Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

Honestly the US Armored Brigade 2023+ might better a better Cdn model, if the current plan to bring them back to 2 Mech Inf CAB's in the Brigades goes forward.

Current
14 Abrams / Coy and 5 Coy / Bde (2 in each Armor CAB, and 1 in the Mech Infantry CAB) : 70 MBT in Platoons
14 Bradley / Coy and 4 Coy /Bde (2 in each Mech Infantry CAB, and 1 in each Armor CAB). 56 IFV In Platoons

Old and re-proposed "Square CAB of 2 Armor Coy and 2 Inf Coy / BN: 6 tank Coy and 6 Infantry Coy: 84 MBT and 84 IFV (just in the Companies Platoons).

HHC's of each CAB are identical:
1 MBT 1 IFV, 4 B-FIST (Arty FOO Vehicle - TOW replaced by Target Designators and some other things), 3 CAV IFV (Recce Platoon), 4 120mm Mortar AMPV with NEMO Turret (Mortar Platoon)

87 MBT, 87 IFV, 12 FOO IFV, 9 Recce IFV, 12 Mortar AMPV.

Each "square" CAB is 628 All Ranks (48 O and 580 OR)
4 CAB would be 2,512 AR

Bde HQ is 185 AR. (under Army 2030 down here there is the intent to move a Cav Troop of 6 Bradleys to the Brigade HQ due to the loss of the Calvary Squadrons - which is being formed as a Divisional Armored Calvary Regiment).
Brigade Support Battalion is 1,094 AR.

Total of 3,791 AR.

Note the Engineering Battalion and Calvary Squadron, as well as the Artillery where cut out of the ABCT for Army 2030 and concentrated at Division.

As well I did not list the soft skins or AMPV's in the formation (outside of the M1287 Mortar Carrier)

The 87 MBT would fit decently into Canada's current holdings and allow for School and Log Stock platforms.

 

[Kirkhill]

F*ck @KevinB !

For the umpty umpth time the word is "caVALry"!

Jesus!

 

[FJAG]

Honestly the US Armored Brigade 2023+ might better a better Cdn model, if the current plan to bring them back to 2 Mech Inf CAB's in the Brigades goes forward.

I doubt that you'll ever see CABs in the Canadian army. The role and 'stay relevant' PY struggle amongst the RegF regiments is too ingrained to allow a sensible solution of who is called what and who commands who.

Leaving that aside, the only benefit that I see being touted in favour of a square CAB comes from that immutable belief in the army that "bigger is always better." How could a CAB not be better with 1/3 more combat power? (I see the same argument with the idea of increasing an armoured squadron to 19 or 20 A vehicles). The problem is: who would argue against more combat power? IMHO, people who think that larger organizations are less agile, harder to sustain and often leave too many of their resources out of battle in multiple layers of reserves.

I've bought into something. The move away from large, all singing and all dancing, brigade groups to smaller, all singing all dancing, divisions as the unit of action. Make the brigades lean. Make the battalions and companies/squadrons, smaller and easier to operate and sustain and adjust the frontage and roles to suit their size and combat power. Rather than something being the task for a large square combat team, make it the task for a battalion/battle group. How many isolated from support, platoon sized combat outpost do we really expect to fight? Every live fire exercise I ever did with the Germans was a battalion attack.

As a first step, I would agree that no coy/sqn in the bde should be larger than 14 A vehs - in fact, I'm flirting with 10 to 11 per coy and maybe using the saving of 9-12 vehicles (and their people) per battalion to form a fourth coy. So either way I'm thinking appx 44 A vehs per bn/regt for a total of 132 per bde and with two bdes in the division, 264 to the division (88 tanks and 176 IFVs). Rather than fattening the division, I would see the extra spending going to forming a second division. Canada would be much better served by two smaller divisions that are more easily sustainable and agile on the battlefield than one big bloated pig that's hard to manoeuvre, control and supply (and in all probability will never be deployed). Those are lessons that have come out of WW2 and, IMHO, should be wargames furiously to either confirm or refute. Remember that in WW2 the allies strength wasn't in the size or quality of their A vehs but how well they could manoeuvre and sustain the force and how rapidly they were able to replace their combat losses. German mechanised formations were always smaller both by organization and necessity.

