Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[ArmyRick]

Best thing about it is this: the best ISTAR asset the light battalions have right now is the DFS platoon (which have been inviting over a lot of Aussie and British DFS instructors to observe the courseware and doctrine in Gagetown).

Ohhh. Tell us more. You have peaked my curiousity.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or look at what other countries add to capabilities to their Recce/Cav elements.

If you are relying on hundreds of horse power to haul your gear rather than 1/3 of a horse (a man) you can afford to haul a bunch of Gucci kit. So long as you aren't toting tonnes of steel plate along with you.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Realistically, could TAPV's with retrofitted weapon systems (the RS6 for example) provide the basis of mixed vehicle medium CAV troops (1x LRSS, 3x TAPV with assortment of scout teams, tank hunter teams, and varied RWS mounts) even as a stop gap for the next decade? Or are they complete duds.

 

[Kirkhill]

Realistically, could TAPV's with retrofitted weapon systems (the RS6 for example) provide the basis of mixed vehicle medium CAV troops (1x LRSS, 3x TAPV with assortment of scout teams, tank hunter teams, and varied RWS mounts) even as a stop gap for the next decade? Or are they complete duds.

What is its tendency to Turtle?

I don't like the TAPV.

 

[KevinB]

Realistically, could TAPV's with retrofitted weapon systems (the RS6 for example) provide the basis of mixed vehicle medium CAV troops (1x LRSS, 3x TAPV with assortment of scout teams, tank hunter teams, and varied RWS mounts) even as a stop gap for the next decade? Or are they complete duds.

IMHO they belong in the Service BN’s to provide security for convoys - or the Bde HQ’s for local security.

If you are relying on hundreds of horse power to haul your gear rather than 1/3 of a horse (a man) you can afford to haul a bunch of Gucci kit. So long as you aren't toting tonnes of steel plate along with you.

I’m a fan of Armor in the Armoured Reconnaissance role. For Armored formations it only makes sense to me.

I’m of the opinion that the Medium Force is a constabulary force, at best.

So for Canada that would 1 ABCT type Brigade of 70/30 and 1 of 30/70 (ideally 2 of the 30/70 but…), however there are only enough tanks to barely make 1.

I will continue my broken record that I think the Tanks need a tracked IFV with them (and tracked Engineer, Arty etc).

As well I think true ISTAR is beyond Div level, so it would be nice to consider the ISR aspect to the Recce Squadron (and the subsequent follow one from that - MI, HUMINT
Basically follow the concept of the Recce Squadron from down here.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I don't like the TAPV.

IMHO they belong in the Service BN’s to provide security for convoys - or the Bde HQ’s for local security.

No one likes the TAPV.

But they're what we have. But 40 gun tanks and 66 LRSS doesn't exactly make for 3 armoured regiments. Wholesale re-assignment and replacement of the TAPV seems... unlikely. So what I'm asking is if (with some tweaking) could they be used to make operational sub-units that fall in line with the concepts in the above articles, or is the RCAC going to be 2 squadrons of tanks and 2.3 regiments of placeholders for the foreseeable future?

 

[KevinB]

No one likes the TAPV.

But they're what we have. But 40 gun tanks and 66 LRSS doesn't exactly make for 3 armoured regiments. Wholesale re-assignment and replacement of the TAPV seems... unlikely.

So maybe scrap a Reg’t or 2…

So what I'm asking is if (with some tweaking) could they be used to make operational sub-units that fall in line with the concepts in the above articles, or is the RCAC going to be 2 squadrons of tanks and 2.3 regiments of placeholders for the foreseeable future?

IMHO the CF should split the Armoured Trade to hard Armour and hard Scout trades.

That doesn’t fix the TAPV issue, but it may make the Scout/Recce role get a lot more thought to doctrine and subsequently equipment.

One doesn’t need all LRSS variants in a Cav Squadron, some Infantry variant versions could be used, as well as then looking at an ATGM version and other more relevant variants (120mm Mortar carrier anyone?).

