• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's tanks

A useful industrial move would be for Canada to push for RM Panther production and for KNDS to provide RCH 155 parts for instillation on GDLS-C LAV 10x10s. That might even interest Americans.

It's a time of great opportunities if one moves quickly and aggressively. It checks numerous boxes.

🍻
You had me, until you said RCH 155, and LAV 10x10
 
You had me, until you said RCH 155, and LAV 10x10
It's a lot more possible than the other options. There wouldn't be Dime One coming from ReArm Europe if you wanted to build a K9 factory. And don't forget that 80 KPH speed requirement in the IFM RFI.

;)
 
It's a lot more possible than the other options. There wouldn't be Dime One coming from ReArm Europe if you wanted to build a K9 factory.
True but I would have hoped that there was more thought to mobility than adding another set of axels to a LAV.

And don't forget that 80 KPH speed requirement in the IFM RFI.

;)
Crack kills…
 
True but I would have hoped that there was more thought to mobility than adding another set of axels to a LAV.


Crack kills…
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.

🍻
 
  • Insightful
Reactions: ueo
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.

🍻
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.

🍻


Is a 120 mm gun appropriate for lighter vehicles? Or would a mix of rapid firing 76mms, 120 mm NEMO/AMOS mortars and a greater reliance on missiles and LAMs be more appropriate?

It seems to me that a 120 mm gun is going to draw the crew into a gun fight at close range while lacking the armour to defeat its opposite number.

Why not step back and maintain stand off?

Armour adapted to manage blast and near misses as well as HEAT rounds (kevlar nets?).

I like the 76 as it is in service with a wide variety of ammunition types, it is suitable for direct los fire, high angle, indirect and anti-aircraft/anti-missile work. It fires everything from sabot through pellets to Vulcano HE out to 40 km. It also has a high speed auto-loader and a lot of stowed kills.

And it would put a dent in any T72 or CV90.
 
1757267652919.png1757267685192.png

100 rounds on board - 85 RPM



Of course there was also the caseless 75mm...

 
See also the Centauro Draco

 
Is a 120 mm gun appropriate for lighter vehicles? Or would a mix of rapid firing 76mms, 120 mm NEMO/AMOS mortars and a greater reliance on missiles and LAMs be more appropriate?

It seems to me that a 120 mm gun is going to draw the crew into a gun fight at close range while lacking the armour to defeat its opposite number.

Why not step back and maintain stand off?
I like the 120. It's a proven calibre and has a good range of ammo.

My issue with a light "heavy cavalry vehicle" isn't its utility. I think it fills the role of a tank destroyer. When you consider the basic concept of "infantry fights dismounted" cavalry "fights mounted" then you can easily see the role of the CV90120, as an example, as the mobile, armour destroyer portion of the defence that can plug gaps or breakthroughs that appear. (The infantry will have plenty of anti-armour capability in their own right.)

It's armour needs to be sufficient to stand off smaller calibre weapons (up to roughly 30mm) and artillery fragments. I'm not sure if an MBT will withstand a hit from a 122 or ATGM or moderate-sized loitering munition these days anyway. Heavy armour protection may be becoming a mute point. APS may be part of the answer. IMHO, every "light" or "heavy squadron" these days requires some organic CUAV/AD capability that can travel with it. The AD umbrella may be good for the slow movers, but cavalry needs its own folks.

Why not step back and maintain stand off?
One actually maintains stand-off by way of the "light cavalry" which provides the screen/guard and fights a deep battle with artillery and ATGMs and organic 35/40mm anti-APC weaponry. The main defence line of dismounted infantry also fights at stand-off with its own anti-armour resources and artillery. A lot of that is based on sensor systems that can look deep and engage with either area or precision systems delivered by artillery. My expectation is the close fight-when it develops will be at ranges<2,000 metres which is where I see the "heavy cavalry" become involved. Incidentally, I'm not wed to either the AC90120 or the 120mm. It's merely an example of what "heavy cavalry" might look like.

The question for me is: do we still need a full-sized MBT? If there is one thing that Ukraine impresses me with it's that the sweeping hordes of Russians that I expected back in the 1970s simply aren't there. OTOH, the Russian bite and hold tactics do make me wonder how we go on the offensive to take back lost ground. I wouldn't count on a CV90120 for that but am wondering if an MBT would fare any better these days.

