Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

I don't agree with his premise or the solutions he proposes.

Many of the solutions are both possible and desirable, but as additional capabilities and not as the next generation of armour. His basic premise starts with the concept that UAVs make massing armour and massive breakthroughs impossible. That ignores the possibility for the development of new systems for defeating surveillance (including satellite surveillance) and swarming UAV attacks. It also ignores the fact that if you are wrong about that premise, then you have nothing to fall back on.

The type of roles that he proposes - dispersed, multiple run ups etc - were part of our NATO strategy in the 1970s with Active Defence. It was done by full-fledged tanks, in conjunction with the fledgeling anti-armour missiles systems of the day. All of those are better, but so is everything else and there always needs to be a capability for exploitation through rapid, violent counter-attack or else you relegate yourself to the meat grinder war going on now in Ukraine. Developing the technology to enable tanks to keep doing just that is paramount.

Many of his suggested future uses for tanks in their infantry support role, are better done by cheaper specialized vehicles in the field of anti-tank, air defence or engineering. Some may be on tank chassis, others on lighter vehicles. A lot of the ideas should be, and are being incorporated, into new models. There's no question that we need cheaper, lighter tanks but the core concept for armour is still required.

There is also the entire possibility that Armored Formations become even more powerful. The Phalanx of olden times renewed with C-RAM and C-UAS.

With the money going into Golden Dome just on the weapons side, there will be miniaturization of many systems.

Smaller DE options - we already have Deimos on the LAV, but it’s limited by power generation
If you had something like @Kirkhill ’s SMR there could be power to hundred of DE systems that would be a viable C-RAM solution, and your Armoured Division would just roll forward - vaporizing any Anti-Access/Area Denial obstacles, as well as rockets, artillery etc, and the direct fire systems and NLOS Missiles clearing targets ahead.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is also the entire possibility that Armored Formations become even more powerful. The Phalanx of olden times renewed with C-RAM and C-UAS.

With the money going into Golden Dome just on the weapons side, there will be miniaturization of many systems.

Smaller DE options - we already have Deimos on the LAV, but it’s limited by power generation
If you had something like @Kirkhill ’s SMR there could be power to hundred of DE systems that would be a viable C-RAM solution, and your Armoured Division would just roll forward - vaporizing any Anti-Access/Area Denial obstacles, as well as rockets, artillery etc, and the direct fire systems and NLOS Missiles clearing targets ahead.

And I see that Hegseth has just decreed that drones are ammunition and not aircraft.

They are missiles without launchers, bombs without mortars and bullets without guns. But they are smart and can communicate.

Just as important they can be bought by Colonels with the company credit card and proprietary comms are acceptable.

 

[Kirkhill]

There are multitudes of small islands close to the Mainland that make up Taiwan, they will be able to attack those and although Taiwan will resist, they know that they are going to lose those islands.

In which case, if the Chinese really, really want them, then the Taiwanese should use them to kill as many Chinese as possible while using as few Taiwanese as possible. Make it an artillery vs infantry battle.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Absolutely brutal. Let's hope that is incorrect or at least the Canadian fleet is tracked too. It is completely different going from wheeled to tracked armoured warfare. The use of terrain and therefore positions of fire and observation are completely different.

I don't know how else to interpret a 400 vehicle purchase for Medium Cavalry Capability + Life Cycle Extension project for tanks

 

[KevinB]

I don't know how else to interpret a 400 vehicle purchase for Medium Cavalry Capability + Life Cycle Extension project for tanks

I think the issue is what the Medium Cav capability is.

Some of us remember the AVGP with the Cougar being the ‘Armoured’ part.


If it’s just more LAV then it is truly a waste.
But if it’s a legitimate Medium Cavalry Combat System, that can work with Tanks and help LAV’s, then maybe it’s not a total waste.

 

[GK .Dundas]

It sounds like a cost reflective of what the US does with their M1 referbs. Pull everything off the frame, clean everything, repaint everything, replace everything broken, add on new things that make sense including engines etc...

A full rebuild for lack of a better term on the base frame. One wonders if just new tanks are a better option.

Part of the reason for this is to keep the production line hot. Otherwise the plant would shut down and worse would the loss of corporate knowledge . Tooling is actually easier to replace them dealing with the fact that the people who made it work and more importantly knew how to get the most out of it.
One only has to see the British Battleship programme of the mid to late 1930s to see what happens when you lose both an industrial base and the corporate knowledge that went with it.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the issue is what the Medium Cav capability is.

