Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

CV90's aren't heavy. They prioritized mobility well above armour with those vehicles. They have equivalent armour protection to a LAV 6 and less vs mines. They are small and incorporate a lot of other survivability traits (smoke, multispectral gas, low signature, hard kill active protection). I would think they would be a really good cavalry or recce unit type. Also for dismounts you're likely looking at 6 for the CV90 maybe 7.

If you want heavy then Lynx is probably the biggest standout. Though unless you are going with an HAPC then nothing currently exists that can survive over 30mm autocannons right now.

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee. Those ain't heavy! Now the Namer is HEAVY!

Namer Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Namer heavy armored personnel carrier is based on Merkava Mk.4 MBT chassis. Currently it is one of the most protected APCs in the world.

www.military-today.com

CV-90 is in the 23 to 37 tonne range.
Lynx is in the 34 to 50 tonne range
Namer is in the 60 tonne range.

And the Namer doesn't waste any of the weight allowance on offensive armaments. It all goes to protecting as many infantry passengers as possible (10) with a separate crew (2).

To my mind it looks like just the thing if you need to thicken up an assault force by dropping a large number of infantry onto the objective. And with that ability then the IFVs that would normally accompany the tanks would have less need for a large number of assaulters on-board.

One MBT Squadron
Two IFV Companies
One Heavy APC Transport Company/Squadron to move an attached Light Infantry Battalion when required.

 

[quadrapiper]

To my mind it looks like just the thing if you need to thicken up an assault force by dropping a large number of infantry onto the objective. And with that ability then the IFVs that would normally accompany the tanks would have less need for a large number of assaulters on-board.

Looking at the acreage on top, seems like, in your concept, it might also be able to carry (semi-)automated defences that the other two classes might not have space for.

 

[KevinB]

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee. Those ain't heavy! Now the Namer is HEAVY!

Namer Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Namer heavy armored personnel carrier is based on Merkava Mk.4 MBT chassis. Currently it is one of the most protected APCs in the world.

www.military-today.com

CV-90 is in the 23 to 37 tonne range.
Lynx is in the 34 to 50 tonne range
Namer is in the 60 tonne range.

And the Namer doesn't waste any of the weight allowance on offensive armaments. It all goes to protecting as many infantry passengers as possible (10) with a separate crew (2).

The Namer has actually getting more and more armaments as it progresses.
It started bare - went to a RWS, and now a full turret.

I don't think a bare system works as folks ID it easily and smack it - and it has no defensive systems.
I don't think the Namer makes sense for a non Merkava armed country -- you might be able to get a front engine Leo2 variant - it won't work with the Abrams turbine - but they would require a great deal of re-engineering, which would probably end up with a heavier system that the original MBT it was based off - simply as the engineer replacement method doesn't allow for a solid front Glacis like most tanks have.
Thus you need to have sealable removable armor plate there.

To my mind it looks like just the thing if you need to thicken up an assault force by dropping a large number of infantry onto the objective. And with that ability then the IFVs that would normally accompany the tanks would have less need for a large number of assaulters on-board.

One MBT Squadron
Two IFV Companies
One Heavy APC Transport Company/Squadron to move an attached Light Infantry Battalion when required.

You need to view the battlefield holistically - it isn't just a paper beats rock, that beats scissors, as there are a lot of hands throwing different things.

For a Heavy Force - you need protection from Indirect Fire, as well as direct fires, mines, and other obstacles, plus the ability to suppress the direct fire systems and enemy infantry.

Any holdings of a Heavy APC - would be a higher than Bde asset I would assume, because I don't see wasting assets to plan for the attachment of Light Forces to a Heavy Brigade would be part of the Heavy Brigade.
At that point you are better off just having more troops in the heavy Bde.

 

[OldSolduer]

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee. Those ain't heavy! Now the Namer is HEAVY!

Namer Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Namer heavy armored personnel carrier is based on Merkava Mk.4 MBT chassis. Currently it is one of the most protected APCs in the world.

www.military-today.com

Yah but does it come in Electric only mode? Joking - somewhat

 

[Kirkhill]

The Namer has actually getting more and more armaments as it progresses.
It started bare - went to a RWS, and now a full turret.

I don't think a bare system works as folks ID it easily and smack it - and it has no defensive systems.
I don't think the Namer makes sense for a non Merkava armed country -- you might be able to get a front engine Leo2 variant - it won't work with the Abrams turbine - but they would require a great deal of re-engineering, which would probably end up with a heavier system that the original MBT it was based off - simply as the engineer replacement method doesn't allow for a solid front Glacis like most tanks have.
Thus you need to have sealable removable armor plate there.