The TAPV is the poster child for when one buys into niche COIN vehicles for a small Conventional Army, the quickly the CA acknowledges it’s a turd and flushes it, the better.

 

[Kirkhill]

No one likes the TAPV.

Right

But they're what we have.

Again right

But 40 gun tanks and 66 LRSS doesn't exactly make for 3 armoured regiments.

And again

Wholesale re-assignment and replacement of the TAPV seems... unlikely.

Read between the lines of the RCAC presentations in the CAJ 19.3 referenced above and I think you could consider a different conclusion.

So what I'm asking is if (with some tweaking) could they be used to make operational sub-units that fall in line with the concepts in the above articles, or is the RCAC going to be 2 squadrons of tanks and 2.3 regiments of placeholders for the foreseeable future?

As long as the operational units only plan to operate on paved roads below 80 km/h, moving from OP to OP.

IMHO they belong in the Service BN’s to provide security for convoys - or the Bde HQ’s for local security.

I'll take your word for it

I’m a fan of Armor in the Armoured Reconnaissance role. For Armored formations it only makes sense to me.

Armour for armoured recce. OK
But does recce, over even cavalry have to be armoured?

I’m of the opinion that the Medium Force is a constabulary force, at best.

And yet the Ukrainians are using lighter vehicles than LAVs in the cavalry role. Successfully.

So for Canada that would 1 ABCT type Brigade of 70/30 and 1 of 30/70 (ideally 2 of the 30/70 but…), however there are only enough tanks to barely make 1.
I will continue my broken record that I think the Tanks need a tracked IFV with them (and tracked Engineer, Arty etc).

Yeah, yeah. And I skrawk back... How do you get them there?
See Major Keess in CAJ 19.3 - Freed by Limits.

As well I think true ISTAR is beyond Div level, so it would be nice to consider the ISR aspect to the Recce Squadron (and the subsequent follow one from that - MI, HUMINT

And a True Scotsman responds.
Everybody needs Situational Awareness - especially true in a dispersed battlefield - ISTAR is nothing but SA.

Basically follow the concept of the Recce Squadron from down here.

You really want a Canadian Auxilliary for the US Army, doncha? You that short of bodies down there?

Again, referencing CAJ 19.3 (many thanks @FJAG ) Colonel Hunt's suggestion, in his "Defining Cavalry", is that as usual, given three choices you only get to achieve 2 out of 3. Usually the choices are fast, cheap and good. In his case the choices are firepower, protection, mobility. He suggests, and I agree with him, that the key elements for a mounted force are mobility and firepower.

I'll go one step further, the key element for any mobile force is how many horses can you bring into the field? Or more exactly, how much horsepower is available to move you people and kit?

Another reference list.

		HP
Man		0.35​
Horse		1​
VTUAS	VBAT 128	13​
Motorcycle	KLR 650	36​
Argo 8x8	Conquest Pro 950	40​
Argo 4x4	Sherp	44​
VTUAS	Skeldar V200	55​
Jeep	Iltis	74​
Polaris Quad	MV850	78​
Snowmobile	Polaris S4	100​
LSVW	Iveco	115​
Polaris UTV	MRZR Alpha	118​
MOSV	Bv206	132​
MLVW	Bombardier	165​
ISV	GM Defense	186​
APC	M113A1	215​
APC	M113A3	275​
LAV	Cougar	275​
LAV	Coyote	275​
MOSV	Beowulf	285​
LUV	GWagon	296​
MSVS-MILCOTS	Navistar 7000	300​
LUH	Jet Ranger	317​
JLTV	Oshkosh	340​
LAV	LAV III	350​
TAPV	Oshkosh	365​
LUV	Milverado	365​
VTUAS	Firescout MQ8B	420​
LAV	LAV 6.0	450​
MSVS-SMP	Mack Renault	460​
IFV	CV90	550​
IFV	Bradley	600​
LAV	LAV 700	711​
DFSV	Centauro 2	720​
DFSV	MPF	1000​
UTTH	Griffon	1250​
MBT	Leopard	1479​
MBT	Abrams	1500​
UTTH	Venom	3600​
UTTH	Blackhawk	3780​
MLH	Cyclone	6000​
MLH	Cormorant	6300​
MHLH	Chinook	9554​
VTOL	Osprey	12300​
HH	Stallion	13140​

 

[daftandbarmy]

IMHO they belong in the Service BN’s to provide security for convoys - or the Bde HQ’s for local security.





