Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

Make it two batteries. FJAG doesn't think there are enough rounds on board one gun. So buy him two and convert one M777 battery. You will still save manpower because you only need a driver and a gunner. The other 6 numbers in the gun dets can go to the MRTs and Ammo numbers and can be shared.

44 Leo 2s and 12 Archers might make a dent.

You don't need to double the batteries to make up for small loads of on-board ammo. You just need a good limber vehicle system with a rapid under-armour reloader capability.

Also, having been the BK of an M109 flyover battery I see the practicality of prepositioned equipment. It makes the whole logistics issue a lot easier.

When it comes to a commitment to Europe my preference is heavy mech. That leads to the conclusion that you need prepositioned equipment and war stocks of ammo and other supplies.

When it comes to manning that equipment my first choice is posted tours in theatre with a solid evacuation plan. That has some issues of its own so my second choice is a posted core with a flyover round-out force coming for several exercises per year. I think frequent exercises matter not only for the exercise once there and deterrence, but to test and exercise the whole flyover cycle. My very last choice is 6 month rotos. IMHO that's a way to kill an army before the first shot is fired. Families matter. 6 month tours, especially repetitive ones over long periods of time create unnecessary hardships. I think planning on 6 month rotos to span a decade or more commitment is callous.

I'll go one step further. Having a 2,200 person in-country means the better part of a brigade eaten up every six month roto. They'll be hard pressed to do two rotos per year out of a single brigade even with 15-20% reserve participation. Speaking of reserves, 15-20% means about 400 folks on each roto are reservist. Take into account the need for predeployment training and you could have roughly 800 reservists on full-time service at any given time. That's the financial equivalent of adding 800 PYs to the army. That creates a cash burden somewhere on the system. Regardless of where its coming from that's around $58,000,000 or more bucks (based on corporal's pay (Class C $6,000 x 12 x 800) each year.

For that much money maybe you could keep all the tanks humming.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When we went to Reforgers, there was no prep training before flying over, just medical. So you could still supplement the posted units for each exercise with flyover reservists.

 

[Fabius]

The flow of equipment for the expanded eFP is part of STDE as is the RIP of the eFP BG. There are other components as well. The Light Battalion piece won't be until later in the year - not under the STDE umbrella.

Does this equal the exercising of an actual capability or does it mean we have convinced NATO that us doing things we need to do anyway should be counted as our contribution?

The RIP for example, if it was to be done in a manner such that we brought in the entire incoming BG plus equipment and maintained the in place personnel and equipment and did a 1 week exercise then sent the old personnel home, that in my mind would equal a demonstration of capability, capacity and intent.

If we just do the RIP as per normal then in my mind we have just convinced NATO to accept what we are doing anyway as being STDE. It may exercise a traffic tech and a pilot and an HRA clerk on their basic functions but does it exercise the CAF on force projection?

 

[Halifax Tar]

You were talking about how hard it would be to get tanks to theatre. I merely pointed out that we already did it. The tanks are there now. And we've done it before. I sailed on TRIDENT JUNCTURE. I am a little proud of our strat movers - they've helped me a couple of times with the movement of BGs. That nobody was trying to destroy us does not take away from the fact that we can move equipment across oceans.

What exactly is your point about how hard it would be in wartime? Nothing would be easy. So what? Our contribution to securing the sea lanes to Europe would absolutely be important. So would having something to contribute in Europe.

We have a NATO commitment to eFP Latvia. We are leading that eFP. This resonates with our allies. Its our mission, so we are executing it and have added tanks among more things that are inbound.

You seem to think that army folks don't think of the support requirements of tanks? Really? What are you basing this on?

Congratulations, you successfully completed and exercise in contacting, apparently a few times.

That good, I'm glad you can.

Enjoy your Saturday.

 

[KevinB]

Or maybe we focus on contribution to NATO being aiding in the securing of sea routes so the US can get (additional) material there in case of a conflict. Our regiment (battalion) tanks, or Bde (at the most) would be better served being 1 or 5 fully crewed ships or maritime patrol squadrons.

Keep a two brigades in Canada for sovops, and the showing the flag missions, and focus on units that secure our air and sea borders plus providing assets to NATO, something tanks can't do.

Get rid of what ever ground commitment to NATO we have. Promise something useful that we can provide.

If we were to provide a div plus all support sure NATO it, but we haven't in decades and will not for decades. Staff up the new ships and planes we have coming, gut the army.

Coming from a 29 year army guy.

I’m surprised coming from you. We expected it from @Halifax Tar

However, allies want to see Canadian soldiers along side them, as boots on the ground mean commitment.
Especially true for Canada as you can’t get anyone out easily.