Cost is the big deal for me. If I can get two CV90120s for every Leo 2, I'd take the CV90120s. Maybe I'd keep the existing Leo 2s we have in one or two small MBT regiment(s) as part of the "Corps reserve." Or maybe we work out better ways to open gaps simply using dismounted infantry supported by a lot of fires of all types.

Cost, cost, cost. I'm convinced Canada need a bigger army but what can we afford? and will it be effective?

Incidentally, I'm not pushing for fleets of CV90s as IFVs. I'm getting towards good with the LAVs as I don't see big IFV-based manoeuvres. One thing that I would change is to have less turreted 25mm on the LAV ISVs in the battalion. Again, cost is an issue.

Let's say we go for smaller platoons with just three vehicles (as per Owen's idea), I'd keep one as is with its turreted 25mm (that's a cost issue again - or upgrade it to a 30 or 35 if technically possible and cheap to do. The other two turret equipped ones I'd give to the ARes 70% portion of the hybrid battalion for the same purpose. I'd then order two more LAVs for each platoon but without turrets - probably the ACSV TCV version. One would have an AD RWS (I see a 30/35mm using AHEAD and missiles) and the other probably a 40mm C16 GMG RWS. What I want is more room inside those two for dismounts and to provide better defences for known and likely threats. I'm not 100% sold on whether every platoon needs an AD vehicle or whether 1 or 2 per coy is enough but the drone threat doesn't seem to be getting smaller so I'm erring on the side of three per coy.

That would mean a total of 200 ACV TCV with GMG RWS and 200 ACV with AD RWS to outfit 100% of all the platoons of the six manoeuvre brigades of my notional 3 mech divisions. I haven't run the numbers for how far the existing LAV CP, OPV, Engr, and ACV fleets would stretch. That seems a) affordable, b) tactically workable and c) least disruptive to the existing equipment and weapon systems the army is already used to.

🍻
 
See also the Centauro Draco


@FJAG

Further to...





And then, back to the Centauro Draco with the lightweigt version of the SR76/62

1757346516503.png

AI Overview

Ammunition for the 76mm naval gun includes general-purpose high-explosive (HE) rounds for surface and air targets, specialized multi-role munitions (MOM) designed for anti-air and anti-missile roles with pre-fragmented warheads, and semi-armor-piercing (SAPOM) rounds for use against enemy ships. Extended-range guided munitions such as the DART and VULCANO are also available, offering increased precision against maneuvering and surface targets.

General Purpose & Multi-Role Ammunition
  • High-Explosive (HE):
    A standard round designed to deliver blast and fragmentation effects against ships, aircraft, and ground targets.

  • Multi-Role Munitions (MOM):
    Specifically developed for anti-air and anti-missile defense, these rounds are pre-fragmented with tungsten balls for enhanced splinter effects against fast-moving targets.
Specialized Ammunition
  • Semi-Armor Piercing (SAPOM): These rounds are designed to penetrate the hulls of enemy surface vessels.

  • Semi-Armor Piercing Extended Range (SAPOMER): A heavier, longer-range version of the SAPOM.

  • Pre-fragmented (PF) Rounds: Used in anti-aircraft roles, these shells are designed to explode and release tungsten balls to create a dense cloud of splinters.
Guided and Extended-Range Ammunition
  • DART (Defense and Anti-Missile Ammunition):
    A guided projectile that uses radio frequency beams to guide itself to the target, effective against maneuvering anti-ship missiles and fast attack boats.

  • VULCANO Guided Long Range (GLR):
    A guided projectile that utilizes Inertial Navigation System (INS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) for increased accuracy and a significantly longer range compared to conventional ammunition.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
Find information in faster & easier ways with AI Overviews in Google Search - Google Search Help
Personally I think a squadron of those GP vehicles could dominate a sizable chunk of real estate against even a well equipped enemy.

As one of the commentators said, it would be like bringing frigates ashore.

 
Further to...
Re the Draco, I can say that I've never even heard of it until your post a few days ago. I think it may be a very viable system to work against some of the drone invasions that Ukraine is flooded with nightly. I'd have to have a better understanding of the systems and tactics used by the Russians and this weapon's capabilities to evaluate it against other possible solutions. I'm not sure that a 76mm is necessary for the job. Something in the 35 to 50mm may do the job and is capable of carrying more ammo for more engagements - it's basically a range and area coverage thing. Maybe layered?

Similarly, I don't see it as a divisional AA asset per se. Perhaps part of the corps level.

