Need for a standard bn format in Europe

[FirstSpear]

I'd like to gather some info from contributors on the trends towards (or away from) a standardized battalion structure.

With the very political creation of the Eurocorps several years ago around a few German, French and, later, Belgian and, I believe Spanish units, one could have expected a gradual standardization of battalion formats and organization, eg heavy weapons teams at Co level vs separate companies. Asset distribution within platoons, etc.

While disparate equipment can explain some differences (different crews, weapons and carrying capacities for fighting vehicles, for example), one would expect 'joint' commanders and logistics units to press for some standardization.

Has anyone seen evidence of this?

One long term trend in a major country of the EU is France moving to a formal brigade structure and away from the regimental battle group system they used during the 70's through 90's.

It would seem shrinking budgets in UK, Germany and Italy would dictate interoperability and therefore standardization.

What are your thoughts?

 

[kato]

A unit within an multinational outfit is a blackbox. You put in a task and you get a result. How that is achieved is totally up to the unit. Micromanagement is considered outdated since the 70s, and doesn't work with multinational outfits anyway.

For Eurocorps the blackboxes begin at brigade level by the way, like for most multinational Corps-level entities.

 

[FirstSpear]

A unit within an multinational outfit is a blackbox. You put in a task and you get a result. How that is achieved is totally up to the unit. Micromanagement is considered outdated since the 70s, and doesn't work with multinational outfits anyway.

For Eurocorps the blackboxes begin at brigade level by the way, like for most multinational Corps-level entities.

While I understand what you are saying, it really does not address my question. I am not suggesting that battle groups could not be tailored for each individual mission. I am merely asking why there should not be a standard TOE for allied nations with like mission sets, say armored cavalry or armored infantry. The battalion TOE exists, whatever trend you believe ended in the 70's, because some organization must be the starting point for tailoring.

My inquiry is why when Britain has just initiated a new structure for its brigades and battalions as of late 2010 and France is completing its conversion to brigade structures, they should look quite so different. Their mission sets are in fact quite similar. Neither nation really expects to fight on its own soil, neither nation expects to fight large scale operations alone, rather as part of a significant coalition and in many cases quite far from their home bases. So, why do they solve similar issues SO differently?

Also, multi-national operations are really not all that different from the scenario I am describing and unless the EuroCorps is only intended for peacekeeping shouldn't its components still start from a similar structure?

the European industrial base is concentrating and the power projection objectives of European major nations are gradually aligning. Why aren't they progressing towards a standard set of TOEs?

 

[riksavage]

While I understand what you are saying, it really does not address my question. I am not suggesting that battle groups could not be tailored for each individual mission. I am merely asking why there should not be a standard TOE for allied nations with like mission sets, say armored cavalry or armored infantry. The battalion TOE exists, whatever trend you believe ended in the 70's, because some organization must be the starting point for tailoring.

My inquiry is why when Britain has just initiated a new structure for its brigades and battalions as of late 2010 and France is completing its conversion to brigade structures, they should look quite so different. Their mission sets are in fact quite similar. Neither nation really expects to fight on its own soil, neither nation expects to fight large scale operations alone, rather as part of a significant coalition and in many cases quite far from their home bases. So, why do they solve similar issues SO differently?

Also, multi-national operations are really not all that different from the scenario I am describing and unless the EuroCorps is only intended for peacekeeping shouldn't its components still start from a similar structure?

the European industrial base is concentrating and the power projection objectives of European major nations are gradually aligning. Why aren't they progressing towards a standard set of TOEs?

National interest and intent will dictate future Brigade set-up. The UK & France are gearing themselves towards maintaining an expeditionary capability. The UK being an island nation with a greatly reduced European military presence (BAOR disappearing), it makes complete sense.

The UK plan to have five multi-role brigades (mech infantry, SPA, MLRS, armour, light and medium forces) + two rapid intervention brigades 3 - Commando and 16AA. This will allow the UK to 'independently' deploy and maintain at least one brigade on active service indefinitely (Afghanistan for example) and still have the 'fat' to undertake a shorter term operation (strategic raiding). All done with continued NATO participation in mind. The French are looking at a similar concept maintaining the ability to operate independently to protect national interest, but also have the resources to work with other European partners by sharing resources with others (in-flight refueling, strategic lift and possibly RFA's).

