• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV 6.0

daftandbarmy said:
It's also a pretty uniquely North American approach to assume that you will be the only 'game in town' when the balloon goes up, so you need to be fully self-contained, which can be extraordinarily wasteful and isolationist while ignoring all the benefits that a strong foreign policy/ diplomatic arm can accrue to any intervention force.

Some European forces, for example, plan on having 'host nation' support when they get on the ground wherever they're going, in some way, whether that be through wepons, armour, logisitcs vehicles and other similar support. This can be a huge load off of the military side of the force.
Click to expand...
Cardinal rule, never trust a Euro…
ABCA only is my general rule (note I left out NZ…).
 
daftandbarmy said:
It's also a pretty uniquely North American approach to assume that you will be the only 'game in town' when the balloon goes up, so you need to be fully self-contained, which can be extraordinarily wasteful and isolationist while ignoring all the benefits that a strong foreign policy/ diplomatic arm can accrue to any intervention force.

Some European forces, for example, plan on having 'host nation' support when they get on the ground wherever they're going, in some way, whether that be through wepons, armour, logisitcs vehicles and other similar support. This can be a huge load off of the military side of the force.
Click to expand...
Kind of like Wagner being supplied by the Russian Army?

....oh wait....
 
daftandbarmy said:
It's also a pretty uniquely North American approach to assume that you will be the only 'game in town' when the balloon goes up, so you need to be fully self-contained, which can be extraordinarily wasteful and isolationist while ignoring all the benefits that a strong foreign policy/ diplomatic arm can accrue to any intervention force.
Click to expand...
As far as the Americans are concerned it makes sense to have that attitude. Very few countries bring the esoteric enablers to the table that the Americans have. Most of the Western European countries don't even have the standard enablers such as artillery of any consequence. Surprisingly it's taken this Ukrainian war to show that while they might have been dealing with old kit, some of the former Soviet block have continued to maintain a more balanced force.

As far as Canada is concerned; well ... we gave up the fully self contained concept a long time ago in dribs and drabs holding tightly to our infantry core. The Navy has very little jointness to it while the Air Force is hanging in there but just.

I don't have my finger on exactly how badly off our logistics system is, but my general impression is that its pretty close to being on life support. It was severely strained in Afghanistan supporting one battle group and a bloated brigade headquarters and, if I understand correctly, has gone downhill from there. We have three functional brigades but can't sustain even one for long.

Currently re-reading Conrad's book and taking a closer look at the issue. I'd forgotten how negative his views about the Army's leadership's attitude to logistics were.
daftandbarmy said:
Some European forces, for example, plan on having 'host nation' support when they get on the ground wherever they're going, in some way, whether that be through wepons, armour, logisitcs vehicles and other similar support. This can be a huge load off of the military side of the force.
Click to expand...
Planning on having that host nation support greatly limits the operations that you can participate in because the nature and extent of such support, if it exists, varies greatly. It's wonderful if its available, and as you say will take a load off, but I think any prudent force structure needs to be built on the assumption that support will be nonexistent in at least some circumstances. This is why the US still has some ship-to-shore terminal battalions and a Marine Corps.

🍻
 
KevinB said:
Inside the Div, the SFAB’s I suspect will be used for rear area security, MSR security and convoy protection for the Support Bde.
I think their utility in larger war fighting has been questioned and a role fitted so that can be retained for Peace Support/COIN missions in the future.
Click to expand...
I thought I saw somewhere when the SFABs were first created that the plan for them was to serve as the nucleus for forming additional actual BCTs either Armoured or Infantry in the event of a large war needing more formations.

Separately I think the SFABs have a key role in their actual Assist role in linking US allied formations like Canada’s into the US divisions and corps networks. This is one of the key takeaways from JRTC etc. that the SFAB attachments are critical to integration of Cdn units into US BCTs. Interesting to see if there is any recognition of that role for them in the US Army war fighting SoM for them.
 
Prairie canuck said:
Not sure if this was discussed. The Kongsberg RWS that is slated for the ACSV also has an option for a bolt on Anti Tank missile.
Kongsberg RWS for Can
Is this the same RWS that is on the TAPV?
Click to expand...

I've kind of gone off those singleton launchers. I can see them as a self-defence measure but are they useful in the offence? Or are you better with a bucket load of ready to fire missiles on one vehicle?


Second Amendment Assault Rifles? Pshaw. Hold my beer.
 
lav-m-loitering-munition-launcher.jpg
ojl6Fj3l-mbdabrimstonelauncher1.jpg


Swingfire-missile-2-892x624.jpg


The British Striker above also had the remote control system permitting the gunner to offset from the launcher and missile - and hide in the grass with the distinctive maroon beret.
 
Kirkhill said:
I've kind of gone off those singleton launchers. I can see them as a self-defence measure but are they useful in the offence? Or are you better with a bucket load of ready to fire missiles on one vehicle?


