Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Ostrozac]

All 3 armoured regiments to be fully tracked, two 14 tank squadrons, two 14 veh of cav or mech infantry

As it stands now? This dies on the twins altar of corps/regimental politics and infrastructure. Petawawa and Valcartier are grossly insufficient for heavy forces — they could each barely support a single squadron of Leopard 1. A regiment of Leopard 2? Each? When you’ve already ripped up the railheads? You’ll be upgrading roads and bridges for decades. That was, as I understand it, what was driving the push to ‘heavy’ up 1 Brigade, but that leads to an unbalanced asymmetrical army, and also violates two more of our sacred cows, the regimental system and bilingualism —if you put the RCD and 12RBC in Edmonton, and move 1VP and 3VP to Pet and Val, you have mixed infantry battalions on the same garrisons, French families in Edmonton and English families in Valcartier.

Not that you can’t do these things. But the barriers are more than fiscal, they are deeply cultural.

 

[FJAG]

As it stands now? This dies on the twins altar of corps/regimental politics and infrastructure. Petawawa and Valcartier are grossly insufficient for heavy forces — they could each barely support a single squadron of Leopard 1. A regiment of Leopard 2? Each? When you’ve already ripped up the railheads? You’ll be upgrading roads and bridges for decades. That was, as I understand it, what was driving the push to ‘heavy’ up 1 Brigade, but that leads to an unbalanced asymmetrical army, and also violates two more of our sacred cows, the regimental system and bilingualism —if you put the RCD and 12RBC in Edmonton, and move 1VP and 3VP to Pet and Val, you have mixed infantry battalions on the same garrisons, French families in Edmonton and English families in Valcartier.

Not that you can’t do these things. But the barriers are more than fiscal, they are deeply cultural.

Sacred cows should be butchered for the post exercise barbecue.

I don't think that you need three tank regiments in Canada unless you have three armoured brigades. I think you can get by with two Total Force tank regiments: one in Edmonton with two RegF and one ResF squadron under 1 CMBG as an armoured brigade together with two LAV battalions and the second a Total Force regiment in Alberta using one RegF squadron and two ResF squadrons. It can be part of a Total Force, ResF heavy armoured brigade from western Canada and parts of Ontario to round out the numbers.

Let 5 CMBG be a medium brigade with three LAV battalions and a cavalry regiment and 2 CMBG be something light.

 

[WLSC]

Sacred cows should be butchered for the post exercise barbecue.

I don't think that you need three tank regiments in Canada unless you have three armoured brigades. I think you can get by with two Total Force tank regiments: one in Edmonton with two RegF and one ResF squadron under 1 CMBG as an armoured brigade together with two LAV battalions and the second a Total Force regiment in Alberta using one RegF squadron and two ResF squadrons. It can be part of a Total Force, ResF heavy armoured brigade from western Canada and parts of Ontario to round out the numbers.

Let 5 CMBG be a medium brigade with three LAV battalions and a cavalry regiment and 2 CMBG be something light.

That’s the pragmatic view. Emotion will sadly bring that back to status quo.

 

[markppcli]

I speak from the perspective of a guy with claustrophobic tendencies that prefers to see what's going on around him rather than being locked in a filing cabinet in case he comes in handy some day.

I get the need for the infantry to be there to assist with the team work, but frankly I would rather be on my feet than in a can. And if I am hit then I won't be taking half-a-dozen or so of my buddies with me. You'll still have five team mates to work with. And as big as I am these days, I still make a smaller target than a LAV.

So, if you are giving me a lift into town, let me out before you start getting into a discussion with the locals. It'll probably do us both more good.

I still think you would be better off with me getting a lift in an armoured truck and getting out while you get something smaller, and more manoeuverable than a LAV to tackle the locals.

You’re implying that this is a one or the other situation. That mechanized forces don’t dismount their guys before a built up area and then have mutually supporting elements. Ie the Infantry clearing the buildings while the IFVs are cut offs and in this case able to destroy the other AFVs. All in one tidy package, that can get places quickly, and protected from artillery.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Thanks @Ostrozac . I didn't know about the limitations of those two bases. That makes the situation incredibly frustrating as an outsider/tax payer. If symmetry is a functional impossibility, why are we even paying lip service to it? I apologize if this comes off as ignorant/arrogant, but it seems like if you toss aside symmetry and allow PY's to be re-assigned within CMBG's regardless of cap badge it becomes a fairly straight forward exercise.

