Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,742
- Points
- 1,040
How, exactly?
Informing the Army’s Future Structure
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
How, exactly?
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,194
- Points
- 990
@FJAG
Thank-you for taking the time to respond in such detail.
Basically the scenario was that if the government were to unilaterally take away heavy armour (to remove the debate on whether it's the right thing for the army) how well could the army move forward, and could it end up better than the status quo?
While I share the idea that we should be able to field an armoured brigade, as a semi-informed voter I look at the current state of things vs. what would need to happen, and quite frankly the idea of equipping and fielding an ABCT equivalent seems downright aspirational. At this point the odds of replacing the LAV with a proper HIFV are slim to none. So even if were were able to equip enough tanks, keep them maintained, deploy them to theatre in a timely fashion, and keep them supplied, (all of which would stretch the army to the max- or beyond) it's going to be part of an armoured brigade that is such in name only, and either
-won't be able to perform
-will only do so at the cost of a disproportionate number of Canadian lives
Doesn't seem like a good aspiration.
If the defined effect was the ability to have a semi-permanent fully kitted LAV battlegroup in Latvia with pre-positioned equipment to have a flyover force surge it to a heavily upgunned SBCT, well trained and fully equipped to fill its role, would that be an improvement over the current state of affairs?
Thank-you for taking the time to respond in such detail.
Basically the scenario was that if the government were to unilaterally take away heavy armour (to remove the debate on whether it's the right thing for the army) how well could the army move forward, and could it end up better than the status quo?
While I share the idea that we should be able to field an armoured brigade, as a semi-informed voter I look at the current state of things vs. what would need to happen, and quite frankly the idea of equipping and fielding an ABCT equivalent seems downright aspirational. At this point the odds of replacing the LAV with a proper HIFV are slim to none. So even if were were able to equip enough tanks, keep them maintained, deploy them to theatre in a timely fashion, and keep them supplied, (all of which would stretch the army to the max- or beyond) it's going to be part of an armoured brigade that is such in name only, and either
-won't be able to perform
-will only do so at the cost of a disproportionate number of Canadian lives
Doesn't seem like a good aspiration.
If the defined effect was the ability to have a semi-permanent fully kitted LAV battlegroup in Latvia with pre-positioned equipment to have a flyover force surge it to a heavily upgunned SBCT, well trained and fully equipped to fill its role, would that be an improvement over the current state of affairs?
- Reaction score
- 27,578
- Points
- 1,090
I'll argue two of your points.
Training equivalencies: Have you looked at the CAF ACE website? Use the MySET button to investigate what accreditation is available for your training. Welcome to the Canadian Armed Forces - Accreditation Certification Equivalency (CAF-ACE) - CAF-ACE
Pay. Most CAF members receive superior compensation to what they would receive for similar skillsets outside the military; particularly when you consider that non-military members in those fields paid for their training, rather than being paid to receive it. For example, the two pilots in the cabin of a Porter Q400 flying Toronto to Halifax combined make less than a single RCAF pilot Major. A defence lawyer in the JAG branch is responsible for an order of magnitude fewer cases than a public defender working for less money for a provincial crown attorney.
In addition, the CFSA part I pension plan is among the more lucrative defined benefit plans available. Retirement at 25 years of service - unreduced, regardless of age - is extremely rare. And on a current service cost basis, for ever dollar contributed by CAF members, the government is responsible for $1.73 (see: OSFI report 2019, page 10 https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/Docs/CFSA19.pdf)
Are there some areas where compensation needs review? Definitely. But CAF compensation is competitive and often outstrips the marketplace.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,194
- Points
- 990
Oddly enough bringing 120 existing turrets to a Canadianized Hitfist /Frescia Anti-Tank was exactly what I had in mind.
For the 100 new 6.0 Hulls, how many would be mortars (and turreted or M1129 style) and what would you do with the rest?
- Reaction score
- 21,977
- Points
- 1,260
To me a HIFV is something like the Namer type HAPC with a 30mm or greater auto cannon/chain gun and an integral UA ATGM
The CV-90/AJAX type IFV’s are lighter armored but have larger cannon and UA ATGM’s - the Bradley is a good example of a Legacy IFV with the same 25mm cannon as the LAV, but also TOW ATGM. All still have greater armor than the LAV6.0, but are still susceptible to Russian ATGM/RPG fire unlike the Leo2 or M1A2 MBT’s and NAMER HAPC
Tracks have lower ground pressure than wheeled vehicles due to weight distribution and all else being equal offer move off-road mobility.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,277
- Points
- 1,260
If by AJAX you mean the actual in service uhlan or Pizarro IFVs you’d be wrong about the protection. Bradley’s are about on par in my research. LAV 6.0 and Brady will take 30 mm off the frontal arc while Pizarro will not, I agree about the TOW / UA ATGM.
