Canada's tanks

[PrairieFella]

Add a troop of 4x NEMO/Mjolner Mortars to every Gun Squadron.

Maybe 4 at the RHQ level but honestly, save them for the recce/light cav. Tanks are part of the combat team so they're already under the cover of the inf mortars and have a FOO attached to the combat team for the guns.

 

[markppcli]

Double post please delete

 

[PrairieFella]

The Brits have run several types of tanks regiments recently - the Type 56, Type 58 and Type 44. The numbers refer to the number of tanks in the regiment regardless of the number of recce vehs or squadrons in the regt.

Type 44 and 56 are three-squadron regiments. The Type 44 with 14 tanks per sqn and 2 in the Regt HQ. The Type 56 has 18 tanks per sqn and 2 in the HQ. The Type 58 has four squadrons and I'm not sure exactly how they are distributed. Type 44s generally had a larger number of recce vehs than the Type 58. Type 44 and 58 were older organizations and the current at this time seems to be the three-squadron Type 56 which also has a recce sqn.

I tend to use the term Type 59 because Canada generally has 19 tanks in a squadron and should also have two in the HQ for a total of 59. Interestingly, the older CFP 305-1 from 1990 called for a Canadian armoured regiment to have four tank squadrons and a recce troop. I'm not sure if that ever happened on the ground. When I left the RegF in 1981, the RCD in Germany were established with three tank squadrons, but I'm not sure if they ever had a flyover 4th squadron the same way that 1 RCHA had a flyover 4th M109 battery.

Small note - recently the Canadian tank sqn is now 20 tanks. A fire team partner has been added for the BC but thank you for the info. Wasn't tracking type 44. Seems a little small in terms of a squadron attack but not the end of the world.

 

[markppcli]

Maybe 4 at the RHQ level but honestly, save them for the recce/light cav. Tanks are part of the combat team so they're already under the cover of the inf mortars and have a FOO attached to the combat team for the guns.

Tankers don’t care about fires - I’ve learned that first hand. I’m generally not one to ever limit fires, however the company / squad echelon can’t handle 120s. They take up too much air space and go too far. Bn / Regt can probably manage two 4 tube platoons / troops but you’d need some one assigning and coordinating them. The idea you can’t just throw munitions in the air or 10 k forward is not reality.

 

[PrairieFella]

Tankers don’t care about fires - I’ve learned that first hand. I’m generally not one to ever limit fires, however the company / squad echelon can’t handle 120s. They take up too much air space and go too far. Bn / Regt can probably manage two 4 tube platoons / troops but you’d need some one assigning and coordinating them. The idea you can’t just throw munitions in the air or 10 k forward is not reality.

Agreed. Even 8 tubes per regt is probably 4 too many. Not really needed for tanks imo. The Cav Regt that's forward is a different story.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, because no one is going to be able to provide the FDC for them. 16 mortars to a regiment is frankly astronomical, and you’d need some kind of CP / FDC to coordinate them. I know i know this is all that boring / restrictive “professional” stuff you hate.

Mild correction - 12 Mortars per regiment, assuming @FJAG's Type 44 Regiment with 3 Squadrons of 14.

 

[KevinB]

Well this aged poorly given Hegsworths policy update. AMPV seems to be done and dusted.

Looking into it doesn’t mean dead. They have divested too many M113, and the fleet is on its last legs, and the ABCT’s need it. The comments about it being a box are dumb given what it is.
No shit it’s a box on tracks - but it has a common power pack and transmission and several chassis components to the Bradley and M109A7

 

[PrairieFella]

Looking into it doesn’t mean dead. They have divested too many M113, and the fleet is on its last legs, and the ABCT’s need it. The comments about it being a box are dumb given what it is.
No shit it’s a box on tracks - but it has a common power pack and transmission and several chassis components to the Bradley and M109A7

You're assuming your SecDef will be logical and consider the M113 situation haha.

 

[FJAG]

Small note - recently the Canadian tank sqn is now 20 tanks. A fire team partner has been added for the BC but thank you for the info. Wasn't tracking type 44. Seems a little small in terms of a squadron attack but not the end of the world.

A Type 44 is basically what an American armor bn was before they were reformed into CABs.

I’m with @markppcli and @PrairieFella on this. I can see a 4 tube tp at RHQ to allocate as required.

 

[Kirkhill]

So’s Hegsworth’s liver, and yet

Army to cancel planned Robotic Combat Vehicle award, pause howitzer competition: Sources - Breaking Defense

A day after the service unveiled a massive shake up, a two-star general’s email sheds light on additional ground combat vehicle cuts and plans to accelerate work on a Bradley replacement and future Abrams tank.

breakingdefense.com

In addition to the RCV hit and howitzer still up in the air, the Army announced Thursday it will stop producing Humvees and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles.

In his email, Dean confirmed the fate of several other programs affected.

“M10 Booker will not move into full-rate reproduction, and it is unknown if the Army will field the systems currently in production or buy any additional [low-rate initial production] quantity,” he added. “AMPV [Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle] production will be reduced to minimum sustainment rate but mitigated by Ukraine buyback. Stryker will not award further production orders in accordance with the AROC [Army Requirements Oversight Council].