I’m a fan of Armor in the Armoured Reconnaissance role. For Armored formations it only makes sense to me.

I’m of the opinion that the Medium Force is a constabulary force, at best.

So for Canada that would 1 ABCT type Brigade of 70/30 and 1 of 30/70 (ideally 2 of the 30/70 but…), however there are only enough tanks to barely make 1.

I will continue my broken record that I think the Tanks need a tracked IFV with them (and tracked Engineer, Arty etc).

As well I think true ISTAR is beyond Div level, so it would be nice to consider the ISR aspect to the Recce Squadron (and the subsequent follow one from that - MI, HUMINT
Basically follow the concept of the Recce Squadron from down here.

Only if your reservist component is fully Class C... just sayin'

 

[FJAG]

IMHO the CF should split the Armoured Trade to hard Armour and hard Scout trades.

Fully agree. The artillery is finding the same dilemma in that amongst some 2,000 troops you need to run a gun branch, an STA branch and pretty soon an AD branch again. It makes it tricky to run careers especially when they get to the MWO / major rank.

Neither the RCA nor the RCAC seem to be giving serious consideration in splitting the heavy wartime trades off primarily to the reserves. It's not a panacea but it would help.

I guess realistically though, if the RegF were to download a serious capability to the reserves to handle, rather than setting the conditions for success, it would merely be the first step to total divestiture of that capability. Even Total Force units seem to get the Deathwatch Beetles taping (4 Air Defence Regiment - we're talking about you)

 

[IKnowNothing]

Read between the lines of the RCAC presentations in the CAJ 19.3 referenced above and I think you could consider a different conclusion

Wanted and likely (in a timely manner) are very different.

If they could it seems like the RCAC would love to pull the trigger and have a regiment of Leo's, a regiment of Jaguars, and Regiment of JLTV Heavy Guns carriers, all playing from the same book.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fully agree. The artillery is finding the same dilemma in that amongst some 2,000 troops you need to run a gun branch, an STA branch and pretty soon an AD branch again. It makes it tricky to run careers especially when they get to the MWO / major rank.

But as pointed out above in the CAJ articles the RCAC is too small. And frankly its name hamstrings it as well. ARMOURED is as defined by its platform as the Machine Gun Corps was. And it is of the same vintage.

Neither the RCA nor the RCAC seem to be giving serious consideration in splitting the heavy wartime trades off primarily to the reserves. It's not a panacea but it would help.

I guess realistically though, if the RegF were to download a serious capability to the reserves to handle, rather than setting the conditions for success, it would merely be the first step to total divestiture of that capability. Even Total Force units seem to get the Deathwatch Beetles taping (4 Air Defence Regiment - we're talking about you)

So here's another thought - Convert the RCAC to tracks entirely - and give it its own guns and dragoons (panzer grenadiers). US Heavy Cavalry Regiment ca 1980.

At the same time convert the Infantry to Mounted Rifles and put all the vehicles into the Support Company. The Rifle Coys are foot mobile and platform independent - they use what they can hump and each coy has its own humpable support platoon. Brigade gets a UTTH Squadron to improve cross country mobility.

Meanwhile the Artillery takes on GS Roles and AD Roles.

EW and STA merge with Int.

And everybody gets drones...

 

[Kirkhill]

@FJAG

Re the Deathwatch Beetles.

What happened to the Shermans?