You need to view the battlefield holistically - it isn't just a paper beats rock, that beats scissors, as there are a lot of hands throwing different things.

For a Heavy Force - you need protection from Indirect Fire, as well as direct fires, mines, and other obstacles, plus the ability to suppress the direct fire systems and enemy infantry.

Any holdings of a Heavy APC - would be a higher than Bde asset I would assume, because I don't see wasting assets to plan for the attachment of Light Forces to a Heavy Brigade would be part of the Heavy Brigade.
At that point you are better off just having more troops in the heavy Bde.

The last mob that looked at any unit holistically came up with this

74 LAV-25
20 LAV-AT
19 LAV-L
10 LAV-M
9 LAV-C2
7 LAV-R
139

I bring your attention to the LAV-L variant (which was also the Bison, the LAV-M, the LAV-C2 and the LAV-R).

LAV-L or LAV-Log or LAV-Logistics is essentially a 2.5 tonne TCV, armoured to the same level as the force it is supporting and with equivalent mobility so it can keep up. If the vehicle is emptied of ammunition, spares, and such if becomes a Bison APC.

In other words the LAV-Log, just like the Deuce and a Half TCV can do double duty in the battalion as a troop carrier and as a supply vehicle.

The Russians are having great difficulty because their lines of communications are vulnerable. Their vehicles are soft.

The closer they get to the front lines the harder their supply vehicles need to be. Those same vehicles could be used to move troops and supplies.


I'm suggesting that if you are going to create a Heavy Force then create a Heavy Force and follow the USMC philosophy of making all elements of the Force capable of operating in identical environments. With that as a given then an additional Heavy APC subunit at Brigade for moving supplies and troops forwards, and casualties to the rear, under fire, to my mind seems a reasonable allocation of resources.

As to that "acreage" on top - fine, put weapons and sensors on top if you like. Put an air defence battery on top if you like - just so long as it doesn't impact the number of troops that can be carried inside, it doesn't take up any internal volume, add any weight or make the vehicle top heavy and more inclined to roll.

 

[KevinB]

I agree on whole heartedly on the identical force structures.

Using a Leo 2 Heavy Bde
Leo 2A6/7 MBT
CV90 MkIV IFV
Kodiak CEV (Leo2 body Combat Engineering Vehicle)
Biber bridge-laying tank (Leo2 Body)
Keiler Mine Clearing Vehicle (Leo 2 Body)
CV90 120 Mortar Carrier
CV90 Ambulance
CV90 APC
CV90 Recovery Vehicle
CV90 CP
CV90 Logistics Vehicle
CV90 LR ATGM vehicle
Büffel 3 Armored Recovery Vehicle (Leo 2 body)
PzH 2000 SPA (Leo 2 chasis)

I have not seen a dedicated CV90 MkIV Air Defense system - but I am sure one could get both missile and gun versions, and you wouldn't really have any Bde Gaps - beyond the Heavy Tactical Truck - which I am still partial to the HEMTT A4.
2 main types of A vehicles, and one heavy (and somewhat armored) Logistical vehicle - which would reduce the different types of spares and allow ones supply and maintainers to have a lot of familiarity.

 

[FJAG]

You need some CV90 OPV and a CV90 CP/FSCC if not already included with your other CPs.

 

[Kirkhill]

You need some CV90 OPV and a CV90 CP/FSCC if not already included with your other CPs.

You're reliable.....

 

[KevinB]

You need some CV90 OPV and a CV90 CP/FSCC if not already included with your other CPs.

I actually would suggest a Leo 2 OPV as well.
It’s robust enough the FOO doesn’t have to sit back if attached to the Armored.
I don’t care if it’s not using the 120mm 99% of the time.

I have not seen any of the CV90 MkIV CP’s, but I’d assume they could do FSCC work, I mean we used to do it in the back of an Iltis with trailer…

 

[FJAG]

I actually would suggest a Leo 2 OPV as well.
It’s robust enough the FOO doesn’t have to sit back if attached to the Armored.
I don’t care if it’s not using the 120mm 99% of the time.

I have not seen any of the CV90 MkIV CP’s, but I’d assume they could do FSCC work, I mean we used to do it in the back of an Iltis with trailer…

There is a CV90 OPV in use in the Netherlands. I don't think that it's as sophisticated as our LAV OPV but don't know for sure.

I did one Black Bear battle run as a FOO in a Leo 1 and one in a Marder. The rest were all in the M113. Black Bear is fun but not very challenging from a gunner's point of view (It ain't no BATUS). I found both the Leo and the Marder hard to work out of because of the turret configuration and how hard it was to work with your tech and sig. FOOing is a team sport. If I remember in WW2 we used some Shermans with the guns removed and replaced by a wooden dummy leaving the turret mostly empty.

