I've been spending some time reading and rereading Wilf Owen's "Euclid's Army." I've become about 90% convinced his concept of a "Monash Division" which is smaller and more mobile and easier for command and control than what we typically look at.
One of his concepts is that an army must be affordable to acquire and sustain or you might as well forget about it. The only thing that I'm struggling with is his concept of "cavalry." He basically makes the distinction that "infantry" fights dismounted and "cavalry" fights mounted. It's a bit about functions performed but very much about how each fights.
He divides "cavalry" into two groups: "light" and "heavy." Each has an anti-armour capability but for "light," its killing capability comes from sensors and the ability to call in "fires." That's augmented by Javelins or Spikes or such. He's vehicle agnostic but anything from a French VBL or a bit heavier will do for them.
"Heavy" is more in line with the CV90/120. He wants a lighter vehicle with good mobility and much less expensive than a full-blown MBT. As an example he indicates one won't need breaching equipment. He's stressing that it is not a tank and should not be used as a tank, but is a little thin on how it should be employed. I'm guessing for defensive work and for counter attacks within ones own defensive areas. I don't quite discern how you handle full offensive operations but as the force is for the European theatre primarily you don't need the ability for great Iraqi-like sweeping manoeuvres.
I'm much taken to the "buy the army that you can afford" concept. In my current napkin force I've created "Monashish Divisions" that are hybrid 30/70 forces of 10,000 each with two manoeuvre brigades (plus fires, sustainment and a form of protection) with a total of 2 x heavy cavalry regiments, 4 x mech infantry battalions and one light cavalry regiment. I'm of the view one can build 3 such divisions with the intent of deploying and sustaining one full one (plus some extra enablers) in Europe. That means 6 x "heavy cavalry" regiments of roughly 44 fighting vehicles - so about 300 for the army. I can't see Canada buying 300 Leo 2A8s or KF51s, but 300 CV90120 - maybe.
As anyone who's been reading my rants here knows, I hate tiny purchases of equipment. Having a field army of 20,000 RegF and maybe 20-30,000 ARes and giving them 100 MBTs for 3 or 4 brigades is just insanity. You might as well make everyone light infantry to start with because after a few days of combat, that's pretty much what they'll be anyway.
The question that I'm left with, is whether or not the CV90120 is adequate for the "heavy cavalry" role and what should be the role and employment doctrine for such a division. Owen is convinced from much wargaming that this is a viable and highly useful organization as well as affordable and sustainable.
I'm currently revising my book "Unsustainable" with the aim of such a structure and would be interested in some insight from those in the armour and infantry field.