De- Lav one of the eastern brigade groups. Three pure and air mobile LIB's, with M777's and the armoured regiment in TAPV's (with some/many upgunned with RS6 low recoil 30mm and Javelin).

Frees up 2 battalions worth of Lavs (~80 ISC and 25~CP?) and two LIB's worth of PY's (National need for LIB's is covered from the light brigade)

Armour
use PY's from the LIB's to reinforce the regiments to 4x 14 vehicle squadrons with the same structure, one heavy (out west) one medium
1x Recce (LRSS)
2x Tank/ FSV (Leo / Lav FSV)
1x Mech Infantry (IFV /Lav 6)

For the IFV UOR something in the short term. M2A3's, CV9035's, anything with tracks, ATGM, and the requisite protection level, to support and keep up with the tanks in the attack
For the Lav FSV re-turret 30 of the now surplus 6's with RT60 40mm w/ twin ATGM. No temptation for anyone to pretend it's a tank, but enough teeth to matter
Tanks -upgrade or trade, standardize the damn fleet (just the 40 gun tanks)

Infantry
Take 36 of the remaining surplus lav's -18 get re-turreted with the NEMO (or preferably AMOS) mortar system, 18 get upgraded with dual ATGM added to the turret, a dismount firing post in the back. Crew these from the LIB's (roughly 2 of the 3 companies accounted for). Platoon each per batallion. That's 66 of 105 surplus lavs accounted for. Take 34 and re-turret with IM-SHORAD, use the remaining light company to crew it.


2 Brigades, both with GBAD one with a heavy combined arms battalion, one with a medium, all lav battalions with AT and mortars under armour, only fleet (chassis) addition is the tracked IFV's, total fleet only goes up by 15.

Now, assuming 2 tanks and two 2 LRSS left as spares with the Brigades, that leaves 10 tanks, 36 LRSS, 15 LAV.
Option A- keep as stock
Option B- an extra tank platoon to each of the tank squadrons, a recce troop to all 5 lav based battalions/regiment, remainder to stock
Option C- Purchases of an additional 20 tanks, 14 IFV's, and 28 Lav FSV allow for the preposition of a full set of regimental kit for both armoured regiments.

SPG's looked after by diverting the 3rd Lav brigade's ACSV production to be married with the artillery gun module as fast as can be done.


I'm sure I missed things, I know none of it is as easy as I wrote it, and that it will never happen for a myriad of reasons. But if an idiot civilian like me can get anywhere in the ballpark (I think I am?) of delivering a more capable and comprehensive force structure without changing manpower or the number of vehicles in the fleet, while staying committed to the LAV and the regimental structure, why are we not there?

Sorry.

 

[markppcli]

Thanks @Ostrozac . I didn't know about the limitations of those two bases. That makes the situation incredibly frustrating as an outsider/tax payer. If symmetry is a functional impossibility, why are we even paying lip service to it? I apologize if this comes off as ignorant/arrogant, but it seems like if you toss aside symmetry and allow PY's to be re-assigned within CMBG's regardless of cap badge it becomes a fairly straight forward exercise.

De- Lav one of the eastern brigade groups. Three pure and air mobile LIB's, with M777's and the armoured regiment in TAPV's (with some/many upgunned with RS6 low recoil 30mm and Javelin).

Frees up 2 battalions worth of Lavs (~80 ISC and 25~CP?) and two LIB's worth of PY's (National need for LIB's is covered from the light brigade)

Armour
use PY's from the LIB's to reinforce the regiments to 4x 14 vehicle squadrons with the same structure, one heavy (out west) one medium
1x Recce (LRSS)
2x Tank/ FSV (Leo / Lav FSV)
1x Mech Infantry (IFV /Lav 6)

For the IFV UOR something in the short term. M2A3's, CV9035's, anything with tracks, ATGM, and the requisite protection level, to support and keep up with the tanks in the attack
For the Lav FSV re-turret 30 of the now surplus 6's with RT60 40mm w/ twin ATGM. No temptation for anyone to pretend it's a tank, but enough teeth to matter
Tanks -upgrade or trade, standardize the damn fleet (just the 40 gun tanks)

Infantry
Take 36 of the remaining surplus lav's -18 get re-turreted with the NEMO (or preferably AMOS) mortar system, 18 get upgraded with dual ATGM added to the turret, a dismount firing post in the back. Crew these from the LIB's (roughly 2 of the 3 companies accounted for). Platoon each per batallion. That's 66 of 105 surplus lavs accounted for. Take 34 and re-turret with IM-SHORAD, use the remaining light company to crew it.


