Combined Arms Division

[Signalian]

In past many years it has been observed that Task Forces (TF's) are created temporarily by combining forces from different arms to complete a certain operation and then this TF is disbanded and forces are re-attached to their parent arms and formations. The combination can be small contingents of certain arms like Infantry, armor, aviation, artillery etc even upto platoon level sometimes. The effectiveness of these TF's comes from the fact by combining different specialised arms using different weapons under one umbrella, joining their training and experience brings out best results, which cannot be achieved by using just one type of force.

Pakistan Army has Regular Divisional formations such as Infantry, Armor, Mechanised, Artillery, Air Defence as well as Special Forces. The battalion level which is the organic formation, formulates just one type of formation. Infantry Battalions, Armor Regiments, Artillery Regiments, Air Defence Regiments etc all contain just one type of force.

A new concept can be envisioned which puts Company level, platoon level, troop level etc formation of different arms under one Battalion which can then be classified as combined Arms battalion instead of a single type of an infantry battalion, an armor regiment etc. This helps in creating a force which is:

1. Readily available to be put into action straightaway instead of acquiring resources from different formations, saving delays in conducting Ops.
2. Experienced in working efficiently together due to peacetime deployment as a single organic formation.
3. Combat trained to work at smallest level (section/platoon/company) which gives flexibility to conduct small or large scale Ops.
4. An Independent force which is not reliant on any other formation for support.

An example of such Combined Arms Battalion or "CAB":

a. Armoured Troop (4 MBT)
b. Mechanised Infantry Company (8-10 Tracked APC)
c. Motorised Infantry Company (4x4 IFV)
d. Specialised Weapons Company (4 ATGM carriers + 4 Mortar carriers)
e. Light Commando Platoon (SF)
f. Recon Platoon (4-6 Wheeled IFV)

Combined Arms Brigade could be:

3 X CAB's and one each Artillery Regiment + Air Defence Regiment + Aviation Det.

a. Artillery Regiment (18 SP Howitzers)
b. Air Defence Regiment (18 SAM launchers)
c. Aviation Detachment ( 4 Gunship + 4 Transport helis + 4 UAV/UCAV's)

This Brigade would have :
12 MBT,
24-30 APC,
12 ATGM Carriers,
12 Mortar Carriers,
12-18 Wheeled IFV,
18 SP howitzers,
18 SAM's
and many 4x4 IFV's in one Brigade as well as
4 Gunships
4 transport Helis
4 UAV/UCAV's

This Brigade level force has all the major fighting and support arms as well as aviation assets which when used in conjunction can cause a major blow to a much larger force using different weapons and platforms as well as different tactics used by such arms including Special Forces, which can use helis or 4x4 transports for insertion, and also lead the way for the rest of the force. The Gunships give added firepower and UAV/UCAV's complement the attack and recon capability of the formation.

And finally a Combined Arms Divisional Level formation for administration purposes could be:

3 X Combined Arms Brigades + Engineers, Signals, EME, Supply and Transport elements.

The Division would have a total of:

36 MBT
72-90 APC
36 ATGM Carriers,
36 Mortar Carriers,
36-54 Wheeled IFV,
36 SP howitzers,
36 SAM's
and many 4x4 IFV's
12 Gunships
12 transport Helis.
12 UAV/UCAV's

In case of Pakistan Army, such a formation can be used primarily in COIN Ops (Replace IFV, 4x4 with MRAP's) against heavily entrenched terrorist and insurgents. The role can be expanded as delaying force to counter a much bigger attacking enemy force and also as a counter attacking force with major fire power which can operate independently using all the fighting and supporting arms of the Army.

 

[SQ8]

Essentially this is a smaller reflection of the IBG concept India has been mulling.

Such CABs may make sense in a limited skirmish deployment scenario but in some ways essentially do “form” during times of war as attached units to each other. Most formations and units pratice these attachments and learn to coordinate with each other.

The current issue with our units is more astute and educated NCOs who can supplement the officer corps a.k.a higher quality leadership and training at all levels versus the usual cannon fodder with some brass on top.

