Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Wiesel video. I still like it. It is more like a Bren Carrier than a tank.

Edit to add a full length video on the Wiesel and its variants - unfortunately it is in German with no sub-titles.

 

[markppcli]

There are the rules and then there is common sense self preservation. Those big ships couldn't avoid you even if they saw you depending on where you are paddling.

---

Army Reorg.

Seems the the Cavalry squadrons are a go. But they seem to be square (aka all the exact same vehicle). Is that a good idea? Do they have attachements? Why is Canada allergic to mixing vehicle types into a squadron organization (like say a command vehicle into the squadron)? Or are there mixed vehicles and I just don't know it? Or perhaps its early days still and the mix may come as the squadrons shake out.

Typically when we say “square” in terms of structure we mean 4 sub components, or symmetry in elements. A square Bn is one with 4 companies, a square combat team is a full Sqn and a full rifle company. Sorry to be a pedant.

In terms of your actually question about mixing vehicle types, it adds some logistical and planning complexity for not a lot of gain. Additionally it makes the enemies job easier in terms of targeting.

 

[KevinB]

In terms of your actually question about mixing vehicle types, it adds some logistical and planning complexity for not a lot of gain.

Depends on the mix.

Additionally it makes the enemies job easier in terms of targeting.

Arguable unless your command vehicles are the only outliers.

The US Army Cav Squadron maneuver Troops in an ABCT have 4 different vehicles. M1A2 SepV, M2A3 Bradley (or call it a M3A2 but they are identical at this point) M1069 120mm Mortar Carriers (M113 variant), and Hummer/JLTV.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wiesel video. I still like it. It is more like a Bren Carrier than a tank.

Edit to add a full length video on the Wiesel and its variants - unfortunately it is in German with no sub-titles.

Just adding this, previously posted, to bring the entire Wiesel story into one place.

Yes. I'm a fanboi.

 

[KevinB]

Depends on the mix.


Arguable unless your command vehicles are the only outliers.

The US Army Cav Squadron maneuver Troops in an ABCT have 4 different vehicles. M1A2 SepV, M2A3 Bradley (or call it a M3A2 but they are identical at this point) M1069 120mm Mortar Carriers (M113 variant), and Hummer/JLTV.

To quote myself

Looking at a Canadian attempt to configure a Cav Squadron

You would need
Leo 2 Troop
LAV 6.0 Recce
LAV - ATGM - which Canada doesn’t have
LAV - Mortar - which Canada doesn’t have

The Cav down here have also pointed out that even the 39x M3A2 14x M1A2 and 6x Mortar systems in the maneuver troops would need to draw assets from the Combined Arms BN’s of the ABCT to fulfill most of the missions for the Bde.

So I don’t really see how a CAV unit in Canada is practical at this point.

 

[FJAG]

To quote myself

Looking at a Canadian attempt to configure a Cav Squadron

You would need
Leo 2 Troop
LAV 6.0 Recce
LAV - ATGM - which Canada doesn’t have
LAV - Mortar - which Canada doesn’t have

The Cav down here have also pointed out that even the 39x M3A2 14x M1A2 and 6x Mortar systems in the maneuver troops would need to draw assets from the Combined Arms BN’s of the ABCT to fulfill most of the missions for the Bde.

So I don’t really see how a CAV unit in Canada is practical at this point.

I'm not sold on a fully mixed squadron. I'd rather see three "recce" squadrons each with predominantly recce vehicles and some mortars and some ATGMs. I'd keep the tanks in their own squadron and an additional platoon of mortars and another of ATGMs in the regimental headquarters. It's easier to attach central assets down to a squadron to bolster it, if required, than to reconfigure your manoeuvre squadrons by cross attaching assets from one to the other. I like my tanks concentrated and only penny packeted when absolutely necessary.