2 Brigades, both with GBAD one with a heavy combined arms battalion, one with a medium, all lav battalions with AT and mortars under armour, only fleet (chassis) addition is the tracked IFV's, total fleet only goes up by 15.

Now, assuming 2 tanks and two 2 LRSS left as spares with the Brigades, that leaves 10 tanks, 36 LRSS, 15 LAV.
Option A- keep as stock
Option B- an extra tank platoon to each of the tank squadrons, a recce troop to all 5 lav based battalions/regiment, remainder to stock
Option C- Purchases of an additional 20 tanks, 14 IFV's, and 28 Lav FSV allow for the preposition of a full set of regimental kit for both armoured regiments.

SPG's looked after by diverting the 3rd Lav brigade's ACSV production to be married with the artillery gun module as fast as can be done.


I'm sure I missed things, I know none of it is as easy as I wrote it, and that it will never happen for a myriad of reasons. But if an idiot civilian like me can get anywhere in the ballpark (I think I am?) of delivering a more capable and comprehensive force structure without changing manpower or the number of vehicles in the fleet, while staying committed to the LAV and the regimental structure, why are we not there?

Sorry.

Thanks @Ostrozac . I didn't know about the limitations of those two bases. That makes the situation incredibly frustrating as an outsider/tax payer. If symmetry is a functional impossibility, why are we even paying lip service to it? I apologize if this comes off as ignorant/arrogant, but it seems like if you toss aside symmetry and allow PY's to be re-assigned within CMBG's regardless of cap badge it becomes a fairly straight forward exercise.

De- Lav one of the eastern brigade groups. Three pure and air mobile LIB's, with M777's and the armoured regiment in TAPV's (with some/many upgunned with RS6 low recoil 30mm and Javelin).

Frees up 2 battalions worth of Lavs (~80 ISC and 25~CP?) and two LIB's worth of PY's (National need for LIB's is covered from the light brigade)

Armour
use PY's from the LIB's to reinforce the regiments to 4x 14 vehicle squadrons with the same structure, one heavy (out west) one medium
1x Recce (LRSS)
2x Tank/ FSV (Leo / Lav FSV)
1x Mech Infantry (IFV /Lav 6)

For the IFV UOR something in the short term. M2A3's, CV9035's, anything with tracks, ATGM, and the requisite protection level, to support and keep up with the tanks in the attack
For the Lav FSV re-turret 30 of the now surplus 6's with RT60 40mm w/ twin ATGM. No temptation for anyone to pretend it's a tank, but enough teeth to matter
Tanks -upgrade or trade, standardize the damn fleet (just the 40 gun tanks)

Infantry
Take 36 of the remaining surplus lav's -18 get re-turreted with the NEMO (or preferably AMOS) mortar system, 18 get upgraded with dual ATGM added to the turret, a dismount firing post in the back. Crew these from the LIB's (roughly 2 of the 3 companies accounted for). Platoon each per batallion. That's 66 of 105 surplus lavs accounted for. Take 34 and re-turret with IM-SHORAD, use the remaining light company to crew it.


2 Brigades, both with GBAD one with a heavy combined arms battalion, one with a medium, all lav battalions with AT and mortars under armour, only fleet (chassis) addition is the tracked IFV's, total fleet only goes up by 15.

Now, assuming 2 tanks and two 2 LRSS left as spares with the Brigades, that leaves 10 tanks, 36 LRSS, 15 LAV.
Option A- keep as stock
Option B- an extra tank platoon to each of the tank squadrons, a recce troop to all 5 lav based battalions/regiment, remainder to stock
Option C- Purchases of an additional 20 tanks, 14 IFV's, and 28 Lav FSV allow for the preposition of a full set of regimental kit for both armoured regiments.

SPG's looked after by diverting the 3rd Lav brigade's ACSV production to be married with the artillery gun module as fast as can be done.


I'm sure I missed things, I know none of it is as easy as I wrote it, and that it will never happen for a myriad of reasons. But if an idiot civilian like me can get anywhere in the ballpark (I think I am?) of delivering a more capable and comprehensive force structure without changing manpower or the number of vehicles in the fleet, while staying committed to the LAV and the regimental structure, why are we not there?

Sorry.

