• 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

In the west, Shilo, Wainwright, Suffield. Dundurn is too small and the Chilcotin has no base, just an RTA.

It would be interesting to look at how a Ukrainian style defending company would fare in those areas and what sort of force it would take to overwhelm them.

This assumes tank traps, tanglefoot, trenches and bunkers, dragon's teeth, drones and lots of long range artillery.

And how do you bring the artillery into play? How does the attacking force defeat cannons that are 30 km away and rockets that are well beyond 100 km?
 
What bases can support a no man's land 10 to 20 km wide?

Like many of your thoughts/ideas/theories/flightsoffantasy, I'm left speculating what you're talking about. Perhaps your expectation is that it would be necessary to physically recreate two opposing 'trenchlines' down to the exact detail as would be found in, say, Eastern Ukraine, so that troops can play silly buggers at the division level? Other than having space to do live fire, which would not likely go beyond a battle group (battalion), it would not require anymore than what was needed for the exercising of formations during the Cold War. Space in which nothing happens (other than transit of troops, eqpt or munitions on the way to a target) can be simulated. If space is needed to exercise wide ranging tactical and administrative movement of units/formations (and that it necessary - more than it used to be practiced in Canada), it can be accomplished the same way we did it back when we hitched onions to our belts and prepared to oppose Warsaw Pact forces - in Requisitioned Manoeuvre Areas (RMAs), i.e., the German countryside.

Or are you suggesting a Canadian version of Fort Irwin? And even then, some spaces can be simulated.
 
Like many of your thoughts/ideas/theories/flightsoffantasy, I'm left speculating what you're talking about. Perhaps your expectation is that it would be necessary to physically recreate two opposing 'trenchlines' down to the exact detail as would be found in, say, Eastern Ukraine, so that troops can play silly buggers at the division level? Other than having space to do live fire, which would not likely go beyond a battle group (battalion), it would not require anymore than what was needed for the exercising of formations during the Cold War. Space in which nothing happens (other than transit of troops, eqpt or munitions on the way to a target) can be simulated. If space is needed to exercise wide ranging tactical and administrative movement of units/formations (and that it necessary - more than it used to be practiced in Canada), it can be accomplished the same way we did it back when we hitched onions to our belts and prepared to oppose Warsaw Pact forces - in Requisitioned Manoeuvre Areas (RMAs), i.e., the German countryside.

Or are you suggesting a Canadian version of Fort Irwin? And even then, some spaces can be simulated.

I suppose you could have one battlegroup at Wainwright and another at Shilo.

One exercise assaulting a trenchline backed by "off-board" assets at the other site while the other site practices supporting the defence remotely while trying to defend itself against incoming missiles and drones and escape surveillance.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. 😁
 
I suppose you could have one battlegroup at Wainwright and another at Shilo.

One exercise assaulting a trenchline backed by "off-board" assets at the other site while the other site practices supporting the defence remotely while trying to defend itself against incoming missiles and drones and escape surveillance.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. 😁

You've just used up the entire budget for the year... thanks alot ;)
 
Back
Top