Canada's tanks

[PrairieFella]

An oldie but a goodie. The structure of an armoured regiment is basically the same now. Cool to see old tracked logistic trucks and Lynxes.

As an aside - I think there are two CDS you can spot in this video.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

An oldie but a goodie. The structure of an armoured regiment is basically the same now. Cool to see old tracked logistic trucks and Lynxes.

As an aside - I think there are two CDS you can spot in this video.

A great find! Lots of nostalgia vibes with equipment, training areas and people, but much of it is still valid today.

Check out those echelons. Lovely. Last time I was with a full tank squadron echelon was 2003.

 

[PrairieFella]

A great find! Lots of nostalgia vibes with equipment, training areas and people, but much of it is still valid today.

Check out those echelons. Lovely. Last time I was with a full tank squadron echelon was 2003.

I had a mostly full one in Latvia as Adm Sgt. It was really cool. The amount of tactical logistics responsibility armoured NCOs are entrusted with is really special.

 

[Gordon Dundas/]

Meanwhile, in Poland...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2070275699617763494

Interesting , you think Poland might be taking things a bit more seriously then we do ?
I mean they're basically building an army or two , and Canada? We're still debating whether or not there enough gluten free goodies on the menu for the meetings that will begin to discuss possible future decisions.

 

[PrairieFella]

Interesting , you think Poland might be taking things a bit more seriously then we do ?
I mean they're basically building an army or two , and Canada? We're still debating whether or not there enough gluten free goodies on the menu for the meetings that will begin to discuss possible future decisions.

We are actively working out exactly this though - allegedly around 250 new tanks, plus ARVs, AEVs and ABLVs.

 

[Gordon Dundas/]

We are actively working out exactly this though - allegedly around 250 new tanks, plus ARVs, AEVs and ABLVs.

Still not enough to run three infantry centric brigades at least not effectively.

 

[PrairieFella]

Still not enough to run three infantry centric brigades at least not effectively.

Meh. We arent making three square brigades. We're looking at roughly two infantry brigades and an armoured brigade. 250 tanks is definitely enough for two regiments in one brigade. Id like to see the PPCLI and 1 CER switch out their LAVs for the similarly tasked tracked vehicles being talked about as part of the MCAV project. Go heavy throughout in 1 CMBG.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Meh. We arent making three square brigades. We're looking at roughly two infantry brigades and an armoured brigade. 250 tanks is definitely enough for two regiments in one brigade.

Do you actually think you will get 250 tanks ? What do you think is the realistic number, if no ?

 

[PrairieFella]

Do you actually think you will get 250 tanks ? What do you think is the realistic number, if no ?

The minimum buy in my opinion is 180. 4 x 20 tanks for squadrons (80 per regiment x 2 regiments). Plus 10 per regiment as RHQ tanks and spares. Dont really need school MBTs anymore since tank training has been devolved entirely to the LdSH(RC).

250 would allow us to have everything above plus preposition a full squadron's worth in Latvia (200), a two full squadrons in war stock/depot (240) and 10 MBTs for designated training tanks so squadron holdings arent being used up on PCF training (250). I can honestly see 200 as a good middle ground. This is all based on full manning in both tank regiments and lets get real, that aint happening.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I should place my full echelon statement in context. That was my last experience with a full tank sqn echelon. The three tank squadrons in 2003 (sometimes stretched to four) were the gear and structure from 4 CMBG brought back to Canada and distributed to the Regiments. C Sqn RCD in Gagetown became A Sqn 8CH but that was stood-down circa 1997. So B Sqn RCD (my old Sqn as a Tp Ldr and BC) was essentially equipped as a tank sqn from Germany but with some LSVW in place of 5/4s in the echelon. We had a mostly tracked A1 echelon under the SSM and for an FTX I had the A2 echelon as the Sqn AO. The SSM's A1 ech had 2 x M548s and I did as well. We then swapped those M548s at night, after which I linked up with the RCD or RCR CS8 Tpt Tp/Pl and rebombed the two empty M548s with ammo jerry cans.

This all disappeared with the loss of the tanks, but we also lost half of our technicians and much of our wheeled echelon in 2004/5.

As a Recce Sqn Comd from 2009 to 2011 we slowly built up an echelon which then joined the conversion to tanks in 2011. We did not have a full A1 and A2 echelon, but we were happy to have something of our own!

 

[FJAG]

250 would allow us to have everything above plus preposition a full squadron's worth in Latvia (200), a two full squadrons in war stock/depot (240) and 10 MBTs for designated training tanks so squadron holdings arent being used up on PCF training (250). I can honestly see 200 as a good middle ground. This is all based on full manning in both tank regiments and lets get real, that aint happening.

I like your numbers but have a bit of a different view of how to use them.

The starting point is that my belief is that Canada should be able to field an armoured division for Europe plus have the backstop to train and replace casualties from stocks at home. My main reason for that is that IMHO, 1 German-Netherlands Corps needs an armoured division for Latvia/Estonia and Canada is the one country in the region that can afford to provide and sustain that. I think the idea of committing just a brigade has passed long ago. When we debate how little Canada can get away with we need to start thinking in significantly bigger terms unless we're courting another Hong Kong.

