Search results

The Australian Army uses the two division Regular/Reserve organization.  Granted, the geography of Australia is a little smaller than Canada.  But the Reserve 2nd Division still controls 6 Reserve brigades. 1st Australian Division (Regular) - Division Headquarters & Signal Regiment - 3 ...

Re-organize the existing 10 CBG's into 3 actual Canadian Reserve Brigade Groups as indicated above.  The current LF Area HQ's have both a Reg Force BGen and a Res Force BGen if I'm not mistaken.  Move the Reg Force BGen to command the CMBG and the Res Force BGen to command the new Reserve...

Another option would be two battalions of three large companies per brigade.  Instead of eliminating the third company in each battalion, the third battalion could be eliminated from each CMBG and its platoons added to the six rifle companies in the remaining two battalions.  This would leave...

In an attempt to revive and old topic, how about larger but fewer companies? The Force Employment element seems to be the rifle company group.  The current three rifle companies can be reformed into two larger companies.  These two rifle companies, each of four platoons, would be ideal for...

I realize this topic hasn't been posted to for a while, but if you really want to reduce headquarters and streamline how about converting all the reserve CBGs into Battle Groups or Territorial Battalion Groups on a permanent basis.  That's all they can form anyway.  So why waste all the...

Although the MSVS is intended to replace the MLVW and not the HLVW, the candidates prior to the latest cancellation and rewrite of the project were all in the HLVW class. Mercedes-Benz Zetros 6x6 (7-10T) Oshkosh HEMTT 8x8 (10T) MAN HX77 8x8 (15T) TATRA/Navistar ATX8 8x8 (up to 21T) Oshkosh...

Could they not buy more AHSVS as part of the LVM Project to replace the HLVW's that aren't replaced by the MSVS?  Or there's always the MAN Support Vehicles chosen by the British Army.  4x4 (6-tonne), 6x6 (9-tonne) and 8x8 (15-tonne) trucks to fill all ranges of support with a common vehicle...

Here's a couple options to the problem mentioned about the MSVS being too big:  #1 - Here is a smaller version of the Navistar MSVS MiLCOTS that I mentioned earlier.  Perhaps it could fit some of the roles that don't need the large MSVS.  It could be a gun tractor for the C3 105mm (if it...

There is also a smaller version of the Navistar Defence MSVS Milcots version.  This would replace the LSVW for the Reserves.

How about: LUVW, LSVW & MLVW replaced by Eagle V or Navistar MXT known as the Light Support Vehicle System (LSVS) with basic, weapons carrier, ambulance, command post, cargo, MP and SEV variants MLVW & HLVW replaced by HEMTT 8x8 (10-tonne) being offered for the MSVS in cargo, PLS & fuel/water...

http://www.gdels.com/brochures/eagle6x6.pdf The Eagle V.

My point was only if the artillery regiments are going to have the mortars then why not put them into mortar batteries so that the elements that are actually attached to an infantry battalion (the mortars, FOO's, FSCC and BC) are all in the same battery.  A single M777 battery is often tasked to...

Thanks for the response.  I see your points.  Perhaps my use of the term "General Support" wasn't accurate.  I was simply meaning the gun battery would support the whole brigade and each mortar/forward observation battery would be directly attached to an infantry battalion.  The gun battery...

Let's try and revive and old topic. :) If I'm not mistaken, the regular artillery regiments have reorganized to include 2 gun batteries (M777 / 81mm mortar), 1 forward observation battery, 1 STA battery and a HQ & services battery.  The Australian regular artillery regiments just recently...

How about a light infantry battalion organized on the 4x4 system like this: How about 4 sections of 4 (present day US/UK fire team or Cdn assault group) + 4-man weapons section (1 GPMG team & Designated Marksman) & platoon HQ for a total of 24 men 4 x infantry platoons (4 x 24) + combat...

I found the paper I read that suggested the ABG's would become permanent in 5 years.  It was a 2007 JADEX paper written at the very start of the OBG experiment.  My apologies.  I didn't realize the date on it at first.

So what exactly does this mean?  Affiliated Battle Groups, Permanent Battle Groups, neither ???  All it talks about is winding down the experiment.  What are the conclusions?

Please share some details then.

Can you give us a summary for those of us without access?

What have you been hearing?