Second Amendment Assault Rifles? Pshaw. Hold my beer.
Click to expand...

I stumbled over one of those Swingfire missiles that was hiding in the grass on Stanford Plain Training Area.

I have no idea why it was there, there were no obvious tank targets around, but I tip toed carefully away (getting caught up in the gossamer type control wire as I went) to tell someone about it....
 
MilEME09 said:
An interesting sight at CANSEC, LAV 6 with a 30mm Bushmaster 2

View attachment 77884
Click to expand...
Not too surprised. There is certainly some interest in upgunning from some quarters. And frankly you just can't keep showing the same old LAV. Gotta change it up a bit every year.

Not a lot of CANSEC news from today yet. I was looking forward to seeing some stuff out there.
 
Underway said:
Not too surprised. There is certainly some interest in upgunning from some quarters. And frankly you just can't keep showing the same old LAV. Gotta change it up a bit every year.
Click to expand...
I’d be impressed if it could mount Javelin too, and had tracks, and perhaps was called CV90 ;)

Underway said:
Not a lot of CANSEC news from today yet. I was looking forward to seeing some stuff out there.
Click to expand...
 
What would be the right number for us for armoured recce squadrons? One squadron of 19 per regiment would be 57, but double would allow us to rotate tanks into routine maintenance without effecting operations, so 114. But then would we need a training squadron in Gagetown?
 
Maxman1 said:
What would be the right number for us for armoured recce squadrons? One squadron of 19 per regiment would be 57, but double would allow us to rotate tanks into routine maintenance without effecting operations, so 114. But then would we need a training squadron in Gagetown?
Click to expand...
It depends what sort of organization you want.
I’m a fan of the Combined Arms Battalions down here.

Right now IMHO Canada doesn’t have enough tanks to be an Armor or Mech Formation even at the Bde level.


Also an interesting read if somewhat dated, as it brings up some valid issues with Armored Formations


Page 26 and beyond discusses future organizational choices and options.
 
KevinB said:
It depends what sort of organization you want.
I’m a fan of the Combined Arms Battalions down here.

Right now IMHO Canada doesn’t have enough tanks to be an Armor or Mech Formation even at the Bde level.
Click to expand...
I think that you are wrong here.

An ABCT runs at 84 tanks. Canada can rustle those up. There are more than enough LAVs and 155mm howitzers. They're only not enough if you rule out LAV6s as infantry carriers and M777s as close support artillery.

The point is you don't have to be an ABCT. You can be a mech or armoured formation with a lot less than what a top of the line ABCT is equipped with. There are lots of mech and armour formations out there with Leo2A4s and with infantry carriers not as capable as the LAV6.

Do I want to see better gear? Sure I do. But I'd be prepared to deploy a 44 tank battalion and two 44 LAV battalions with a battalion of M777s as a mech brigade to Europe today out of the resources we have knowing we have enough gear back home to sustain that.
KevinB said:
Also an interesting read if somewhat dated, as it brings up some valid issues with Armored Formations


Page 26 and beyond discusses future organizational choices and options.
Click to expand...
That is actually a very thought provoking article for the times. It's particulalry relevant again today as we have a generation of leaders that haven't experienced heavy metal in a serious dust-up during their entire career and who are facing the questions of how to meld it into all the new technology hitting the battlefield. We're not just looking to think outside of the box but trying to build a whole new box from scratch.

🍻
 
KevinB said:
It depends what sort of organization you want.
I’m a fan of the Combined Arms Battalions down here.

Right now IMHO Canada doesn’t have enough tanks to be an Armor or Mech Formation even at the Bde level.


Also an interesting read if somewhat dated, as it brings up some valid issues with Armored Formations


Page 26 and beyond discusses future organizational choices and options.
Click to expand...
To have two squadrons of MBTs and one recce squadron per regiment, at bare minimum we would need 114 tanks, so really we would need 228. For three tank squadrons it would be 171, or 342.

If we simply bought 600 Abrams, that would basically solve everything. All three regiments would be fully equipped, plus about 40 or 50 tanks for the armour school at Gagetown, and we could station a squadron or more in Latvia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blackadder1916
    • Like
    • Insightful
What will medicine on the battlefield look like?
Replies
9
Views
773
KevinB
KevinB
Edward Campbell
    • Wow
    • Like
    • Sad
PAK National Arrested in QC Plotting Attack in NYC
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Haggis
Haggis
firewall
Unsure how to move forward.
Replies
7
Views
5K
firewall
firewall
K
    • Humorous
    • Trolling
  • Locked
Government using the military to force vaccines on the unvaccinated
Replies
8
Views
498
PuckChaser
PuckChaser
S
How to (lawfully) Exfiltrate Technology to Russia and Elsewhere
Replies
0
Views
891
sedwards33123
S
Back
Top