I do not see it as a viable "heavy cavalry" option. You've heard my views on dual tasking systems before. It may be technically feasible but not tactically practical for a number of reasons.

The navy can do some interesting things when you consider the size of the platform they are mounted on and how they are provided with "reloads." That goes back a few days - remember Nelson's Victory alone had 104 guns, many of them significantly heavier that the totality of the 156 field guns that Wellington had at his command at Waterloo.

🍻
 
I like the 120. It's a proven calibre and has a good range of ammo.

My issue with a light "heavy cavalry vehicle" isn't its utility. I think it fills the role of a tank destroyer. When you consider the basic concept of "infantry fights dismounted" cavalry "fights mounted" then you can easily see the role of the CV90120, as an example, as the mobile, armour destroyer portion of the defence that can plug gaps or breakthroughs that appear. (The infantry will have plenty of anti-armour capability in their own right.)
I’m left with the why of the CV90120 for two reasons.

I’m super skeptical of any platform short of a MBT that claims to run a 120mm tank gun, as I’ve seen M1A2 TUSKs firing in Iraq, and the whole 72 tons of that tank is taking the recoil and it still rocks.

What does the 120mm turret get that a 40mm CT cannon turret with dual Javelins not get ?
For anti-personnel and light armor the 40mm is more practical, not to mention that if one was to go get new AFV’s I’d even wait for a bit to have some sort of reliable link system and STQ for C/UAS on the cannon. Yes still keep a GAU-19 APS system, but fast fire .50BMG isn’t nearly as effective or have the range of the 40mm cannon with a pre fragmented air burst payload.

Its armour needs to be sufficient to stand off smaller calibre weapons (up to roughly 30mm) and artillery fragments. I'm not sure if an MBT will withstand a hit from a 122 or ATGM or moderate-sized loitering munition these days anyway.
Given Up Armored M2A2 Bradley’s have taken 122’s in Ukraine and done pretty well, and Abrams (with DU) have taken ATGM’s and a slew of various RPG type warheads, the only penetration was a then new dual warhead direct to the side of the hull on by the engine compartment.

The LM/S-UAS issue can be solved, the turrets of NATO MBT’s where never designed against top attack, and stand off armor in conjunction with APS are a good mitigation method, until newer turrets that have that issue incorporated into the design are in production.
Heavy armour protection may be becoming a mute point. APS may be part of the answer. IMHO, every "light" or "heavy squadron" these days requires some organic CUAV/AD capability that can travel with it. The AD umbrella may be good for the slow movers, but cavalry needs its own folks.
I totally agree on the C-UAS aspect, but quite frankly I don’t see the diminishing requirement for heavy armor, as at the end of the day, you need armor to push into and through a defended position, even if you’ve suppressed them by fires.
One actually maintains stand-off by way of the "light cavalry" which provides the screen/guard and fights a deep battle with artillery and ATGMs and organic 35/40mm anti-APC weaponry. The main defence line of dismounted infantry also fights at stand-off with its own anti-armour resources and artillery. A lot of that is based on sensor systems that can look deep and engage with either area or precision systems delivered by artillery. My expectation is the close fight-when it develops will be at ranges<2,000 metres which is where I see the "heavy cavalry" become involved. Incidentally, I'm not wed to either the AC90120 or the 120mm. It's merely an example of what "heavy cavalry" might look like.
I still see the combined arms formation of MBT’s and IFV’s (tracked) as the most successful approach the close fight.
The question for me is: do we still need a full-sized MBT? If there is one thing that Ukraine impresses me with it's that the sweeping hordes of Russians that I expected back in the 1970s simply aren't there. OTOH, the Russian bite and hold tactics do make me wonder how we go on the offensive to take back lost ground. I wouldn't count on a CV90120 for that but am wondering if an MBT would fare any better these days.

Cost is the big deal for me. If I can get two CV90120s for every Leo 2, I'd take the CV90120s. Maybe I'd keep the existing Leo 2s we have in one or two small MBT regiment(s) as part of the "Corps reserve." Or maybe we work out better ways to open gaps simply using dismounted infantry supported by a lot of fires of all types.
I get the cost aspect, but
Cost, cost, cost. I'm convinced Canada need a bigger army but what can we afford? and will it be effective?

