• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

What got my attention was Norway's belief that 54 Leo's was a strong enough spine to support a Heavy Mech Brigade.
 
Kirkhill said:
What got my attention was Norway's belief that 54 Leo's was a strong enough spine to support a Heavy Mech Brigade.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where exactly the Norweigians are for forming that brigade. They currently have two combined arms battalions - Panserbataljonen and Telemark Bataljon which have the same orbat. Pansanger Bataljon is actually an armoured recce battalion with a recce squadron and a support squadron (albeit I'm not sure if the recce squadron may not have some tanks and infantry in it too):

600px-Norwegian_Army_Organization_2021.png


Each of the two combined arms battalions in Brigade Nord has one tank squadron (Leo2A4NO), two mechanized infantry (CV90) squadrons, a recce squadron and a svc sp squadron.

Assuming they use a 14 tank squadron then two squadrons would take up 28 tanks leaving 10 spares. They currently have 52 Leo2A4NO with only 36 operational). It makes me think they may be reconfiguring their brigade to add a third combined arms battalion. (Maybe we could pick up some spare A4s? :giggle: )

🍻
 
FJAG said:
I'm not sure where exactly the Norweigians are for forming that brigade. They currently have two combined arms battalions - Panserbataljonen and Telemark Bataljon which have the same orbat. Pansanger Bataljon is actually an armoured recce battalion with a recce squadron and a support squadron (albeit I'm not sure if the recce squadron may not have some tanks and infantry in it too):

600px-Norwegian_Army_Organization_2021.png


Each of the two combined arms battalions in Brigade Nord has one tank squadron (Leo2A4NO), two mechanized infantry (CV90) squadrons, a recce squadron and a svc sp squadron.

Assuming they use a 14 tank squadron then two squadrons would take up 28 tanks leaving 10 spares. They currently have 52 Leo2A4NO with only 36 operational). It makes me think they may be reconfiguring their brigade to add a third combined arms battalion. (Maybe we could pick up some spare A4s? :giggle: )

🍻
Click to expand...
They donated some to Ukraine -- so I don't suspect they have any actual spares.
 
Belgium meanwhile is doing what minor nato partners ought to do, in the same way the Dutch are. Organizing and equipping themselves to be interoperable with a major NATO member. This is why I’m in favour of Kevin’s suggestion we essentially buy a divisions worth of US equipment.


 
markppcli said:
Belgium meanwhile is doing what minor nato partners ought to do, in the same way the Dutch are. Organizing and equipping themselves to be interoperable with a major NATO member. This is why I’m in favour of Kevin’s suggestion we essentially buy a divisions worth of US equipment.
Click to expand...
Simplest way forward at this point.

The sad thing is that there's an alternate timeline where a serious Canada went ahead with CCV and the originally planned Leo upgrades, leveraged our reputation and standing coming out of Afghanistan, and took the lead as the framework nation in organizing ourselves, the Dutch, Danish, and maybe Norwegians into a standby division with Leo's, CV90's and a common 8x8 RWS APC
 
It seems that the US Army is not ready to ditch the Stryker just yet. Buy a bunch of M10 Bookers to go along with the LAVs and Canada could field another couple of Brigades that would be compatible.

www.prnewswire.com

General Dynamics Land Systems receives $712 million order for Stryker DVHA1 vehicles

/PRNewswire/ -- General Dynamics Land Systems announced today that it has been awarded a $712.3 million order by the U.S. Army for 300 Stryker DVHA1 vehicles....
www.prnewswire.com www.prnewswire.com

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., June 26, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- General Dynamics Land Systems announced today that it has been awarded a $712.3 million order by the U.S. Army for 300 Stryker DVHA1 vehicles.

This latest order comes under a five-year contract signed in 2020 that includes an option for a sixth year.

"Stryker is the Army's largest combat vehicle fleet – combat-proven, cost-effective, highly mobile, versatile, sustainable and transportable,"
Click to expand...

I also note that a number of the divisions are only 2x BCT division

1st Inf Div
2nd/7th Inf Div
3rd Inf Div
11th Abn Div
25th Inf Div

2nd Infantry Division
Click to expand...