That will require upping the ante on the training of the Jawan along with their upkeep, reducing the batman and other “brown sahab” perks which are a leftover of the Raj army.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Task Forces (TF's)

Are these equivalent of the German Kampfgruppe?

"The Kampfgruppe was an ad hoc combined arms formation, usually employing combination of tanks, infantry, and artillery (including anti-tank) elements, generally organised for a particular task or operation.[1]


A Kampfgruppe could range in size from a corps to a company, but the most common was an Abteilung (battalion)-sized formation. Kampfgruppen were generally referred to by either their commanding officer's name or the parent division.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgruppe

 

[khanasifm]

In past many years it has been observed that Task Forces (TF's) are created temporarily by combining forces from different arms to complete a certain operation and then this TF is disbanded and forces are re-attached to their parent arms and formations. The combination can be small contingents of certain arms like Infantry, armor, aviation, artillery etc even upto platoon level sometimes. The effectiveness of these TF's comes from the fact by combining different specialised arms using different weapons under one umbrella, joining their training and experience brings out best results, which cannot be achieved by using just one type of force.

Pakistan Army has Regular Divisional formations such as Infantry, Armor, Mechanised, Artillery, Air Defence as well as Special Forces. The battalion level which is the organic formation, formulates just one type of formation. Infantry Battalions, Armor Regiments, Artillery Regiments, Air Defence Regiments etc all contain just one type of force.

A new concept can be envisioned which puts Company level, platoon level, troop level etc formation of different arms under one Battalion which can then be classified as combined Arms battalion instead of a single type of an infantry battalion, an armor regiment etc. This helps in creating a force which is:

1. Readily available to be put into action straightaway instead of acquiring resources from different formations, saving delays in conducting Ops.
2. Experienced in working efficiently together due to peacetime deployment as a single organic formation.
3. Combat trained to work at smallest level (section/platoon/company) which gives flexibility to conduct small or large scale Ops.
4. An Independent force which is not reliant on any other formation for support.

An example of such Combined Arms Battalion or "CAB":

a. Armoured Troop (4 MBT)
b. Mechanised Infantry Company (8-10 Tracked APC)
c. Motorised Infantry Company (4x4 IFV)
d. Specialised Weapons Company (4 ATGM carriers + 4 Mortar carriers)
e. Light Commando Platoon (SF)
f. Recon Platoon (4-6 Wheeled IFV)

Combined Arms Brigade could be:

3 X CAB's and one each Artillery Regiment + Air Defence Regiment + Aviation Det.

a. Artillery Regiment (18 SP Howitzers)
b. Air Defence Regiment (18 SAM launchers)
c. Aviation Detachment ( 4 Gunship + 4 Transport helis + 4 UAV/UCAV's)

This Brigade would have :
12 MBT,
24-30 APC,
12 ATGM Carriers,
12 Mortar Carriers,
12-18 Wheeled IFV,
18 SP howitzers,
18 SAM's
and many 4x4 IFV's in one Brigade as well as
4 Gunships
4 transport Helis
4 UAV/UCAV's

This Brigade level force has all the major fighting and support arms as well as aviation assets which when used in conjunction can cause a major blow to a much larger force using different weapons and platforms as well as different tactics used by such arms including Special Forces, which can use helis or 4x4 transports for insertion, and also lead the way for the rest of the force. The Gunships give added firepower and UAV/UCAV's complement the attack and recon capability of the formation.

And finally a Combined Arms Divisional Level formation for administration purposes could be:

3 X Combined Arms Brigades + Engineers, Signals, EME, Supply and Transport elements.

The Division would have a total of:

36 MBT
72-90 APC
36 ATGM Carriers,
36 Mortar Carriers,
36-54 Wheeled IFV,
36 SP howitzers,
36 SAM's
and many 4x4 IFV's
12 Gunships
12 transport Helis.
12 UAV/UCAV's

In case of Pakistan Army, such a formation can be used primarily in COIN Ops (Replace IFV, 4x4 with MRAP's) against heavily entrenched terrorist and insurgents. The role can be expanded as delaying force to counter a much bigger attacking enemy force and also as a counter attacking force with major fire power which can operate independently using all the fighting and supporting arms of the Army.

