Topic: Leo 2 distribution

[Fergie]

     Hello all,

 I'm curious if there has been serious discussion (by serious I mean beyond rumour) regarding the distribution of the leo 2a4 & 2a6 amongst the armoured regiments?  I've done my best to search online, but thus far have found nothing very informative.  I've "heard" (which likely is BS) that all three regiments will be equipped with at least a squadrons worth... That seems to thin out the numbers a bit (approx. 80 tanks across the strats, rcd, 12rbc & armd school!).   I'm confident an answer and/or good discussion will arrive soon   

Thanks in advance,

Fergie

[Nerf herder]

crap!  They totally forgot about that when they bought them.

The LdSH are getting a compliment, as are the RCD and 12RBC.

There will be a composite Sqn in Gagetown rerolling from C Sqn with members from both the RCD and the RBC.

With commissioning and delivery being pushed back slightly, dates are not even close to being firm.

Then there are the issues in getting everyone converted and trained on them, as will waiting on recovery vehicles being converted from gun tanks. No recovery = no training except on base.

Regards

[Infanteer]

There has been some serious discussion on this - it is called Force 2013.

I will have to check some material to confirm this, but if I recall correctly, Force 2013 had 3 Squadrons going to the LdSH and 1 Squadron in Gagetown (C Sqn, RCD).  Pet and Valcartier will have TAP-V equipped Regiments.

[Tango2Bravo]

We should indeed see two Leopard 2 Sqns in Edmonton and one in Gagetown. There will also be School tanks. The Recce Sqns will be a mix of the TAPV and the LAV III with the new surveillance suite.

[Infanteer]

Yep; confirmed today that it was 2 west and 1 east.  My mistake earlier.

However, it was also explained to me that these would be big squadrons, like our Germany ones, with 19 tanks.

[Nerf herder]

Yep; confirmed today that it was 2 west and 1 east.  My mistake earlier.

However, it was also explained to me that these would be big squadrons, like our Germany ones, with 19 tanks.

Ummm, that's how big they are supposed to be and were until the late 90s.       

Regards

[GAP]

Neophite here...but that's an odd number....what is it....4 groups of 4 and a command group of 3?

[Nerf herder]

Neophite here...but that's an odd number....what is it....4 groups of 4 and a command group of 3?

4 troops of 4 tanks each

SHQ has the OC and BC's tank. Then there is the OC's fireteam partner....better know as the dozer tank/ OC's spare ride if his breaks down.

Regards

[Infanteer]

Ummm, that's how big they are supposed to be and were until the late 90s.       

I know.  That is big compared to our allies.  Americans go with 3 Troops of 4 with 2 in the command element (for 14) while the Brits have 4 Troops of only 3 Tanks with 2 in the command element (14).

Our tank deployment to Afghanistan had, IIRC (and I know you don't need me to tell you this), 3 Troops of 4 (for 15) to start and this was cut to 2 Troops of 4 (for 11) with a bunch turned into pillboxes at MSG.  Hence, why I said big squadrons, like our old ones.

This obviously begs the question; we are opting for 3 Squadrons of 19 (2 West, 1 East = 57 Tanks) - why wouldn't we go for 4 Squadrons of 15 (=60 Tanks) to effect 3 West, 1 East (and thus a full armoured Regiment out West) or 2 West, 2 East (to balance the Corps somewhat)?  Plus, although the number of Troops is the same, it opens up additional command slots for an OC, 2IC, Battle Capt, SSM, etc.

[Nerf herder]

2Ic doesn't get a tank, he's too busy with the A2/ B Ech.

The SSM has a carrier to roll around in and take care of the administrative requirements of a tank Sqn. He doesn't get a tank. He's too busy anyways to get in the thick of things as he has to look after replening a Sqn with ammo, fuel and commodities.

There's more to his job than that, but that's a completely different thread.

Regards

[Infanteer]

2Ic doesn't get a tank, he's too busy with the A2/ B Ech.

The SSM has a carrier to roll around in and take care of the administrative requirements of a tank Sqn. He doesn't get a tank. He's too busy anyways to get in the thick of things as he has to look after replening a Sqn with ammo, fuel and commodities.

I know what a Tank Squadron looks like, I've been in one (as an att) in a war a few times.   

What I was saying is that with 4 15-tanks squadrons instead of 3 19-tank squadrons, there are additional command team billets for those guys to fill.  More legit positions in the Regiment = good.  Being a Tank Sqn 2IC or SSM is better than being DAT 3-2-5.

[GAP]

Does that not mean additional support elements when you break them up into that configuration?

[Nerf herder]

I know what a Tank Squadron looks like, I've been in one (as an att) in a war a few times.   