We could probably also find another 2 light battalions for an IBCT (Abn) such as that found in the 11th Abn Div in Alaska.

Click to expand...

Those brigades could be chopped to US Divisions or Allied Divisions, and potentially form a Canadian Division in the field.

Money saved on not buying Abrams and Bradleys could go to arty, aviation, logs and new technologies.
 
@Kirkhill keep in mind those Stryker #'s don't even replace the older models that are being divested.
A large amount of Strykers are being used for MSHORAD, and the DE C-UAS etc platforms outside of Infantry BN's - their role as an APC is dwindling.
 
KevinB said:
@Kirkhill keep in mind those Stryker #'s don't even replace the older models that are being divested.
A large amount of Strykers are being used for MSHORAD, and the DE C-UAS etc platforms outside of Infantry BN's - their role as an APC is dwindling.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What you are saying is that they are standing off from the FEBA? But isn't that also what we are seeing in Ukraine? That armoured vehicles of all sorts, including Leos and Challengers, are keeping their distance?

And if the APS systems that the Israelis are trialling in Gaza prove as effective as they hope isn't that going to cause another rethink about what vehicles get used where, when and how?

The point is, in my mind, that any vehicle can be used in any operation when applied with due care and consideration.

Jeeps can conduct successful raids.
Tanks can be blown up in the FEBA.
 
The biggest issue is the old adage, if all you have is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

The CAF needs a gammer of capabilities - from Heavy to Light -
 
KevinB said:
The biggest issue is the old adage, if all you have is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

The CAF needs a gammer of capabilities - from Heavy to Light -
Click to expand...

Agreed entirely.

Canada suffers the same problem as any smaller business. The cost of overhead, the cost of being able to do all the things the big guys do, is inevitably going to be high with fewer taxpayers available to support the overhead. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the taxpayers are spread out all over Hell's Half Acre. That drives costs up again.

But if Canada wishes to be seen as a sovereign state then that is the cost of 0.5% of the world's population claiming 7% of the world's land mass and 20% of the world's fresh water supply of which roughly one third is renewable along with mass quantities of wood, lignite, coal, oil and gas.

With a world clamouring for an honest trader....
 
Kirkhill said:
Agreed entirely.

Canada suffers the same problem as any smaller business. The cost of overhead, the cost of being able to do all the things the big guys do, is inevitably going to be high with fewer taxpayers available to support the overhead. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the taxpayers are spread out all over Hell's Half Acre. That drives costs up again.

But if Canada wishes to be seen as a sovereign state then that is the cost of 0.5% of the world's population claiming 7% of the world's land mass and 20% of the world's fresh water supply of which roughly one third is renewable along with mass quantities of wood, lignite, coal, oil and gas.

With a world clamouring for an honest trader....
Click to expand...

Seeing defence requirements as a cost of business is wrong particularly if the country's leadership keeps making unfulfilled commitments to spend 2% of GDP but only spends 2/3 of that.

The cost of business of cheaping out on the military is either one which fails dramatically once committed and will result in the unnecessary deaths and maiming of Canadian troops or, on the other hand, is a military so incapable that it won't be committed. In the case of the later it will mean that you've been blowing 20 plus billion down the tubes annually for something of predictable little value.

Canada's problem is that its thinking, particulalry with respect to the army, is focused on the costs of defence inputs and is naïve as to analysing the value of the defence outputs it gets for its money. Those outputs are not merely in the hard defence capabilities but should also include the power of deterrence as well as status in the international community.

🍻
 
Kirkhill said:
Money saved on not buying Abrams and Bradleys could go to arty, aviation, logs and new technologies.
Click to expand...

Much as the Canadian Forces like to play the "No soup for you" game with the budget, that is not a realistic way of building a force.

We've committed to Latvia. Latvia is a heavy armour game as can be seen by our allies which make up the rest of the eFP there with tracked Arietes, Leopards, Twardies, Dardos, Pizzaros, and even BMP 2s. We've now committed tanks and the only artillery we have - towed M777s.

