Informing the Army’s Future Structure
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,833
- Points
- 1,160
I'm not sure where exactly the Norweigians are for forming that brigade. They currently have two combined arms battalions - Panserbataljonen and Telemark Bataljon which have the same orbat. Pansanger Bataljon is actually an armoured recce battalion with a recce squadron and a support squadron (albeit I'm not sure if the recce squadron may not have some tanks and infantry in it too):
Each of the two combined arms battalions in Brigade Nord has one tank squadron (Leo2A4NO), two mechanized infantry (CV90) squadrons, a recce squadron and a svc sp squadron.
Assuming they use a 14 tank squadron then two squadrons would take up 28 tanks leaving 10 spares. They currently have 52 Leo2A4NO with only 36 operational). It makes me think they may be reconfiguring their brigade to add a third combined arms battalion. (Maybe we could pick up some spare A4s?
)
- Reaction score
- 22,023
- Points
- 1,260
They donated some to Ukraine -- so I don't suspect they have any actual spares.I'm not sure where exactly the Norweigians are for forming that brigade. They currently have two combined arms battalions - Panserbataljonen and Telemark Bataljon which have the same orbat. Pansanger Bataljon is actually an armoured recce battalion with a recce squadron and a support squadron (albeit I'm not sure if the recce squadron may not have some tanks and infantry in it too):
Each of the two combined arms battalions in Brigade Nord has one tank squadron (Leo2A4NO), two mechanized infantry (CV90) squadrons, a recce squadron and a svc sp squadron.
Assuming they use a 14 tank squadron then two squadrons would take up 28 tanks leaving 10 spares. They currently have 52 Leo2A4NO with only 36 operational). It makes me think they may be reconfiguring their brigade to add a third combined arms battalion. (Maybe we could pick up some spare A4s?
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,287
- Points
- 1,260
Belgium meanwhile is doing what minor nato partners ought to do, in the same way the Dutch are. Organizing and equipping themselves to be interoperable with a major NATO member. This is why I’m in favour of Kevin’s suggestion we essentially buy a divisions worth of US equipment.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,194
- Points
- 990
Simplest way forward at this point.
The sad thing is that there's an alternate timeline where a serious Canada went ahead with CCV and the originally planned Leo upgrades, leveraged our reputation and standing coming out of Afghanistan, and took the lead as the framework nation in organizing ourselves, the Dutch, Danish, and maybe Norwegians into a standby division with Leo's, CV90's and a common 8x8 RWS APC
- Reaction score
- 8,310
- Points
- 1,160
It seems that the US Army is not ready to ditch the Stryker just yet. Buy a bunch of M10 Bookers to go along with the LAVs and Canada could field another couple of Brigades that would be compatible.
www.prnewswire.com
I also note that a number of the divisions are only 2x BCT division
1st Inf Div
2nd/7th Inf Div
3rd Inf Div
11th Abn Div
25th Inf Div
We could probably also find another 2 light battalions for an IBCT (Abn) such as that found in the 11th Abn Div in Alaska.
Those brigades could be chopped to US Divisions or Allied Divisions, and potentially form a Canadian Division in the field.
Money saved on not buying Abrams and Bradleys could go to arty, aviation, logs and new technologies.
General Dynamics Land Systems receives $712 million order for Stryker DVHA1 vehicles
/PRNewswire/ -- General Dynamics Land Systems announced today that it has been awarded a $712.3 million order by the U.S. Army for 300 Stryker DVHA1 vehicles....
www.prnewswire.com
I also note that a number of the divisions are only 2x BCT division
1st Inf Div
2nd/7th Inf Div
3rd Inf Div
11th Abn Div
25th Inf Div
We could probably also find another 2 light battalions for an IBCT (Abn) such as that found in the 11th Abn Div in Alaska.
Those brigades could be chopped to US Divisions or Allied Divisions, and potentially form a Canadian Division in the field.
Money saved on not buying Abrams and Bradleys could go to arty, aviation, logs and new technologies.
- Reaction score
- 22,023
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 8,310
- Points
- 1,160
Fair enough. What you are saying is that they are standing off from the FEBA? But isn't that also what we are seeing in Ukraine? That armoured vehicles of all sorts, including Leos and Challengers, are keeping their distance?
And if the APS systems that the Israelis are trialling in Gaza prove as effective as they hope isn't that going to cause another rethink about what vehicles get used where, when and how?
The point is, in my mind, that any vehicle can be used in any operation when applied with due care and consideration.
Jeeps can conduct successful raids.
Tanks can be blown up in the FEBA.
- Reaction score
- 8,310
- Points
- 1,160
Agreed entirely.
Canada suffers the same problem as any smaller business. The cost of overhead, the cost of being able to do all the things the big guys do, is inevitably going to be high with fewer taxpayers available to support the overhead. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the taxpayers are spread out all over Hell's Half Acre. That drives costs up again.