Incidentally, I'm not pushing for fleets of CV90s as IFVs. I'm getting towards good with the LAVs as I don't see big IFV-based manoeuvres. One thing that I would change is to have less turreted 25mm on the LAV ISVs in the battalion. Again, cost is an issue.
Mobility, I don’t see the LAV’s as being successful on a push on the objective with tanks, and given the Russian ability to reseed mines via rocket including AP mines as well as their willingness to use incendiary weapons and FAE against troops in the open, running behind the tanks I don’t see to be viable.
Let's say we go for smaller platoons with just three vehicles (as per Owen's idea), I'd keep one as is with its turreted 25mm (that's a cost issue again - or upgrade it to a 30 or 35 if technically possible and cheap to do. The other two turret equipped ones I'd give to the ARes 70% portion of the hybrid battalion for the same purpose. I'd then order two more LAVs for each platoon but without turrets - probably the ACSV TCV version. One would have an AD RWS (I see a 30/35mm using AHEAD and missiles) and the other probably a 40mm C16 GMG RWS. What I want is more room inside those two for dismounts and to provide better defences for known and likely threats. I'm not 100% sold on whether every platoon needs an AD vehicle or whether 1 or 2 per coy is enough but the drone threat doesn't seem to be getting smaller so I'm erring on the side of three per coy.

That would mean a total of 200 ACV TCV with GMG RWS and 200 ACV with AD RWS to outfit 100% of all the platoons of the six manoeuvre brigades of my notional 3 mech divisions. I haven't run the numbers for how far the existing LAV CP, OPV, Engr, and ACV fleets would stretch. That seems a) affordable, b) tactically workable and c) least disruptive to the existing equipment and weapon systems the army is already used to.

🍻
I think you’re looking for a solution to the LAV in a front line LSCO problem, and the only actual solution is that they aren’t used with tanks.

Regardless of the cost, if the CA wants to have a practical force then the LAV needs to be viewed for what it is good at, and not continue trying to shoehorn it into every solution.

It’s got good road mobility, better than decent frontal armor, but cross country mobility isn’t there to be part of a tank combined arms force.
 
I’m left with the why of the CV90120 for two reasons.

What does the 120mm turret get that a 40mm CT cannon turret with dual Javelins not get ?

Given Up Armored M2A2 Bradley’s have taken 122’s in Ukraine and done pretty well, and Abrams (with DU) have taken ATGM’s and a slew of various RPG type warheads, the only penetration was a then new dual warhead direct to the side of the hull on by the engine compartment.
Gonna beat some dead horses here, but IF:
-a ~33 tonne up armoured M2A2 can take 122's and do pretty well, how well would a 40 tonne vehicle with more modern armour, more slope, less volume (and surface area) for that weight do?

-if a 120mm turret doesn't get you anything vice 40/50mm + ATGM, where does a 105 with either gun launched or add on ATGM fit?
 
Gonna beat some dead horses here, but IF:
-a ~33 tonne up armoured M2A2 can take 122's and do pretty well, how well would a 40 tonne vehicle with more modern armour, more slope, less volume (and surface area) for that weight do?
Probably similar. But I you are underestimating the actual weight of the UA Bradley’s, they are running over 40t. Very similar to the weight of the M2A4. The Ukrainian’s added ERA and more modular armor on top of the up armor packages from the old A2’s we sent them, as well as slat armor and turret cages. The mobility took a little drop, as the A4 has a larger power plant to help there.

-if a 120mm turret doesn't get you anything vice 40/50mm + ATGM, where does a 105 with either gun launched or add on ATGM fit?
The 105mm ship sailed. No one is going to be putting those on anything. The M10 Booker showed how ineffective the 105mm is for pretty much anything but engaging fortifications.

The M242 25mm Bushmaster chain gun with APFSDS-DU ammo has front penetrated T-72 and T-80 Russian tanks. I wouldn’t want to take it as a primary Anti Tank system - but it is an ‘in extremis’ option. Which is really why I see the LAV as a potent convoy escort.
You have a gun that can deal with most ground based threats (even if not ideal) mobility better than logistical vehicles, and dismounts to be able to take the fight to behind the line security threats.
Ideally you get a bolt on NLOS missile for some, and buy into the DU penetrator rounds.

That gives a good Bde and DIV RAS, as well as security for the Service and Support requirements.
 
@Kirkhill is like a search engine for unknown, rarely seen or obscure military tech and vehicles. Mention an idea, and he will find it for you at some point in history

It comes from personal experience of being a day late and a dollar short with great ideas. Somebody has always got there before me. All I have to do is go looking for them.
 