The Namer is… well to be me it’s a bit like the Armata, and while it works it’s been produced in very limited numbers. It’s also going to die to a Kornet the same way a LAV will.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,813
- Points
- 1,160
Sure.
There are numerous examples of Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicles. I think you could probably go back to WW2 when Canada took the guns out of M7 Priests (which were basically Sherman tanks with the turrets removed and with artillery installed) and used them to carry infantry. They were more armoured personnel carriers instead of fighting vehicles but essentially had the key characteristic being that they had the same cross country capability as the tank and close to the same armour protection but in a very basic way.
The more relevant and modern equivalent is the Namer which effectively uses the Merkava IV tank chassis without a turret and reconfigured for a crew of three with 9 dismounts. Again the key characteristic is that it has the same mobility as the tank it accompanies and has very similar armour protection. The Namer isn't the only HIFV in the Israeli service. They have also converted older tanks to the role - the Achzaritz is a converted T54; the Nagpadon is a converted Centurion. Most Namers have light weaponry and function primarily as infantry carriers but there are also versions with a turreted 30mm and Spike missile launcher capabilities. Rather than turrets I prefer to see something like the Moog Reconfigurable Integrated weapons Platform although I say that with a caveat. I'm not sure how robust these systems would be once artillery splinters start whipping around and I'd like something with some more survivability.
I'd go a step further and say that I'd also like to see armoured engineer vehicles, fitters and recovery vehicles ambulances, CPs and self propelled artillery all on the same chassis to simplify maintenance across the brigade. Armour levels would not need to be the same levels for the vehicles not in direct contact with the enemy. The Russians use basic T72 chassis for many of their CS vehicles.
One big downside. Very heavy fuel consumption and the need for continuous crew maintenance.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,277
- Points
- 1,260
I more meant in service, which leads us to the Namer. There’s only 120 in service so I don’t know that that’s really a successful role out.Sure.
There are numerous examples of Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicles. I think you could probably go back to WW2 when Canada took the guns out of M7 Priests (which were basically Sherman tanks with the turrets removed and with artillery installed) and used them to carry infantry. They were more armoured personnel carriers instead of fighting vehicles but essentially had the key characteristic being that they had the same cross country capability as the tank and close to the same armour protection but in a very basic way.
The more relevant and modern equivalent is the Namer which effectively uses the Merkava IV tank chassis without a turret and reconfigured for a crew of three with 9 dismounts. Again the key characteristic is that it has the same mobility as the tank it accompanies and has very similar armour protection. The Namer isn't the only HIFV in the Israeli service. They have also converted older tanks to the role - the Achzaritz is a converted T54; the Nagpadon is a converted Centurion. Most Namers have light weaponry and function primarily as infantry carriers but there are also versions with a turreted 30mm and Spike missile launcher capabilities. Rather than turrets I prefer to see something like the Moog Reconfigurable Integrated weapons Platform although I say that with a caveat. I'm not sure how robust these systems would be once artillery splinters start whipping around and I'd like something with some more survivability.
I'd go a step further and say that I'd also like to see armoured engineer vehicles, fitters and recovery vehicles ambulances, CPs and self propelled artillery all on the same chassis to simplify maintenance across the brigade. Armour levels would not need to be the same levels for the vehicles not in direct contact with the enemy. The Russians use basic T72 chassis for many of their CS vehicles.
One big downside. Very heavy fuel consumption and the need for continuous crew maintenance.
- Reaction score
- 21,977
- Points
- 1,260
UpArmor M2A3 Bradley is a significantly greater armored beast than LAV 6.0
But it still isn’t going to survive a 30mm cannon hit with APFSDS-DU.
I’m talking about the GD AJAX
Which has more armor (effective armor due to angle) than the M2A3 Bradley on the front glacis.
AJAX and CV-90 are quite a bit shorter in the hull than the LAV in height. AJAX sensors and ATGM do raise the height though to a few inches above the LAV turret.
I think for a Medium force the LAV is a fantastic vehicle. I just don’t think any Army can exist effectively with just a medium force.
I’d create a Hvy Bde, 2 Med Bde and a Light Bde if I was King.
But it still isn’t going to survive a 30mm cannon hit with APFSDS-DU.
I’m talking about the GD AJAX
Which has more armor (effective armor due to angle) than the M2A3 Bradley on the front glacis.
AJAX and CV-90 are quite a bit shorter in the hull than the LAV in height. AJAX sensors and ATGM do raise the height though to a few inches above the LAV turret.