Our FOO parties had gone to six people in Afghanistan which includes a FOO/FAC, an OP Det comd/FAC sgt, two technicians/LAV gunners and two driver signallers. This facilitates doing simultaneous fire missions and combat air controls as well as dismounted operations with a vehicle anchor.

That size of crew rules out the Leo. I really can't see reducing the crew below five and the driver on mounted operations really can't perform any function other than driving. My guess though is that if it can be done from a LAV it can be done from a CV90 just as well assuming it gets the same equipment the LAV OPV now has.

One other thing is that we rarely have a tank squadron without LAVs while we frequently have infantry companies without tanks. A FOO in a tank would be limited in being moved around to anything other than a tank squadron and would somewhat stand out in a rifle company with no other tanks around him.

 

[KevinB]

@FJAG I was thinking of CV90 for Inf based FOO teams and Leo for Tank based.
Just to help blend in.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Swedes have CV9040s for their FOOs.

Swedish Pansar Battalion

Setting aside the Command and Staff -

4x CV9040 - Recce Platoon = 4
2x 4x CV90120 - Mjolnir Mortar Platoons = 8
4x CV9040 - Air Defence Platoon (Radar Directed) = 4
3x CV90 + 1x AVLB - Pioneer Platoon = 3+1

Tank Companies

2x 11x Leo2 = 22
2x 1x ARV = 2
2x 3x Bv410 - Log/Amb = 6
2x 1x CV9040 - MRT = 2
2x 1x CV9040 - FOO = 2
2x 1x CV9040 - CP = 2

IFV Companies

2x 9x CV9040 - IFV = 18
2x 1x CV90 - MRV = 2
2x 3x Bv410 - Log/Amb = 6
2x 1x CV9040 - MRT = 2
2x 1x CV9040 - FOO = 2
2x 3x CV9040 - CP= 6
2x 3x19x Ground Combat Infantry = 114

Another way to look at it? The Combined Arms Battalion includes one Light Infantry Company dispersed.

 

[Kirkhill]

And the Ukrainians have their hands on the French Caesar. Crew of 9.
Good going over dry fields.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uxf63g

 

[daftandbarmy]

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee. Those ain't heavy! Now the Namer is HEAVY!

It's important to note that the Israeli's key goal is to avoid heavy casualties to 18 year old conscripts, or the government will fall.

The Merkava is another example of protection being emphasized over everything else.

I'm not sure if we'd be in the same head space though.

 

[markppcli]

Given our inability to keep troops in the Artillery trade, can’t imagine why Shilo isn’t appealing to our young increasingly urban recruits but I digress, I think Archer or Caesar is the obvious solution.

 

[FJAG]

Swedish Pansar Battalion

Thanks for the video. I watched the Canadian one as well. That one was interesting for how much the three regiments seem to organize things based on unit SOPs or quiffs.

The Swedish one actually interested me quite a bit and almost has me at the point where maybe my view that the three (heavy, medium, light) battalions' should fundamentally have the same dismounted organization TTPs etc.

I do favour the combined arms battalion concept and the Swede's have a lighter, more flexible organization than that found in the ABCT. (Incidentally I see very little purpose in the "regimental" structure other than as a base and training structure that remains in situ after the battalions are assigned to one or the other of the two brigades. I can think of about a dozen better ways of doing that.

It made me think that with roughly 22 tanks and roughly 30-35 IFVs per battalion we could reorganize 1 CMBG to consist of three Swedish style combined arms battalions and have gear left over to give to the reserves .

I'm ambivalent as to whether or not our tankless mechanized battalions should also change to a lighter structure that puts more emphasis on fighting the vehicle rather than the dismounted battle. Cutting 2 and 5 CMBG's 12 x LAV companies to11 LAVs each could generate enough extra LAVs to mechanize the two remaining light battalions' six companies.

It feels a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - but maybe with a purpose. But then there's the Russian BTGs.

 

[KevinB]

When did Sweden last fight a war…
I like the concept of the Combined Arms Bn, but I think the Brigade Combat Team is honestly the smallest deployable reasonable entity, and combinations should be based on flexibility from that.

 

[FJAG]

When did Sweden last fight a war…
I like the concept of the Combined Arms Bn, but I think the Brigade Combat Team is honestly the smallest deployable reasonable entity, and combinations should be based on flexibility from that.

Agreed. And I really don't think much of the Swede's concept of having their battalions in "Regiments" in peacetime but in "brigade groups" during wartime. It's an unnecessary organizational change in structure.

The real question, though, isn't at the brigade level where the wo structures are very similar. The issue is within the combined arms battalion itself.