Go figure out uk and us have already implemented such force level

For operational tasks, a battle group will be formed around a combat unit, supported by units or sub-units from other areas. An example would be a squadron of tanks attached to an armoured infantry battle group, together with a reconnaissance troop, artillery battery and engineering support.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_British_Army

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Essentially this is a smaller reflection of the IBG concept India has been mulling.

Such CABs may make sense in a limited skirmish deployment scenario but in some ways essentially do “form” during times of war as attached units to each other. Most formations and units pratice these attachments and learn to coordinate with each other.

The current issue with our units is more astute and educated NCOs who can supplement the officer corps a.k.a higher quality leadership and training at all levels versus the usual cannon fodder with some brass on top.

That will require upping the ante on the training of the Jawan along with their upkeep, reducing the batman and other “brown sahab” perks which are a leftover of the Raj army.

Jawans dont serve as Batmans... its been almost 2 decades since Mil abolished that system.

 

[SQ8]

Jawans dont serve as Batmans... its been almost 2 decades since Mil abolished that system.

Point being, focus on building warfighters and pay them well- but leave the creature comforts upto them.
No need for palisades and large clubs for the higher ups either- pay them more but let them decide the level of lixury they want to afford rather than taking it out of the taxpayer and revenue cut. Spend that amount(which regardless of strawman defenses given for it is substantial) against troops and material.

 

[Signalian]

one more important factor i forgot to point out is that Junior officers will get command experience in combined formations which will later assist them at Brigadier and above level to command various arsm and formations. At this stage, junior officers get staff experience with combined arms e.g. BM (Brigade Major) in a Brigade, Colonel Staff in Division etc.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As @Oscar has pointed out, this has already been attempted in the Indian Army, in forming division-sized Integrated Battle Groups, and this has been incorrectly considered by some analysts as part of the Cold Start Doctrine. That doctrine was never completely implemented, and current thinking has gone well beyond it. A full and definitive explanation will take time and space; in the context of the note by @Signalian, the issues are of size, and, more important, of integration of additional capabilities besides those noted, and of elimination of some redundancy.

With regard to size, it is not clear how to get the officer cadre to command such a force, presumably at the level of Lt. Colonel or Colonel. By that time, it is unlikely that officers would have had an opportunity to deepen their experience in a single arm sufficiently to be able to take part in at least two other deputations and learn how to work with an integrated team at battalion level. At division level, there has been barely enough time allowed to get some, not all, officers to gain from cross-postings.

In that context, the greater degree of integration proposed in the brigade level and division level formations is logical.

With regard to redundancy, taking that before adding additional capabilities, it is not clear what differential advantage there is in putting together elements of mechanised and motorised infantry; six of one and half a dozen of the other?

With regard to additional capabilities, the Pakistan Army already has LATs and HATs and this is a disconcerting step by their planners, that expands and increases their resistance capability. However, the absence of SP artillery and of attack helicopters in the proposed battalion sized formations seems a little conservative. Putting in a battery at the level suggested by @Signalian is not totally absurd, although admittedly it is contrary to the policy of massing artillery in formations as large as possible, for maximal effect. This is said keeping in mind the greater and more effective use and better understanding of artillery in the Pakistan Army, compared to the Indian Army, in spite of the significant number of chiefs in the IA who were gunners. As for attack helicopters, not including them is clearly an oversight.

The question is, if putting in an artillery component is all right at the brigade level, why leave it out at battalion level? Or putting it the other way around, is it really necessary to achieve such integration at battalion level, or can these just be let be, and integration allowed to take place at the next higher level, Brigade Combat Teams, and their higher divisional formations?

However, these suggestions must always be overruled by the informed views of personnel such as @Signalian, and the suggestions are offered in a very tentative spirit.

 

[Joe Shearer]

But, on the other hand, in support of @Signalian .....

