- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
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.
Maybe the Russian BTG is a demonstration of how not to do things.
First the Russian BTG doesn't just organize the Close Combat elements. It also distributes the Fire Support elements to the BTG. The Russians can compensate for that with their Arty Brigades so that isn't as much of a hindrance as it might be for us. We're probably better concentrating the Artillery and Engineers at the Brigade and Division levels.
Second the Russian employment of the BTG: there seemed to be little evidence of co-ordination in thie war. From the beginning the emphasis seemed to be to disperse the BTGs, and even their Companies, as broadly as possible.
Armies were assigned sectors. Brigades sent in their BTGs along the width of that sector. BTGs progressed as far and fast as they could until they ran out of gas or they hit resistance. If they hit resistance then they held with the engaged company and sent the other companies out looking for parallel routes to employ. They created a front, metaphorically, a mile wide and an inch deep. They lacked focus and concentration of forces. They were not economical in their effort. There was no mutual support across BTGs, Brigades or Armies or even across the entire invasion force. And they struggled with administration.
Although they got their offensive action the only people they surprised were their own (and the rest of the world outside of Ukraine). They may have selected an aim but they failed to let their troops know about it and the force at large couldn't maintain it. As a result they also failed to maintain the morale of their troops.
And there seems to have been a lack of unity in command.
They invited defeat in detail.
So the BTG may be more a case of a fair to middling idea, if implemented within the context of the Brigade Group, executed abysmally in practice.
The Combined Arms Battle Group, I think, has much to commend it.
In the Canadian Context that Swedish Battle Group might be compared to a Square Combat Team
22 Leos vs 20 Leos (including the spare)
24 CV9040s vs 15 LAV 6.0s
114 Rifles vs 105 Rifles (Each LAV holds 10 of which 3 stay with the vehicle leaving 7 dismounts from each of 15 LAVs = 105)
So we are not a mile away from fielding 3 such Teams
We can even find healthy Recce Platoons to add to the Team and make a fair fist of a Pioneer Platoon although we lack the AVLBs
The biggest issues are
the lack of any AD capability, much less a platoon for every Square Combat Team, and
the lack of 8 Self Propelled 120mm Mortars for each Square Combat Team., and
the lack of an AT system for the dismounts.
I you put all of that together then, to replicate the Swedes within our current scheme you would combine the Strathconas and 1 PPCLI at Wainwright.
You would form three Square Combat Teams of one Tank Squadron and one LAV Company with a total of 60 tanks and 45 LAVs and 315 dismounts.
You would form a Recce Coy of 3 Platoons, for each Combat Team.
You would form an Armd Engineer Squadron with 9 AEVs and 3 AVLBs
You would form an RRCA SHORAD Battery with 12 MSHORADs
You would form an RRCA Battery with 24 Self Propelled Mortars (I prefer the AMOS to the Mjolnir) and 12 FOOs.
That would create a deployable Heavyish Medium Force that would need a separate SPH Regiment or 24 guns in support and a MRAD battery, with an additional Force Recce/ISR element (large Sqn or a Bn), a Brigade level Armd Engineer Squadron with AEVs and Bridging Gear.
Then start piling on the logistics support , the meds and the sigs.
The one area the Swedes are deficient is in Medium to Long Range ATGMs. Bolting on some Javelins to the LAVs would solve that. Adding some LAMs to the inventory would also be useful.
And now you have, within our means, if not our grasp, one deployable heavy brigade.
And the RCAC has 2 full time regiments left.
The RCIC has 7 full time battalion HQs left
The RRCA has 3 full time regiments with 9 batteries left
The RCE has 3 full time regiments left.
Plus access to the Primary Reserve System
And an insufficiency of transport, logistics, meds and sigs.
Edit: In this context that CCV project looks to have been another own goal. An opportunity missed.
