
Somalis... 

Actually, we are slowly getting geared up with some newer equipment.  I
hear they are considering a general issue of M203 grenade launchers to
infantrymen - not one per section, but one to each rifleman.  Also, we
are
getting the new American Javelin (?) anti-tank missile.  That's a
gee-whiz
toy that works "fire and forget" - way better than the 30 lb.
Carl-Gustav
bazooka we've been toting for the last 30 years...  They have new
tactical
radios, new combat uniforms coming (hey, we get camo finally), new APC's
(a
cool variant of the same vehicle we sell to the US as the LAV25 for the
Marines, and to Australia - ours is bigger, with a 25mm chaingun and
carries a full section (8 to 10) infantrymen, rather than the 6 that the
Marine vehicles carry.	Our old but reliable Leopard tanks are getting
new
turrets, and I hear they got a deal on ammo.  Now they are issuing 20
rounds per guy in combat situations rather than the usual 5 - this is
Canada, we take care of our grunts... ;)

>
>>  Brigades are the largest formation we keep fully staffed, etc.
>
>Okay, pardon my ignorance....
>
>			 Canadian	     Guys	  
>Section					about 10 guys	       
10					
>Platoon		 4 sections	     45 
>Company					3-4 Pltns	    180
>Battalion				3 Companies	    575 
>Regiment				1-4 Battalions	    575-2000
>Brigade					????
>Division				????
>

A Canadian Battalion is actually closer to 850 or 900 troops.  There are
three rifle companies, a combat-support company with a recce platoon, a
mortar platoon with 8 81mm mortars, an anti-tank platoon with a bunch of
TOW missile systems, and an assault pioneer platoon.  There is a
logistics/supply company, with transport, administration, maintenance
platoons and a field kitchen detachment.  The headquarters has a signals
platoon, the command post staff (ops people, etc), a detachment of
police -
I think about a section worth, and somewhere in there are medical types
who
provide a battalion aid station and have ambulances.

We don't deploy infantry regiments as a "regiment" - these are
administrative organizations mostly.  An armoured regiment (battalion
size
unit) is slightly smaller, figure about 650 to 750 troops.  Same with
the
artillery.  A fully stocked brigade is about 5,000 troops.  A mechanized
division is usually in the 15,000 to 18,000 size - especially in the US
military.  US Heavy divisions are BIG.	The lighter divisions, say the
10th
(Mountain) Light Division at Fort Drum, New York State, are smaller.  I
think the 10th is just under 10,000 troops - though it is a Light
Infantry
formation and travels, well, light.  They have much less of the
logistical
baggage needed when you have big armoured vehicles to worry about.  

As an aside to all this, I went to university in Kingston, Ontario (at
Queen's University, where - for those following the discussion about
anthems - we stood and sang "God Save the Queen" at my Convocation
ceremony
- I'd never heard it sung by several thousand people before, and it was
actually quite moving, but I digress from my digression...).  Kingston
is
just across the border from Watertown, New York - just outside of which
is
Fort Drum, home of the afore mentioned 10th...	Some wag at Queen's
wrote a
paper a few years back analysing the role and purpose of Fort Drum from
a
strategic point of view.  He determined that while the location had
historically been important, there was infact no present strategic value
for a large military force to be based there.  It is not near any major
land transportation routes (ie railroad hubs), and is relatively far
from
anything (ie major airports or ports) to get the division anywhere.  In
fact, it was seen to be quite inefficient to house any major regular
force
there at all.  Unless, of course, the Americans had planned the
strategic
requirements of a military intervention across the border, into
Canada...
Then, the base makes perfect sense.  A force of light infantry could
move
to quickly sieze the Saint Lawrence Seaway (which terminates at
Kingston),
and be well placed between Toronto and Ottawa (Canada's largest city and
its' Capital) on Ontario's major road and water routes...   Ooops.  I
never
heard what the effect was when this paper was published, but it did make
us
think abit....	 Those darned Americans - do we have to go burn the
Whitehouse again?
:)

>I know I read somewhere that a US Division was way bigger (unless 
>I've got it backwards) than a PACT division. (Was it 10,000 to 
>4-6,000 or something like that?) Maybe I've got it backwards. I 
>know the Russians liked numbers.		   

Soviet doctrine is rather different from NATO's - that is a discussion
for
another day, I'm afraid... (I don't have time this evening...)

>
>How does that compare to British and American formations? 
>
>I'm thinking in 2183, we can get some idea of formation sizes:
>Section (Inf): 6-8 guys
>Section (PA): 4-6 guys
>Platoon (Inf): 25-35 guys
>Platoon (PA) 20-24 guys
>Company (Inf): 110-150 guys
>Company (PA): 65-85 guys

OK so far if little in the way of integral service and support units -
but
these would be assigned at a higher level of command anyway, and
distributed to companies and platoons as needed.

>Battalion (Inf): 350-550 guys

I think too small, for the reasons I outlined above.  You need warm
bodies,
and though there will be more automation in the future, there might also
be
more maintenance requirements (unless somebody figures out, finally, how
to
make hight-tech stuff soldier proof).  Plus, there will be military
specializations that haven't been invented yet:  "power armour repair
guy"
and "nanobot recce team controller"...

>Battalion (PA): 275-305 guys
>etc. 

>Except in full out, hot war, planetary assaults, you'd rarely see 
>more than a battalion of hi-tech troops deployed, more likely 
>companies and platoons. They'd be stiffened by colonials, who may 
>have unit sizes more like today (and tech more akin to today.... it 
>takes a while for hi-tech to reach the frontier), since they don't 
>get shipped around and air dropped. 
>

Absolutely!!  

>
>
>With modern communications,
>> tactical mobility and the availability of accurate supporting fire, a
>> single squad of infantiers can put out the firepower of a WWII
platoon or
>> company.
>
>Of course, in WWII, it was 50,000 rounds per KIA. In Vietnam, 
>200,000. Volume of fire isn't necessarily an improvement, but not 
>everyone knows that. It helps if that fire hits something. But 
>trained expensive troops that have high logistic overhead will force 
>formation size cuts. 
>

There was the incident of the SAS patrol of 8 guys in the Gulf who took
on
and beat an Iraqi infantry Battalion.  The Battalion commander later
commented that he thought he was fighting an enemy force of similar
size.
Firepower is a good thing if the troops using it know what they are
doing.
Besides, guns that can lay down lots of fire don't always have to be
used
that way.  Canadian troops, with full auto C7 rifles (we build M16's and
use an optical sight rather than the carrying handle) are still trained
to
shoot single shots at a time, using small 3 to 5 round bursts only in
dire
need...

>And 1 Company of Snipers, if anyone learned anything from the 20th 
>century... probably deployed 1 Pltn per Inf Battalion with maybe 1 
>Pltn for independent ops. 

Snipers can be a very good thing!  The Canadian infantry battalion now
deploys a "Recce Platoon" as I mentioned above.  These guys are the
creme-de-la-creme of our regular infantry (not counting the special
operations and airborne stuff we have kicking around), and have often
gone
through commando training, etc.  A battalion's snipers live in the recce
platoon.  I forget how many there are assigned to each battalion - but
they
are worth their weight in gold!!

>
>Nice work, BTW. 

Thanks!  Glad to have joined this list (which I did yesterday) - lots of
good stuff going on.

I hope I can see/meet people around the Toronto area at cons. etc.  My
friends Ken Winland (who's been on this list for a while) and Dave
Graham
have been doing demos of Stargrunt, FT, etc. around the area for a
couple
of years, and I've been joining them and helping out for a while now
too.