Canada's tanks

[Brad Sallows]

The problem, Brad, is that districts and areas are satisfactory for force generating individuals and possibly sub-units.

Exactly, but it's not a problem; it's a feature.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

K2 would only be about 12 months according to the Koreans. So not a huge wait at all, and given the massive unsolicited package they offered in March, if we did go with k2, there would likely be a lot of jobs gained here

If we went with the K2's, likley we would eventually give our Leopards to Ukraine.

 

[MilEME09]

If we went with the K2's, likley we would eventually give our Leopards to Ukraine.

More then likely yes, and it would be a win win move

 

[FJAG]

Exactly, but it's not a problem; it's a feature.

It's a capability and not a feature if the districts can't generate battalions or brigades or even their staff. At that point it becomes a missed opportunity and a waste of potential.

Let's be clear. The CA is positioning itself to generate a expeditionary deployable division and another to generate forces for operations in Canada and for augmentation to the expeditionary division.

"The CA must prepare for MCO at the Div level, where the full range of modern tactical capabilities are best organized and synchronized."(pg 4 of Inflection Point)

It's looking at two of those - one for operational employment (supposedly focused on Europe); one for defence of Canada "A second Div with a Canadian focus, grouping the ARes and Canadian Rangers with a cadre of full-time leadership and staff . . ." (pg 10)

The second division, must "retain readiness for support to domestic contingency . . . while force generating tactical augmentation and operational reinforcement for expeditionary operations. In MCO, this formation will also serve as the framework for mobilization in alignment with the planned expansion of the Primary and Supplementary Reserves" (pg 9-10)

Simply put, the first div is an "all-in" RegF effort. There is nothing left of the RegF to expand or replace destroyed forces and equipment but from the second div, which has its own missions in its own right.

The plan for second div must include the requirement to develop up to operationally capable bdes for internal use in Canada and also to be able to provide replacements for up to bde level for the expeditionary div as well as div staff and divisional CS and CSS bde level enablers. If they don't do that then the presumption is that you will not lose staff or units/formations and their equipment on a significant scale in prolonged MCO.

 

[Kirkhill]

IMHO opinion the biggest problem is that no one perceives the possibility of an active domestic military threat here in Canada.

This despite the evidence of hybrid, high tech insurgencies having become the norm over the life of the liberal world order. Nobody declares war. Nobody risks nukes.

We risk, based on evidence in Russia, Lebanon, Syria and Qatar many more Litton bombings.

Dual use infrastructure, by definition, presents a military threat. And sometimes an opportunity. Roads and ports designed to rapidly move goods and people out of the country can just as easily be used to bring people in.

A new port opens a new invasion route. A new vulnerability. It needs a defence plan and a defence force.

 

[KevinB]

IMHO opinion the biggest problem is that no one perceives the possibility of an active domestic military threat here in Canada.

This despite the evidence of hybrid, high tech insurgencies having become the norm over the life of the liberal world order. Nobody declares war. Nobody risks nukes.

We risk, based on evidence in Russia, Lebanon, Syria and Qatar many more Litton bombings.

Dual use infrastructure, by definition, presents a military threat. And sometimes an opportunity. Roads and ports designed to rapidly move goods and people out of the country can just as easily be used to bring people in.

A new port opens a new invasion route. A new vulnerability. It needs a defence plan and a defence force.

The answer is: Visit Russia, before Russia visits you

 

[Brad Sallows]

Let's be clear. The CA is positioning itself to generate a expeditionary deployable division and another to generate forces for operations in Canada and for augmentation to the expeditionary division.

(moving to "Informing the Army's Future Structure)

 

[KevinB]

Depends on the capabilities of the people and what they're trying to do. German wehrkreise, Russian military districts, French military regions, British commands/areas, etc. The four nations cited all managed comparatively larger forces than we have. Administration (including support of operational formations) and training were typically near the top of the list of reasons for existence.

They also all have Brigades and Divisions in them, and some larger formations...

As I mentioned before I see a logic in creating Districts or Areas inside of Canada to better deal with JOINT aspects for Domestic Response.
What I do not see those doing is having units permanently assigned to them.
Bases (Regular Force) should be setup to deal with the support for their lodger units (both Reg and Res).

Adding in Army specific Areas and Districts just adds to HQ bloat with doing nothing to support or field the Operational Army.

 

[Kirkhill]

The answer is: Visit Russia, before Russia visits you

If not Russia then sonebody else.
Russia is just another mole to be wacked.

I want to rest.

 

[OldSolduer]

The answer is: Visit Russia, before Russia visits you

Russia isn't our threat. Our threat is from within though few have the wit to realize it.

Enough said.

