Search results

I just read in esprit de corps magazine that on Aug. 4th DND "quietly put out a tender for the acquisition of up to 150 new heavy, armoured transport trucks.  Many in the media mistakenly believed this project was part of the previously announced $1.2 billion medium truck project, but the...

I've discussed this in other threads so I won't go into too much detail.  But why not re-organize the under strength Militia brigades into full strength battle groups.  Each brigade group would become a battle group with each battalion/regiment reduced to sub-unit size and maintained as a...

Just a quick note regarding the dispersement mortar topic.  According to several TO&E's that I've seen, British mortar platoons are organized with three sections of two mortars rather than the Canadian TO&E or two groups of four mortars.  This allows each section to operate in support of a rifle...

Rest In Peace soldiers.  Your country is proud of you! :cdn: :salute:

Just an update on the MTVR.  The Oshkosh website now indicates that an 8x8 16.5-ton Load Handling System variant now exists in addition to the 6x6 9-ton Load Handling System.  Pictures of both are on the site.  As I questioned earlier, this could likely replace the HLVW when the time comes as...

Just an update on the Oshkosh MTVR.  The Oshkosh site now has information on the 9-tonne 6x6 Load Handling System and the 16.5-tonne 8x8 Load Handling System.  Again looks like a great replacement down the road for the HLVW in addition to the MLVW. www.oshkoshtruck.com

Well that's what I mean.  Rather than reforming the pioneer platoons just cross post engineers to the battalion, just like the maintenance platoon is.

There is another option that I discussed in another thread that would allow the battalion to remain as a combined arms unit with its own CSS built right in.  The USMC battalions have very large service companies built right into them.  The service company provides both Role 1 and Role 2 support...

Sorry about that.  I ment to say 'B' Coy.  I have a friend in 'B' Coy in Afghanistan. I agree with the concept of having the admin company right within the battle group and having the NSE back at the FOB doing second and third line support.  But for some reason the Army changed things. ...

I agree with you completely if the battalion was deployed as a self-contained unit.  However, it's not anymore.  It has an artillery battery, a field engineer squadron, and an armoured reconnaissance squadron or troop attached to it.  The rifle and combat support companies don't even come from...

Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the admin company.  The new task force organizations see the admin company combined with elements from the service battalion to form a Forward Support Group.  So why not just eliminate the admin company, use the infantry personnel to beef up the rifle and...

According to the latest edition of the Canadian Defence Review the Load Handling System (LHS) variant of the MTVR already exists and DEW advertises that the MTVR can fulfill all SEV/shelter variant requirements.  I would think that an armoured MTVR Engineer SEV would be an easy configuration...

That is exactly what I suggested months ago on the thread "Diffusion of Combined Arms" or something like that.  My suggestion was for a combined arms battle group / task force permanently organized as such.  I suggested numbering the BG/TF and give them their own patch.  Basically the brigade's...

It actually makes a lot of sense to have mortars manned by the gunners.  But put the mortar platoon back into the infantry battalion and man it with gunners.  Same thing with the Pioneers if you want.  Man them with engineers but put them back into the infantry battalion.  The assault engineer...

I don't think anyone is arguing there is a difference between and infantry mortar platoon and an artillery mortar troop/battery.  What is being argued is that both a gun battery and a mortar battery/platoon are needed within a TF/BG at the same time.  I am currently re-reading the book "The...

Here is another option for you?  I've discussed it on the thread "Whither the Artillery" so I won't go into great detail.  Arm the artillery with a heavy 120mm mortar, such as the self-propelled Armoured Mortar System on the LAV-III.  The 120mm mortar has greater lethality then a 105mm howitzer...

What happens when both are needed at the same time.  Guns are 20 km in the rear supporting the infantry battalion and then suddenly a threat emerges that requires mortars.  The gun battery can't instantly change to a mortar troop and race forward.  Or perhaps the guns are engage with longer...

There is the dump version of the Oshkosh MTVR that is being proposed by Oshkosk/DEW for the MLVW replacement (Medium Support Vehicle System).  7-tons off-road and 15-tons on good roads.  It is being used by USMC engineer support battalions and US Navy Seabee battalions.

The Oshkosh MTVR is capable of carrying 7-tons offroad and 15-tons on good roads.  Is there any chance that the MTVR could eventually replace the HLVW fleet when it comes to the end of its service life?  If it could this would greatly simplify maintenance and logistics.  The MTVR comes in...

Exactly.  Therefore, significantly increase the number of LAV-III TUA systems and give them back to the mechanized infantry battalion either in an ant-armour platoon at battalion level or right down to the rifle company level like the US Stryker units do.  If they really insist on the MGS then...