I'm indecisive on the CAB. This is mostly because I see our form of warfare as being more defensive with elements of offence required from time-to-time. In a very broad, simplified and general sense I see the NATO fight at the division level as 1) a heavily armed division screen/guard of cavalry which has a mix of extensive sensors, anti armour weapons, some infantry and a ton of long range fires; 2) a main defensive line of two brigades forward each with two dug-in infantry battalions forward with their integral mix of anti-armour weapons, mortars, crew served and personal weapons, and 3) a counter strike force made up predominantly of armour. To me that means the division should have:

a) organic, divisional level cavalry force, fires, engineers and sustainment;

b) brigades primarily still infantry based but with armour, each in their own units but capable of forming combat teams and battlegroups as required. One point, I would give the tank regt a combat support coy identical to that of the inf bns with organic recce, anti-armour and mortars/launchers - this provides the ability to build three near identical battle groups in each brigade. Bde recce/cav should be quite limited to the bn's/Regt's recce pl/tp and perhaps a tp at the bde HQ level itself.

If there is a need to go full-on offensive, the division could swap one tank regt and one inf battalion from one bde to the other creating one bde with two tank regts and one inf battalion as the lead, dare I say "penetrating," element and one bde with three inf bns as the follow on bde. The division would also need additional bridging capabilities attached from corps as the div's organic engineer regiment is limited in favour of organic systems to build defences.

While CABs are also capable of swapping out companies it strikes me that their organic mix would leave too much of the force - especially the infantry - sitting out the main defensive battle waiting, as a reserve.

In short, the difference in theory behind your armoured brigades/division and my mechanized/armoured brigades/division is that you create yours from square one with a heavy offensive role, while mine are built primarily for defence with a lesser offensive capability. I don't think either of us is wrong in our theories until it comes to the point at which one asks: which could Canada afford and manage? and which would be more suitable for the role we see ourselves doing? One could even say that if one continues with the fiction that the LAV 6 is a suitable IFV, and throws in some heavy maintenance, then we could form one of my division's six manoeuvre units right now and with the purchase of another 100 tanks and 100 IFVs could build a second div. We have the PYs even if the ARes isn't used.

 

[KevinB]

F*ck @KevinB !

For the umpty umpth time the word is "caVALry"!

Jesus!

I blame my iPhone.

 

[KevinB]

I doubt that you'll ever see CABs in the Canadian army. The role and 'stay relevant' PY struggle amongst the RegF regiments is too ingrained to allow a sensible solution of who is called what and who commands who.

Leaving that aside, the only benefit that I see being touted in favour of a square CAB comes from that immutable belief in the army that "bigger is always better." How could a CAB not be better with 1/3 more combat power? (I see the same argument with the idea of increasing an armoured squadron to 19 or 20 A vehicles). The problem is: who would argue against more combat power? IMHO, people who think that larger organizations are less agile, harder to sustain and often leave too many of their resources out of battle in multiple layers of reserves.

I see the MBT/IFV as a lynchpin of both defense and offense. The armor and gun of the tank provide a very potent DFS capability against AFV’s, while the auto cannon on the IFV provides some in extremis anti armor, but primarily anti light vehicle and anti-personnel capabilities, with ATGM’s to provide stand off attack beyond DFS cannon ability.

With hull and turret down run ups, the AFV’s provide massive firepower over what a dismounted force can in a positional defensive . Plus the ability to conduct counterattacks, or with a mobile defense or screen.

I've bought into something. The move away from large, all singing and all dancing, brigade groups to smaller, all singing all dancing, divisions as the unit of action.

That Armored Brigade is pretty small.
An Armored Div with two of them, a Fires Brigade, Engineering Bde and Div Support Brigade would be under 10k.

Make the brigades lean. Make the battalions and companies/squadrons, smaller and easier to operate and sustain and adjust the frontage and roles to suit their size and combat power. Rather than something being the task for a large square combat team, make it the task for a battalion/battle group. How many isolated from support, platoon sized combat outpost do we really expect to fight? Every live fire exercise I ever did with the Germans was a battalion attack.