My view is a two-brigade division with as close to a 1:1 ratio of armour to infantry (~11,000 folks in the division and another ~3000 in a theatre level support brigade.) Two brigades with one tank regiment and two mech infantry battalions each and a divisional armoured cavalry regiment (plus arty bde and sustainment bde) meet the minimum standard (depending largely on how you configure and arm the cavalry regiment and whether your tank regiments have 3 or four tank squadrons) Essentially, you can "get away" with a 44-tank regiment (3 x 14-tank squadrons and two command tanks) - That means the division can be equipped with as few as 88 tanks plus whatever the cavalry consists of.

Again, IMHO, the proper backstop for a deployed division is at least one additional division at home - another 88 tanks. That's 176 allocated to units. The spare stocks over and above that are debateable. 24 would get you to your 200 estimate (that's MBTs and not counting cavalry, engineers, recovery etc) but I don't consider that a middle ground, I see it as the bare minimum. The question becomes how many to preposition to the Baltics and how many are needed at home for the training of the folks that round out the division by flyover as you won't put the whole division on the ground during peacetime. If you commit only a brigade to NATO as Stage 1 or 2 then 200 will do. If the commitment is a whole prepositioned division then you probably need to up the number by another 44 - so around 250 MBT total.

So we don't disagree on numbers much albeit I see smaller but more regiments and a larger NATO commitment by way of prepositioned stocks.

This all disappeared with the loss of the tanks, but we also lost half of our technicians and much of our wheeled echelon in 2004/5.

That was the arty experience when the M109s were removed in 2004. All the M113s, M577s and M548s disappeared as well and were replaced by . . . pretty much nothing . . . a few LSVWs and MLVWs. The techs we'd had were sorely missed.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Today, the use of armored vehicles is effectively a special operation. It requires extremely detailed planning and the coordination of a huge number of assets," Biletskyi recently told Militarnyi, a Ukrainian military news site.

The tank isn’t dead. The way it used to wage war might be.

Tanks have taken a beating in Ukraine. The US Army is changing how it trains to make sure it can fight under the constant watch of drones.

www.businessinsider.com

"survival is only one part of the equation in battle. Armored forces must also be able to maneuver, attack, and seize territory."

"The Ukrainians recently demonstrated what that looks like in practice.

"Ukraine's Third Army Corps, which has led a major counteroffensive in the embattled eastern Donetsk region, disclosed recently that it had executed two successful mechanized assaults behind Russian lines. Gen. Andrii Biletskyi, the corps' commander, said that he was initially skeptical it could be done.

"While details remain limited, the general has revealed that armored crews had to undergo special training and that their vehicles were outfitted with additional equipment to support their push. Other armored endeavors have involved support drones operating in both surveillance and attack roles.

""Today, the use of armored vehicles is effectively a special operation. It requires extremely detailed planning and the coordination of a huge number of assets,""

......


And while vehicles can be hidden...

"Driving through the Joint Multinational Readiness Center, the Army's main overseas training facility, the presence of the 1st Armored Division's Abrams tanks was hard to miss. Mud tracks crisscrossed and meandered through the grassy hills, scarred by the treads of the heavy armored vehicles."

They are easy to track.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Meh. We arent making three square brigades.

Do you mean identical? Usually square means "four" main elements (compared to triangular, "three"). The nature of each element doesn't have to be identical. An infantry brigade of four units is square, as is an armoured brigade of two armoured units and two infantry units.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Essentially, you can "get away" with a 44-tank regiment (3 x 14-tank squadrons and two command tanks) - That means the division can be equipped with as few as 88 tanks plus whatever the cavalry consists of.

My view as well on what the minimum is for an "armoured division". Two units (although I'd put them in one brigade), based on 14-tank sub-units. Not proven by any systematic evaluation in Canada of which I could be aware, but has a 19- or 20-tank sub-unit been re-validated and compared to alternatives any time recently either? Certainly others with more commitment to the game think 14 is enough.

 

[FJAG]

Do you mean identical? Usually square means "four" main elements (compared to triangular, "three"). The nature of each element doesn't have to be identical. An infantry brigade of four units is square, as is an armoured brigade of two armoured units and two infantry units.

One of the brigades - 1 CMBG - looks to be a square one with two armoured regiments and two mech infantry. The other two brigades 2 and 5 CMBG look a bit off to me with a cavalry regiment and two mech infantry battalions. I guess it all depends on what that cavalry regiment looks like and how it is employed.

My view as well on what the minimum is for an "armoured division". Two units (although I'd put them in one brigade), based on 14-tank sub-units. Not proven by any systematic evaluation in Canada of which I could be aware, but has a 19- or 20-tank sub-unit been re-validated and compared to alternatives any time recently either? Certainly others with more commitment to the game think 14 is enough.

I've been gravitating to smaller armoured divisions with just two armoured brigades, an arty brigade, a sustainment brigade and a hearty divisional cavalry regiment. I too favour 14 tank squadrons. I agree with this guy that smaller squadrons allow you to build more squadrons and that splitting squadrons is probably less likely in the future.