Some of us remember the AVGP with the Cougar being the ‘Armoured’ part.


If it’s just more LAV then it is truly a waste.
But if it’s a legitimate Medium Cavalry Combat System, that can work with Tanks and help LAV’s, then maybe it’s not a total waste.

I could see Ajax being considered as its a GDLS project. For enough vehicles and a limited yearly production of replacements/warstock could be worth tooling a line. It seems most of the teething issues have been resolved and the 40CT is a helluva shell. Add an RWS ATGM like the Brits are doing and that's a beast of a cav vehicle. Problem is no dismounts so you'd need a bunch of Ares too to carry scouts.

 

[CBH99]

I think the issue is what the Medium Cav capability is.

Some of us remember the AVGP with the Cougar being the ‘Armoured’ part.


If it’s just more LAV then it is truly a waste.
But if it’s a legitimate Medium Cavalry Combat System, that can work with Tanks and help LAV’s, then maybe it’s not a total waste.

Holy do I ever feel old now... (It just hit me that I could walk up to a group of Pte's today and there is a decent chance they wouldn't know what either the Cougar or AVGP were. Yikes!)


We'll see where this project goes...

Part of me thinks it may just end up being more LAV's of various specialty types (ATGM, Mortar vehicle, EW vehicle, etc etc - as well as flushing out the units with any LAV 6's they may need)

Part of me thinks the Army may be dusting off the plans they had near the end of the Afghan war to acquire tracked armoured vehicles to fight alongside the Leo 2's

(That project was shelved at the time, but things have obviously changed quite dramatically since then)

 

[FJAG]

Part of me thinks the Army may be dusting off the plans they had near the end of the Afghan war to acquire tracked armoured vehicles to fight alongside the Leo 2's

(That project was shelved at the time, but things have obviously changed quite dramatically since then)

That was the Close Combat Vehicle Project (CCV). While it was designed to accompany tanks, it was not required to be tracked. In fact only one contender was tracked. The rest were wheeled. It was cancelled on the eve of announcing a winner for various reasons including the view that the then ongoing LAV UP program, which was delivering the LAV 6.0, made the CCV unnecessary.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That was the Close Combat Vehicle Project (CCV). While it was designed to accompany tanks, it was not required to be tracked. In fact only one contender was tracked. The rest were wheeled. It was cancelled on the eve of announcing a winner for various reasons including the view that the then ongoing LAV UP program, which was delivering the LAV 6.0, made the CCV unnecessary.

It was utterly stupid that have that program and not require tracks. What would be the point of operating two different 8x8?

 

[markppcli]

I could see Ajax being considered as its a GDLS project. For enough vehicles and a limited yearly production of replacements/warstock could be worth tooling a line. It seems most of the teething issues have been resolved and the 40CT is a helluva shell. Add an RWS ATGM like the Brits are doing and that's a beast of a cav vehicle. Problem is no dismounts so you'd need a bunch of Ares too to carry scouts.

Ajax would be my pick, however if we’re buying it to conduct tasks that can be better done by a tank one wonders why not just buy bloody tanks. Ideally enough for 3 regiments of 3 Sqns each and a 4th for Op stock. Sooo around 210 lets call it. Poland bought 180 K2s for just over what we’re going to pay for refurbishing Leos.

 

[PrairieFella]

Ajax would be my pick, however if we’re buying it to conduct tasks that can be better done by a tank one wonders why not just buy bloody tanks. Ideally enough for 3 regiments of 3 Sqns each and a 4th for Op stock. Sooo around 210 lets call it. Poland bought 180 K2s for just over what we’re going to pay for refurbishing Leos.

Agree wholeheartedly. There still is a role for a non-tank cav vehicle but in an Army our size, not 400 of them.

 

[Underway]

Ajax would be my pick, however if we’re buying it to conduct tasks that can be better done by a tank one wonders why not just buy bloody tanks. Ideally enough for 3 regiments of 3 Sqns each and a 4th for Op stock. Sooo around 210 lets call it. Poland bought 180 K2s for just over what we’re going to pay for refurbishing Leos.

Would love to point to the doctrinal points that support this but the Cav Doctrine is now in what, 2 years still in "translation" and pretty much locked out to anyone who doesn't know anyone.