Other nations may decide to focus more of self-defense and peace keeping operations and invest more in land based systems rather than expeditionary - Germany comes to mind as they don't have a strong amphib fleet.

Flexibility is the name of the game, being able to work with partners but also retaining a limited ability to act independently. Shrinking budgets mean that the days of keeping a division on active service for extended periods has now been reduced to keeping a brigade on active service for extended periods for many in Europe. In a nutshell a brigade will be formatted for role as determined by a country's strategic interests.

 

[FirstSpear]

National interest and intent will dictate future Brigade set-up. The UK & France are gearing themselves towards maintaining an expeditionary capability.

That is precisely my point.

The UK being an island nation with a greatly reduced European military presence (BAOR disappearing), it makes complete sense.

Agree BAOR makes no sense today.

The UK plan to have five multi-role brigades (mech infantry, SPA, MLRS, armour, light and medium forces) + two rapid intervention brigades 3 - Commando and 16AA.

Yes, this is what I saw. And why that plan somehow would not make sense for French Army brigades is pretty perplexing. It seems European integration is a very long way off when even in the face of same threats, same mission profile, similar power projection assets and nuclear deterrent, these two countries have/maintain units that are SO different. British armored regiments have 44 or 58 tanks and no infantry of their own. French equivalent units have 40 tanks each (for a total of 120 in a brigade) and quite a bit of organic infantry.
I recently read that 16AA will be disbanded and its elements tendered to the other brigades.

This will allow the UK to 'independently' deploy and maintain at least one brigade on active service indefinitely (Afghanistan for example) and still have the 'fat' to undertake a shorter term operation (strategic raiding). All done with continued NATO participation in mind. The French are looking at a similar concept maintaining the ability to operate independently to protect national interest, but also have the resources to work with other European partners by sharing resources with others (in-flight refueling, strategic lift and possibly RFA's).

Other nations may decide to focus more of self-defense and peace keeping operations and invest more in land based systems rather than expeditionary - Germany comes to mind as they don't have a strong amphib fleet.

'land'-heavy forces could use naval assets of France, Britain, Italy, even Spain to get to the fight but in Germany's case, I believe there is a different political limitation.

Flexibility is the name of the game, being able to work with partners but also retaining a limited ability to act independently.

Yes, but to maintain flexibility, in shrinking budget environment, a degree of standardization of the building blocks allows for more combinations at the European level and therefore more 'compatibility' --not to mention major savings through common acquisition. the potential selection of a German vehicle for FRES would be a major coup. Don't you think? Does every major nation in Europe really need to serially reinvent the wheel?

Shrinking budgets mean that the days of keeping a division on active service for extended periods has now been reduced to keeping a brigade on active service for extended periods for many in Europe. In a nutshell a brigade will be formatted for role as determined by a country's strategic interests.

Yes but my point is when the national interest align more, should that not be reflected in the tool selection?

 

[Beatmaster]

National interest and intent will dictate future Brigade set-up. The UK & France are gearing themselves towards maintaining an expeditionary capability. The UK being an island nation with a greatly reduced European military presence (BAOR disappearing), it makes complete sense.

The UK plan to have five multi-role brigades (mech infantry, SPA, MLRS, armour, light and medium forces) + two rapid intervention brigades 3 - Commando and 16AA. This will allow the UK to 'independently' deploy and maintain at least one brigade on active service indefinitely (Afghanistan for example) and still have the 'fat' to undertake a shorter term operation (strategic raiding). All done with continued NATO participation in mind. The French are looking at a similar concept maintaining the ability to operate independently to protect national interest, but also have the resources to work with other European partners by sharing resources with others (in-flight refueling, strategic lift and possibly RFA's).

Other nations may decide to focus more of self-defense and peace keeping operations and invest more in land based systems rather than expeditionary - Germany comes to mind as they don't have a strong amphib fleet.

Flexibility is the name of the game, being able to work with partners but also retaining a limited ability to act independently. Shrinking budgets mean that the days of keeping a division on active service for extended periods has now been reduced to keeping a brigade on active service for extended periods for many in Europe. In a nutshell a brigade will be formatted for role as determined by a country's strategic interests.