One other thing. Practically and financially speaking. We have 500 bloody TAPVs. They could make an adequate interim scout car (yes, I know they're bloody huge), and ATGM and even mortar carrier with "relatively minor" modification. I sometimes wonder whether or not the surveillance package on the LAV 6.0 LRSS could be fitted to a TAPV. I know - heresy.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not sold on a fully mixed squadron. I'd rather see three "recce" squadrons each with predominantly recce vehicles and some mortars and some ATGMs. I'd keep the tanks in their own squadron and an additional platoon of mortars and another of ATGMs in the regimental headquarters.

Down here we have (I believe correctly) identified that an Armored Cavalry (Recce) Squadron cannot do it’s primary task without tanks.

Tanks are also part of the Combined Arms Battalions - either Infantry or Tank Heavy.

It's easier to attach central assets down to a squadron to bolster it, if required, than to reconfigure your manoeuvre squadrons by cross attaching assets from one to the other. I like my tanks concentrated and only penny packeted when absolutely necessary.

An ABCT already has more tanks than Canada has - so it’s not penny packing.

One other thing. Practically and financially speaking. We have 500 bloody TAPVs. They could make an adequate interim scout car (yes, I know they're bloody huge), and ATGM and even mortar carrier with "relatively minor" modification. I sometimes wonder whether or not the surveillance package on the LAV 6.0 LRSS could be fitted to a TAPV. I know - heresy.

I’m still unsure what sort of idiot wrote that requirement in DLR, and who thought 500 was a reasonable number for Canada, and then who funded it.
It took at least three idiots to get there.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sold on a fully mixed squadron. I'd rather see three "recce" squadrons each with predominantly recce vehicles and some mortars and some ATGMs. I'd keep the tanks in their own squadron and an additional platoon of mortars and another of ATGMs in the regimental headquarters. It's easier to attach central assets down to a squadron to bolster it, if required, than to reconfigure your manoeuvre squadrons by cross attaching assets from one to the other. I like my tanks concentrated and only penny packeted when absolutely necessary.

One other thing. Practically and financially speaking. We have 500 bloody TAPVs. They could make an adequate interim scout car (yes, I know they're bloody huge), and ATGM and even mortar carrier with "relatively minor" modification. I sometimes wonder whether or not the surveillance package on the LAV 6.0 LRSS could be fitted to a TAPV. I know - heresy.

@FJAG

We don't have the numbers to justify single function regiments, or even squadrons. We're not raising and training 5 infantry divisions and 2 armoured divisions.

Our 4500 infanteers and 1500 armoured/tankers/cavalry/blackhats/zipperheads are Speshul just by dint of there being so few of them. And having so much time on their hands in garrison. And we only have a pennorth of tanks in any case.

As to the TAPVs - I agree. They could be utilized as buses. But if you want to optimize them for transport then you need to minimize the crew. And you don't need to modify them for carrying mortars - you just need a place where the mortars and their ammunition can be carried on board for easy mount and dismount. As to the ATGMs - the ones we don't have - they could be put into the same locker the mortar might be carried in. Or the Stingers. Or the LAMs. All man portable and to be deployed from the ground.

And two TAPVs carrying two teams of 4 with a third team of 4 driving the vehicles - humour me and pretend they aren't fighting vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

WRT TAPV

Can somebody explain what this is for? Is it stowage? A maintenance corridor? Alternate exit? Wasted space?






Positioned as it is behind the seat for "the rear sentry" - who is inside and facing forwards - it appears much like the closet under my grandma's stairs. Small, cramped, oddly shaped, inaccessible and not much use for anything.

 

[FJAG]

Down here we have (I believe correctly) identified that an Armored Cavalry (Recce) Squadron cannot do it’s primary task without tanks.

Tanks are also part of the Combined Arms Battalions - either Infantry or Tank Heavy.

You misunderstood me. We were talking about the Canadian cavalry regiment which would be made up of several squadrons. My comment was addressed to concentrating the tanks in that regiment in one squadron the same way that the tanks are concentrated in one armoured company within the ABCT Cavalry squadron. (I bloody well wish we could all standardize on the term battalion when talking about a battalion-sized organization - referring to them as battalions in one scenario, regiments in another and squadron in a third just leads to confusion across borders)

I’m still unsure what sort of idiot wrote that requirement in DLR, and who thought 500 was a reasonable number for Canada, and then who funded it.
It took at least three idiots to get there.