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukrainians are asking for more Bushmasters as well as Hawkeis

30 Bushmasters equals a Ukrainian Battalion apparently. They are being employed as expedient IFVs for want of anything better.

Ukraine calls for more Bushmasters, Hawkeis as war with Russia rages on​

ABC Central Victoria
/ By Tyrone Dalton
Posted 15h ago15 hours ago

Ukraine is asking for more Bushmasters.(Supplied: Department of Defence)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article
abc.net.au/news/ukranian-ambassador-calls-for-more-bushmasters/101442472
COPY LINKSHARE
The Ukrainian ambassador to Australia says his country's forces are getting creative in how they use Australian-made Bushmasters as its Bendigo-based manufacturer, Thales, says it is working hard to secure export orders for both Bushmaster and Hawkei protected vehicles.

Key points:​

• Ukrainian ambassador Vasyl Myroshnychenko is asking for 30 more Bushmasters
• Ukraine says it can road test the Hawkei, a lighter armoured vehicle, during combat
• The request for Hawkeis follows the conclusion of a contract to build them in Bendigo

Vasyl Myroshnychenko has made representations to Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles requesting another 30 Bushmaster vehicles to bring the total to 90, 200 days after the war started between Ukraine and Russia.
"Ninety would be three different battalions, in battalions of 30," he told ABC Victoria's Statewide Drive presenter Nicole Chvastek.
Since 2007, the Australian arm of French defence contractor Thales has secured exports of more than 200 Bushmaster vehicles.
"The Bushmaster is currently in service with eight countries including Australia, the Netherlands, Fiji, Japan, Jamaica, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and Ukraine," a spokesperson said.
But the defence contractor is nearing the completion of its New Zealand contract, which is scheduled to be met by the end of this year.

Vasyl Myroshnychenko toured the factory at Bendigo where Thales makes the Bushmaster and Hawkei vehicles.(ABC Central Victoria: Sarah Lawrence)

Waiting for more​

Since April this year, Australia has delivered 40 of the 60 Bushmasters requested by Ukraine.
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
LISTEN
Duration: 6 minutes 36 seconds6m

Hundreds of Hawkeis are sitting out the front of Thales — why?
Speaking to ABC Statewide Drive on Monday, Mr Myroshnychenko said Ukraine's armed forces were using the Bushmaster to drive back Russian forces from the Kharkiv region in north-eastern Ukraine.
"A lot of them are actually being used almost as infantry fighting vehicles – though they are not that – because we don't have anything else," he said.
Mr Myroshnychenko said Ukraine and its allies had to ensure a steady supply of weapons and ammunition.
"The only way how we can achieve peace is actually when we get rid of the Russians in Ukraine and then come to some sort of arrangement," he said.

The Hawkei armoured vehicles are set to replace the ADF's Land Rovers.(Supplied: Department of Defence)

Shift to lighter vehicles?​

The ambassador is also asking for 30 Hawkeis, also made by Thales, weeks after 29 jobs were cut at the Bendigo factory after a contract to build more than 1,000 of the vehicles ended.
The Hawkei is a light, armoured four-wheel drive weighing in at seven tonnes.
The Bushmaster weighs 12.5 tonnes.
The Hawkeis are in testing mode and can often be seen on the streets of Bendigo, but Mr Myroshnychenko says he would like to see how they perform in the field.
"I believe it will really test them in Ukraine, provide valuable feedback and just make them better so that they can serve the Australian Defence Forces much more efficiently," Mr Myroshnychenko said.
The Australian government is spending $1.3 billion on 1,100 Hawkeis from Thales to replace the army's Land Rovers, but the rollout has been delayed because of brake issues.
The future of the Bushmaster, meanwhile, could be secured after the Australian Army unveiled its prototype of an electric variant in Adelaide last month.
Thales says the final Hawkei will come off the production line in June this year.

