You had me, until you said RCH 155, and LAV 10x10A 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.
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.
True but I would have hoped that there was more thought to mobility than adding another set of axels to a LAV.
Crack kills…And don't forget that 80 KPH speed requirement in the IFM RFI.
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.
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.
tanks-encyclopedia.com
I like the 120. It's a proven calibre and has a good range of ammo.
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.
Find information in faster & easier ways with AI Overviews in Google Search - Google Search Help
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?
I’m left with the why of the CV90120 for two reasons.
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.
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.
I still see the combined arms formation of MBT’s and IFV’s (tracked) as the most successful approach the close fight.
I get the cost aspect, but
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.
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.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.
Gonna beat some dead horses here, but IF:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Corps" is something I do not aspire to as it requires a functioning headquarters (other than or as an offshoot of the CA headquarters itself) as well as corps enabler units. While I think there are a number of non-divisional enabler units the CA should have, these are more for a disparate number of joint roles rather than as corps enablers.
I'll gloss over this
Not to argue the point too far but I think we can count on six once the VOR issues are resolved and all the ACSVs come on line. However, I don't see a use for as many battalions if we start adding in the ABCTs that you propose.
I don't like the idea of adding a LAV bde to an armd div mostly because I'd prefer to see two small divisions each with a limited task rather than one large one with multiple tasks/areas of focus.
Agree with the gap. It's a different issue. Agree on current line idea as part of my don't throw away good. We have these suckers, bought and paid for.
I'd make that one RegF bde gp with some ARes and enablers on the proviso that no more than two battle gps deploy at any given time.
We're now up to 16 very expensive newly equipped tank and IFV battalions. (I note that the US Army is only at 17 combined arms battalions in their 7 armored divisions.)
The transformation plan will undoubtedly be many phased.
That's now 12 armoured battalions and 12 IFV battalions?
Same here so far.
I'll accept anything as long as its built and sustained in Canada with actual factories and not merely a local office presence.
Interestingly, I've looked at the literature and can find nothing about whether the M109-52 has an autoloader or not - frankly I'm ambivalent about it because it would use a partially-manned turret in any event. My preference with an autoloader is to have a fully automated turret. If it needs to be partially manned anyway then get rid of the autoloader for a load assist system. I also note that the L52 is not yet manufactured at Watervliet which to me is a critical issue. I think the Brits are setting up a facility but I want one on this continent if it can't be in the Canada.
Leaving aside Flin Flon.
I'm thoroughly convinced that you can and should run much of this army with ARes and am still fully convinced it can't be done unless you have most as at least 30/70 hybrid units. One such a unit gives you a strong full-time headquarters and a complete sub-unit of full-timers for career development and rapid deployment as well as a strong leadership core for redistributing in case of the need to mobilize the whole unit. I'm not so sure that you can do that with say a 10/90 unit. Maybe as a phase 2 if enough stability is built after five years of 30/70ing.