Couldn't agree with you more although conceptually they were more along the line of an RG-31 replacement, I think. My point rests on the "we've got the damn things, lets make use of them until we can replace them" concept.

We don't have the numbers to justify single function regiments, or even squadrons. We're not raising and training 5 infantry divisions and 2 armoured divisions.

See my comments to @KevinB above. You're reading far more into what I said than was intended.

As to the TAPVs - I agree. They could be utilized as buses. But if you want to optimize them for transport then you need to minimize the crew. And you don't need to modify them for carrying mortars - you just need a place where the mortars and their ammunition can be carried on board for easy mount and dismount. As to the ATGMs - the ones we don't have - they could be put into the same locker the mortar might be carried in. Or the Stingers. Or the LAMs. All man portable and to be deployed from the ground.

Re the TAPV mortars, agreed but also I think that there is enough space in the vehicle so that with the right floor reinforcement and a better hatch you could actually mount an 81mm (and maybe even a 120mm) internally and convert walls to ammo storage racks. A mortar can get by with a crew of four inside the vehicle with more ammo numbers in additional ammo vehicles. The driver has a function on the mortar det as there is no need to keep him separate. For them trailers for extra ammo is an option.

Re the TAPV ATGM, agreed again but also an ATGM remote turret could be fitted with a three man crew (driver, gunner, commander) and maybe a fourth ammo reloader. Again, there is sufficient space to store extra missiles in racks. (Maybe even some remotely piloted loitering ATk munitions)

At a minimum you could make it happen by fitting the appropriate storage racks and at a maximum, convert the vehicles to allow them to operate under armour.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed its not rocket science.



Any one of these systems could be adapted to that TAPV, unless there is some overwhelming need for a maintenance corridor in the beast.

But I fear you are asking for more than we can afford to give at this time.

In the meantime we do have 81mm mortars, we have purchased some NLAWs and M72s and even some Spikes. We have the CG84s - I think - unless we sent them all to Ukraine. And we might even be able to scrounge some Stingers, Starstreaks or Mistrales without breaking the bank.

 

[suffolkowner]

send half the TAPV's to Ukraine

 

[FJAG]

Agreed its not rocket science.

View attachment 71933View attachment 71934View attachment 71935

Any one of these systems could be adapted to that TAPV, unless there is some overwhelming need for a maintenance corridor in the beast.

But I fear you are asking for more than we can afford to give at this time.

In the meantime we do have 81mm mortars, we have purchased some NLAWs and M72s and even some Spikes. We have the CG84s - I think - unless we sent them all to Ukraine. And we might even be able to scrounge some Stingers, Starstreaks or Mistrales without breaking the bank.

Those are all interesting solutions and expensive ones. But I was thinking of something which is probably within your own realm of experience. DND tends to think of arms manufacturers and very pricey solutions to every problem. There are other solutions.

I did twenty years of my business supporting a lot of clients in the rural farm economy, like you do. Amongst my clientele were Hutterites and farm machinery manufacturers with small to medium scale machine shops. If you gave any of them a TAPV and a 120mm mortar, a couple of sample drill rounds, a supply of angle iron and a description of the problem, within a month they'd have a working prototype for you and within another month would have a limited assembly line that could probably turn out one vehicle every week or so. Hell, the Army probably has machine shops just as talented.

DND routinely overthinks the problem. Unfortunately it is really limited in finding practical solutions because the government has hamstrung itself so efficiently with its own red tape.

 

[GR66]

The problem with interim solutions in the CAF is that once implemented they become the permanent solution.

Probably the best solution is to pick the desired end state and devote the money to achieving that rather then diverting a bunch of it to meet temporary solutions.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem with interim solutions in the CAF is that once implemented they become the permanent solution.

Probably the best solution is to pick the desired end state and devote the money to achieving that rather then diverting a bunch of it to meet temporary solutions.