Ukraine calls for 30 more Bushmasters, offers to pressure-test new Hawkeis

Ukraine's ambassador to Australia says troops are getting creative in the way they're using Bendigo-made Bushmasters in the war with Russia.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Kirkhill]

The Germans are contributing 50 Dingos to the cause - 8 to 12 Tonners

Bundeswehr liefert 50 gepanzerte Dingo-Fahrzeuge und zwei Raketenwerfer an die Ukraine

Zuletzt hatte sich auf Deutschland der Druck erhöht, weitere Waffen in die Ukraine zu schicken. Nun soll ein weiteres Paket mit Waffen geschnürt werden.

www.businessinsider.de

 

[KevinB]

Ukrainians are asking for more Bushmasters as well as Hawkeis

30 Bushmasters equals a Ukrainian Battalion apparently. They are being employed as expedient IFVs for want of anything better.

Ukraine calls for more Bushmasters, Hawkeis as war with Russia rages on​

ABC Central Victoria
/ By Tyrone Dalton
Posted 15h ago15 hours ago

Ukraine is asking for more Bushmasters.(Supplied: Department of Defence)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article
abc.net.au/news/ukranian-ambassador-calls-for-more-bushmasters/101442472
COPY LINKSHARE
The Ukrainian ambassador to Australia says his country's forces are getting creative in how they use Australian-made Bushmasters as its Bendigo-based manufacturer, Thales, says it is working hard to secure export orders for both Bushmaster and Hawkei protected vehicles.

Key points:​

• Ukrainian ambassador Vasyl Myroshnychenko is asking for 30 more Bushmasters
• Ukraine says it can road test the Hawkei, a lighter armoured vehicle, during combat
• The request for Hawkeis follows the conclusion of a contract to build them in Bendigo

Vasyl Myroshnychenko has made representations to Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles requesting another 30 Bushmaster vehicles to bring the total to 90, 200 days after the war started between Ukraine and Russia.
"Ninety would be three different battalions, in battalions of 30," he told ABC Victoria's Statewide Drive presenter Nicole Chvastek.
Since 2007, the Australian arm of French defence contractor Thales has secured exports of more than 200 Bushmaster vehicles.
"The Bushmaster is currently in service with eight countries including Australia, the Netherlands, Fiji, Japan, Jamaica, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and Ukraine," a spokesperson said.
But the defence contractor is nearing the completion of its New Zealand contract, which is scheduled to be met by the end of this year.

Vasyl Myroshnychenko toured the factory at Bendigo where Thales makes the Bushmaster and Hawkei vehicles.(ABC Central Victoria: Sarah Lawrence)

Waiting for more​

Since April this year, Australia has delivered 40 of the 60 Bushmasters requested by Ukraine.
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
LISTEN
Duration: 6 minutes 36 seconds6m

Hundreds of Hawkeis are sitting out the front of Thales — why?
Speaking to ABC Statewide Drive on Monday, Mr Myroshnychenko said Ukraine's armed forces were using the Bushmaster to drive back Russian forces from the Kharkiv region in north-eastern Ukraine.
"A lot of them are actually being used almost as infantry fighting vehicles – though they are not that – because we don't have anything else," he said.
Mr Myroshnychenko said Ukraine and its allies had to ensure a steady supply of weapons and ammunition.
"The only way how we can achieve peace is actually when we get rid of the Russians in Ukraine and then come to some sort of arrangement," he said.

The Hawkei armoured vehicles are set to replace the ADF's Land Rovers.(Supplied: Department of Defence)

Shift to lighter vehicles?​

The ambassador is also asking for 30 Hawkeis, also made by Thales, weeks after 29 jobs were cut at the Bendigo factory after a contract to build more than 1,000 of the vehicles ended.
The Hawkei is a light, armoured four-wheel drive weighing in at seven tonnes.
The Bushmaster weighs 12.5 tonnes.
The Hawkeis are in testing mode and can often be seen on the streets of Bendigo, but Mr Myroshnychenko says he would like to see how they perform in the field.
"I believe it will really test them in Ukraine, provide valuable feedback and just make them better so that they can serve the Australian Defence Forces much more efficiently," Mr Myroshnychenko said.
The Australian government is spending $1.3 billion on 1,100 Hawkeis from Thales to replace the army's Land Rovers, but the rollout has been delayed because of brake issues.
The future of the Bushmaster, meanwhile, could be secured after the Australian Army unveiled its prototype of an electric variant in Adelaide last month.
Thales says the final Hawkei will come off the production line in June this year.