3 CAB’s / Bde provides 2 BN up and one in depth. I do believe the Bde needs some depth.

As a first step, I would agree that no coy/sqn in the bde should be larger than 14 A vehs - in fact, I'm flirting with 10 to 11 per coy and maybe using the saving of 9-12 vehicles (and their people) per battalion to form a fourth coy. So either way I'm thinking appx 44 A vehs per bn/regt for a total of 132 per bde and with two bdes in the division, 264 to the division (88 tanks and 176 IFVs). Rather than fattening the division, I would see the extra spending going to forming a second division. Canada would be much better served by two smaller divisions that are more easily sustainable and agile on the battlefield than one big bloated pig that's hard to manoeuvre, control and supply (and in all probability will never be deployed).

That’s a really low amount of tanks IMHO.

But I agree with the 2 Maneuver Bde / Div aspect.

Those are lessons that have come out of WW2 and, IMHO, should be wargames furiously to either confirm or refute. Remember that in WW2 the allies strength wasn't in the size or quality of their A vehs but how well they could manoeuvre and sustain the force and how rapidly they were able to replace their combat losses. German mechanised formations were always smaller both by organization and necessity.

I'm indecisive on the CAB. This is mostly because I see our form of warfare as being more defensive with elements of offence required from time-to-time. In a very broad, simplified and general sense I see the NATO fight at the division level as 1) a heavily armed division screen/guard of cavalry which has a mix of extensive sensors, anti armour weapons, some infantry and a ton of long range fires; 2) a main defensive line of two brigades forward each with two dug-in infantry battalions forward with their integral mix of anti-armour weapons, mortars, crew served and personal weapons, and 3) a counter strike force made up predominantly of armour. To me that means the division should have:

a) organic, divisional level cavalry force, fires, engineers and sustainment;

b) brigades primarily still infantry based but with armour, each in their own units but capable of forming combat teams and battlegroups as required. One point, I would give the tank regt a combat support coy identical to that of the inf bns with organic recce, anti-armour and mortars/launchers - this provides the ability to build three near identical battle groups in each brigade. Bde recce/cav should be quite limited to the bn's/Regt's recce pl/tp and perhaps a tp at the bde HQ level itself.

If there is a need to go full-on offensive, the division could swap one tank regt and one inf battalion from one bde to the other creating one bde with two tank regts and one inf battalion as the lead, dare I say "penetrating," element and one bde with three inf bns as the follow on bde. The division would also need additional bridging capabilities attached from corps as the div's organic engineer regiment is limited in favour of organic systems to build defences.

While CABs are also capable of swapping out companies it strikes me that their organic mix would leave too much of the force - especially the infantry - sitting out the main defensive battle waiting, as a reserve.

In short, the difference in theory behind your armoured brigades/division and my mechanized/armoured brigades/division is that you create yours from square one with a heavy offensive role, while mine are built primarily for defence with a lesser offensive capability. I don't think either of us is wrong in our theories until it comes to the point at which one asks: which could Canada afford and manage? and which would be more suitable for the role we see ourselves doing? One could even say that if one continues with the fiction that the LAV 6 is a suitable IFV, and throws in some heavy maintenance, then we could form one of my division's six manoeuvre units right now and with the purchase of another 100 tanks and 100 IFVs could build a second div. We have the PYs even if the ARes isn't used.

I see the ARM Bde’s as both and anvil and a hammer.
I don’t see them primarily operating in the contested sensor area. I think you need a specific Recce asset for that.

 

[Kirkhill]

RCAC - Tracked Combined Arms units

RCIC - Dismounted Combined Arms units with vehicles suitable to situation


Two WW2 armoured divs with one RCAC brigade and one RCIC brigade each plus all the necessary enablers.

In addition an RCIC div to form the core of the homeland defence.

 

[KevinB]

RCAC - Tracked Combined Arms units

RCIC - Dismounted Combined Arms units with vehicles suitable to situation


Two WW2 armoured divs with one RCAC brigade and one RCIC brigade each plus all the necessary enablers.

In addition an RCIC div to form the core of the homeland defence.

You just described a train wreck.

You don’t put a Light Infantry Brigade into an Armoured Division.