I think for a Medium force the LAV is a fantastic vehicle. I just don’t think any Army can exist effectively with just a medium force.
I’d create a Hvy Bde, 2 Med Bde and a Light Bde if I was King.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,277
- Points
- 1,260
Well that’s some weird formatting I just did.
Every piece of data I have places an up armoured LAV 6 as taking 30mm across the frontal arc. That puts it on the upper end of IFVs in terms of protection. We can debate the size / capacity / track vs wheeled all day, but if protection is the defining feature then generally speaking any and all IFVs ( Namer included) are going to get destroyed by dedicated AT weapons. Most will resist 14.5 mm, and upper end of protection is 30mm.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,813
- Points
- 1,160
I don't think there's anything really in the HIFV class other than that. There are several that come close. CV90 is a purpose built vehicle but not off a tank chassis. The German Puma is getting there. The German Marder and the US M2 Bradley were/are also close. The Ukrainians have done interesting work upgrading old T55s into BMP-55s.
The problem is that most of these are lighter and a different chassis.
I like the idea of a common chassis because if you already have a production line for that then the various variants becomes an easier job, especially subsequent maintenance. The complication with that is that most tanks are rear engine while carriers are front engine. This is where the Merkva/Namer line is different in that both are front engine. That for me is important because the common front engine configuration also allows SP artillery and all other CS and CSS vehicles to get on the same chassis and also provides a bit more protection in that a frontal hit is less likely to enter the fighting compartment. A mobility kill is preferable to an outright kill. Yes, there are now missiles that go for a top kill but that's a redesign and active protection issue that needs addressing.
I sometimes wonder how easily one could reconfigure a Leo 2 chassis to put the engine up front. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 shares many Leo components and runs with the engine up front. In some respects I wonder how far one could go in simply reversing the chassis. I'm sure its not that simple but don't think it's that complex either.
If I had to choose today I'd probably go for two to four battalions a Class C protected Puma with Spike added. If we couldn't buy then I'd lease 2-4 battalions of M2's off the Yanks. I'm more interested in seeing where the US is going with their Next Generation Combat Vehicle Program.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,813
- Points
- 1,160
Yup. There's a lot of folks that think that.
On the other hand good deterrence is making the other guy think that if he attacks you he's going to get his ass handed to him. Further, if, on a bad day, he does decide to attack you then you want to be able to hand him his ass. Either way, you need a credible force.
Yup again, you can defend with light infantry and LAV bound infantry but every defence depends on being able to counterattack when there are breakthroughs (and its always when and not if). The short answer is that Strykers were built to transport mounted but fight dismounted. Our LAVs have gotten better armoured and heavier and have a 25mm but essentially its a support vehicle for a dismounted fight.
Heavy forces aren't invulnerable, but they'll soak up a lot more stuff and remain viable longer than a middle weight force especially a wheeled one which has less mobility.
We've lived with the illusion for the last twenty years where our defence policy says we need to prepare for high intensity combat but lived with the illusion that we wouldn't ever be called on to do that. Hence divesting three regiments of self propelled artillery, one air defence regiment and almost all of our ATGM capability.
We've been quite stupid in that even with some of the failed state scenarios we were up against forces that had heavy but older Soviet armour - Bosnia, Serbia et al. Even Afghanistan had a lot of tanks, BM21s and even FROGs hanging around (luckily really badly managed). Old Soviet armour is everywhere and is still capable of giving you a bad day at the office.
Sure. It costs more to buy a modern armoured brigade but it doesn't cost much more to run and maintain one than a LAV brigade. The big ticket item year after year is people and an armoured brigade 2 Inf /1 Tank battalion is around 10% lighter on people than a three infantry battalion Stryker brigade. There is virtually no difference in the annual operating cost as between an active army ABCT and an SBCT. Even better, the annual operating cost of a National Guard ABCT and SBCT are the same and are both 1/4 to 1/3 of the cost of an Active army brigade.
There are numerous cost saving options but don't ever cheap out on the gear our people need to fight with. Honestly we could save a whole lot more money if we made much better use of our reserves.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,813
- Points
- 1,160
That proves nothing vis a vis heavy and light forces.
Would you like me to show you the picture of a soldier ripped to shreds by a 12.5mm?
Everything on a modern battlefield can be killed. Heavy protects you longer and lets you fight back harder.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,117
- Points
- 1,160
Does Russia employ insensitive munitions? These catastrophic kills look like every munition in the vehicle had a sympathetic detonation.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,117
- Points
- 1,160
Insensitive munition - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 8,305
- Points
- 1,160
That proves nothing vis a vis heavy and light forces.
