Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[KevinB]

Man, the Arty really seems to be putting some thought in their future structure. I wish I could say the same about the RCAC.

I’d suggest some of their intentions for the PRes seem lofty - and Gun Batteries are a better use of PRes Gunners.

I’d say the RCAC is currently stuck in Vehicle Limbo.

It needs more tanks for its RegF tank regiments.
The “Medium’ Cavalry Vehicle is coming, apparently, but that doesn’t flesh out the tank force. What exactly the MCV is, leads me still wondering what Canada sees for that role.

I’d say the PRes Armoured, Infantry and Combat Engineers (and then resulting CSS and CS elements) are currently all stuck in a ‘Light’ role - which to me short of specialization, just means Mech without vehicles.

Frankly I think Canada would be better suited with 2 Light Infantry Regiments - with the second from the PRes - then the rest be geographically structured to support the Mechanized/Armoured Forces - and equipped as such.

Stick 2 Light Bde in BC ideally in the mountains. Where a Mountain School is situated, not having a Climbing Club in Trenton…

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’d suggest some of their intentions for the PRes seem lofty - and Gun Batteries are a better use of PRes Gunners.

I’d say the RCAC is currently stuck in Vehicle Limbo.

It needs more tanks for its RegF tank regiments.
The “Medium’ Cavalry Vehicle is coming, apparently, but that doesn’t flesh out the tank force. What exactly the MCV is, leads me still wondering what Canada sees for that role.

I’d say the PRes Armoured, Infantry and Combat Engineers (and then resulting CSS and CS elements) are currently all stuck in a ‘Light’ role - which to me short of specialization, just means Mech without vehicles.

Frankly I think Canada would be better suited with 2 Light Infantry Regiments - with the second from the PRes - then the rest be geographically structured to support the Mechanized/Armoured Forces - and equipped as such.

Stick 2 Light Bde in BC ideally in the mountains. Where a Mountain School is situated, not having a Climbing Club in Trenton…

You can turn any unit into a mountain/ airborne/ airmobile/ amphibious/ arctic warfare unit.

Like anything else, all it takes is the right mandate, planning and resource allocation.

 

[PrairieFella]

I’d suggest some of their intentions for the PRes seem lofty - and Gun Batteries are a better use of PRes Gunners.

I’d say the RCAC is currently stuck in Vehicle Limbo.

It needs more tanks for its RegF tank regiments.
The “Medium’ Cavalry Vehicle is coming, apparently, but that doesn’t flesh out the tank force. What exactly the MCV is, leads me still wondering what Canada sees for that role.

I’d say the PRes Armoured, Infantry and Combat Engineers (and then resulting CSS and CS elements) are currently all stuck in a ‘Light’ role - which to me short of specialization, just means Mech without vehicles.

Frankly I think Canada would be better suited with 2 Light Infantry Regiments - with the second from the PRes - then the rest be geographically structured to support the Mechanized/Armoured Forces - and equipped as such.

Stick 2 Light Bde in BC ideally in the mountains. Where a Mountain School is situated, not having a Climbing Club in Trenton…

Reading the new armoured doctrine pub I think its pretty safe to say MCAV occupies a Div recce type role. Not too dissimilar to the employment of DIVCAV Bradleys in the US Armoured Divisions.

 

[McG]

Reading the new armoured doctrine pub I think its pretty safe to say MCAV occupies a Div recce type role. Not too dissimilar to the employment of DIVCAV Bradleys in the US Armoured Divisions.

Except, half of Canada's medium cavalry will usually be employed as interchangeable with MBTs.

 

[PrairieFella]

Except, half of Canada's medium cavalry will usually be employed as interchangeable with MBTs.

Oh I know - Im talking doctrinally that seems to be where MCAV fits within the framework in the Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle. The second tank regiment cant come quick enough, we could probably use a third one too with the growth plans coming down the pipe.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Reading the new armoured doctrine pub I think its pretty safe to say MCAV occupies a Div recce type role. Not too dissimilar to the employment of DIVCAV Bradleys in the US Armoured Divisions.

I can see that role being replaced with UAVs pretty quick, so armoured units can do their own flank protection, recce etc. We might want to do a gut check on that before ploughing bejillions into new armour...

Drone-Cav... HUA!

 

[Kirkhill]

I can see that role being replaced with UAVs pretty quick, so armoured units can do their own flank protection, recce etc. We might want to do a gut check on that before ploughing bejillions into new armour...

Drone-Cav... HUA!