Ukraine calls for 30 more Bushmasters, offers to pressure-test new Hawkeis

Ukraine's ambassador to Australia says troops are getting creative in the way they're using Bendigo-made Bushmasters in the war with Russia.

www.abc.net.au

Keep in mind training is a big issue for Ukraine at this point.
A LAV or Bradley would be vastly preferred if they had time to train up crews

Canada has time and space to setup whatever force they want.
I would posit that a Light Bde of Regulars (or mostly reg) as an IRU and a Heavy Bde as mostly PRes would fill 90% of Canada’s Global Expedition needs, and two Bde of Medium Constabulary forces would round it out.

 

[FJAG]

But as pointed out above in the CAJ articles the RCAC is too small.

I don't think it's much smaller than the artillery but size is an issue as long as you insist everyone gets a meaningful career up to and including CWO and LCol. This is one reason (but certainly not the most important reason) I tend to favour the 70/30 // 30/70 concept. It allows for more full-time leadership with a large part-time bulk to create more and larger units to expand into. It also creates more posting stability if you allow it to.

The problem is that if you amend your training and career streams to cater to a small force problem at the expense of tactical/doctrinal common sense then what are you really accomplishing in the way of a viable defence outputs. We were there before in the pretend combat teams we had with Cougar and Grizzley. It was fun to have them but we all knew they were a joke.

And frankly its name hamstrings it as well. ARMOURED is as defined by its platform as the Machine Gun Corps was. And it is of the same vintage.

"Armoured" is no worse than "cavalry". It would make sense though to call one version a tank regiment and the other ... well whatever. I have always liked the German term "Aufklärer Batallion". It translates as "reconnaissance battalion" but "Aufklärer" carries a stronger connotation in the manner of "clearing an area" and can easily encompass the concept of fighting for information as well as sneak and peak work.

Cavalry works for me because it is more "vague" than "reconnaissance" and you can add tasks beyond the basic scouting function without doing an injustice to the term.

So here's another thought - Convert the RCAC to tracks entirely - and give it its own guns and dragoons (panzer grenadiers). US Heavy Cavalry Regiment ca 1980.

I've bought into the idea that cavalry needs vehicle crews, dismounts, and direct and indirect fire support as organic elements. Whether they are tracked or not is more a function of whether they work with a heavy tracked brigade or a wheeled light or medium brigade. Their functions and weapon systems should generally be the same but the mobility chassis should match the supported formation.

At the same time convert the Infantry to Mounted Rifles and put all the vehicles into the Support Company. The Rifle Coys are foot mobile and platform independent - they use what they can hump and each coy has its own humpable support platoon. Brigade gets a UTTH Squadron to improve cross country mobility.

Again, I see a distinct between infantry operating in a combined arms scenario with tanks where dismounting is incidental and infantry in a light or medium role where dismounting is primary. The former need organic dedicated vehicles to team with full-time, the others (especially light infantry) can get by with generic pooled transport.

Meanwhile the Artillery takes on GS Roles and AD Roles.

Watch out. Your throwing out babies with bathwater here. The fact that battalions have organic mortars and even UCAVs doesn't mean the brigade doesn't need artillery. Centrally controlled CS matters. It matters a lot.

EW and STA merge with Int.

Not an ISTAR fan. Yes, we need to break down int silos but - for CB, a direct and fast responding STA sensor to shooter link is vital. I see nothing wrong with STA acquisition and shooting data being fed into an ISTAR system. I do see problems every time some additional headquarters gets involved in authorizing an Act response. It's even worse for AD where Sense and Act are matters of split seconds.