Would you like me to show you the picture of a soldier ripped to shreds by a 12.5mm?
Everything on a modern battlefield can be killed. Heavy protects you longer and lets you fight back harder.
I keep hearing that the death of the tank has been predicted before. And its still here.
That it was predicted when Saggers killed a bunch of WW2 Shermans and Centurions in the Sinai, when Attack Helicopters appeared, when Hellfire replaced TOW, when Brimstone was added to Fighters, with Javelin Fire and Forget, when NLOS/FOG-M became a thing, with the arrival of Drones, with the arrival of Loitering Attack Munitions, and now with NLAWs. But the tank is still here.
And the common refrain is the Combined Arms Team saves all.
But the other side will use the Combined Arms Team as well. It too will use weather and terrain and time of day to its advantage. It too will use artillery to its advantage. It too will have machine guns to strip away dismounted personnel. And it may well be dug in with overhead protection in well-sited positions.
And/Or it may pushing hunting teams out to engage in some long range sniping forcing buttoning up, slower advances, more deliberate attacks. Dismounting further from the objectives exposing the dismounts to more of the defender's artillery at safer distances, not having to rely on danger close FPFs and a deep trench.
The fact is that every iteration has seen the defence become more effective, cheaper and lighter and with longer range, while the armour has become thicker, heavier, more complex and more expensive. And its ability to advance in the face of well supplied light infantry has been degraded.
The tank is not dead. But it is no longer as dominant on the battlefield as it used to be. And that is reflected in the declining number of tanks and tank factories in existence.
A $30,000 NLAW with an 800 m range means that a Battalion doesn't have to rely on it 2-4km Javelins at $175,000 a shot to degrade a Combined Arms Attacker. It doesn't have to rely on the 84mm round for the close battle at 250m.
It can afford to put three or four NLAWs into every fighting trench. With overhead cover. From which the NLAW can be fired without the troops having to expose themselves. And engage any armoured vehicle, light, medium, heavy or Tank, at 800m. With Javelins being sited for depth fires.
In the hunting mode, ambushes become more survivable by the ambushers because they can engage at longer distances and be more spread out. This forces the armoured attacker to search more ground more carefully. To prep more ground with more artillery. To take more time to find targets and engage them. To deploy more troops over wider areas to find the ambushers and engage them effectively
It all makes the attacker's job harder while making the defender's job easier.
I think, that while the tank is not dead, that the advantage of heavy armour, over light armour, or even unarmoured vehicles is being reduced to the point where it may not be worth the effort. Dismount on the objective is not a thing anymore. If it ever was.
What has happened is that infantry is going to have to dismount a kilometer off the objective and then use cover and concealment to approach while they are shot onto the objective by all available fires. Just like they always have. And tanks, heavy and expensive as they are, are going to have to exercise more care and caution in manoeuvering.
I don't think the tank is dead. But it will be used with more discretion.
I do think that the logistic cost of a Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle is even less justifiable now than it was previously.
I also think though, that the argument for the LAV6, CV90, PUMA, Bradley, BMPs of the world is getting weaker. All of them will blow up as easily as a Bison, Grizzly or Saxon or M113.
But all of those had the advantage of being cheap, and so widely distributed, transportable, and amphibious (except for the Saxon). They enabled troops, infantry and their support, to rapidly get within 1 or 2 km of the enemy, and then decide whether to hold, engage or hit and run.
I wouldn't be building more LAV6s or ACSVs or Boxers. I would be building more Bisons.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,813
- Points
- 1,160
I'll focus on these points. It isn't. It will be. More importantly there will be more development to build anti-ATGM systems. These can be anything for better and more effective armour to cause premature detonation to active defense systems to whatever. If you are already building a five to eight million dollar vehicle it makes sense to throw a few more bucks at it to protect it.
Let me get back to attack basics 101. What you are seeing here is a great miscalculation of the effects of terrain. Because of the condition of the ground there is very limited manoeuvre going on other than defined roads where ambushes are likely. Combined arms isn't just tanks and HIFV/HAPCs moving down roads. It includes artillery, recce (ground and air), and your own anti-armour and AD. All of these work in concert to create as much of a protective envelope around the attacking force as possible. Recce finds and fixes the enemy's defence positions. Artillery neutralizes those while the attack elements manoeuvre into close contact where they can overrun and overwhelm the opposition.
All those unarmoured tank hunting teams you place in the woods should be cut to shreds by artillery while the heavy elements close.
