I mean let us be honest - 99% of foot drill should have been dropped from the syllabus years ago as one isn't forming square to repel calvary anymore.
Of course I'm the guy who always has to question everything.
Things should be questioned - in a big way. Tell me, does anyone other than the guard on Parliament Hill actually need to know how to do the left form on the march ... or the left and right incline for that matter. I remember decades and decades ago standing on the parade square with my regiment and having to do a "move to the right in column of route" saying to myself - its a simple enough movement but if we adopted a different formation on parade right from the start where the officers stood on the right flank and the NCOs on the left then we could just do a simple right turn and already be in position to march off. And then there's the whole "officers promenading and getting on parade" routine. I haven't checked lately but in my day the manual on drill and ceremonial was thicker than the one on combat team tactics.
Here's what a Canadian Armoured Infantry Battalion could look like using the Swedish model.
With this set up our "Heavy" Brigade could have three identical Armoured Infantry Battalions and still have enough Leopards for a Reserve Tank Company/Squadron and a bunch of LAVs available for the Reserves.
I quite like this. The US combined arms battalion used to have a two tank/two rifle company organization but changed it to three companies. Two have two tank/one infantry and one has two infantry/one tank. The deducted tank company went to the cavalry squadron while the two deducted infantry companies just disappeared.
I know that changing the composition of a tank squadron from four troops to three just because we are limited on the number of tanks, isn't a good practice but it strikes me that pretty much everyone else has three troops in a squadron and I pretty much agree that changing to a three troop organization should be done unless someone can come up with a darned good reason for keeping four (other than more is always better).
The drop to three vehicles in a platoon is also worth looking at. The Russians have done it that way since day one.
I'm also quite a fan of dropping the support company in favour of placing the recce, mortar and AD or ATk elements directly under the Bn HQ Coy and creating a separate logistics company as they do. Again, the US has been doing this for years without ill effects. The support company does not fight as an entity and does not need an independent company command structure. If anything it creates an unnecessary step in the CoC. Their administrative needs can easily be met by the adm pl within the HQ Coy which also meets the needs of the Bn HQ's element itself.
IMHO, the way we use the term HQ Company right now muddles the function of being a Tactical HQ and providing logistics support to the Bn as a whole. In many ways this is merely a change in terminology but I would think a uniform standard of logistics or CSS companies across varying establishments (uniform structure but not uniform personnel or equipment which vary with the nature of the unit supported) all commanded by a logistician trained in combat service support at the unit level would standardize logistics functions across the brigade. (I know we trade in one combat arms major and one MWO PY for a logistician major and MWO PY but I'm pretty sure that the world wouldn't end)
I'd even go so far as advocating for a brigade support battalion (BSB - to replace the service battalion) which would include forward support companies (FSC) as logistics companies for each unit in the brigade (again tailored by unit function). This would create a more unified CSS structure within in the brigade and provide clear technical oversight from the BSB over the various unit FSCs.
The same could be done with unit medical platoons being attached forward elements from the brigade's field ambulance or for that matter, even battalion int cells being forward deployed elements of a brigade intelligence platoon (or better yet, a beefed up intelligence company).