What I was saying is that with 4 15-tanks squadrons instead of 3 19-tank squadrons, there are additional command team billets for those guys to fill.  More legit positions in the Regiment = good.  Being a Tank Sqn 2IC or SSM is better than being DAT 3-2-5.

Don't know what a DAT 3-2-5 is and I'm not going to pretend.

I understand where your going with this and I disagree.

You will lack the ability to tailor the Sqn to suit the Cmbt Team commander's requirements and also soften the "punch".

We can split a Sqn into various portions with the 4 x troops and SHQ element.

The OC and two troops into the assault force and the other two with the BC into the fire base. Then the dozer tank doing it's job of sniping command vehicles and engineering assets.

Or three troops in the assault with the OC, two flanking and one intimate support with another troop in the firebase with the BC.

Or two troops in the assault with the OC and one in the firebase with the BC and another as the cutoff force.

The dozer can go anywhere required and is the "*****" of the Sqn.

Our square ORBAT is the way it is because it works in a conventional/ asymmetric threat environment and can be played with to suit the needs at hand quickly and violently.

If anything, bring back 4 square Sqns, two for out West, one RCD and one RBC. At least then we can say Canada can field a Regiment's worth of tanks.

When it comes to Armour guys crewing Infantry vehicles, we're one the same page. I don't want some green LT telling me what targets to fire at or how to maneuver my vehicle 50m.

I can do that all by myself.     

We really have to get back to "normal" ops and get working in a conventional combat team context for you to see what tanks bring to the table, not read it in a book.

I won't even get into the lack of understanding from the Infantry perspective of what Armour Recce does and can bring to the table as a combat team asset or, normally, as a Brigade asset.

Regards

[Fergie]

Thanks for the clarification everyone.  So it sounds like if you want more tank action the Strats are where it's at. Why have a RCD/RBC composite sqn versus just an sole RCD or RBC one?  I assume this is for training commonality in the inevitable need for rotations on Ops?

Fergie

[Nerf herder]

Thanks for the clarification everyone.  So it sounds like if you want more tank action the Strats are where it's at. Why have a RCD/RBC composite sqn versus just an sole RCD or RBC one?  I assume this is for training commonality in the inevitable need for rotations on Ops?

Fergie

Let's see, Edmonton and push the tanks 2 hours to Wainwrong or Gagetown and the training area is in your back yard.

Gagetown tanks always put on the most kms in a year.

Regards

[Tango2Bravo]

While I certainly like the four-Troop Squadron, one disadvantage is its size. It is so big with four troops that infantrymen can't resist splitting it up into half-squadrons when they have the say on groupings.

I've worked in three-Troop squadrons (and US tank companies.) A fourth troop gives more options, but three can get the job done. As a force, having four squadrons of three troops each would bring certain advantages over three squadrons of four troops each.

As for CCV, if it does turn out to be something like the CV9030 then it should go to the Armoured Corps if we want it used to its full advantage.

[Infanteer]

I moved the CCV stuff off because this thread is about tanks.

Pzrkommandant,

Tracking your two arguments for big squadrons.  Organization works and flexibility.  I'll disagree with you; probably because my perspective is based not on the number of barrels but on the strength of combat teams.

Sure, our organization works and more barrels has its advantage, but so does doctrine using 3 Troop Squadrons.  The British and Americans have proven this in Iraq.  So we can't argue for big squadrons based on doctrinal organization because we have viable alternatives.

As for flexibility, I am of the same mind as Tango2Bravo.  That flexibility can be a double edged sword with big squadrons; in your previous post, you focus in on how 19 tanks better suits Squadron(-) and Demi-Squadrons.  I don't think it is a good thing to set a squadron up to be busted into pieces.

In my view, the best use of Squadrons is the tactical setting is the building square combat teams.  An infantry coy (3 Platoons) and an armoured sqn (3 troops) with a FOO/FAC team and a Engr Troop is, in my view (from training and being in one on operations) an almost unbeatable combination.  As per doctrine, the leader of these Cbt Teams is dependant on the task - it may be the Sqn OC or the Inf OC.  The fact that we have built this into our doctrine is, in my view, a great thing.  The more square combat teams I can build, the better; hence why I like the idea of more, but smaller, armoured squadrons.

[George Wallace]

...........A fourth troop gives more options, but three can get the job done. As a force, having four squadrons of three troops each would bring certain advantages over three squadrons of four troops each.

Interesting comment.  Do we want to only do what works (for other nations) or do we want those extra options?  I would think that having the more options available would be a much better of the two choices here.  Do we loose options to accept something that works for someone else at this moment, or do we plan for some flexibility and perhaps a possibility that may happen in a future conflict where we need that extra option/capability. 

Four tank troops of four tanks each has worked very well for us in the past.  The Half-Sqn has also worked for us.  "Max Flex" was once a motto of sorts for us.  Taking away vehs and capabilities, takes away from our flexibility to get the job done. 

