Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[MilEME09]

It's an easy mindset to maintain and operate equipment What would a basic armoured vehicle cost today?

Depends what you are looking for, a senator can be around $600k, a EBRC Jaguar is about 5 million. What we need is something like the M113, something super cheap, and easy to maintain off a college mechanics diploma. With an optional turret or RWS.

 

[dapaterson]

It's funny isn't it how at one time Militia units could maintain and operate tanks and self propelled guns.

Except they didn't maintain them.

The Army has chosen repeatedly to order trigger pullers to maintainers.

The Army could absorb a couple thousand maintainers and related sustainment troops immediately, before thinking about any more.combat arms soldiers, regular or reserve.

Indeed, the Army's growth plan should be sustainment forces being prioritized well before any combat arms.

I have no faith that it will be.

 

[FJAG]

I am no RCEME guy but the tech back then was a lot simpler. Their was very little if any FCS in the AFVs. Certainly not much in the way of comms.

Ever seen the inside of a C 42 radio

Modern AFVs and the comms/fire control is a hell of a lot more advanced and needs the proper techs to maintain them.

Hell, I am an M113 guy and I will come out and say even those could have been looked after by P Res units but you start looking at the current crop of AFVs, and you will need a much larger number of RCEME

I agree entirely

and Class B troops to keep them Op ready.

You ought to know my attitude about Class Bs by now. IMHO a full-time job that needs to be done continuously is he job for a RegF person and not a class B. The reserves need a lot more RegF people allocated to those jobs that need to be done full-time.

Except they didn't maintain them.

The Army has chosen repeatedly to order trigger pullers to maintainers.

Agreed. And we all know that's wrong. What do you call it if what you've done before doesn't work and yet you choose to repeat it?

The Army could absorb a couple thousand maintainers and related sustainment troops immediately, before thinking about any more.combat arms soldiers, regular or reserve.

Indeed, the Army's growth plan should be sustainment forces being prioritized well before any combat arms.

Again and again we agree on this issue. And I think leveraging trade schools and providing funding assistance for individuals to attend while they get red sealed coupled with summertime military trades training in exchange for periods of obligatory RegF or ARes service could go a long way to attracting the right folks to the jobs.

I have no faith that it will be.

Neither do I. Particulalry for 2 Div. 1 Div at least sees four additional svc/log/maint battalions which is a good start. I think that's still short for providing what I term "theatre support" for any deployed force. I have zero knowledge as to what the plan is for the future Support Division and its relationship with 2 Div.

 

[MilEME09]

Except they didn't maintain them.

The Army has chosen repeatedly to order trigger pullers to maintainers.

The Army could absorb a couple thousand maintainers and related sustainment troops immediately, before thinking about any more.combat arms soldiers, regular or reserve.

Indeed, the Army's growth plan should be sustainment forces being prioritized well before any combat arms.

I have no faith that it will be.

Part of the problem is as well, the army over the last several decades has shifted things that were user/operator maintenance to first line maintenance. This has a domino effect on everything else. A Sherman in 1956 could be mostly maintained by the crew, a leopard 2 cannot.

 

[FJAG]

Part of the problem is as well, the army over the last several decades has shifted things that were user/operator maintenance to first line maintenance. This has a domino effect on everything else. A Sherman in 1956 could be mostly maintained by the crew, a leopard 2 cannot.

There was a time when I could maintain my 65 Mustang (not to mention my 1952 3/4 ton truck). I can't do a thing with my 2025 Forester except change the tires and add gas and oil.

Perhaps one of the fundamental criteria of army vehicles should be to use 1960 technology with the engine.

 

[McG]

It's funny isn't it how at one time Militia units could maintain and operate tanks and self propelled guns.

At one time, most households could do the maintenance on their own car. It’s like technology has changed.

 

[MilEME09]

At one time, most households could do the maintenance on their own car. It’s like technology has changed.

Indeed it has, and for the worse in my cases. I shouldnt have to have a $2000 computer to diagnose error codes to fix my car. Or a MSVS for that matter.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Part of the problem is as well, the army over the last several decades has shifted things that were user/operator maintenance to first line maintenance. This has a domino effect on everything else. A Sherman in 1956 could be mostly maintained by the crew, a leopard 2 cannot.

Is there a simpler tank out there that wouldn't be rough on maintenance and logistics but still provide the reserves with some tracks and a gun to gain experience with ?

 

[McG]

Is there a simpler tank out there that wouldn't be rough on maintenance and logistics but still provide the reserves with some tracks and a gun to gain experience with ?

Simulators.

 

[markppcli]

Is there a simpler tank out there that wouldn't be rough on maintenance and logistics but still provide the reserves with some tracks and a gun to gain experience with ?

Training armoured vehicles have a way of becoming operational despite best efforts.

 

[PrairieFella]

Is there a simpler tank out there that wouldn't be rough on maintenance and logistics but still provide the reserves with some tracks and a gun to gain experience with ?

The problem with modern tanks in this context is theyre less big guns on tracks and more massive computers on tracks which happen to have big guns. A leo can smack targets on the move kilometres out, long before the enemy could even see them...but that means the FCS and associated electronics are super precise and complex. Other countries have reservists with tanks so its doable, it will just require the very large logistical footprint that all tank squadrons require. I personally think that is worthwhile from a persgen standpoint as a crewman but recognize that competing priorities probably come first. Better to have lighter, simpler autocannon-armed AFVs that can be deployed with CARBs and at least provide gunnery and tactical foundations for future MCAV augmentation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Training armoured vehicles have a way of becoming operational despite best efforts.

Cougar ?

The problem with modern tanks in this context is theyre less big guns on tracks and more massive computers on tracks which happen to have big guns. A leo can smack targets on the move kilometres out, long before the enemy could even see them...but that means the FCS and associated electronics are super precise and complex. Other countries have reservists with tanks so its doable, it will just require the very large logistical footprint that all tank squadrons require. I personally think that is worthwhile from a persgen standpoint as a crewman but recognize that competing priorities probably come first. Better to have lighter, simpler autocannon-armed AFVs that can be deployed with CARBs and at least provide gunnery and tactical foundations for future MCAV augmentation.

Ya... I get that...

I was just thinking we use the Orca's to do a lot of training and basic seamanship.... Is there an equivalent for tanks ?

I would love to see this capability for the ARes.

 

[PrairieFella]

Cougar ?



Ya... I get that...

I was just thinking we use the Orca's to do a lot of training and basic seamanship.... Is there an equivalent for tanks ?

Like @McG said, sims.

 

[MilEME09]

Like @McG said, sims.

Sims can train the basics, Sims dont teach you how a vehicle will actually handle at -30 in shilo. It still requires getting time on a real vehicle.