That being said the training shift away from the "recce" mindset to the "tanker" mindset is concerning. Used to be the RCAC put out the best NCO's with regard to critical thinking, problem solving and independent action because of how the Coyote's were used. Now they are all trained "tanker" mindset as that's the baseline. Very unfortunate as the future of war is looking a lot more recce thinking and a lot less tanker.

 

[PrairieFella]

Would love to point to the doctrinal points that support this but the Cav Doctrine is now in what, 2 years still in "translation" and pretty much locked out to anyone who doesn't know anyone.

We've been transitioned for a half decade now. I did my ACC on the new doctrine and that was 5 years ago. Its on the DWAN, if you have ACIMS you can look up ACRiB - Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle.

That being said the training shift away from the "recce" mindset to the "tanker" mindset is concerning. Used to be the RCAC put out the best NCO's with regard to critical thinking, problem solving and independent action because of how the Coyote's were used. Now they are all trained "tanker" mindset as that's the baseline. Very unfortunate as the future of war is looking a lot more recce thinking and a lot less tanker.

Recce still exists and is still trained but I agree that it should be trained more. The problem with our recce doctrine at the time was it was fundamentally useless in modern war beyond niche tasks. 8 unsupported afvs with no internal fires, no ATGMs and extremely limited dismounts made the 8 car troop a great way to get 32 skilled and well-trained crewmen killed. Bear in mind the 8 car troop was born out of lessons learned from peacekeeping in the Sinai. It was time to kill it and rebuild.

We are seeing a return of 6-0, aka regimental recce troop (which is bigger than a cav troop), a conceptual find-strike troop (a real deep cut that being discussed) and assault troop, all of which have some recce assets and recce tasks assigned to them. Drones will also begin proliferation at the squadron level. You're also seeing more focus on enabling operations and other TACSEC tasks in light cav squadrons as a complement to their base maneouvre functions.

Personally I think non tank cav troops should be six cars, with 4 IFVs and 2 light APCs/PMVs with dismounts but that's just me haha.

 

[markppcli]

We've been transitioned for a half decade now. I did my ACC on the new doctrine and that was 5 years ago. Its on the DWAN, if you have ACIMS you can look up ACRiB - Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle.

Problem being this was written by the armour school and not to meet needs identified by the field force so it’s a bit of a shit show.

Recce still exists and is still trained but I agree that it should be trained more. The problem with our recce doctrine at the time was it was fundamentally useless in modern war beyond niche tasks. 8 unsupported afvs with no fires, no ATGMs and extremely limited dismounts made the 8 car troop and great way to get 32 crewmen killed. Bear in mind the 8 car troop was born out of lessons learned from peacekeeping in the Sinai. It was time to kill it and rebuild.

Well you’d have a FOO party and guns to support the screen we’d hope. Yet another reason why no army transformation is possible until our fires situation is fixed though.

We are seeing a return of 6-0, aka regimental recce troop (which is bigger than a cav troop), a conceptual find-strike troop (a real deep cut that being discussed) and assault troop, all of which have some recce assets and recce tasks assigned to them. Drones will also begin proliferation at the squadron level. You're also seeing more focus on enabling operations in light cav squadrons as a complement to their base maneouvre functions.

Interesting I’ll have to ask some of the Strats I worked with about assault troops and regimental Recce squadrons.

Personally I think non tank cav troops should be six cars, with 4 IFVs and 2 light APCs/PMVs with dismounts but that's just me haha.

 

[PrairieFella]

Problem being this was written by the armour school and not to meet needs identified by the field force so it’s a bit of a shit show.

You're not wrong on that front. There is work being done and recently I got a read of the new TTPs, they'll address a lot of the confusion.

Well you’d have a FOO party and guns to support the screen we’d hope. Yet another reason why no army transformation is possible until our fires situation is fixed though.

True, but the lack of internal fires like our allies was a kiss of death imo. Its great to have a FOO but even the best FOO cant guarantee I get fires when I need it. Thats why even 81mm tubes should have been internal to the recce sqn from day one. Preferably 120mm at the Sqn HQ.

Interesting I’ll have to ask some of the Strats I worked with about assault troops and regimental Recce squadrons.

Early early days on recce troop.

Assault troop will be quite limited at the LdSH, you're better off asking any 12RBC or the RCDs you know haha. Its a pretty mature qualification at this point. Dismounted recces, security tasks, limited breaching and mobility tasks, some ambushing, etc.

 

[FJAG]

It was utterly stupid that have that program and not require tracks. What would be the point of operating two different 8x8?

I'm certainly not a defender of wheeled IFVs. I've stated my preference for tracks many times.