I'm prepared to let LAVs continue to pretend that they are IFVs but to do so they need the support of both tanks and SP guns as well as a robust AD shield and ATGMs and combat drones. This is an order of priority thing which requires we get what we don't have first, but eventually we'll need to relegate the LAVs back to their medium roles and replace them in Europe with proper IFVs. That does not mean we divest the LAVs (or even the TAPVs or M777s) - just assign them to their proper roles while we build a proper heavy force.

At some point we have to stop playing that silly game of only buying new equipment at the rate of 2/3 for every item we divest. That's a death spiral that should be obvious to anyone.

🍻
 
I think the US Light Division structure could provide a rough model for the CA in the form of a Mixed LAV/Light Division plus a flyover Canadian-led Brigade in Latvia. Reserves would be integrated into the Reg Force Regiments in 70/30 or 30/70 structures. The Flyover units in the Latvia Brigade would have the HQ units on one of three sub-units with the balance co-located with units in Canada. There would be 4 x LAV Battalions in the "Heavy"(ish) Brigade and they would rotate supplying a Company to the Latvia fly-over Brigade (with the balance of the Battalion tasked for fly-over).

The main changes I'd make to the US Structure is I would assign Engineer Regiments directly to the Brigades rather then grouping them in an Engineer Brigade since we are mixing Brigade types (Mech, Light and Reserve) so it makes more sense to me to have the appropriate Engineer units directly attached to each type.

The Division Sustainment Brigade would come from a formalization of structure of the National Support Element into an actual Brigade with set units and TOE to support a Division (or smaller) deployment rather than a more ad hoc structure.

The goal to my mind would be to eventually replace the LAVs with a tracked IFV and shift the LAVs to the Reserve Brigade.
Force 2025 - US Light Division Model.png
 
GR66 said:
I think the US Light Division structure could provide a rough model for the CA in the form of a Mixed LAV/Light Division plus a flyover Canadian-led Brigade in Latvia. Reserves would be integrated into the Reg Force Regiments in 70/30 or 30/70 structures. The Flyover units in the Latvia Brigade would have the HQ units on one of three sub-units with the balance co-located with units in Canada. There would be 4 x LAV Battalions in the "Heavy"(ish) Brigade and they would rotate supplying a Company to the Latvia fly-over Brigade (with the balance of the Battalion tasked for fly-over).

The main changes I'd make to the US Structure is I would assign Engineer Regiments directly to the Brigades rather then grouping them in an Engineer Brigade since we are mixing Brigade types (Mech, Light and Reserve) so it makes more sense to me to have the appropriate Engineer units directly attached to each type.

The Division Sustainment Brigade would come from a formalization of structure of the National Support Element into an actual Brigade with set units and TOE to support a Division (or smaller) deployment rather than a more ad hoc structure.

The goal to my mind would be to eventually replace the LAVs with a tracked IFV and shift the LAVs to the Reserve Brigade.
View attachment 80654
Click to expand...
Honestly Canada should be able to field a a Corps of 3 Divisions.
Armored/Heavy Mech
LAV - Med
Light - Abn
With the bodies it has.
1 Deployable Div Hq
2 Static Div HQ
1 Static Army (Corps) HQ
Bde’s in the Division’s also setup to plug into US Divisions and Corps

Heck I’d even accept 2 Divisions with a LAV Bde tossed into each the Light and Heavy Div to round them out.
 
FJAG said:
Not even close.

With the US CBO model you can see the adjustment of costs in either adding or subtracting a capability, like a BCT or changing it from one type of BCT to another or - most important of all - converting it from Active Army to National Guard.

That's a useful tool. Having a tool that allows you to add or subtract a percentage to all the light battalions really does very little that is of value.

🍻
Click to expand...
Lotsa tools in OW, not much addition lots of subtraction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
1K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Small Radio Networking and Clouds
Replies
15
Views
15K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Industrial Strategy - Capitalizing the Canadian Forces
2 3
Replies
47
Views
42K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Melding Russian, Chinese and American Strategy - Convergence and Peer Wars
Replies
0
Views
7K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
    • Like
Unpacking 5 Myths About Management
Replies
1
Views
12K
Bluebulldog
Bluebulldog
Back
Top