But if Canada wishes to be seen as a sovereign state then that is the cost of 0.5% of the world's population claiming 7% of the world's land mass and 20% of the world's fresh water supply of which roughly one third is renewable along with mass quantities of wood, lignite, coal, oil and gas.
With a world clamouring for an honest trader....
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,833
- Points
- 1,160
Seeing defence requirements as a cost of business is wrong particularly if the country's leadership keeps making unfulfilled commitments to spend 2% of GDP but only spends 2/3 of that.
The cost of business of cheaping out on the military is either one which fails dramatically once committed and will result in the unnecessary deaths and maiming of Canadian troops or, on the other hand, is a military so incapable that it won't be committed. In the case of the later it will mean that you've been blowing 20 plus billion down the tubes annually for something of predictable little value.
Canada's problem is that its thinking, particulalry with respect to the army, is focused on the costs of defence inputs and is naïve as to analysing the value of the defence outputs it gets for its money. Those outputs are not merely in the hard defence capabilities but should also include the power of deterrence as well as status in the international community.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,833
- Points
- 1,160
Much as the Canadian Forces like to play the "No soup for you" game with the budget, that is not a realistic way of building a force.
We've committed to Latvia. Latvia is a heavy armour game as can be seen by our allies which make up the rest of the eFP there with tracked Arietes, Leopards, Twardies, Dardos, Pizzaros, and even BMP 2s. We've now committed tanks and the only artillery we have - towed M777s.
I'm prepared to let LAVs continue to pretend that they are IFVs but to do so they need the support of both tanks and SP guns as well as a robust AD shield and ATGMs and combat drones. This is an order of priority thing which requires we get what we don't have first, but eventually we'll need to relegate the LAVs back to their medium roles and replace them in Europe with proper IFVs. That does not mean we divest the LAVs (or even the TAPVs or M777s) - just assign them to their proper roles while we build a proper heavy force.
At some point we have to stop playing that silly game of only buying new equipment at the rate of 2/3 for every item we divest. That's a death spiral that should be obvious to anyone.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,157
- Points
- 1,160
I think the US Light Division structure could provide a rough model for the CA in the form of a Mixed LAV/Light Division plus a flyover Canadian-led Brigade in Latvia. Reserves would be integrated into the Reg Force Regiments in 70/30 or 30/70 structures. The Flyover units in the Latvia Brigade would have the HQ units on one of three sub-units with the balance co-located with units in Canada. There would be 4 x LAV Battalions in the "Heavy"(ish) Brigade and they would rotate supplying a Company to the Latvia fly-over Brigade (with the balance of the Battalion tasked for fly-over).
The main changes I'd make to the US Structure is I would assign Engineer Regiments directly to the Brigades rather then grouping them in an Engineer Brigade since we are mixing Brigade types (Mech, Light and Reserve) so it makes more sense to me to have the appropriate Engineer units directly attached to each type.
The Division Sustainment Brigade would come from a formalization of structure of the National Support Element into an actual Brigade with set units and TOE to support a Division (or smaller) deployment rather than a more ad hoc structure.
The goal to my mind would be to eventually replace the LAVs with a tracked IFV and shift the LAVs to the Reserve Brigade.
The main changes I'd make to the US Structure is I would assign Engineer Regiments directly to the Brigades rather then grouping them in an Engineer Brigade since we are mixing Brigade types (Mech, Light and Reserve) so it makes more sense to me to have the appropriate Engineer units directly attached to each type.
The Division Sustainment Brigade would come from a formalization of structure of the National Support Element into an actual Brigade with set units and TOE to support a Division (or smaller) deployment rather than a more ad hoc structure.
The goal to my mind would be to eventually replace the LAVs with a tracked IFV and shift the LAVs to the Reserve Brigade.
- Reaction score
- 22,023
- Points
- 1,260
Honestly Canada should be able to field a a Corps of 3 Divisions.
Armored/Heavy Mech
LAV - Med
Light - Abn
With the bodies it has.
1 Deployable Div Hq
2 Static Div HQ
1 Static Army (Corps) HQ
Bde’s in the Division’s also setup to plug into US Divisions and Corps
Heck I’d even accept 2 Divisions with a LAV Bde tossed into each the Light and Heavy Div to round them out.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,157
- Points
- 1,160
So we have a deployable Corps already? Cool!
- Reaction score
- 22,023
- Points
- 1,260
The fact I have more kit at my house than two of them notwithstanding?
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 780
Lotsa tools in OW, not much addition lots of subtraction.Not even close.
With the US CBO model you can see the adjustment of costs in either adding or subtracting a capability, like a BCT or changing it from one type of BCT to another or - most important of all - converting it from Active Army to National Guard.
That's a useful tool. Having a tool that allows you to add or subtract a percentage to all the light battalions really does very little that is of value.
- Reaction score
- 22,152
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 27,632
- Points
- 1,090