Meet Gereon: Europe and Ukraine’s AI Combat Robot Built to Protect Soldiers on the Frontline

The Combat Gereon by ARX Robotics, developed with Ukrainian partners, is a cutting-edge UGV that aids in reconnaissance and reduces soldier risk.

united24media.com

 

[WestIsle]

Am I correct in assuming that the ideal general formation of the CA being proposed here is a sort of modern version of the 1980s SADF with full-time pers split between special forces/rapid reaction light airmobile brigade and cadre staff for 2 mechanized divisions the later of which consisted of part-time soldiers with agreed upon terms of service. All this supplemented by a locally focused citizen militia to assist with local security tasks.

Does that sound about right?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Am I correct in assuming that the ideal general formation of the CA being proposed here is a sort of modern version of the 1980s SADF with full-time pers split between special forces/rapid reaction light airmobile brigade and cadre staff for 2 mechanized divisions the later of which consisted of part-time soldiers with agreed upon terms of service. All this supplemented by a locally focused citizen militia to assist with local security tasks.

Does that sound about right?

Now that you've put it that way, I'm even more dubious

 

[FJAG]

I can see that role being replaced with UAVs pretty quick, so armoured units can do their own flank protection, recce etc. We might want to do a gut check on that before ploughing bejillions into new armour...

Drone-Cav... HUA!

I disagree. The cavalry role is much like the line brigade's. To engage and defeat the enemy but in a sector far forward and far larger than that of the main force. It needs a strong mix of many capabilities including fighting vehicles, infantry, engineers and indirect fire support. For sure, much of the job will be done by UAVs and UGVs but at its heart, it is a manned fighting organization like the armoured or light infantry brigade. To what extent we have light, medium and heavy cav or general purpose cav is a question.

My problem is that I can understand what the Brits are reaching for with AJAX and the deep recce strike brigade. It colours my own idea about what Canadian cavalry should look like and what it should be able to accomplish.

 

[KevinB]

Reading the new armoured doctrine pub I think its pretty safe to say MCAV occupies a Div recce type role. Not too dissimilar to the employment of DIVCAV Bradleys in the US Armoured Divisions.

My big concern about that is while down here there is the 19K (M1 Crewman), 19D CavScout MOS, and 11C (Mortarmen), 19C (Bradley Crew) and 11B's in those units.
-- in Canada, the Infantry and Armoured line serials don't split like that.
With "unification" of the 11B Infantryman of the 11M and 11H Anti-Armor Specialist - the removal of 11M MOS made a (totally foreseen) train wreck and as a result the Armored trade picked up a new MOS.
*Yes now the Bradley crews for Mech Infantry are no longer 11B's. 11B's are just GIB's - Staff NCO's in a Mech/Armor unit now take a course into how to be a Bradley Platoon Sgt (conflicting info it it requires the Bradley Master gunner class or not at this time) - but tactically the 19C SSgt is the equivalent of a LAV Sgt in Canada.

There is expectation that Engineer and FIST Bradley Crew positions will be taken over by the 19C MOS as well - which will probably cause more issues that it solves...

Also there seem to be some discussion is the Stryker's will be crewed by 19C or another Armor Specific MOS -- there seems to be some pushing back by the Infantry however - as they see it is a taxi, like the M113 was and the AMPV is currently - not a fighting vehicle, and thus doesn't need a fighting vehicle crew.

The goal is to make the 11B the Dismounted Soldier at it's very heart -- getting away from any sort of vehicle based combat (other than a delivery system)

 

[daftandbarmy]

My big concern about that is while down here there is the 19K (M1 Crewman), 19D CavScout MOS, and 11C (Mortarmen), 19C (Bradley Crew) and 11B's in those units.
-- in Canada, the Infantry and Armoured line serials don't split like that.
With "unification" of the 11B Infantryman of the 11M and 11H Anti-Armor Specialist - the removal of 11M MOS made a (totally foreseen) train wreck and as a result the Armored trade picked up a new MOS.
*Yes now the Bradley crews for Mech Infantry are no longer 11B's. 11B's are just GIB's - Staff NCO's in a Mech/Armor unit now take a course into how to be a Bradley Platoon Sgt (conflicting info it it requires the Bradley Master gunner class or not at this time) - but tactically the 19C SSgt is the equivalent of a LAV Sgt in Canada.

There is expectation that Engineer and FIST Bradley Crew positions will be taken over by the 19C MOS as well - which will probably cause more issues that it solves...

Also there seem to be some discussion is the Stryker's will be crewed by 19C or another Armor Specific MOS -- there seems to be some pushing back by the Infantry however - as they see it is a taxi, like the M113 was and the AMPV is currently - not a fighting vehicle, and thus doesn't need a fighting vehicle crew.

The goal is to make the 11B the Dismounted Soldier at it's very heart -- getting away from any sort of vehicle based combat (other than a delivery system)

Translation for those not in the know: I believe GIB = Guys (& gals) in Back