In a perfect world we would have full Troops, never broken down/LOB/VOR/KIA/etc.  Battle does have a tendency to remove vehs and pers from those Troops.  This leaves us with quite an unfavourable situation and a quick fix has been the merging of the remaining Troops assets.  The fewer Troops you have, the less this can/could be done.

[George Wallace]

I know what a Tank Squadron looks like, I've been in one (as an att) in a war a few times.   

What I was saying is that with 4 15-tanks squadrons instead of 3 19-tank squadrons, there are additional command team billets for those guys to fill.  More legit positions in the Regiment = good.  Being a Tank Sqn 2IC or SSM is better than being DAT 3-2-5.

And I know what a Mech Inf Platoon looks like.  Whoopee.

A Mech Platoon still has four vehs does it not? 

A Tank Troop has four vehs which fight as two teams.......same as Infantry do.......fight as teams.   One supports the other when doing tactics.  Making them odd numbers doesn't make sense.  Who is the odd man out, and what does (s)he do?  Just follow along?

Same goes for Sqns.  One Troop will support another.  For those familiar with the Otnabog in the Lawfield Corridor, it takes some work to move a Sqn through there, let alone a BG or Cbt Tm.  Four Troops of four tanks can usually manage it (if coordinated well) with no problems.  Two Troops supporting one to secure the river crossing and the fourth Troop moving through to secure the far side and support the move through of all other Troops.   One less Troop in the equation and a smooth move through the obstacle becomes a much more complex problem. 

For old timers, RV '92 pitted C Sqn RCD against a large American Armor formation.  C Sqn managed to give their opponents the impression that they were a full Regt.  That through the use of our tried and true tactics and formation of the four tank/four Troop Sqn.   But hey, if someone wants to reinvent the wheel (so common in the CF), I am sure we will see the tried and true tactics and doctrine of the "dinosaurs" thrown out with the bath water.  Am I against change?  Not really, but we have a system that works quite well and is quite flexible.  It does see change as we advance with technology, and it is quite adaptable.  I question why we would want to take away its flexibility to mimic what some other nation with a much larger military has.  Do we also adopt their spelling of Armor to go with their doctrine?  We have different doctrine; different tactics; different manning; a much smaller Budget; many/some (depends who you talk to) say a much better calibre of training for individual soldier skills; etc.  I personally do not see a Three Troop Sqn or a three tank Troop as being as capable as what we have/had in our Armour organizations.

[Tango2Bravo]

And I know what a Mech Inf Platoon looks like.  Whoopee.

But hey, if someone wants to reinvent the wheel (so common in the CF), I am sure we will see the tried and true tactics and doctrine of the "dinosaurs" thrown out with the bath water.  Am I against change?  Not really, but we have a system that works quite well and is quite flexible.  It does see change as we advance with technology, and it is quite adaptable.  I question why we would want to take away its flexibility to mimic what some other nation with a much larger military has.  Do we also adopt their spelling of Armor to go with their doctrine?  We have different doctrine; different tactics; different manning; a much smaller Budget; many/some (depends who you talk to) say a much better calibre of training for individual soldier skills; etc.  I personally do not see a Three Troop Sqn or a three tank Troop as being as capable as what we have/had in our Armour organizations.

So I guess you are in favour of change as long as it is a change to what you are used to? 

Since you raised the Americans here what is the resistance to adopting something American? They do have a fair amount of experience with tanks. I have been on US tank company commanding courses and Canadian squadron commanding courses. I do see things from the US that we could adopt. This is not to say that we should simply ape US doctrine.

I was a troop leader in a four troop squadron. I was a battle captain of a three troop squadron. My recce sqn began converting to tanks last year, and we did indeed work with a four troop squadron when we were training in the US. It is always nice to have more tanks in our organizations, but we need to step back a little and look wider. We went to the three troop squadron to allow the Regiment to four two squadrons. This was good, and one thing that I noticed was that we were not ripped apart into half-squadrons to support infantry companies. I would prefer to have four tank squadron of three troops each (one in each Regiment with a bonus sqn) than three squadrons of four.

You can certainly conduct the range of tasks with three troops. When advancing, even with four troops I tended to have the lead two troops advance within their own means. This was actually faster and encouraged initiative. The depth element can indeed by two troops in a four troop squadron, or it can be a single troop. In either case you can execute drills and conduct attacks. In a four troop squadron it is indeed good to have one in the fire base, two in the assault and one in intimate support, but you can certainly conduct an attack with three troops. It is certainly better to have three troops than the usual two that I have seen with half-squadrons these days.

If you asked me as a squadron commander on my own would I rather have four or three troops then sure, I'll take more tanks. It can work, however, with three and have benefits for the force as a whole.