Functionally we’re supposed to be able to provide a heavy / medium brigade to NATO, so I suspect symmetry is about being able to rotate those units readiness postures.

 

[KevinB]

Functionally we’re supposed to be able to provide a heavy brigade to NATO, so I suspect symmetry is about posturing.

FIFY.

 

[Kirkhill]

You’re implying that this is a one or the other situation. That mechanized forces don’t dismount their guys before a built up area and then have mutually supporting elements. Ie the Infantry clearing the buildings while the IFVs are cut offs and in this case able to destroy the other AFVs. All in one tidy package, that can get places quickly, and protected from artillery.

I don't disagree with the tidy package. I just think it is a very large and unwieldy package and that the advantage it brings to the fight, the turreted gun, could be supplied in a smaller, tidier package. In fact, it could be supplied in an unmanned/optionally manned package. Especially in the urban fight.

 

[markppcli]

I don't disagree with the tidy package. I just think it is a very large and unwieldy package and that the advantage it brings to the fight, the turreted gun, could be supplied in a smaller, tidier package. In fact, it could be supplied in an unmanned/optionally manned package. Especially in the urban fight.

The package I mean is the single transport and fire support. Your talking about adding bits and pieces, single purposes additions that have to be there some how.

 

[Kirkhill]

The package I mean is the single transport and fire support. Your talking about adding bits and pieces, single purposes additions that have to be there some how.

And your're talking about a single target that eliminates a lot of bits and pieces all at one time when hit.

 

[markppcli]

Well this has become pointless.

 

[KevinB]

Namer style HIFV that can do both - but also has a support Optionally Manned MiniIFV rover to tread along (or in front).

I had an informative week this week, and based on some of it I expect that in a few years that several of the dismounts won’t be actual people but Optionally Controlled ‘terminator’ type robots

 

[MilEME09]

And your're talking about a single target that eliminates a lot of bits and pieces all at one time when hit.

Would you rather we go all light infantry and walk everywhere?

 

[Kirkhill]

Would you rather we go all light infantry and walk everywhere?

No. I'd rather that you got a lift to the fight and that you use the terrain to your best advantage. And I can hide behind a smaller bump than a LAV can.

In urban terrain a small vehicle like a Scimitar or a UGV that can do a pivot turn, or reverse as fast as it can go forwards, seems to me to be likely to be a lot more survivable, and able to supply the PBI with support a lot longer than a behemoth like a LAV6 with a 3 mile turning radius and that stands a meter (3 feet) taller.

LAV 6 = 3.16m ht
Scorpion =2.1 m ht.

 

[suffolkowner]

No. I'd rather that you got a lift to the fight and that you use the terrain to your best advantage. And I can hide behind a smaller bump than a LAV can.

In urban terrain a small vehicle like a Scimitar or a UGV that can do a pivot turn, or reverse as fast as it can go forwards, seems to me to be likely to be a lot more survivable, and able to supply the PBI with support a lot longer than a behemoth like a LAV6 with a 3 mile turning radius and that stands a meter (3 feet) taller.

LAV 6 = 3.16m ht
Scorpion =2.1 m ht.

They all look the same height from a TB2 or Predator don't they?

 

[KevinB]

They all look the same height from a TB2 or Predator don't they?

Which is why AD abilities are critical

 

[Kirkhill]

Which is why AD abilities are critical

Every AFV replaces its turret with a CIWS?

 

[Kirkhill]

They all look the same height from a TB2 or Predator don't they?

Yes, but you can still dodge some of those Javelins and NLAWs. And a 4.9m x 2.2m Scimitar is 50% the target of a 7.62m x 2.68m LAV6 to a Bayraktar or Predator.

And if detonated it is only 3 troops gone. Not 10.

 

[markppcli]

Yes, but you can still dodge some of those Javelins and NLAWs.

In that their a smaller target ? Maybe ? But not really much difference in practical terms.

You want a vehicle to deliver troops to the battle field, then you want one to support them. Adding more and more single purpose vehicles is not the way forward. That vehicle that’s going to deliver them, ideally a K out under cover, is going to be armed, and armoured. It’s silly to just leave it back. Also, look at the BTR 4 video, wheeled IFVs are still nimble and able to maneuver in urban terrain while packing a punch. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to see if I can make some progress banging my head on a brick wall.

 

[markppcli]

Every AFV replaces its turret with a CIWS?

No, you just need a Shorad asset, people make mistakes conflating TB2s and Quad Copters.