 

[KevinB]

If not Russia then sonebody else.
Russia is just another mole to be wacked.

I want to rest.

The price of peace is eternal viligance.

 

[Kirkhill]

The price of peace is eternal viligance.

Once upon a time.....

Anciently it was claimed that the Paras would never be invited to post the guard at Buckinham Palace.

The concern was they would lock the gates, string concertina wire, build their sangars, site their guns, put out their OPs and organize a brew up.

Eternal vigilance is not the same as eternally looking for a punch up.

 

[FJAG]

They also all have Brigades and Divisions in them, and some larger formations...

As I mentioned before I see a logic in creating Districts or Areas inside of Canada to better deal with JOINT aspects for Domestic Response.

Not sure if I'm misinterpreting things here, but we already have six permanent/standing regional JTFs to command joint operations within the country.

We don't need army districts - what we need are deployment capable (domestically and expeditionary) units and brigade headquarters. A brigade headquarters can do the administrative and training work that a district can do, but a district, is generally a non deployable entity.

Canada's CBGs already have staff and there is a signals regiment with each brigade now. There are roughly 250--275 positions allocated to a CBG HQ and affiliated Sigs Regt including a core of RegF. A CMBG HQ and Sigs Sqn has around 300 all ranks. That's not a far delta in numbers. That means the only things really missing to turn them into a deployable brigade headquarters is the equipment and a directive to train towards that capability. Terminology matters but only if it is given effect with a proper mission, equipment, people and training.

Adding in Army specific Areas and Districts just adds to HQ bloat with doing nothing to support or field the Operational Army.

Yup. That's my view as well.

Apparently the ARes stands around 16,000 (according to their web site) That doesn't require 10 brigades . . . but I see leaner brigades than the 4,500-5,000 in a CMBG. I see specialized brigades of roughly 3,000 each able to slot into a division or above framework - lets say:

1) 2 area denial anti access brigades (one per east and west coast - mixed arty, inf, cav, RCN and Rangers);

2) 2 fires bde;

3) 2 sustainment bdes (including health services and MP unit);

4) 1 engineer bde; and

5) 3 manoeuvre bdes.

Long story short - reorg the existing 10 CBGs into specialized brigades. Form their staff and affiliated sigs regiment into a deployable mission specific bde HQ. Reallocate existing ARes units to specific bdes. Rework the ARE and grow the force.

Move these last posts to the Future Structures thread.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Russia isn't our threat. Our threat is from within though few have the wit to realize it.

Enough said.

China is a threat. Maybe not to us though...

Russia is a paper bear. They are on wrong move away from being put back to the pre industrial age in short order.

 

[OldSolduer]

China is a threat. Maybe not to us though...

Russia is a paper bear. They are on wrong move away from being put back to the pre industrial age in short order.

China is a threat to us. And they are using our own citizenry against us.

 

[ueo]

If we went with the K2's, likley we would eventually give our Leopards to Ukraine.

What all 4 or so?

 

[Kirkhill]

Russia isn't our threat. Our threat is from within though few have the wit to realize it.

Enough said.

1914 Canadian Army puts down strkes - not popular
1914 Canadian Army puts down Germans - very popular.

Lesson Learned
Run away from ACP taskings.

 

[KevinB]

China is a threat. Maybe not to us though...

China is a threat and potential adversary.

Russia is a paper bear. They are on wrong move away from being put back to the pre industrial age in short order.

Russia will always be a threat unless it is crushed and remade in a democratic manner.

Even without great power competition, the need for expeditionary armour forces doesn’t disappear.

 

[GR66]

China is a threat. Maybe not to us though...

Russia is a paper bear. They are on wrong move away from being put back to the pre industrial age in short order.

A "threat" doesn't have be mean Canadian tanks facing Chinese/Russian tanks either here or abroad. As adversarial states they can stir up and disrupt regions of the world that are a political or economic threat to our wellbeing which might require us to use military force to defend our interests.

 

[FJAG]

China is a threat. Maybe not to us though...

Russia is a paper bear. They are on wrong move away from being put back to the pre industrial age in short order.

I think that they are both threats. They both wander around looking for low-hanging fruit to pick.

I'm not worried about a Russian or Chinese div coming at us over the Arctic or Pacific. I am concerned about our response when either Russian or Chinese mineral exploration ships start setting up in our territorial waters. Or all of Vancouver city council and then the BC legislature starts getting populated by Chinese ex-pats. Or our communications and other sensitive electronic data systems start acting weirdly. How do we respond. My preference is to not be seen as low-hanging fruit by building our international strength and support amongst like-minded allies and a military that fosters those relationships by commitments in their back yard as well as creating strength in our own.