My understanding was that at the time the real issue was the problems being encountered by the light LAV IIIs in Afghanistan. Remember that tanks had died and were to be replaced by a suite of direct fire vehicles - MGS, TOW UA, and ADATS - until Afghanistan made it clear that tanks were necessary and we made a quick purchase of used Leopard IIs and a temporary loan of some Leopards from Germany. Operations in Afghanistan reintroduced combined arms operations at the combat team level that had been withering in Canada.

The LAV III's weak and flat belly armour was particulalry susceptible to IEDs so there was a need for something heavier. The description for the CCV specifically looked for a heavier vehicle than the LAV III - somewhere between 25-40 tons. The aim was to provide more protection for the troops. I don't know specifically why there was no requirement for tracks because the LAV III had already shown an inability to manoeuvre freely in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the wording of the project, I think the fact that the concept at the time didn't call for mounted infantry assisting a tank fight but rather a dismounted infantry fight supported by tanks probably played into that. Note as well that there were still many champions of the wheeled mobility in the army who didn't want to return to a heavy armour, high maintenance inventory.

CV 90 was the only qualified tracked respondent to the RFP.

IMHO one of the keys here is the number of vehicles involved. The project only called for 108 with options for an additional 30. The plan was to distribute them widely across the three brigades (a company each) so that each one of them would be able to force generate a company for operational use. Essentially we were contemplating at the scale of deploying one square combat team per battle group. Those are very limited aims. Remember as well that there were several parallel projects under the overarching Family of Land Combat Vehicles project which also included HIMARS and the TAPV. The TAPV in particular in the number of 500-600 is, IMHO, a signal of the type of future combat the army envisioned in 2009 when these projects kicked off. Basically wheeled, mine protected, patrolling with heavier LAV IIIs (and later LAV 6.0) as the core "dismounted" fighting element, supported by an even heavier tank and CCV force. Recall as well that 2009 followed the financial crisis in the US. Money would be a big issue. The hammer finally dropped in 2013 when the army recommended to the government to abandon the CCV project.

True, but the lack of internal fires like our allies was a kiss of death imo. Its great to have a FOO but even the best FOO cant guarantee I get fires when I need it. Thats why even 81mm tubes should have been internal to the recce sqn from day one. Preferably 120mm at the Sqn HQ.

During the dark ages of the Cold War I worked with screens, guards, counter-attack reserves etc as a FOO. In each case artillery resources were allocated and positioned to support the effort. It was a bit rough at times as we simply didn't have enough BCs (x2) and FOOs (X 4) at the time for a brigade so we were constantly being moved about during different phases, but I can guarantee there would not be a plan involving a phase of cavalry action where there would not be dedicated fires support.

Assault troop will be quite limited at the LdSH, you're better off asking any 12RBC or the RCDs you know haha. Its a pretty mature qualification at this point. Dismounted recces, security tasks, limited breaching and mobility tasks, some ambushing, etc.

Again, dark ages time with the 8 CH in Petawawa. The assault troop was the step-child of the armoured regiment. It would be the first to suffer anytime a PY crunch or manning difficulties came about. It more often didn't exist than exist.

 

[KevinB]

Honestly the entire modern Calvary aspect isn’t Infantry or Armoured, and needs a bit of both.

I'm certainly not a defender of wheeled IFVs. I've stated my preference for tracks many times.

My understanding was that at the time the real issue was the problems being encountered by the light LAV IIIs in Afghanistan. Remember that tanks had died and were to be replaced by a suite of direct fire vehicles - MGS, TOW UA, and ADATS - until Afghanistan made it clear that tanks were necessary and we made a quick purchase of used Leopard IIs and a temporary loan of some Leopards from Germany. Operations in Afghanistan reintroduced combined arms operations at the combat team level that had been withering in Canada.

The LAV III's weak and flat belly armour was particulalry susceptible to IEDs so there was a need for something heavier.

I have huge issues with that as the LAVIII is a steel V hulled design.
The LAV6.0 and Stryker 2.0 are double V, but the LAV III was stronger than the LAV2 variants, and the M113 etc.

The LAV III fell victim to ‘one can always make a bigger bomb’…

During the dark ages of the Cold War I worked with screens, guards, counter-attack reserves etc as a FOO. In each case artillery resources were allocated and positioned to support the effort. It was a bit rough at times as we simply didn't have enough BCs (x2) and FOOs (X 4) at the time for a brigade so we were constantly being moved about during different phases, but I can guarantee there would not be a plan involving a phase of cavalry action where there would not be dedicated fires support.

Again, dark ages time with the 8 CH in Petawawa. The assault troop was the step-child of the armoured regiment. It would be the first to suffer anytime a PY crunch or manning difficulties came about. It more often didn't exist than exist.

One reason I believe that every maneuver unit in a Bde needs a CS firing battery allocated to it.
1 Armoured and 3 Inf — needs 4 Batteries
1 Armoured and 2 Inf - needs 3
1 Armoured 1 Cav and 2 LAV Inf needs 4

While the BC may not get his/her battery in support, it’s significantly more likely to get it than if a unit doesn’t have a BC and battery allocated to each maneuver unit.

Regardless it is generally accepted that Cavalry units will get Infantry Mortar platoons imbedded. Which makes the Calvary Squadron the lowest level of combined arms
And another reason the Assault Troop should just be an Infantry Platoon with a Pioneer section.

 

[FJAG]

I have huge issues with that as the LAVIII is a steel V hulled design.
The LAV6.0 and Stryker 2.0 are double V, but the LAV III was stronger than the LAV2 variants, and the M113 etc.

The LAV III fell victim to ‘one can always make a bigger bomb’…

I'll get back to you by PM on this.

One reason I believe that every maneuver unit in a Bde needs a CS firing battery allocated to it.
1 Armoured and 3 Inf — needs 4 Batteries
1 Armoured and 2 Inf - needs 3
1 Armoured 1 Cav and 2 LAV Inf needs 4

I don't whole heartedly agree. I certainly agree that each unit needs an FSCC and a set of observers who have the ability to call in all manners of fires. Under our current construct that means a BC, FOOs and JTACs. IMHO, while we might leave a BC and FOOs with a battery administratively, in battle they should be decoupled so that the BC and FOOs stay permanently with their supported unit while the battery itself is assigned/reassigned as necessary.

That means that the firing component of a CS battery can be reallocated (for example "at priority call") from unengaged units when necessary. We already do that. I'm a bit open on far we should go on this because we are seeing a shift in the way that firing units are being allocated, deployed and employed. Technology and threat makes it more desirable to disperse guns in small two gun troops or even singly. That makes "batteries" more administrative in nature looking after resupply and other battlefield management tasks. I can see a future where the screen may be allocated four troops or seven guns from different batteries. Some of this will depend on what our next generation of gear is.

Organizationally I do see four "batteries" in a brigade - three "gun" batteries and one "launcher" battery. They basically do similar jobs administratively but the gun batteries retain the ability to provide all weather neutralization and non lethal effects (smoke, illumination etc) while the launcher batteries provide precision guided strikes by way of loitering munitions or FPVs further out. My gut tells me three and one is a good mix but I concede that 2 and 2 might be needed .

While the BC may not get his/her battery in support, it’s significantly more likely to get it than if a unit doesn’t have a BC and battery allocated to each maneuver unit.

I think much of our way of assigning guns in the past had more to do with the state of the communications systems and the limited range of the guns. It's not that I'm advocating for a change, but I think that both technology and threats will make change possible and maybe require that change happen. I think that the simple complexity and physical aspects of sustaining a fire unit in the field will dictate the continued need for "batteries," I think that how fire support is technically provided may change quite a bit.

Regardless it is generally accepted that Cavalry units will get Infantry Mortar platoons imbedded. Which makes the Calvary Squadron the lowest level of combined arms
And another reason the Assault Troop should just be an Infantry Platoon with a Pioneer section.

I do not disagree - I just don't know enough about the trends at that level to provide meaningful debate. I do think that the improvement of weapon systems over the last two decades makes the "recce" force a force that can do meaningful combat in its own right. Whether it will ever be up to graduating to being a guard needs to be carefully war gamed. What it needs to work on the continuum from screen to guard will, I think, be up for debate for a long time amongst the black hatters. I tend to agree though, from a fire support point of view, that they will need to be able to access the full range of what the brigade (and div) have to offer through a dedicated fire support team.

 

[markppcli]

True, but the lack of internal fires like our allies was a kiss of death imo. Its great to have a FOO but even the best FOO cant guarantee I get fires when I need it. Thats why even 81mm tubes should have been internal to the recce sqn from day one. Preferably 120mm at the Sqn HQ.

If your in a screen your getting a FOO because their battery is in DS to you.