You do have a great point here, as national budgets decline and keep declining.
For example the Dutch their army use to be rather strong and very well equipped,
However due massive budget cuts their army switched to fully proffesional and task based roles such as peacekeeping.
We see this with other EU based nations to.
None of them are expecting to fight a large battle or a long lasting high violence war.
Thats does not mean they are not capable to do so as the general idea is that if a major war in the future happens that other nations like US, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey (To name the 6 big ones) take on the "heavier" stuff.
However would that not bring a united EU army or some sort of EU national army into affect?
Because in the past there have been talks and ideas about a unified EU army, which would give the EU a very capable and credible army and strenght, where the smaller nations like Dutch, Belguim, Danmark and so on can full fill their smaller but perhaps more specialised tasks?
I mean like you said: The UK & France are gearing themselves towards maintaining an expeditionary capability.
But does this not hurt the overall capability of the EU as a allied system?
Where you do draw a line between, Cuts, Reforms, and tasking before a nation becomes to dependant on allies? before it loses the ability to protect their intrests at all?

Because having the major nations within the EU reforming their army at the scale it happens nowadays (Due budget cuts and a increasingly changing world) would that not hurt the EU/NATO in general as each nations is about to shrink to a point where global security and peacekeeping/fast intervention tactic starts to hurt national intrest and international intrests?Also NONE of the nations will be able to maintain such intrests if a future enemy is able to escalete i believe.
Specially with mosty nations disbanding and scapping some of their key roles, like the dutch did with their Leopard 2 fleet and their navy and airforces.
So imo you are starting to see nations with armies that are tasked with a few roles, but none of them are able to sustain a major campaingn, however putting all those nations under one command (For example during a serious war) would enable them to combine the "knowlegd and nation based skills and strategic options"
I am not sure if you follow what i am saying but basicly the average army in the EU has in some cases being cut in 50% or even more in some cases.
So where does the EU nations draw a line where a brigade does not be able anymore to operate on its own to life up to those intrests and protect them without the major help of an ally?

Cheers

 

[kato]

My inquiry is why when Britain has just initiated a new structure for its brigades and battalions as of late 2010 and France is completing its conversion to brigade structures, they should look quite so different. Their mission sets are in fact quite similar.

France has entirely different mission sets from the UK. The French Army is to some extent tailored around deploying somewhat modular reinforced infantry battalions (regiments) semi-permanently forward with the ability to further reinforce such forward troops to brigade and further on to division level if necessary. This capability is a peacetime requirement. The British Army isn't really structured to deploy troops of less than a brigade without starting odd mixing-and-matching.

 

[riksavage]

France has entirely different mission sets from the UK. The French Army is to some extent tailored around deploying somewhat modular reinforced infantry battalions (regiments) semi-permanently forward with the ability to further reinforce such forward troops to brigade and further on to division level if necessary. This capability is a peacetime requirement. The British Army isn't really structured to deploy troops of less than a brigade without starting odd mixing-and-matching.

The UK regularly deploys formations smaller than a Brigade, right down reinforced company levels. Supporting units are assigned to enable what ever spear-point unit is required to operate on the ground. For example an infantry company hosted in MRAP's will be driven by Cav/Tank Reg personnel backed-up by attached REME, engineers, sigs et-al. These sub-units will be drawn from an existing brigade where the various units are well known to each other.

This relationship will dramatically improve with the relocation of UK assets from Germany to super-garrisons in the UK. The five new and two existing rapid reaction elements (3 Commando for example) will be bunched together to provide continuity and improve family stability (no more uprooting every two years) Each of these brigades will be able to deploy as a single group or send composite sub-units drawing on the collective skill-sets contained within (armour, arty, UAV's etc.). This new approach better fits the need to ensure ALL formations can rotate through active service deployments, rather than the same two or three resulting in them being put under unacceptable strain.

With military/budgets shinking the need to configure armies so all units are able to deploy will become increasingly important. The old days of having home defence only plus the odd 1 or 2 rapid reaction brigades will not work if campaigns drag on as long as Afghanistan has. You end up with a situation where your SF/Commando/Para's are exhausted whilst your regular infantry/armour get frustrated becasue they are kept at home.

Whilst the Dutch have reduced their heavy armour they still maintain an expeditionary capability, the Dutch Marines are very closely aligned to the UK RM and they have long look personnel based at Poole to ensure the joint relationship is maintained. The ongoing closer alinement of French and UK forces geared towards strategic raiding (Libya example - Air and Sea + SF ground presence) dovetails well with the amphib assets/marines the Dutch have at their disposal.