As Dean wrote in his email, it is not clear what the service will now do with the 80-plus Bookers it has acquired. They could be fielded in a limited quantity or even stripped of sensitive components and sold to foreign countries.

the service wants to “accelerate” development of the Bradley replacement — dubbed the XM30 — and development of the future M1E3 Abrams main battle tank.

Would it be wrong to point out the commonality between the Bradley, the AMPV and the M109? And the intention to lighten up the Abrams?
Perhaps verging on one common tracked fleet?

Also, the light fleet shutting down and being left with the GM Defence ISV/Colorado/Silverado?

Any word on the USMC Cottonmouth ARV and their 32 tonne ACV?

BAE to Produce Turret-Equipped Amphibious Combat Vehicles for US Marines

The US Marine Corps has awarded BAE Systems a contract for 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles with a medium caliber weapon system.

thedefensepost.com

BAE Receives $188.5M FRP Contract from USMC for Amphibious C

BAE Systems has been awarded a $188.5 million full-rate production (FRP) contract from the U.S. Marine Corps for 30 ACV-30mm vehicles, which includes fielding

www.asdnews.com

US Marines get $172M upgrade for deadlier amphibious vehicles

US Marines secure $172M for 30 ACV-30mm vehicles, boosting amphibious firepower. Explore BAE Systems’ deal and its impact on Pacific operations.

bulgarianmilitary.com

BAE Systems secures USD 188.5 million contract from U.S. Marine Corps for Amphibious Combat Vehicles 30mm

BAE Systems has been awarded a $188.5 million full-rate production contract by the U.S. Marine Corps for the delivery of 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV) equipped with a 30mm weapon system.

defence-industry.eu

 

[calculus]

Some information on possible future K3:

Hyundai Rotem officially registers the design of South Korea's future K3 stealth tank

Hyundai Rotem officially registers the design of South Korea's future K3 stealth tank

armyrecognition.com

 

[KevinB]

Some information on possible future K3:

Hyundai Rotem officially registers the design of South Korea's future K3 stealth tank

Hyundai Rotem officially registers the design of South Korea's future K3 stealth tank

armyrecognition.com

I’m sorry but anything that talks about the T-14 Armada as a current MBT is on crack. So many other aspects of that article seem to have been written by a SCI-FI writer.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The Brits have run several types of tanks regiments recently - the Type 56, Type 58 and Type 44. The numbers refer to the number of tanks in the regiment regardless of the number of recce vehs or squadrons in the regt.

Type 44 and 56 are three-squadron regiments. The Type 44 with 14 tanks per sqn and 2 in the Regt HQ. The Type 56 has 18 tanks per sqn and 2 in the HQ. The Type 58 has four squadrons and I'm not sure exactly how they are distributed. Type 44s generally had a larger number of recce vehs than the Type 58. Type 44 and 58 were older organizations and the current at this time seems to be the three-squadron Type 56 which also has a recce sqn.

I tend to use the term Type 59 because Canada generally has 19 tanks in a squadron and should also have two in the HQ for a total of 59. Interestingly, the older CFP 305-1 from 1990 called for a Canadian armoured regiment to have four tank squadrons and a recce troop. I'm not sure if that ever happened on the ground. When I left the RegF in 1981, the RCD in Germany were established with three tank squadrons, but I'm not sure if they ever had a flyover 4th squadron the same way that 1 RCHA had a flyover 4th M109 battery.

With regards to Leopards in 4 CMBG, the RCD had two manned squadrons of 19 tanks in Germany (A and B Sqn) with another tank squadron in storage at Lahr with caretaker staff. C Sqn was in Gagetown New Brunswick with its own tanks and they were the "flyover" squadron. If "the balloon went up" it was a matter of flying C Sqn personnel to Germany and marrying them up with the tanks to have a third squadron of tanks in 4 CMBG. So, Canada had four squadrons of tanks with three of them manned. Then there were the school tanks.

In 1985 as part of enhancements to CFE the third tank squadron was manned, which I think meant that the RCD had two C Sqns for a little while. The 8 CH rotated into Germany in 1987, keeping the three manned tank squadrons. C Sqn RCD stayed in Gagetown while the rest of the RCD went to Petawawa. This then morphed in theory when 1st Cdn Div was crafted. This plan saw 4 CMBG having two mech battalions and a tank regiment with two squadrons (who were in Germany already). 5 GBMC would then come over with their gear and C Sqn RCD (with their tanks). They would then take the third tank squadron from 8 CH. This would have given each brigade two squadrons of 19 tanks. This was never exercised with actual equipment. Interestingly, the planners kept the squadrons at 19 tanks but the regiments at two squadrons rather than reducing sqn size to get three sqns in a Regt.

All that to say, our maximal number of crewed tanks in a single place was three squadrons of 19 tanks (plus two in RHQ). Our doctrinal pubs, though, had four squadrons. This would been theoretically possible in the late 80s/early 90s, but never occurred.