The US combined arms battalion used to have four companies (two tank [14 tanks each ] and two mech infantry [14 IFVs each] for a total of 56 fighting vehicles). They dropped that to three companies (two battalions with 2 tank 1 infantry [28 +14 = 42] and 1 battalion with 1 tank and 2 infantry [14 + 28 = 42]) or a total of 70 tanks and 56 IFV (total 126 fighting vehicles) in the brigade. (leaving aside command, recce/cavalry and support elements).

The Swedish combined arms battalion on the other hand has slightly smaller companies ( based on three vehicles rather than four per platoon) but more companies (four vice three). (three battalions with 2 tank 2 infantry each [22 + 22 = 44] or 66 tanks and 66 IFV (total 132 fighting vehicles) in the brigade.

Long story short, a Swedish combined arms battalion commander commands slightly more fighting vehicles (11 x 4 = 44) (For a total of 12 manoeuvre companies per brigade) than an American one (14 x 3 = 42) (For a total of 9 manoeuvre companies per brigade)

So the question is which is preferable? An American battalion/brigade that has more flexibility within the company level by having more vehicles, and therefore stronger platoons and companies but only 75% of the manoeuvre companies? Or a battalion/brigade that has more flexibility at the battalion/brigade level by having 33% more but smaller manoeuvre companies?

I'm dismissing what's coming out of the Ukraine for the time being. While Russian companies are smaller like the Swedish ones, I think that there are entirely too many other factors at play which influence their failures to allow any conclusion as to the effect that platoon and company size have.

 

[GR66]

I like to dream as much as the next person, but in the absence of any actual plans to acquire tracked IFVs, more tanks, re-establish a Brigade (or pre-positioned equipment for one) in Europe, equip the Reserves with combat vehicles or fundamentally restructure the way the Reserves are trained and organized, we need to look at what instead is possible with what we do have.

We have the elements required for a Heavy(ish) Brigade with a Tank Regiment and two LAV Battalions. We also have the light Battalions which could be grouped together in a Light Infantry Brigade as a quicker to deploy option to the Heavy Brigade.

Realistically the only time I can see Canada deploying anything as large as a full Brigade Group would be in a peer/near-peer fight against a handful of opponents (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.). No other threats are likely important enough politically to Canada to justify a military deployment so large.

Since a Medium Brigade (i.e. LAVs without tanks) would be of limited use in a peer fight then do we need a full Medium Brigade Group? Could we instead perhaps have three Medium Battle Groups (say 2 x LAV Companies and 1 x Armoured Recce Squadron each) for Peacekeeping/Stability operations?

With 6 x LAV Companies in the Heavy Brigade and 6 x LAV Companies in the Stability Ops Battle Groups (plus the 9 x Light Infantry Companies in the Light Brigade) that would leave 6 x Companies worth of Reg Force infantry available to build a framework around which you could plan Reserve Force mobilization.

With the lack of dedicated heavy equipment available for the Reserves and the difficulty for the Reserve to train to operate and maintain that equipment, it would make sense to me that any mobilization plan would be based on Light Infantry.

With the above structure we would have 3 x Reg Force Light Infantry Battalions plus 6 x additional Reg Force Infantry Companies. We also have the Artillery, Engineers and Service Battalions for three Reg Force Brigades.

On mobilization each Brigade could have 1 x Reg Force Light Infantry Battalion and 2 x Hybrid Light Infantry Battalions each with 1 x Reg Force Company and 2 x Reserve Companies. If we use the existing STAR system of having each Reserve unit generate a single Platoon then we'd need 36 x Reserve Infantry units to fill out the Hybrid Companies. We currently have 51 x Reserve Infantry Units. The 15 x additional Infantry units plus the Reserve Armoured units (Recce Platoons), Signal Regiments (Sig Platoons) and CER Regiments (Pioneer Platoons) could be used to fill out the CS Companies for the Hybrid Battalions. The 19 x Reserve Artillery Regiments and 10 x Reserve Service Battalions should be enough (along with Reg Force units) to fill out a Divisional Artillery and a Sustainment Brigade.

This would give us the capability to force generate a full Light Infantry Division if force expansion were required.

 

[Infanteer]

Since a Medium Brigade (i.e. LAVs without tanks) would be of limited use in a peer fight then do we need a full Medium Brigade Group? Could we instead perhaps have three Medium Battle Groups (say 2 x LAV Companies and 1 x Armoured Recce Squadron each) for Peacekeeping/Stability operations?

(1) What does a Armd Recce Sqn give you that a Infantry Company doesn't? How is an Armd Recce Sqn, with fewer people, more suitable for peacekeeping/stability operations?

(2) How is "three medium battle groups" not a "Medium Brigade?"