But that sets us on the path of describing the perfect solution. You will then spend 10 years, 5 project managers, 3 ministers and two deployments discussing the validity of your original proposal. And in the meantime the technology will have changed.

 

[markppcli]

send half the TAPV's to Ukraine

Jesus, we’re trying to support them aren’t we ?

WRT TAPV

Can somebody explain what this is for? Is it stowage? A maintenance corridor? Alternate exit? Wasted space?

View attachment 71931


View attachment 71932

Positioned as it is behind the seat for "the rear sentry" - who is inside and facing forwards - it appears much like the closet under my grandma's stairs. Small, cramped, oddly shaped, inaccessible and not much use for anything.

It’s a maintenance corridor that gets used for storage since there’s fuck all space in the TAPV. The inside of the TAPV, as a side effect being rear engined, really makes it’s a sup optimal weapons carrier. Mind you it’s also a sub optimal APC, Recce vehicle, SUV, frankly I’m not really sure what it’s optimal for beyond rolling over and lighting on fire.

 

[KevinB]

IMHO the TAPV should be given to the MP’s
It’s a airfield security vehicle that can double as a convoy escort vehicle.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

IMHO the TAPV should be given to the MP’s
It’s a airfield security vehicle that can double as a convoy escort vehicle.

You really don’t like MPs?

 

[Underway]

Typically when we say “square” in terms of structure we mean 4 sub components, or symmetry in elements. A square Bn is one with 4 companies, a square combat team is a full Sqn and a full rifle company. Sorry to be a pedant.

Oh no, be pendant! I'm exactly the same way. Which is why I put my understanding of what square was into the brackets of my comment. We're all learning from each other.

TAPV was for counter-insurgency and peace support operations. It was a vehicle purchased for IED/mine protection and NSE convoy's. I have yet to speak to an actual non-PRes operator about its performance in the Recce task, so will withhold judgment on that portion.

Honestly, the main flaw of the TAPV IMHO is the lack of internal space. If it had more space to put stuff (whatever that stuff may be), then it would easily find more roles.

Can it tow things? Like a water trailer? That opens up some more use for it.

You really don’t like MPs?

The US MP's that I spoke to when the TAPV was announced loved the source vehicle (M1117 Armoured Security Vehicle), but that was for driving down roads, convoy escort, and doing MP stuff. How far theTAPV has moved from the M1117 may have changed it to much.

 

[KevinB]

Oh no, be pendant! I'm exactly the same way. Which is why I put my understanding of what square was into the brackets of my comment. We're all learning from each other.

TAPV was for counter-insurgency and peace support operations. It was a vehicle purchased for IED/mine protection and NSE convoy's. I have yet to speak to an actual non-PRes operator about its performance in the Recce task, so will withhold judgment on that portion.

Honestly, the main flaw of the TAPV IMHO is the lack of internal space. If it had more space to put stuff (whatever that stuff may be), then it would easily find more roles.

Can it tow things? Like a water trailer? That opens up some more use for it.


The US MP's that I spoke to when the TAPV was announced loved the source vehicle (M1117 Armoured Security Vehicle), but that was for driving down roads, convoy escort, and doing MP stuff. How far theTAPV has moved from the M1117 may have changed it to much.

It has the standard SMP pintel clamp hitch system - so I would assume it can tow any medium SMP Trailer - to include a Water Buffalo.
Looks like it should be able to tow:
2 1/2 ton M1082 Trailer
5 ton M1095 MTV Trailer
5 ton M1095 RST Trailer (which all I can see the difference if from the MTV is the swing down sides to allow HIMARS Rocket pods to be loaded easily)
LHS Trailer - which apparently 300 are in CAF service

MSVS Trailer

The MSVS Trailer brings unique mission capabilities to logistic support operations. Capable of hauling 22,000 lbs., the trailer is extremely versatile and can be used to haul 20ft cargo containers, mobile workshops, or communications center. The military grade trailer has been in service with the…

www.linkmfg.com

Also for those looking to nerd out there is a RAND study/tech report on US Army Wheeled Vehicles from 2011 that I found pretty neat.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR890.pdf