Not quite what I said or meant. My point was the training concept we've had during the seventies and into the eighties where we constantly had platoons attacking isolated section positions and companies attacking isolated platoon positions were a training fiction to facilitate platoon and company training. Company teams or, more properly, "combat teams" as tactical groupings, I have absolutely no problems with.
I always thought that the concept of an isolated enemy section or platoon sitting in the middle of nowhere had no air of reality about it.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
In terms of the Lawfield run I agree entirely. It should be made clearer that that particular exercise is simply a beginners level training exercise that is speedily followed by the next level once the basics of how to command manouevre have been grasped.
The 1940s bomber threat was long gone by the seventies. That's why we cashiered the Voodoo and its Genie rockets.
Agreed. But many of he other, more likely threats identified in 1946 are still possibilities, if not necessarily probabilities. The most common factor, in my opinion, is that they will likely take the form of scattered, small units, probably of section size or smaller and most likely be in civilian clothes and not equipped with heavy weapons. The counter force would be, first of all, the RCMP. But if the demand for their services overwhelmed them then the Army would need to supply platoon sized elements armed with small arms and light support weapons.
I think - three - but see below.
The debate continues
There needs to be standard "dismounted element" TTPs as much as possible with minor deviations to allow for the differing vehicles and their weapons systems.
More debate. I am comfortable with ditching the whole army rotation plan and creating a specialist Panzergrenadier corps. Currently the Light Armoured Vehicle / Medium Armoured Vehicle is a stand in for an IFV which I would prefer to see as something like the CV90 or Puma or Bradley. The Heavy end of the spectrum
The other end of the spectrum is the General Duty Infantry - AKA the Light Infantry - people that get to the worksite by whatever means are available - Army Service Corps, RCAF or RCN. They take with them whatever equipment they can, including ground transport. The Light end of the spectrum.
In between, by definition is the Medium Force. One way to define a Medium Force is a Light Force with Heavy Elements. Another way, the Canadian/Shinsecki way is to make a lighter weight Heavy Force.
My inclination is to start from the Light Force end of the spectrum and add compatible heavier weight elements. To my way of thinking that starts with the Infantry Transport Platoon and the Recce Platoon and their needs ase well as the Service Bn Transport Coy and the Recce/ISR Sqn. Those are the minimal requirements for converting a Lt Infantry Battle Group into a Motorized Battle Group capable of some degree of manoeuvre.
Where I think Canada lost the plot was with the introduction of the 20 tonne LAV III and then the growth through the LORIT and LAV-UP programs to the 30 Tonne LAV 6.0. To my way of thinking we could have stopped at the 13 tonne LAV II Bison-Coyote level as an adjunct vehicle for the Light Force, employed as a Battalion/Brigade resource while clearly opting for the Close Combat Vehicle for the Panzergrenadiers and buying them the 40 tonne CV90 along with additional Leos.
Heavy Force would be intimately associated with their vehicles.
The Light Force would use vehicles as adjuncts, tools.
The government would make the Maintenance departments life miserable but it needs to buy multiple small fleets to accommodate Canada's multiple environments. The fleets would be best centrally managed, stored, maintained and driven and allocated to the force employed according to requirements of the mission. Army Service Corps as it was.
We agree on the CV90
Like you, I still see a role for the LAV (if upgraded the way that you suggest) As a country we still have other tasks besides Europe and North America. The most obvious is peacekeeping missions amongst shabbily armed parties in Third World countries.
I agree on there being a role for the LAV but I would be down-grading it to the 13 tonne LAV II model so that it could be transported easily by C130 and C17 in useful packets as an alternative to the Bv206/210 and an adjunct to the Argos and Sherps.
I disagree about six manoeuvre brigades. I think with our current establishments we can only field 5 because we need to also dedicate roughly 8 - 10,000 PYs and Class A positions to combat support and combat service support brigades.
Of your six manoeuvre brigades I would give up one of the two light brigades, in part, because we already have enough LAVs to equip two medium brigades. In my own napkin force I did squeeze in two extra 10/90 ResF light battalions - so 1 x light brigade but five light rifle battalions, three RegF heavy and two ResF heavy (1 x west coast mountain and 1 x east coast amphibious). I just couldn't squeeze out the bulk of the 6th manoeuvre brigade.
That "if a workable PRes is created" is a
sine qua non. Personally, If I was MND I would fire any CDS/CLS who doesn't make that his top priority.
If we are doing 6 Brigades then I would be doing this
A Panzer Brigade Forwards with a caretaker/security cadre
A Panzer Brigade Rear with the formed body of troops dedicated to training
The other 4 Brigades I would make them all Infantry Brigades, a mix of Reg and Reserve elements, with Regular Force Irmmediate Reaction Units.
The Infantry Brigades would have ready access to a variety of transport including some deployable armoured assets that could heavy up the lights and move them into the medium category if the mission demanded it.
And lots of emphasis on Fire Support, UAVs and EW.