Returning to US doctrine, I finally got the chance to try something I learned from the US but was forbidden to employ for years. As a squadron we were executing an advance to contact against a similarly advancing enemy (we didn't know that he was advancing till me met the first time). With us using our normal overwatch tactics the enemy was always getting to the dominating ground first and we usually suffered heavy losses. For the third iteration I switched to travelling overwatch, a US method of movement. This time we got to the high ground first and were able to devastate the enemy from a position of advantage. Nothing scientific (beyond the replays), but it just shows that we can look outside our own training and experience from time to time.

[Infanteer]

A Mech Platoon still has four vehs does it not?

And a Mech Company has 3 Platoons.  What's your point?

Aside from just telling me what 1992 was like, you'll see that I argued that Armoured strength isn't necessarily predicated on the number of barrels, but that strength (in my opinion) is from the combat team as a whole.  More Squadrons is better for the Army, as it means more Combat Teams and more leadership able to practice in Combat Teams.  The fact that a 15 Tank Sqn is just as viable as a 19 Tank Sqn, as T2B highlights above, means it is a realistic approach for the Army:

It can work, however, with three and have benefits for the force as a whole.

[George Wallace]

So I guess you are in favour of change as long as it is a change to what you are used to? 

 

One thing about the Corps, is it has always been in a state of flux and trying to do more with less.  In most cases, it hasn't been that some way was better, but that we don't have the budget and therefore the men and equipment to do it the way that we should/would like to do it. 

I am more arguing against the persistent tendency for the Government to force us to do things on the cheap rather than anything else.  That is what upsets me the most.  As a result we are seeing ever increasing training deltas developing between the Regular Force and the Reserves in all Trades, as well as many lessons learned being forgotten.    I do look at many of these suggestions of smaller Troops and smaller Sqns as being "Band-aid Solutions" more often than not and a form of tacit acceptance.  We have, as a military, been very efficient at making do with less and making it work.  I am not sure that this, in all honesty, is a good thing at the end of the day.  It does reflect highly on the skills of our CF members, but a breaking point will eventually be met. 

I have witnessed the "Peace Dividend" over the years with most major equipment purchases in the last four or five decades having a trend of halving the number of pieces of equipment they have replaced.  At the end of WW II and Korea, the Canadian Army had enough tanks to equip its four Reg Force Regiments and the Reserve Regiments.  The Shermans of those eras were replaced by 350 Centurions, which were in turn replaced by 128 Leopard C1s.  The plan to replace the Leopard C1 with 66 MGS, thankfully fell out of favour, but we still are only going to have approx 100 Leopard 2.   This has been the trend in replacement of all our fleets of vehicles.  I know I won't be alive, but will the time come ever when we will only have one of each veh type?

[Infanteer]

One thing about the Corps, is it has always been in a state of flux and trying to do more with less.  In most cases, it hasn't been that some way was better, but that we don't have the budget and therefore the men and equipment to do it the way that we should/would like to do it.

Well, considering the 1940s/50s Armoured units had 5 troops of 3, there is no case to be made for 4 of 4 as "the way it always was and should be".

I have no qualms with your argument about the continuous halving of resources - other branches are feeling the pain with the same arguments (field artillery, anyone?).  However, what I put forth is that going with smaller, more numerous squadrons is not necessarily "doing things on the cheap"; it works and would likely be of greater benefit to both the Armoured Corps and the combined arms team as a whole.

[Fishbone Jones]

Inevitably, if you whittle it down to three troops and make it work, it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lead change by making it something like 2 x 5 tank troops.

People are always prone to easy reduction but seldom wish to face the dog fight of expansion when the initial drop is shown to be futile, or fruitless, when it is normally too late to do anything about it.

I'm not arguing either way. They just better make damn sure they run through all the permutations and problems they may face, which they seldom do, if they decide to reduce.

It's a slippery slope, not easily stopped on, or reclimbed, once gravity takes over.

[Tango2Bravo]

Inevitably, if you whittle it down to three troops and make it work, it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lead change by making it something like 2 x 5 tank troops.

People are always prone to easy reduction but seldom wish to face the dog fight of expansion when the initial drop is shown to be futile, or fruitless, when it is normally too late to do anything about it.

I'm not arguing either way. They just better make damn sure they run through all the permutations and problems they may face, which they seldom do, if they decide to reduce.

It's a slippery slope, not easily stopped on, or reclimbed, once gravity takes over.

"Inevitably" is a strong word. Who has talked about 2 x 5? I would certainly argue against going to three tanks in a troop instead of four.

In any case, the suggestion being discussed here is not to cut tanks. It is to have four squadrons in the RCAC instead of three squadrons with the same number of tanks (we would need to come up with two or three SHQ tanks though, plus an additional echelon).