Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

I wonder if the shrinking of the AD bubble you're able to create in the face of so many (and widely dispersed) systems means that the scale of individual offensive operations will shrink as well...at least until the point that you manage to break through the static front line where small drones are the most effective.

Does this suggest that maybe combined arms groupings need to be shifted down to lower levels? Combined arms battalions or even companies rather than re-grouping in order to keep all the elements required for the type of offensive actions in a modern, drone-heavy battlefield internal to a single unit?

I think that there is a fine line between "combined arms" and a "specialty" within an existing trade.

As an example, I see an infantry company that has a higher organic CUAV capability - let's say that a quarter to one half of all LAVs in the company have their 25mm turrets removed and replaced with a 30mm RWS which is capable of both ground support and AD fire. Each of these vehicles would be slaved to an integrated air defence warning and fire control system so that within the company the right vehicle(s) engage any detected threat (maybe even semi-autonomously. So is that an AD arty specialty or is it more suited to the infantry company itself? I'd argue for infantry as the main purpose is to carry an infantry section.

Clearly their would be other systems - some heavier, some the same - which are run by folks not in the battalion - probably the Div AD arty - who cover the gaps between the battalion and company bubbles and who handle higher flying and more distant threats. and probably run the warning sensors and fire control systems.

I'm not a great fan of "combined arms" at the low level (by which I mean shoe horning together folks from different units). My preference is for homogeneous units with more of the organic skill sets and gear they routinely need for their part of the battle (which IMHO should include CUAV). The big issue, as always, is: how do you train these folks and maintain their ever more complex gear?

$0.02

 

[GR66]

If it takes the resources of a Division to create the conditions for a Battalion-sized attack and that attack requires a combined arms force then does it make sense to have combined arms battalions instead of creating Battle Groups that are drawing on support echelons from multiple units? I'm much less convinced of the utility of combined arms at the level of the Company but on the modern battlefield I wonder if something like the Swedish Mechanized Battalion might make sense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/my7ugd/structure_equipment_of_swedens_mechanized

 

[Brad Sallows]

If it takes the resources of a Division to create the conditions for a Battalion-sized attack and that attack requires a combined arms force then does it make sense to have combined arms battalions instead of creating Battle Groups that are drawing on support echelons from multiple units? I'm much less convinced of the utility of combined arms at the level of the Company but on the modern battlefield I wonder if something like the Swedish Mechanized Battalion might make sense.

Whether it makes sense is certainly the debate. Whether it can be done effectively shouldn't be. Divisional resources and cross-attachments between units and brigades has been part of effective formation warfighting since at least WW II (eg. an infantry unit of an infantry brigade, with an armoured sub-unit of an independent armoured brigade, supported by divisional artillery and other resources).

 

[FJAG]

If it takes the resources of a Division to create the conditions for a Battalion-sized attack and that attack requires a combined arms force then does it make sense to have combined arms battalions instead of creating Battle Groups that are drawing on support echelons from multiple units? I'm much less convinced of the utility of combined arms at the level of the Company but on the modern battlefield I wonder if something like the Swedish Mechanized Battalion might make sense.

First off I tend to question the focus on a division creating the conditions for a battalion. Divisions are your tactical entities unless you overburden them with extraneous resources. Battalions are merely a resource that the division commander - via his brigade commander - uses. One tries to employ armoured divisions where the, the division fights with its tanks and artillery while the infantry support that fight. Having "pure armoured regiments" provides the requisite mass fire power and violence but the flexibility exists to create mixed battlegroups where the ground and the situation dictates closer support is needed. There's ground where your tanks have no role. There's terrain where you let slip loose the dogs of war and the infantry tries to keep up and keep their heads down inside their moderately armoured vehicles.

When you read the US combined arms manuals you can see that they settled on a brigade having two types of battalions - two tank heavy ones (2 tank coy 1 inf coy) and one infantry heavy one (2 Inf coys 1 tank coy) But the literature is also clear that even with the combined arms battalions the battalions can expect to detach coys to other battalions. The only reason to do that is to create either super tank or infantry heavy or pure tank or infantry battalions.

What I find interesting about the Swedes is settling on platoons of three vehicle. Fewer vehicles make command and control easier - somewhere there is a sweet spot between small manoeuvrable coys/bns and large ponderous heavily manned and armed ones. It beats me where that is but I tend to favour smaller units but more of them.

Whether it makes sense is certainly the debate. Whether it can be done effectively shouldn't be. Divisional resources and cross-attachments between units and brigades has been part of effective formation warfighting since at least WW II (eg. an infantry unit of an infantry brigade, with an armoured sub-unit of an independent armoured brigade, supported by divisional artillery and other resources).

I find that way of operating makes more sense to me from a progressive training point of view. I sometimes wonder in a combined arms battalion organization if there is ever a time and place where the battalion trains or operates as a pure infantry or pure armoured battalion. When you start with infantry battalions and tank regiments then you plan right from the get go as whether or not you need to regroup and how best to regroup. When you have a combined arms battalion I think you tend to see every problem as a nail needing the combined arms hammer that you have and the likelihood that you will regroup to suit the problem that is actually in front of you is diminished.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ukraine is starting to use UGV's carrying ATGM and HMG to closely support infantry clearing operations. The days of the LAV being up close and personal might start receding.