I think you’re looking for a solution to the LAV in a front line LSCO problem, and the only actual solution is that they aren’t used with tanks.
I'm not actually looking for them as an IFV to work with tanks. I'm looking at them as armoured transport for a dismounted force. That's why I'm prepared to give up one vehicle per platoon and replace the 25mm turrets in two with an AD and GMG RWS. Effectively I see them supporting the defence and not careening around following tanks through an Iranian desert.

Similarly I don't see the CV90120 as a tank either but as a tank destroyed that provides a mobile reserve and blocking force. I see this division in total oriented towards the defence, hence my question: over and above this division structure, is there a role or need for the combined arms elements of an ABCT or should that be an entirely separate structure that functions, let's say, as a brigade or division as part of a corps reserve. Not every division needs to be an armoured division (reinforced).

Regardless of the cost, if the CA wants to have a practical force then the LAV needs to be viewed for what it is good at, and not continue trying to shoehorn it into every solution.
And yes I am looking for a solution for the LAV in front line LSCO scenarios. And yes, I'm looking for a practical solution that can be implemented at an acceptable cost using Canadian industry. But I'm not building an armoured division here at all. Quite frankly, I think the biggest capability gap the armoured and infantry have is not enough quality weapon systems and ammunition to fight for an extended period of time.

My second biggest concern is timelines. We need to arm in a large way quickly. I don't want to see us buying second hand equipment anymore and I expect all of that has or is going to Ukraine. And its not just a "don't buy from the bad orange man" syndrome either. It's just that we need to control our own supply lines as no one else's are guaranteed. We have LAV and I expect we could get licence for CV90120. Same with RCH 155 on LAV 10 x 10 - at least we'd have control over the vehicle build and support structure .

We're getting into a time where "good enough" and lots of it is much better than "top of the line" and just a brigade's worth. Don't for a second think that with this surge on rearming, that the manufacturers are giving us a bulk discount. Bloody hell, some tank prices are going to be up to F35 levels before too long. On top of that we've had LAVs for years and know how to use and support them (even if we don't do it well) - expanding the army on equipment that you have and that you know will go much more quickly.

I think Leslie at the time (and even Lapointe and the current army leadership) are dreaming in technicolour if they think that one RegF division for expeditionary and one ARes stay at home division are enough. If we're even contemplating deploying one division with NATO in the future, rather than a cobbled together multi-national brigade, then it needs to be small and be supported by at least one at home and better yet two. That means arming three similar expeditionary divisions in order to properly sustain the deployed one and have a little spare power in your hip pocket. The at home force will need several fully armed brigades which just might fit into one large division which never deploys outside of Canada or as a full division in its own right, just as multiple separate task forces.

It's kind of interesting as to how much the US Army has cut back in armour. Right now there are three armored divisions (reinforced) (1st Cav, 1st Armd, and 34th Inf) which have the engineer support for full blown offensive operations. There are only four armored divisions (1st Inf, 3rd Inf, 4th Inf and 36th Inf (Texas ARNG)). These lack the same level of obstacle crossing capabilities as the armd (reinf) and, surprise, surprise have found a place for the LAV-like Strykers by each having one of its three brigades being SBCTs. I guess we're not the only ones looking for an LSCO role for our LAVs (and that's before we start talking about the Brits running their Challengers with close support infantry in Boxers.)

🍻
 
As I understand it both the 1st Inf and 3rd Inf are only two BCT divisions and all four of those BCTs are ABCTs.

4 Inf has one ABCT and two SBCTs.

36 Inf has an ACR, an ABCT, an SBCT and a IBCT.

The other SBCTs are held by 7th Inf (another 2 BCT division), the Washington NG (81st SBCT), the Pennsylvania NG (56th SBCT) and 2 and 3 ACRs.

Only the 1st Armored and the 1st Cav have three ABCTs. The 34th is similar to the 36th in having amix of reserve brigades.

1x Cav BCT
2x ABCT
1x IBCT.

So, no. of BCTs per active divs


1 Cav (3)
1 Armd (3)
1 Inf (2)
2 Inf (0)
3 Inf (2)
4 Inf (3)
7 Inf (2)
10 Mtn (3)
11 Abn (2)
25 Inf (2)
82 Abn (3)
101 Abn (3)

2 ACR (1)
3 ACR (1)
173 Abn BCT (1).
 
Back
Top