Is a Navy important, yes, but so is an Army and Air Force and you can’t ignore the fact that if the GoC scrapped any idea of European forces, the money wouldn’t be spent on the CAF, but on other things to make Canadians feel even more blissfully ignorant of the world around them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m surprised coming from you. We expected it from @Halifax Tar

lol No need to wink, I earned that poke in the side lol If nothing else at least I am predictable lol

 

[KevinB]

If I was Canada and looking at the tank situation realistically.

Two Tank Regiments of tanks would be permanently in Latvia. One HQ, and 3 Tank Squadrons being 100% filled with personnel, and the other Reg’t being a 10% skeleton crew (and 100% of the Maintenance Squadron) with the rest on fly over tasking.

The same for Two LAV Battalions, a CER, and a 4 Bty 8 gun Arty Regiment.

If Latvia isn’t idea for all the Forces, make a deal with another country like Poland, or Finland.

I fully agree with @FJAG as 6 months is just ridiculous, best to go back to a CFE type situation where it’s a 4year posting.

 

[Rifleman62]

You can fly the whole shebang over in one CC330-Huskey for those folks still concerned about logistics.

Minor point: I wouldn't do that. It's like putting the whole team in one aircraft except this will be a big well trained team with little backup. Two aircraft.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I fully agree with @FJAG as 6 months is just ridiculous, best to go back to a CFE type situation where it’s a 4year posting.

But 6 months is the minimum qualifying time for the SSM, I think, so just imagine the number of troops you can keep motivated by getting them a gong if you keep the rotations at 6 months.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I’m surprised coming from you. We expected it from @Halifax Tar

Right now I see armour being a juice that's not worth the squeeze, same with arty. We have so little, and contribute even less it's not worth it. If we were at 1989 levels of equipment, sure. But right now ships and planes contribute more to sovereignty, and would also make the US happy, NORAD and Pacific wise.

I appreciate the need for an army, and think Canada should have a robust one. But we've been trying to make one for 10 years and got no where.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is a paper from a think tank (I will not give an opinion about where it sits on the spectrum) suggesting that Canada's NATO commitment should be focused on the Arctic. I suspect it will find support in some left-of-centre (i.e. Liberal Party and NDP) circles.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So basically they are arguing we should go the nuclear attack submarine route.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But 6 months is the minimum qualifying time for the SSM, I think, so just imagine the number of troops you can keep motivated by getting them a gong if you keep the rotations at 6 months.

I'm pretty sure the qualifying time has been greatly reduced.

 

[FJAG]

Right now I see armour being a juice that's not worth the squeeze, same with arty. We have so little, and contribute even less it's not worth it. If we were at 1989 levels of equipment, sure. But right now ships and planes contribute more to sovereignty, and would also make the US happy, NORAD and Pacific wise.

I appreciate the need for an army, and think Canada should have a robust one. But we've been trying to make one for 10 years and got no where.

There is a paper from a think tank (I will not give an opinion about where it sits on the spectrum) suggesting that Canada's NATO commitment should be focused on the Arctic. I suspect it will find support in some left-of-centre (i.e. Liberal Party and NDP) circles.

I really don't think that it's an "either-or" thing. IMHO we need to contribute a land force in Europe just as much as we should provide naval forces to both Atlantic and Pacific theatres and air forces to NORAD. Similarly, we need to pay more attention to our coastlines, including the Arctic.

We're straying a bit off the tanks topic here but to me the equation is simple. Europe (in large measure the Baltics) is important to the NATO alliance. We need to be seen to be a part of it. Tanks are important in that theatre and we have tanks. We don't need tanks anywhere else. They are of no use in the Pacific nor the Arctic so why would we not commit heavy armour to the Baltics. The same for what little artillery we have left.

Infantry on the other hand is useful in the Pacific and in the north. (as are the ships and air force). So commit them there.

I'm a fan of Gibbs Rule #5 - don't waste good. IMHO tanks are good and useful in Latvia and we should simply go "all in" with them there. The number we have is enough for one regiment in theatre (albeit mixed types) and enough as a training fleet in Canada.

If we're looking at this from a cost point of view, I think that we really need to look hard at a massive trimming of the bloated administrative centre (by which I do not mean logistics - I mean the self licking ice cream cone that is NDHQ) before we trim any existing capability that we have.

 

[Maxman1]

But 6 months is the minimum qualifying time for the SSM, I think, so just imagine the number of troops you can keep motivated by getting them a gong if you keep the rotations at 6 months.

Alert is six months. NATO missions that don't have a separate medal are only 45 days.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is a paper from a think tank (I will not give an opinion about where it sits on the spectrum) suggesting that Canada's NATO commitment should be focused on the Arctic. I suspect it will find support in some left-of-centre (i.e. Liberal Party and NDP) circles.

And in some not so left wing circles.

