Canada's tanks

[TangoTwoBravo]

Is a square combat team based on a 19 tank Squadron a unit or a sub-unit? Where I'm going with that, how thin would it be to take the CS and CSS elements of a Bde, an administrative Type 59 tank regiment and a full mech battalion, and fight the Bde with 3x square combat teams as your maneuver units?

The square combat team (a full squadron and a full infantry company) would be a rare grouping on an actual battlefield. Its more of a training construct. A more typical combat team from a battle group consisting of a tank squadron and two or three infantry companies would be something like a troop of tanks with an infantry company, or perhaps a half-squadron with an infantry company. You could see an infantry platoon and two tank or three troops in a combat team.

Combat Teams are a grouping of infantry and tank sub-sub-units (troops and platoons) under a sub-unit HQ. They are formed by the Battle Group commander based on his estimate of the situation. He might not form any and run his sub-units pure. I have a hard time conceiving of a situation where the available forces and situation result in a super-battle group with three square combat teams. That is almost a brigade of combat power.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The square combat team (a full squadron and a full infantry company) would be a rare grouping on an actual battlefield. Its more of a training construct. A more typical combat team from a battle group consisting of a tank squadron and two or three infantry companies would be something like a troop of tanks with an infantry company, or perhaps a half-squadron with an infantry company. You could see an infantry platoon and two tank or three troops in a combat team.

Combat Teams are a grouping of infantry and tank sub-sub-units (troops and platoons) under a sub-unit HQ. They are formed by the Battle Group commander based on his estimate of the situation. He might not form any and run his sub-units pure. I have a hard time conceiving of a situation where the available forces and situation result in a super-battle group with three square combat teams. That is almost a brigade of combat power.

Hence the second question in my post. Noodling in my head what it would like if 2RCR and 1 PPCLI were the only mech, and RCD was fully equipped with tanks and moved to Gagetown. Would it be one geographically split heavy Bde with commensurate CS and CSS, or could you go overweight with CS/CSS and have 2x Bde(-) formations. Thin but viable on their own, ideal for attaching a bn from a smaller country.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

A CMBG with two mech infantry (tracked or not) battalions and a tank regiment would certainly be viable. It is possible to have units of a brigade located in different bases (the case currently for two of our CMBGs), but it makes combined arms training more expensive and episodic. As a tanker in Petawawa we went to Gagetown on several occasions to train with 2 RCR. Split-basing will be more inefficient in terms of service support and have an effect on formation cohesion, but it can be a necessity. A CMBG with two units in Gagetown and one out in Alberta or Manitoba doesn't make a ton of sense to me? A CMBG with two units in Gagetown and one in Valcartier or Petawawa is much easier to conceive. Indeed, 2 RCR has previously belonged to 5 GBMC (80s?).

Still trying to understand your question. If you have three tank squadrons and six mech infantry companies (which could be LAV-based), then making two brigades out of that is, in my opinion, a dog that doesn't hunt. Its a brigade. It could be garrisoned in various locations, but it would operate as a formation.

Now, there is a point when a brigade becomes "over-stuffed." If you have five actual manouevre units (lets say six tank squadrons and nine infantry companies plus the unit-level HQs), then you would likely have two brigades.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Still trying to understand your question. If you have three tank squadrons and six mech infantry companies (which could be LAV-based), then making two brigades out of that is, in my opinion, a dog that doesn't hunt. Its a brigade. It could be garrisoned in various locations, but it would operate as a formation.

Now, there is a point when a brigade becomes "over-stuffed." If you have five actual manouevre units (lets say six tank squadrons and nine infantry companies plus the unit-level HQs), then you would likely have two brigades.

Sorry, will try to explain myself more clearly, I left out the underlying assumption that LdSH already has tanks.

2x tank regiments - LdSH and RCD
2x Mech Bn - 1 PPCLI and 2 RCR

in 2x 1+1 Regional regional groupings, 1 West, 1 East.

So the middle case, 4 actual maneuver units totaling 6 tank squadrons and 6 infantry companies.

With the question being, do you allocate CS/CSS/HQ resources for 2x Bde (-), or 1x Bde.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Sorry, will try to explain myself more clearly, I left out the underlying assumption that LdSH already has tanks.

2x tank regiments - LdSH and RCD
2x Mech Bn - 1 PPCLI and 2 RCR

in 2x 1+1 Regional regional groupings, 1 West, 1 East.

So the middle case, 4 actual maneuver units totaling 6 tank squadrons and 6 infantry companies.

With the question being, do you allocate CS/CSS/HQ resources for 2x Bde (-), or 1x Bde.

Well, we already have six mech battalions in our army, so getting us to 2 tank regiments would mean 2 x CMBG however they were geographically distributed. Likely one out west and one in Gagetown, but with the Gagetown one potentially having some its mech battalions elsewhere (just like 1 CMBG has a mech battalion two provinces away). We are now entering into napkin-army land and I am reaching my limit of exploitation!

I do think, though, that we need at least two full tank units in our army if we are going to fight in Europe.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry, will try to explain myself more clearly, I left out the underlying assumption that LdSH already has tanks.

2x tank regiments - LdSH and RCD
2x Mech Bn - 1 PPCLI and 2 RCR

in 2x 1+1 Regional regional groupings, 1 West, 1 East.

So the middle case, 4 actual maneuver units totaling 6 tank squadrons and 6 infantry companies.

With the question being, do you allocate CS/CSS/HQ resources for 2x Bde (-), or 1x Bde.

None of the above.
Get 2 more Tank units and 3 more Mech BN’s
So you can have an Armoured Bde 2:1 and two mech Bde’s of 1:2

For @TangoTwoBravo I still refuse to call the LAV BN’s mech

Keep in mind that Canada has had a fascination with 3 Infantry and 1 Armoured units for Bde’s since the close out of 4 CMBG in Germany.

Now 3 of those Infantry BN’s are light, but the CA hasn’t let that alter the plan.

For a while the CA was planning on making the 3rd BN’s LAV as well and having a Coy without LAV’s in each of the 9BN’s too (we need a SMFH smilie/emoji).

Many other militaries run a 3 Manuever unit Bde for Mech Inf or Armor units.

I don’t really care but I am a huge believer in that if you have a 3 or 4 Manuever unit Bde, that it needs the same amount of artillery firing batteries in close support to that manuever number.

Down here CAB’s are either 2:1 or 1:2 Coy’s of Armor and Infantry. Now they are removing Combined Arms Battalion from terminology, and the ABCT will consist of 2 Tank Battalions, and 1 Mech Infantry Battalion (which is solely a nomenclature change from CAB Armor Heavy, or CAB Infantry Heavy, as the Tank Battalions each have 2 Tank Coy and one Mech Infantry Company, and the Mech Infantry Battalion has 2 Mech Infantry Companies and 1 Tank Coy.
Plus a Cav Troop, Brigade Signals Coy, and Brigade Support Bn (technically not part of the Bde - but in direct attachment from the Division )