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html

 

[Armchair]

how in the world did I miss this thread @Signalian our thinking is alike! https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-vision-of-a-new-combined-arms-philosophy-doctrine.561888/

Except I'd much prefer the lower cost, simplicity and ruggedness of a fixed CAS over attack helos. Combat experience to date has consistently shown that fixed CAS has outperformed rotary. See Gulf Wars. Check out NATO interventions against Serbia. Ask the US grunts in Afghanistan. The list is endless. A-10 types are way cheaper to build, operate and are more effective. Its a win win but no one but me on this forum sees it ;(

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/a-vision-of-a-new-combined-arms-philosophy-doctrine.561888/

 

[PanzerKiel]

PA is already practicing concept of combined arms Battalions and Brigades.

 

[Tipu7]

Except I'd much prefer the lower cost, simplicity and ruggedness of a fixed CAS over attack helos. Combat experience to date has consistently shown that fixed CAS has outperformed rotary. See Gulf Wars. Check out NATO interventions against Serbia

Needs to develop air superiority for this to work. Currently, neither PAF nor IAF posses this capability. Therefore the combat support assets of either side, be it rotary or fixed, cannot operate as freely in Indo-Pak conflict case as we have observed in Gulf Wars.

Combat experience to date has consistently shown

Both fixed & rotary wing CAS assets are not analogous to each other and therefore cannot be compared with, or considered as replacement of each other.

PA is already practicing concept of combined arms Battalions and Brigades.

Yeah, but the scale of it is kept at level needed only to counter limited confrontation against India.

In past many years it has been observed that Task Forces (TF's) are created temporarily by combining forces from different arms to complete a certain operation and then this TF is disbanded and forces are re-attached to their parent arms and formations. The combination can be small contingents of certain arms like Infantry, armor, aviation, artillery etc even upto platoon level sometimes. The effectiveness of these TF's comes from the fact by combining different specialised arms using different weapons under one umbrella, joining their training and experience brings out best results, which cannot be achieved by using just one type of force.

Pakistan Army has Regular Divisional formations such as Infantry, Armor, Mechanised, Artillery, Air Defence as well as Special Forces. The battalion level which is the organic formation, formulates just one type of formation. Infantry Battalions, Armor Regiments, Artillery Regiments, Air Defence Regiments etc all contain just one type of force.

A new concept can be envisioned which puts Company level, platoon level, troop level etc formation of different arms under one Battalion which can then be classified as combined Arms battalion instead of a single type of an infantry battalion, an armor regiment etc. This helps in creating a force which is:

1. Readily available to be put into action straightaway instead of acquiring resources from different formations, saving delays in conducting Ops.
2. Experienced in working efficiently together due to peacetime deployment as a single organic formation.
3. Combat trained to work at smallest level (section/platoon/company) which gives flexibility to conduct small or large scale Ops.
4. An Independent force which is not reliant on any other formation for support.

An example of such Combined Arms Battalion or "CAB":

a. Armoured Troop (4 MBT)
b. Mechanised Infantry Company (8-10 Tracked APC)
c. Motorised Infantry Company (4x4 IFV)
d. Specialised Weapons Company (4 ATGM carriers + 4 Mortar carriers)
e. Light Commando Platoon (SF)
f. Recon Platoon (4-6 Wheeled IFV)

Combined Arms Brigade could be:

3 X CAB's and one each Artillery Regiment + Air Defence Regiment + Aviation Det.

a. Artillery Regiment (18 SP Howitzers)
b. Air Defence Regiment (18 SAM launchers)
c. Aviation Detachment ( 4 Gunship + 4 Transport helis + 4 UAV/UCAV's)

This Brigade would have :
12 MBT,
24-30 APC,
12 ATGM Carriers,
12 Mortar Carriers,
12-18 Wheeled IFV,
18 SP howitzers,
18 SAM's
and many 4x4 IFV's in one Brigade as well as
4 Gunships
4 transport Helis
4 UAV/UCAV's

This Brigade level force has all the major fighting and support arms as well as aviation assets which when used in conjunction can cause a major blow to a much larger force using different weapons and platforms as well as different tactics used by such arms including Special Forces, which can use helis or 4x4 transports for insertion, and also lead the way for the rest of the force. The Gunships give added firepower and UAV/UCAV's complement the attack and recon capability of the formation.

And finally a Combined Arms Divisional Level formation for administration purposes could be:

3 X Combined Arms Brigades + Engineers, Signals, EME, Supply and Transport elements.

The Division would have a total of:

36 MBT
72-90 APC
36 ATGM Carriers,
36 Mortar Carriers,
36-54 Wheeled IFV,
36 SP howitzers,
36 SAM's
and many 4x4 IFV's
12 Gunships
12 transport Helis.
12 UAV/UCAV's

In case of Pakistan Army, such a formation can be used primarily in COIN Ops (Replace IFV, 4x4 with MRAP's) against heavily entrenched terrorist and insurgents. The role can be expanded as delaying force to counter a much bigger attacking enemy force and also as a counter attacking force with major fire power which can operate independently using all the fighting and supporting arms of the Army.

Idea is noble but very demanding. It will change the way Army fight wars or atleast prepare for it.
Isnt it better to create specialized formations, separately from regular divisions & brigades, assigned to full fill specific tasks. Like mountain formations with in FCNA trained and specialized for insertion, sabotage and other tasks suitable for mountaneous regions only.
A comprehensive restructuring of Army will be beyond our capacity, though I myself is strong advocater of reducing the numerical strength of Army in favor of enhanced mechanization and to develop dedicated formations accordingly.

 

[PanzerKiel]

Yeah, but the scale of it is kept at level needed only to counter limited confrontation against India.

It is currently at unit, brigade and Divisional lvls.

 

[Armchair]

It is currently at unit, brigade and Divisional lvls.

Let me be the "devil's advocate" so to speak:
How can one have a meaningful modern combined arms with CAS element? A tiny number of cobras are meaningless. Much better, cheaper and more practical would be to put F-7s under PAA for CAS as they are retired from PAF. Or to create a fixed wing CAS concept. See this link1 and link 2 and link 3.

infantry to tank ratios are abysmal for the PA. How can one have meaningful combined arms operations when in terms of this ratio its 350 soldiers for every tank?

PA right now does not even have organic infantry for its armoured units, which have to borrow from sister infantry units. How can one specialize infantry that understands best how to work with armour when this ad hoc system is used?

Everything seems ad hoc in the PA. Take units from here, place them there, take them away... sounds like jilebi level of organization. Units kept together develop cohesiveness and fight better together. Units floating about feel alienated and disconnected.

Just my non-professional 0.02.

 

[PanzerKiel]

Let me be the "devil's advocate" so to speak:
How can one have a meaningful modern combined arms with CAS element? A tiny number of cobras are meaningless. Much better, cheaper and more practical would be to put F-7s under PAA for CAS as they are retired from PAF. Or to create a fixed wing CAS concept. See this link1 and link 2 and link 3.

infantry to tank ratios are abysmal for the PA. How can one have meaningful combined arms operations when in terms of this ratio its 350 soldiers for every tank?

PA right now does not even have organic infantry for its armoured units, which have to borrow from sister infantry units. How can one specialize infantry that understands best how to work with armour when this ad hoc system is used?

Everything seems ad hoc in the PA. Take units from here, place them there, take them away... sounds like jilebi level of organization. Units kept together develop cohesiveness and fight better together. Units floating about feel alienated and disconnected.

Just my non-professional 0.02.

We do have dedicated CAS sorties, with whom we conduct real exercise as well.

AH-1 are not primarily for CAS or supporting own attack. Their main task is something else.

As far as infantry to tank ratios are concerned, you may have included the whole army. But it does become favorable once you factor out 10, 11 and 12 Corps. Moreover, you factor in the actual combat strength of each division, strength which will be actually in contact with the enemy, then i'm sure you will get more favorable ratios. (Ratio in Armored Division is 7 soldiers for every tank or 4 soldiers for every AFV, same for Mech Div, for infantry division it is NOW 80 soldiers for every tank or 47 soldiers for all AFVs). These figures are almost accurate.

You are wrong in thinking that armored units dont have organic infantry. There is ATLEAST one MIB for each Armored Brigade for that purpose.

Do please elaborate as to why our organisation seems like Jalebi-like (yummy though).