Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[WestIsle]

I don't think LIR is going to deploy as a standalone Regiment, at least not for decades. Like you said, not enough enablers. What it will do is take managing the GRTF tasks, which are markedly different from FG for the NATO Bde, and have a HQ manage that directly. Having 3 BNs is efficient as CA MRP is designed for 1 on task, one on build, and one on reconstitution. It's actually better than MRP for the CMBGs that have absolutely no reconstitution time and the short-handed enabler trades will be driven into the ground in a few years.

Isnt the LIR only going to be deploying company elements as they LIB are currently? If so 6 rifle companies in 2 battalions with ats and dets should be enough.

 

[ytz]

When the dust settles, 1 Bde will have 4 manoeuvre battalions (2 heavy cav, 2 LAV inf), and 2 and 5 Bdes will each have 3 (1 medium cav, 2 LAV inf). I have a problem with that — it has knock on effects for the structure of the supporting elements — svc bn, engineers, etc will have to look different in 1 bde.

I saw this in one of the decks. What's the distinguishing feature between heavy and medium? And I'd be curious to know why they didn't pattern them the same.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I saw this in one of the decks. What's the distinguishing feature between heavy and medium? And I'd be curious to know why they didn't pattern them the same.

It's a distinction from the (fairly) new Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle. This may sound like a tautology, but heavy armour forces have mostly heavy AFVs while medium armour forces have mostly medium AFVs.

Heavy AFVs are basically main battle tanks like Leopard 2s, M1s etc while medium AFVs are not main battle tanks but have firepower that can destroy similar targets out to 2,000m and can manouevre on the battlefield. They will be lighter than heavy AFVs and might be called light tanks- so something like a CV90120 or AMX-10RC.

So, the plan described above sees 1 CMBG with two tank regiments while 2 CMBG and 5 GBMC will have armour regiments equipped with something other than an MBT but more than a light armoured vehicle.

 

[PrairieFella]

I saw this in one of the decks. What's the distinguishing feature between heavy and medium? And I'd be curious to know why they didn't pattern them the same.

Heavy = tank.

Medium = tracked autocannon AFV.

Theres different task matrices for the two different categories of Cav. Ill try to dig up my post on it from a while back.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So far the LIR looks like a throwback to the old British regimental system. There may be units in depot and units in the field. I cannot see it as anything more than a HQ of convenience for now.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Heavy = tank.

Medium = tracked autocannon AFV.

Theres different task matrices for the two different categories of Cav. Ill try to dig up my post on it from a while back.

Doctrinally (is that like "eckshully"?) a medium AFV can be tracked or wheeled. I would think that a Centauro (wheeled) would fit the bill in terms of a real-life example with the requisite firepower. So would an M10 Booker (tracked).

Heavy is tracked-only as written.

 

[PrairieFella]

Doctrinally (is that like "eckshully"?) a medium AFV can be tracked or wheeled. I would think that a Centauro (wheeled) would fit the bill in terms of a real-life example with the requisite firepower. So would an M10 Booker (tracked).

Heavy is tracked-only as written.

Thats a fair point!

 

[KevinB]

When the dust settles, 1 Bde will have 4 manoeuvre battalions (2 heavy cav, 2 LAV inf), and 2 and 5 Bdes will each have 3 (1 medium cav, 2 LAV inf). I have a problem with that — it has knock on effects for the structure of the supporting elements — svc bn, engineers, etc will have to look different in 1 bde.

1 Bde would be an ‘Armoured’ Bde, the others being not, I don’t think it’s surprising that the resultant support structure (inc combat support) be different.

Ideally the Infantry in 1 Bde would be in a tracked IFV as well.

But Canada being Canada will likely retain LAV for that role.

In addition, there’s no real reason the LIR needs 3 battalions. It’s not a manoeuvre brigade and has no enablers. If it’s role is standby high readiness, then 2 battalions is probably fine (like the original 1960’s-70’s Airborne Regiment) — if the actual role is to take on the domestic IRU role, then 4 battalions makes more sense.

The LIR has GRTF tasks that honestly could justify all three BN being at High Readiness. As the idea that 1 BN in HR can cover over the tasks assigned is quite simply ludicrous.
The assumption has been made that none of the commitments can come up as the same time, and that is demonstrably untrue.

I suspect that the decision was made to not rock the boat on the infantry regimental system, and lock in the rule of threes, which isn’t a great model for force design.

I agree with you, I would say that at least in this one case that worked out to not opt to cut capabilities.

 

[PrairieFella]

But Canada being Canada will likely retain LAV for that role.

Allegedly MCAV could include tracked IFVs as well. We shall see when more comes out.

 

[Maxman1]

heavy armour forces have mostly heavy AFVs while medium armour forces have mostly medium AFVs.