Search results

II am not just talking about the VDV. The Russian mechanized BTGs that invaded Ukraine in 2022 were understrength, and as a result they fielded BMP2s that had understrength sections. This meant that when situations called for infantry to get out and do things there weren't enough infantry to do...

I am trying to follow your train of thought, which isn't helped when you invent terms or use terms that have other meanings than the ones that I presume you are using. We have an army that was designed in the 60s based on WW2 experience anticipating WW3. Our individual training for our...

If we are acquiring new vehicles for this thought experiment (which is a good one), then just get new Leopard 2s or M1s if we are fighting in Europe (so probably M1s). Adding a LAV-equipped "Armd Cav" Sqn to a LAV battalion gives it more reconnaissance, but it doesn't radically change its combat...

It’s US Army terminology - used to emotionally and intellectually shake off the GWOT (Global War on Terror). An acronym that can also be used as a verb “Let’s LSCO the heck out of this!”

What you are describing is more of a defence with the intent of fixing an attacking force to enable an attack by another force. I don't want to get too specific regarding potential real-world situations. I will say that units and formations fight as part of a higher plan. We have a Canadian-led...

I will start with some doctrine geekiness. A Guard is a task to protect the main force by fighting to gain time along with observing and reporting. A guard can be in front or on the flanks, and can be for a static or mobile main force. A Cover operates apart from the main force and...

I will ask again, on what are you basing your assertion that the 80s/90s infantry battalion failed to appreciate the value of supporting arms? There was always mess banter between units/branches, but units that went to the field worked with other arms all the time. To your point about...

Can I ask as to the nature and context of these observations and conversations? What were you observing and with whom were you conversing? I joined in 1989 and so I was part of about 15 years of the army that had the full combat support companies. Combined arms training could always be...

With the forum's forbearance I will continue the Assault Troop thread-jack a little. I have no idea why an Assault Troop would try to get people qualified sniper. Like none. Assault Troop was a blend of skills found in Recce Platoon, Armed Recce Troops and Assault Pioneers. It was very much a...

Point of order. The Assault Troop in a Recce Squadron was not a mechanized infantry platoon by another name. They had mobility/counter-mobility tasks, so they were closer to assault pioneers. They could also be used to secure Sqn HQ or the echelon (so similar again to assault pioneers from time...

We've done many divisional-level CAXs since then. Most formation-level training in most armies is done through CAX. This particular CAX was an allied corps level one where the constraints were to use equipment that existed. Some of the soldier-level stuff doesn't really shine through in a Corps...

I won't speak for GR66, but I am looking at our doctrine in the context of our operational remits. If we tried to field the entire Canadian Army as-is as a Division today we would have plenty of problems. I was part of a Corps-level exercise with allies a few years ago were we explored that...

We are already exporting our Level 5 Combat Team and Level 6 for the mech units to Europe, and our Level 6 for the Light Battalions is exported to JPMRC/JRTC. Having a hypothetical BG vehicle set in Germany would allow for live fire (Graefenwhor) and fully-instrumented CT in a less-crowded (but...

I guess I am trying to see the "so what?" Doctrine is an agreed-upon set of fundamental principles on how we will fight. Our BG-level doctrine is sound, and we can execute it. Our CMBG-level doctrine is also sound, and it applies in what we are leading overseas (with variations, of course, for...

I'd be really out in front of my skis if I tried to answer that! I will say, though, that in 2008 to get the armour package as-configured (particularly the belly armour) the work had to be done in Germany. The interior turret stuff, though, could be done in New Brunswick. I am sure that some...

At CMBG and below our doctrine is more or less British at its core with fifty or so years of Canadian development. A lot of our supporting arms doctrine (which is often above CMBG) is absolutely American. That is not because its the bible, its because we would be integrating into their systems...

A Square Combat Team is a rather unlikely operational construct. It became out institutional bolt-hole during the 90s as we struggled with the post-cold war drawdown. Its really a training construct. A more usual combined-arms grouping is the Battle Group. A Battle Group led by an infantry...

My poor attempt at humour. The LAV TUA was fielded to Armour regiments and the school. I can’t recal how many, but it was in service and we made courses etc. I was in one, and we had them in the field in the fall of 2008 on an exercise in Wainwright. Since the Taliban did not have tanks the...

LAV TUA was an actual in-service vehicle. It was destroyed by the Taliban.

Cannon stays the same for the A6Ms undergoing the turret R&O (55 calibre barrel). Can’t confirm if the turret interior/ fire control will be 100% identical between the A4M and the upgraded A6M.