Leo 2 distribution

[Infanteer]

A Mech Platoon still has four vehs does it not?

And a Mech Company has 3 Platoons.  What's your point?

Aside from just telling me what 1992 was like, you'll see that I argued that Armoured strength isn't necessarily predicated on the number of barrels, but that strength (in my opinion) is from the combat team as a whole.  More Squadrons is better for the Army, as it means more Combat Teams and more leadership able to practice in Combat Teams.  The fact that a 15 Tank Sqn is just as viable as a 19 Tank Sqn, as T2B highlights above, means it is a realistic approach for the Army:

It can work, however, with three and have benefits for the force as a whole.

 

[George Wallace]

So I guess you are in favour of change as long as it is a change to what you are used to? 

;D

One thing about the Corps, is it has always been in a state of flux and trying to do more with less.  In most cases, it hasn't been that some way was better, but that we don't have the budget and therefore the men and equipment to do it the way that we should/would like to do it. 

I am more arguing against the persistent tendency for the Government to force us to do things on the cheap rather than anything else.  That is what upsets me the most.  As a result we are seeing ever increasing training deltas developing between the Regular Force and the Reserves in all Trades, as well as many lessons learned being forgotten.    I do look at many of these suggestions of smaller Troops and smaller Sqns as being "Band-aid Solutions" more often than not and a form of tacit acceptance.  We have, as a military, been very efficient at making do with less and making it work.  I am not sure that this, in all honesty, is a good thing at the end of the day.  It does reflect highly on the skills of our CF members, but a breaking point will eventually be met. 

I have witnessed the "Peace Dividend" over the years with most major equipment purchases in the last four or five decades having a trend of halving the number of pieces of equipment they have replaced.  At the end of WW II and Korea, the Canadian Army had enough tanks to equip its four Reg Force Regiments and the Reserve Regiments.  The Shermans of those eras were replaced by 350 Centurions, which were in turn replaced by 128 Leopard C1s.  The plan to replace the Leopard C1 with 66 MGS, thankfully fell out of favour, but we still are only going to have approx 100 Leopard 2.  This has been the trend in replacement of all our fleets of vehicles.  I know I won't be alive, but will the time come ever when we will only have one of each veh type?

 

[Infanteer]

One thing about the Corps, is it has always been in a state of flux and trying to do more with less.  In most cases, it hasn't been that some way was better, but that we don't have the budget and therefore the men and equipment to do it the way that we should/would like to do it.

Well, considering the 1940s/50s Armoured units had 5 troops of 3, there is no case to be made for 4 of 4 as "the way it always was and should be".

I have no qualms with your argument about the continuous halving of resources - other branches are feeling the pain with the same arguments (field artillery, anyone?).  However, what I put forth is that going with smaller, more numerous squadrons is not necessarily "doing things on the cheap"; it works and would likely be of greater benefit to both the Armoured Corps and the combined arms team as a whole.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Inevitably, if you whittle it down to three troops and make it work, it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lead change by making it something like 2 x 5 tank troops.

People are always prone to easy reduction but seldom wish to face the dog fight of expansion when the initial drop is shown to be futile, or fruitless, when it is normally too late to do anything about it.

I'm not arguing either way. They just better make damn sure they run through all the permutations and problems they may face, which they seldom do, if they decide to reduce.

It's a slippery slope, not easily stopped on, or reclimbed, once gravity takes over.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Inevitably, if you whittle it down to three troops and make it work, it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lead change by making it something like 2 x 5 tank troops.

People are always prone to easy reduction but seldom wish to face the dog fight of expansion when the initial drop is shown to be futile, or fruitless, when it is normally too late to do anything about it.

I'm not arguing either way. They just better make damn sure they run through all the permutations and problems they may face, which they seldom do, if they decide to reduce.

It's a slippery slope, not easily stopped on, or reclimbed, once gravity takes over.

"Inevitably" is a strong word. Who has talked about 2 x 5? I would certainly argue against going to three tanks in a troop instead of four.

In any case, the suggestion being discussed here is not to cut tanks. It is to have four squadrons in the RCAC instead of three squadrons with the same number of tanks (we would need to come up with two or three SHQ tanks though, plus an additional echelon).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"Inevitably" is a strong word. Who has talked about 2 x 5? I would certainly argue against going to three tanks in a troop instead of four.

In any case, the suggestion being discussed here is not to cut tanks. It is to have four squadrons in the RCAC instead of three squadrons with the same number of tanks (we would need to come up with two or three SHQ tanks though, plus an additional echelon).

I don't think it is, because all things change, but it's also just an opinion.

No one was talking about it. Read it again. 'it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lead change by making it something like 2 x 5 tank troops.

Quite simply, just a permutation for example sake.

Beside which, I think you missed my point completely.

Let me rephrase.

'Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it.'

Like I also said. I have no dog in this race and really am not concerned how things end up. Just making a simple observation based on my over 35 years, with over 30 of that in the Corp, saying that once the clock gets turned up, it's hard to turn it back if it's a mistake.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, someone could propose an Armoured Corps of wheel DFS vehicles, but getting in the weeds of doomsday scenarios isn't what the thread is about.  We are talking about two viable ways for distributing the tanks we know we're going to get and the relative merits of both options.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't think it is, because all things change, but it's also just an opinion.

No one was talking about it. Read it again. 'it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lead change by making it something like 2 x 5 tank troops.

Quite simply, just a permutation for example sake.

Beside which, I think you missed my point completely.

Let me rephrase.

'Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it.'

Like I also said. I have no dog in this race and really am not concerned how things end up. Just making a simple observation based on my over 35 years, with over 30 of that in the Corp, saying that once the clock gets turned up, it's hard to turn it back if it's a mistake.

I raised the number of 2x5 precisely because you seemingly introduced that argument as a reason to avoid debate on squadron size.

People can suggest things, and we should debate suggestions on the merits of those suggestions.

There has been some flucuation in recent years with sqn size. What is more, tanks were going out of the inventory - now they are back. All that to say that things can change in a variety of ways. I don't look for change for changes' sake, but I don't think that we should freeze ourselves in time to avoid some inevitable slide to doom.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I raised the number of 2x5 precisely because you seemingly introduced that argument as a reason to avoid debate on squadron size.

People can suggest things, and we should debate suggestions on the merits of those suggestions.

You misunderstood the intent. I apologise for being, seemingly, obtuse.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

For what its worth, I favour the four-troop squadron. How's that for obtuse! I just recognize the advantages for the tank force as a whole with a three-troop organization if it lets us form another operational squadron. It would permit more balance across the Corps, give greater depth for Afghan-style force generation and enable forming BGs with two or three tank squadrons will still keeping something back for the next show. It could also curtail the pernicious habit of habitually forming half-squadrons.

Recognizing the advantages of a course of action, though, does not mean that I favour it. There would indeed be disadvantages in the form of more "overhead" in terms of SHQ/Admin Tp. Tactically each squadron would indeed face disadvantages as well. I can see the point that going to a three Troop squadron could be interpreted as a step-back that could lead to further reductions, but I don't see that as a deciding factor as long as the force as a whole stays the same size.

In any case its all just a thought exercise here!

Cheers

 

[Franko]

I just can't wait to see a tank Sqn actually operate without a CP again, nor be tied to a piece of ground.

The world will come to an end!!!        :

Regards