Infantry Vehicles

[FJAG]

For what? Unfortunately without an ATGM nor Depleted Uranium rounds for the 25mm cannon, they cannot conduct much anti armor work effectively. So you end up requiring the very few tanks Canada has to do AT work as the Infantry cannot.

You misunderstood me. I said ATGMs not IFV turrets with ATGMs mounted on them. I'm thinking armoured transport - dismounted fight - 25mm in a pinch where appropriate.

They combined with the fact the 8x8 LAV 6.0 isn’t as mobile cross country as the tanks, you end up with some significant mobility issues, not to mention overwatch and support issues.

When I said six battalions of LAVs in two brigades I did not mention any tanks. Wasn't giving them any - its basically a SBCT.

It wouldn’t be so awful if Canada hadn’t ditched the M113 TUA but…

I left out what the ATGM platoon gets. Not important for the point made.

Canada’s Army isn’t a LSCO force.

There's being a LSCO army then there's being a part of one.

Solution mothball most of the LAV for mobilization or the PRes, and get a T-IFV

I didn't want to get into yet another ARes org thread but those two brigades that I see are 70/30 and 30/70 respectively.

Get a lot more tanks, as 1 Bde worth of tanks (ish) isn’t enough for a wartime Bde let alone the fact you have 3 Bde’s that all play at being CMBG’s.

Yup. I know the fiscally realistic folks will tear their hair out but I see a minimum of three ABCTs (four preferably) with one prepositioned.

Before anyone else gets their dander up I see a light brigade (para) as well.

 

[markppcli]

For what? Unfortunately without an ATGM nor Depleted Uranium rounds for the 25mm cannon, they cannot conduct much anti armor work effectively. So you end up requiring the very few tanks Canada has to do AT work as the Infantry cannot.

You’re still looking at 20-40 mm RHA penetration with the tungsten rounds. For the IFVs they expect to target, BMP 2/3, its effective.

They combined with the fact the 8x8 LAV 6.0 isn’t as mobile cross country as the tanks, you end up with some significant mobility issues, not to mention overwatch and support issues.

What overwatch issue? LAV cover flanks and bound behind tanks. They shouldn’t be doing overwatch for tanks. This is a doctrine and tactics, ie software, issue vs a hardware one.

It wouldn’t be so awful if Canada hadn’t ditched the M113 TUA but…

Canada’s Army isn’t a LSCO force.

The real sin was scrapping our new LAV TUAs.

 

[KevinB]

You’re still looking at 20-40 mm RHA penetration with the tungsten rounds. For the IFVs they expect to target, BMP 2/3, its effective.

My point was with the lack of Anti Armor systems Canada has you are screwed if anything bigger than that pops up.

What overwatch issue? LAV cover flanks and bound behind tanks. They shouldn’t be doing overwatch for tanks. This is a doctrine and tactics, ie software, issue vs a hardware one.

You have so few tanks, that you can’t do much with just the tanks.

The real sin was scrapping our new LAV TUAs.

Fair comment and I’d forgot about those prototypes.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

LAV TUA was an actual in-service vehicle. It was destroyed by the Taliban.

 

[FJAG]

Fair comment and I’d forgot about those prototypes.

They weren't so much a prototype.

If memory serves me correctly, in and around 2005, a company's worth of Patricia's were formed into E Company, LdSH(RC) and equipped with LAV TUA. They, together with a LdSH(RC) Leo C1 tank squadron (standing in for the yet to be acquired MGS) and an ADATS battery from 4 AD Regt were formed into the LdSH(RC) Direct Fire Unit which continued in existence for several years until the post-Medusa acquisition of the Leo 2s at bargain prices.

You'll recall that the infantry had given up most of their CS company by then. When the Leo 2s came on line, the DFU died out. The ADATS returned to an AD role and were never converted to a LAV chassis as the Multi-mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV). A few years later they were trash-canned. The LAV TUAs were sent back to the shop and converted into infantry section carriers.

And thus ended another lesson in how not to build a medium weight force.

 

[Brad Sallows]

LAV TUA was an actual in-service vehicle. It was destroyed by the Taliban.

There could only be one?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

There could only be one?

My poor attempt at humour. The LAV TUA was fielded to Armour regiments and the school. I can’t recal how many, but it was in service and we made courses etc. I was in one, and we had them in the field in the fall of 2008 on an exercise in Wainwright.

Since the Taliban did not have tanks the capability was dropped.

The thing was huge, but it had great optics. Would have been good to have today.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My poor attempt at humour.

I thought it was funny. Now, whether that knowledge motivates you to get out of the game...

 

[dapaterson]

LAV TUA was destroyed by friendly fire...

 

[FJAG]

There could only be one?

I believe 33 were built.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I believe 33 were built.

That's going to be a long movie.

 

[GR66]

We need to be realistic about what can be achieved and how quickly. Even if the magic wand is waived and we get a 2% of GDP defence budget tomorrow there are a LOT of major spending items pending (NORAD modernization, force digitization, ships, subs, F-35s, AEW aircraft, etc) that will push a tracked replacement for the LAV way down the line.