Anyhoo.

 

[PrairieFella]

With regards to Leopards in 4 CMBG, the RCD had two manned squadrons of 19 tanks in Germany (A and B Sqn) with another tank squadron in storage at Lahr with caretaker staff. C Sqn was in Gagetown New Brunswick with its own tanks and they were the "flyover" squadron. If "the balloon went up" it was a matter of flying C Sqn personnel to Germany and marrying them up with the tanks to have a third squadron of tanks in 4 CMBG. So, Canada had four squadrons of tanks with three of them manned. Then there were the school tanks.

In 1985 as part of enhancements to CFE the third tank squadron was manned, which I think meant that the RCD had two C Sqns for a little while. The 8 CH rotated into Germany in 1987, keeping the three manned tank squadrons. C Sqn RCD stayed in Gagetown while the rest of the RCD went to Petawawa. This then morphed in theory when 1st Cdn Div was crafted. This plan saw 4 CMBG having two mech battalions and a tank regiment with two squadrons (who were in Germany already). 5 GBMC would then come over with their gear and C Sqn RCD (with their tanks). They would then take the third tank squadron from 8 CH. This would have given each brigade two squadrons of 19 tanks. This was never exercised with actual equipment. Interestingly, the planners kept the squadrons at 19 tanks but the regiments at two squadrons rather than reducing sqn size to get three sqns in a Regt.

All that to say, our maximal number of crewed tanks in a single place was three squadrons of 19 tanks (plus two in RHQ). Our doctrinal pubs, though, had four squadrons. This would been theoretically possible in the late 80s/early 90s, but never occurred.

Anyhoo.

You've been around the block in the RCAC haha, I'm curious, what do you think of the current direction of the corps? Are you a tank heavy guy or prefer asymmetric composition?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

You've been around the block in the RCAC haha, I'm curious, what do you think of the current direction of the corps? Are you a tank heavy guy or prefer asymmetric composition?

I joined in 1989, so I guess I am getting well-seasoned...

I was on Cougars in the reserves while I was in university. I was a tank troop leader on C1s in Petawawa and a BC on C2s in Petawawa. We left our tanks in Wainwright at the end of the BTE...I was recce after that (2IC and OC) but started the transition of C Sqn back to Leopards when I was an OC there. I trained on US courses (six months in Fort Knox) and exchanges, so I have some of that in my background. All that to say, tank squadrons are my happy place!

I am not convinced that manned ground reconnaissance is dead as a concept, and I think that a tank squadron will behave differently than a recce squadron. I do see the benefits of having common structures for squadrons, but I think we should not underestimate the difficulties of moving between platforms and roles.

I also think we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from the war regarding tank design or the future of the tank. I think at a minimum we need to have defence against "kamikaze drones." I don't know, though, that the day of the MBT is over. I think that there is risk of spending lots of cash to get less capability with attempts at being revolutionary with tank design. Instead, reliable active protection systems to defeat "FPV drones" could be all that is really needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

I joined in 1989, so I guess I am getting well-seasoned...

I was on Cougars in the reserves while I was in university. I was a tank troop leader on C1s in Petawawa and a BC on C2s in Petawawa. We left our tanks in Wainwright at the end of the BTE...I was recce after that (2IC and OC) but started the transition of C Sqn back to Leopards when I was an OC there. I trained on US courses (six months in Fort Knox) and exchanges, so I have some of that in my background. All that to say, tank squadrons are my happy place!

I am not convinced that manned ground reconnaissance is dead as a concept, and I think that a tank squadron will behave differently than a recce squadron. I do see the benefits of having common structures for squadrons, but I think we should not underestimate the difficulties of moving between platforms and roles.

I also think we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from the war regarding tank design or the future of the tank. I think at a minimum we need to have defence against "kamikaze drones." I don't know, though, that the day of the MBT is over. I think that there is risk of spending lots of cash to get less capability with attempts at being revolutionary with tank design. Instead, reliable active protection systems to defeat "FPV drones" could be all that is really needed.

How about buying tanks while accepting their limitations and adjusting the composition and TTPs of the accompanying forces to cover the flanks (including the overhead) of the tanks?

Rather than piling capital, maintenance and training costs on to the tanks are there other ways to keep the costs, including training bills, down? Adding capabilities to the Regiment and the Brigade to supply better overwatch and fire support for example?

 

[FJAG]

I don't know, though, that the day of the MBT is over. I think that there is risk of spending lots of cash to get less capability with attempts at being revolutionary with tank design.

I have yet to see a viable option for what could possibly replace a tank for offensive action on the ground. I could never quite understand those in the armoured corps who bought into the MGS. I expect that for many it was either the MGS or oblivion but there were also some believers.

Tanks have always had to run a balancing act between firepower, speed and protection. The current situation just requires a broader understanding of what constitutes the requisite degree of protection that a modern tank needs.

At the end of the day, the tank is essential to ground warfare.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At the end of the day, the tank is essential to ground warfare.

Speed and violence.