And everybody gets drones...

Yup.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think it's much smaller than the artillery but size is an issue as long as you insist everyone gets a meaningful career up to and including CWO and LCol. This is one reason (but certainly not the most important reason) I tend to favour the 70/30 // 30/70 concept. It allows for more full-time leadership with a large part-time bulk to create more and larger units to expand into. It also creates more posting stability if you allow it to.

The problem is that if you amend your training and career streams to cater to a small force problem at the expense of tactical/doctrinal common sense then what are you really accomplishing in the way of a viable defence outputs. We were there before in the pretend combat teams we had with Cougar and Grizzley. It was fun to have them but we all knew they were a joke.


"Armoured" is no worse than "cavalry". It would make sense though to call one version a tank regiment and the other ... well whatever. I have always liked the German term "Aufklärer Batallion". It translates as "reconnaissance battalion" but "Aufklärer" carries a stronger connotation in the manner of "clearing an area" and can easily encompass the concept of fighting for information as well as sneak and peak work.

Cavalry works for me because it is more "vague" than "reconnaissance" and you can add tasks beyond the basic scouting function without doing an injustice to the term.


I've bought into the idea that cavalry needs vehicle crews, dismounts, and direct and indirect fire support as organic elements. Whether they are tracked or not is more a function of whether they work with a heavy tracked brigade or a wheeled light or medium brigade. Their functions and weapon systems should generally be the same but the mobility chassis should match the supported formation.


Again, I see a distinct between infantry operating in a combined arms scenario with tanks where dismounting is incidental and infantry in a light or medium role where dismounting is primary. The former need organic dedicated vehicles to team with full-time, the others (especially light infantry) can get by with generic pooled transport.


Watch out. Your throwing out babies with bathwater here. The fact that battalions have organic mortars and even UCAVs doesn't mean the brigade doesn't need artillery. Centrally controlled CS matters. It matters a lot.

Not an ISTAR fan. Yes, we need to break down int silos but - for CB, a direct and fast responding STA sensor to shooter link is vital. I see nothing wrong with STA acquisition and shooting data being fed into an ISTAR system. I do see problems every time some additional headquarters gets involved in authorizing an Act response. It's even worse for AD where Sense and Act are matters of split seconds.

Yup.

Frankly I don't really care which cap badge gets allocated what function.

I am starting from the premise that the Regular Force - the number of bodies the government should be able to count on as being able to generate a useful force at a moments notice - consists of, approximately,

4500 in the RCIC
1500 in the RCAC
1500 in the RRCA

Plus some indeterminate numbers of engineers, truckdrivers, medics and chaplains.

I would be fine if the chaplains were tasked with Intelligence.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I've bought into the idea that cavalry needs vehicle crews, dismounts, and direct and indirect fire support as organic elements. Whether they are tracked or not is more a function of whether they work with a heavy tracked brigade or a wheeled light or medium brigade. Their functions and weapon systems should generally be the same but the mobility chassis should match the supported formation.

This sounds like a call to lift and modernize the TO&E for an 80's/90's US Armored Cavalry Troop (9x Tank, 13x CFV, 2x Mortar Carrier) and install it on our Squadrons- same structure, various weights.

Edit- with current equipment
Heavy
3x Leo+ LRSS Troops (Javelin added to turret)
1x 14x Pres Tank Coy
=41 gun tanks, 66 LRSS
Medium
3x TAPV + TAPV troops ("gun" TAPV's get RS6 30mm with javelin, scout unmodified
Light
G-Wagons?

 

[daftandbarmy]

This sounds like a call to lift and modernize the TO&E for an 80's/90's US Armored Cavalry Troop (9x Tank, 13x CFV, 2x Mortar Carrier) and install it on our Squadrons- same structure, various weights.

Huzzah!