Of course there will be losses because that's the nature of war. You can't properly prepare for everything. BUT. Without heavy forces you simply cannot attack well in most situations. Where tanks are being blown up now, light infantry advancing would be destroyed by artillery - and even more importantly, mortars - and machine guns. Any supporting light vehicles will be destroyed by very light anti armour weapons including heavy machine guns. Just as importantly you can't do sweeping manoeuvres to bypass kill zones and attack and roll up weak points before they can reform.
The key to any modern war is a robust command and control system working within a doctrine of true combined arms warfare of all its various components working in harmony. Leave out or misuse any one component and you will take many more casualties than you need to regardless of whether your force is light, medium or heavy. One needs a balanced force.
The issue is how each is being used. In it's day, the M113 adequately fulfilled its role which was to bring infantry through artillery fire to a dismount area from which they could fight dismounted. It was never designed to be a fighting or fire support vehicle. It's machine gun was a defensive tool. It's only purpose was to stop artillery shell splinters.
We used AVGPs as a training vehicle for light mechanized warfare but understood quite well that, if required, we would deploy with them - although not Europe. 4 CMBG and CAST were M113 equipped. Again, they stop shell splinters and (maybe) rifle fire but certainly not an HMG.
To be honest we did use them to train in combined arms operations with Cougars. I can't say for sure if this was a legitimate training scenario (if so then what would we use for the real thing - Centurions/Leo1s and M113s?) or just a misuse of the capability. In any event just about anything that can stop a shell splinter is a valuable infantry transport vehicle so long as you do not take it into close contact with the enemy.
Strykers are exactly that. Battlefield taxis with a limited defensive capability. LAVIIIs upped the anti by adding a turret which provided greater firepower but reduced the number of dismounts. IMHO it was bad compromise. The Stryker battalion concept of having a 105mm DFS vehicle in the company was a better solution as it could stand off a good distance. Better yet was the integral 120mm mortar under armour support that every Stryker company had. It was a balanced system which, when further supported by artillery, scouts and air operated as a balanced dismounted infantry force. In contrast Canadian infantry had little artillery, few to no mortars, no stand off direct fire support but did have a honking 25mm which suckered the infantry battle taxis ever closer into the fight. It was doable in Afghanistan against very light infantry but even there they were vulnerable in a more conventional fight like Medusa. Afterwards the enemy changed tactics.
My long winded point here is regardless of what you buy, if you misuse it from its intended purpose and without its intended suite of supporting actors, it will blow up.
Canada's biggest error was in thinking that artillery in very small numbers using precision guided munitions complemented by drones using the same are the answer. Hitting single targets is great, but when you are up against a dismounted company with a selection of ATGMs then you need to blanket a large area (and frequently multiple outposts) with suppressive artillery and mortar fire so that they can't use those neat little weapons while your tanks and infantry close with great violence onto the objective as the final splinters are still falling. Their armour needs to be strong to protect them from the rain of the enemy's final protective artillery fire which will be raining down on them and whatever direct fire they manage to get off.
I'm not going to try to interpret the final lessons of Ukraine. It's far to early for that. I will say that IMHO we will need to be very careful in the tactical lessons because I think much of what we are seeing here is the result of bad pre-operation intelligence; bad timing vis a vis the condition of the ground and how that would limit operations; and a flawed operational plan that grossly misapprehended the opponent's will and ability to resist. I'll add into that a suspicion that poorly maintained equipment, poorly trained and motivated troops, a crappy logistics system and flawed combined arms tactics also played a role but I'll let others pontificate on that in due course.
I actually agree with you on that. Bisons have a valid purpose as I alluded to with respect to my earlier comments about the initial Stryker. I think LAVs and Boxers are Bisons with pretensions of being more than what they are. ACSVs on the other hand I think are very useful, even for a heavy force in that they provide adequate protection for elements that are in passing contact with the enemy. One can argue about how much armour is enough but what bothers me is the loss of dismounts in exchange for a turreted weapons system that draws the vehicle too far forward.
I could see a rifle company with three platoons of large capacity battle taxis to maximize dismounts supported by a weapons platoon using mortars under armour and some form of direct fire support vehicle (more anti bunker/materiel than anti-armour; anti-armour can come from hand held weapons liberally distributed around the company). That's your multi-purpose force. BUT. There needs to be a heavy force as well. Whether that's a combined arms battalion within a mechanized general purpose brigade or, better yet an armoured brigade in a mechanized division depends on the scale you want to look at. Just make sure both of them are adequately supported by cavalry, artillery, a plethora of things that fly and spy and bomb, and CSS. Effectively in defence the heavy element acts as a guard and subsequently reserve and counter attack force while the general purpose elements form your main defensive line. In the attack the heavy force is the spearpoint and the other two the follow-up consolidation force.