 

[Kirkhill]

I really don't think that it's an "either-or" thing. IMHO we need to contribute a land force in Europe just as much as we should provide naval forces to both Atlantic and Pacific theatres and air forces to NORAD. Similarly, we need to pay more attention to our coastlines, including the Arctic.

We're straying a bit off the tanks topic here but to me the equation is simple. Europe (in large measure the Baltics) is important to the NATO alliance. We need to be seen to be a part of it. Tanks are important in that theatre and we have tanks. We don't need tanks anywhere else. They are of no use in the Pacific nor the Arctic so why would we not commit heavy armour to the Baltics. The same for what little artillery we have left.

Infantry on the other hand is useful in the Pacific and in the north. (as are the ships and air force). So commit them there.

I'm a fan of Gibbs Rule #5 - don't waste good. IMHO tanks are good and useful in Latvia and we should simply go "all in" with them there. The number we have is enough for one regiment in theatre (albeit mixed types) and enough as a training fleet in Canada.

If we're looking at this from a cost point of view, I think that we really need to look hard at a massive trimming of the bloated administrative centre (by which I do not mean logistics - I mean the self licking ice cream cone that is NDHQ) before we trim any existing capability that we have.

NATO/JEF in the Arctic - RM Cdo in Norway at their new permanent base.

A Land Force contribution to NATO.

 

[IKnowNothing]

There is a paper from a think tank (I will not give an opinion about where it sits on the spectrum) suggesting that Canada's NATO commitment should be focused on the Arctic. I suspect it will find support in some left-of-centre (i.e. Liberal Party and NDP) circles.

I had a brief moment optimism. This paragraph phrase -

"Ottawa should retool its focus within NATO toward the defence of the Arctic. Such an undertaking makes even more sense with Sweden and Finland joining NATO, offering Canada the opportunity to assume a prominent role within a group of seven circumpolar allied states representing almost one-quarter of the alliance’s membership. Canada should stand on guard for a True North strong and free"

makes a tonne of sense, and it's a pity that it's a one off line, the implications of which are promptly forgotten to argue in favour of turning inward.

The introduction of Sweden and Finland into NATO fundamentally changes both the alliance and the strategic shape of a conflict with Russia while presenting a prime opportunity for a serious Canada as a middle power to take a leading role in a theatre that more closely aligns with our domestic/sovereignty needs. Tanks and mech would be a part of that. So would P8's and SSK's based in Norway. Jaeger/Nordic exercise exchanges. Chance to chart our own course and be comparatively bigger fish in a smaller pond.

 

[Kirkhill]

Russian losses in Ukraine have wiped out its advantage in Baltics, report says

www.stripes.com

Russia’s battlefield losses in Ukraine have eliminated the military advantages it once held over NATO allies in the Baltic region, a new think tank report says.

“Russia has effectively lost its position of power and the capacity to threaten its neighbors with projections of military power,” Pavel Baev wrote in a November report for the French Institute of International Relations.

Russia’s war in Ukraine has taken an extreme toll on its military and challenges its ability to maintain a large force on its western flank with NATO, the report said. The study argues that Moscow’s strategic goal of turning its military exclave of Kaliningrad into a launching pad to dominate the central part of the Baltic region “has effectively been canceled.”

Moreover, Ukraine’s ability to target Russian military infrastructure around Crimea has exposed weaknesses in Russia’s coastal defense weapon systems. Those vulnerabilities also apply to the Russian military along the Baltic coast.

Beyond the tactical weaknesses, Russian capabilities were compromised as assets moved to the war front. Many of the Baltic units tasked with guarding Russia’s western border with NATO countries have been decimated during the nearly two years of fighting in Ukraine, according to the report, which sites a lengthy list of damaged units.

“Whatever the scope of the outcome of the war, Russia will not be able to rebuild a position of military superiority in the Baltic theater or even to set an approximate balance of forces with NATO, which is implementing a new plan to strengthen its posture in this reconfigured direction,” Baev said.

Regardless of the outcome of the war, Russia also will need to position forces along its southern border with Ukraine for the long-haul, the report says.

concerns were reinforced by a large war game, carried out by the Rand Corp. think tank with the assistance of numerous American military commands between 2014 and 2015.

It found a Russian offensive in the Baltics would overwhelm lesser-armed alliance forces and seize the Estonian and Latvian capitals in a matter of hours.

Since then, NATO has added multinational battlegroups in the Baltics and Poland and ramped up rotations of other combat forces in the region, including U.S. Army tank units.

That, along with the addition of Finland into NATO and eventually Sweden, tipped the balance in the Baltics to NATO’s favor, Baev said.

“With the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, the Baltic theater is reconfigured so profoundly to Russia’s disadvantage that no amount of effort could make ‘Fortress Kaliningrad’ defensible,” the report said.

The requirements have changed and continue to change.

 

[Infanteer]

All that advantage is countered by a few SS-29 on TELs.