Search results

There were a few examples of platoons & sections receiving allied ammo in Kandahar. If nobody follows STANAGs or if we need an ammo performance that is not achieved by NATO standard, then sharing is no longer an option. We claimed to have learned this was important when NATO guns started...

Does the NATO ammo standardization not include details on peak pressure, all-burnt point, and combustion temperature? Will we have a rifle that cannot accept NATO 5.56 because it needs bespoke Canadian 5.56?

This is an unexpected move. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/americas/us-russian-oil-tanker-access-cuba-intl-hnk

Wasn't right then either.

Attacking commercial shipping might seem to fit that description.

Where these protests don’t run more than a day at a time, I am not sure they will convince Republican & government establishment that the public really demands change. They are drawing some big names to the events though...

Four divisions without Corps Troops is not a serious mobilization plan.

I have seen some speculation that Houthis may attempt to contain (and be seen attempting to contain) their escalation to just Israel in hopes that US and Saudi Arabia leave them alone for it. Watch to see if they engage commercial shipping or leave that alone as an indicator on this.

It doesn't belong in TLAV. It it should belong in MTVC, but we killed that to save money. And we didn't plan for a replacement under ACSV because that was just designed to replace platforms and variants that we had in service. Most would keep that in their A2.

Europe and North America watched the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War and decided it did not need to take aboard lessons from those lesser militaries. Then in 1914 they learned that industrial era rifles, machine guns, and artillery were in fact substantial change factors in warfare. It's not...

Except they are outside doctrine band-aids that came about to compensate for lack of proper equipment, and they are now being held up as what right looks like to justify why we can find an A1 echelon role for a vehicle that does not belong in an A1 ech.

This thread isn’t in the political boards. Maybe, instead of partisan bashing on one party or the other, we talk about defence needs and what can be done to improve defence under the current funding climate?

I have spent plenty of time in combat teams of all types & various sizes. I have also spent too much time in an F Ech traveling to meet an A1 that could not get to were it needed to be. You are confusing how things should be with how we make do. Because CAF was cheap, army canceled large...

You are inventing imaginary layers of the echelon system to argue suitability of a vehicle. That places your argument on a foundation of fantasy. While it should not be on the FLOT, the A1 echelon needs survivability for “the frontlines” because it is up there.

You are not speaking in doctrine.

Don’t be sloppy with doctrine or you will make bad decisions. F Ech Does not have a monopoly on being in the frontlines. A1 echelon should have mobility and protection characteristics similar to the supported F Ech. B Ech can get away with softer vehicles.

The updated nomenclature letter?

Were you reading something from CA HQ, or a product compiled in a div or bde HQ?

There will be no formation with a role of "protection brigade". That idea is dead.

See: