Canada's tanks

[OldSolduer]

The problem with the loss of the tank from the CA is that it also means the loss of being able to conduct combined arms offensive action against peer states. There is no combined arms attack without the tank in our doctrine. So unless we want our army to be strictly a light force, we need MBTs and a lot more of them because oh boy, are the ones we have getting long in the tooth.

And the loss of skill sets by soldiers who were....skilled in tank warfare.

Chinook enters the chat

 

[FJAG]

And the loss of skill sets by soldiers who were....skilled in tank warfare.

Chinook enters the chat

This gets me back to the introduction of the AVGP Cougars and Grizzlies in the mid 70s. There was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether these were true light vehicles with some warlike/peacekeeping purpose or merely training vehicles in order to prepare both officers and other ranks for duty with 4 CMBG.

The Cougar was obviously not a tank but, more often then not, our exercises were shaped to use them like that. We did use Grizzlies on some peacekeeping missions.

I think that you can use Ersatz tanks and APCs (like cars and pickup trucks) in training, especially the early stages and in areas that aren't proper ranges. The cheaper and non-military the better because you can buy lots and don't get sucked into the idea that they have a real tactical value. Obviously they have zero value as a deterrent. I doubt that any Russian ever considered that Canada would field a division based on 4 CMBG and using either 1 Combat Group or the SSF. We did recreate 1 Cdn Div in those days, but it was limited to 4 CMBG and the M113 tracked components in 5 CMB/CMBG.

Unless you have a proper combined arms force to train for and rotate through you should not waste money on vehicles that are pseudo-tactical like the AVGPs were - especially now-a-days when the primary threat is LSCO. Quite frankly I never agreed with the version of thought for the AVGP and even the LAV as a tool for failed states. Many failed states actors have weapons capable of making short work of those.

 

[KevinB]

This gets me back to the introduction of the AVGP Cougars and Grizzlies in the mid 70s. There was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether these were true light vehicles with some warlike/peacekeeping purpose or merely training vehicles in order to prepare both officers and other ranks for duty with 4 CMBG.

The Cougar was obviously not a tank but, more often then not, our exercises were shaped to use them like that. We did use Grizzlies on some peacekeeping missions.

I think that you can use Ersatz tanks and APCs (like cars and pickup trucks) in training, especially the early stages and in areas that aren't proper ranges. The cheaper and non-military the better because you can buy lots and don't get sucked into the idea that they have a real tactical value. Obviously they have zero value as a deterrent. I doubt that any Russian ever considered that Canada would field a division based on 4 CMBG and using either 1 Combat Group or the SSF. We did recreate 1 Cdn Div in those days, but it was limited to 4 CMBG and the M113 tracked components in 5 CMB/CMBG.

Unless you have a proper combined arms force to train for and rotate through you should not waste money on vehicles that are pseudo-tactical like the AVGPs were - especially now-a-days when the primary threat is LSCO. Quite frankly I never agreed with the version of thought for the AVGP and even the LAV as a tool for failed states. Many failed states actors have weapons capable of making short work of those.

It (the AVGP/LAV/Stryker) is a Taxi.
It’s not a Mechanized Infantry vehicle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It (the AVGP/LAV/Stryker) is a Taxi.
It’s not a Mechanized Infantry vehicle.

Since when has that stopped us from using vehicles like that as a tank in the past?

 

[FJAG]

It (the AVGP/LAV/Stryker) is a Taxi.
It’s not a Mechanized Infantry vehicle.

I don't think the definition is that strict. That font of all wisdom on earth - Wkipedia - says the following:

Mechanized infantry are infantry units equipped with armored personnel carriers (APCs) or infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) for transport and combat (see also armoured corps).

As defined by the United States Army, mechanized infantry is distinguished from motorized infantry in that its vehicles provide a degree of armor protection and armament for use in combat, whereas motorized infantry are provided with "soft-skinned" wheeled vehicles for transportation only.1 Most APCs and IFVs are fully tracked or are all-wheel drive vehicles (6×6 or 8×8), for mobility across rough ground. Some militaries distinguish between mechanized and armored (or armoured) infantry, designating troops carried by APCs as mechanized and those in IFVs as armored.

1. Infantry Division Transportation Battalion and Transportation, Tactical Carrier Units. (1962). United States: Headquarters, Department of the Army. p. 15

 

[KevinB]

I don't think the definition is that strict. That font of all wisdom on earth - Wkipedia - says the following:

Well my definition is that Mechanized Infantry work with Tanks.

Hence why I discount the wheeled systems for that role.

I prefer the term Motorized Infantry for things like the LAV, even if the it is a little overkill for the term.