So while many/most here may wish for a tracked IFV and a bucket load more tanks ASAP it's not going to happen in the immediate future. That being said there are a lot of doable things that can make our LAV force much more combat effective (AD, AT and mortar variants for example) which will be required even if we do and up replacing them with a tracked IFV for the Reg Force since you'd want Reserve LAVs to have all the required enablers to be effective anyway.

Focus on making what we currently have as effective as possible while also keeping an eye on the future for what comes next (when we have the funding and pers to support it).

 

[FJAG]

LAV TUA was an actual in-service vehicle. It was destroyed by the Taliban.

Since the Taliban did not have tanks the capability was dropped.

I feel the same way about air defence.

If the Taliban had figured out how to turn model airplanes into one way UAVs we'd still have had air defence throughout the last decade.

 

[ArmyRick]

I feel the same way about air defence.

If the Taliban had figured out how to turn model airplanes into one way UAVs we'd still have had air defence throughout the last decade.

Its like the Taliban were 20 years too soon, if "kamikaze" drones or loitering missiles/bombs were around, they would have made use of them big time.

 

[ArmyRick]

I think the first real step in all of this is to get POLITICAL WILL. Let us assume that happens, some party gets in and says "hell yeah! beef up the forces"
How high on the priority list will an anti-armour capability/new IFV be? I know the Navy and Air Force need a big uptick. Truth be told I am surprised we are getting MQ9 Reapers. Of course with a new non-scary name.

Does Canada fit into the new US Multi-Domain Ops doctrine? Does NATO?

 

[markppcli]

My point was with the lack of Anti Armor systems Canada has you are screwed if anything bigger than that pops up.

That’s valid but being addressed.

You have so few tanks, that you can’t do much with just the tanks.

1 regiment is too few I agree, however our intent isn’t to piecemeal them across the army. I think anyways.

Fair comment and I’d forgot about those prototypes.

I think this has been responded to enough lol.

 

[IKnowNothing]

1 regiment is too few I agree, however our intent isn’t to piecemeal them across the army

The hell of it is that we dont have a regiment. 40 combat grade tanks is enough for a deployed doctrinal squadron, maybe squadron+ with the force gerlneration needs of the current set up.

 

[GR66]

The hell of it is that we dont have a regiment. 40 combat grade tanks is enough for a deployed doctrinal squadron, maybe squadron+ with the force gerlneration needs of the current set up.

15 x 2A4M's in Latvia supported in Canada by another 5 x 2A4M's, 20 x 2A6M's (being upgraded to match the electronics of the 2A4M's) and 34 x 2A4's as "training" tanks. You're 100% correct that this in no way represents a deployable Tank Regiment but it does at least hopefully achieve the initial objective of sustaining the Latvia Squadron.

The question then to my mind is in the absence of a tracked IFV on the horizon is what will be the role and employment model of MBT's in a LAV-based medium infantry army that's analogous to a SBCT?

 

[markppcli]

The hell of it is that we dont have a regiment. 40 combat grade tanks is enough for a deployed doctrinal squadron, maybe squadron+ with the force gerlneration needs of the current set up.

Uh no? A doctrinal squadron is 19 tanks. Agree we don’t have enough but I think that’s hyperbole.

The question then to my mind is in the absence of a tracked IFV on the horizon is what will be the role and employment model of MBT's in a LAV-based medium infantry army that's analogous to a SBCT?

A question answered quite well in all our doctrine. In short. Tanks do tanks things, we merge for combat team operations. This is practiced and rehearsed regularly. I’ll note we aren’t the only army that blends wheeled IFVs and Tanks, France jumps to mind. The mobility issues are, as someone who’s spent most of their career in LAV Bns doing combat team operations, and

 

[GR66]

A question answered quite well in all our doctrine. In short. Tanks do tanks things, we merge for combat team operations. This is practiced and rehearsed regularly. I’ll note we aren’t the only army that blends wheeled IFVs and Tanks, France jumps to mind. The mobility issues are, as someone who’s spent most of their career in LAV Bns doing combat team operations, and

That answers the question then. We only have enough tanks to support the single deployed Squadron(-) we have in Latvia, which combined with the LAV Company(+) and either another allied Infantry Company within eFP Latvia (or a 2nd LAV Company deployed from Canada...which is not something that is envisioned under our current policies) gives us a single deployable and sustainable Combat Team per our doctrine (with the Polish Tank Company and the other two allied Infantry Companies within eFP Latvia presumably forming a 2nd Combat Team).

That's basically the limit of what our doctrine would indicate that our current force structure says we are capable of deploying. Six LAV Battalions and three Armoured Regiments force generating a single doctrinal Combat Team (with allied contributions to round it out).

Which brings me back to my original question. Assuming that we are not going to see a new tracked IFV to replace the LAVs or any significant increase in the size of our tank numbers then how do we envision the role and employment of tanks within what is essentially a SBCT structure for our Medium LAV forces (with the US SBCT's not having any tanks organic to their BCT)? Or do we accept the fact that the limit of our LSCO deployment capabilities per our current doctrine for a total of 6 x Infantry Battalions and 3 x Armoured Regiments is a single doctrinal Combat Team?