Light vs Medium forces
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Kirkhill said:
12 cars per troop? So 4 troops per squadron? Thus 48 plus the BC and the OC? So 50 cars per Squadron? Thats 200+ LAV's per regiment! Yikes.
My question would be why are you going to patrols? Why not stick to the troop as the smallest unit? Unless you are considering the fire team (2 vehicles) as the smallest? Are you expecting to create a Scout unit? Why?
Might I suggest something else? How about sticking closer to what we have already except actually creating a fire team? 2 per troop? Thus 6 LAV's per troop. I would also incorporate the MGS.
Thus you have:
4 LAV III's (hopefully with TOW on turret) + 24 dismounts (6 ea.)
2 MGS
Thus a trp would have plenty of firepower, and good coverage for cover and movement.
You can have 2 or 3 of your trps in this formation and 1 or 2 of your trps looking like this:
2 LAV III (coyote package) + 8 dismounts
2 LAV III (TOW) + 12 dismounts
2 MGS
This would cover your scouting needs within the squadron.
Squadron BC and OC would also be in LAV III's with dismounts, albeit only 4.
You would have SHQ with a LAV C&C and LAV engineer/dozer and LAV APC for the Liason (19E).
You would also have your RHQ recce troop with 10 Gwagons that could be supplied by the reserves and attached to the lower elements depending on deployment needs. Attached to RHQ would be your engineering trp as well as a Fire support LAV Mortar/arty and/or TUA trp.
Thus your only dealing with 26 LAV's per squardon F ech of which 8 are MGS, plus the other 5 LAV's in SHQ for a total of 31 per squardon. You could bump that up a bit depending on what style of LAV (supply, recovery and ambulance) you would want in your A1 or A2 ech.
This would be much easier to supply vehicle/personal wise and would give us the punch and recce abilities we would need to do the job.
I dropped the MMEV (ADATS) as it totally slows down the mobile nature of the Cavalry with its 15 minute set up time. It could be a sperate trp attached to brigade level for BHQ protection.
I am writting up a formation at the moment as to what I think a good cavalry unit would look like Canadian style. Its based heavily on our own armoured and recce style units with dismounts added. The basic's are above. I'll post it later.
- Reaction score
- 7,688
- Points
- 1,160
3 squadrons times 48 cars is 144 actually. About what the Aussies are using.
Reason for selecting the Aussies? It is a real world format that one of our allies with our kit is using. Starting point for the numbers game.
Reason for selecting the Aussies? It is a real world format that one of our allies with our kit is using. Starting point for the numbers game.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ok, I'm basing my figures off of 4 squadron doctrine rather then the 3 squadron reality we have now. Even so with those numbers, you would be able to make up a 4th squadron (although I'm not sure about a ful ech).
Yes the Aussies is a nice place to start, but I think something closer to what we already know would be better as it has more punch. The Aussies have their Armoured units to bail them out, where we do not.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the dismounts would of course have AT weapons access as well.
Yes I know. I've railed on the MGS, and I'm still not convinced of it. But if we're going to get it, then lets see it used in a fashion that really supports things.
Yes the Aussies is a nice place to start, but I think something closer to what we already know would be better as it has more punch. The Aussies have their Armoured units to bail them out, where we do not.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the dismounts would of course have AT weapons access as well.
Yes I know. I've railed on the MGS, and I'm still not convinced of it. But if we're going to get it, then lets see it used in a fashion that really supports things.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,013
- Points
- 1,010
First off, the ideas be passed around on this thread are excellent.
Now in my world, lets promote me to General and declare me as CDS. Here is my structure.
The overall concept would be
1st CMBG (Western Area)
2nd CMBG (Gagetown)
5th CMBG (Valcartier)
4th CLBG (Light Brigade) Petawawa.
Each CMBG would basically have
-Brigade HQ and Sig SQN
-Armored REGT
-2 x LAV INF Battalions
-Arty REGT (re-roled)
-ENG REGT
-SVC BN
-FD AMB
The armored regt would now consist of HQ Squadron, Admin SQN and 3 x Combat Squadrons
There are two ways we can group them
(1) a Squadron Of Recce (Coyote surveillance), Squadron of Cavalry (Coyote plain varaint with 2 dismounts per vehicle) and a DFS Squadron (with three troops of "8 packs" wich is 4 MGS, 2 TUA and 2 MMEV) OR
(2) Three equal Squadrons of Recce Troop (Coyote surveillance), Cavalry Troop (Coyote plain varaint with 2 dismounts per vehicle) and DFS Troop (8 pack structure again)...
The armour could best decide which is the best way to structure the above.
The MECH INF would be similar to what we have with HQ Company, 3 x LAV Companies and an ADMIN Coy. We make MECH INF a hard trade IMO because of the skill sets involved in crewing LAVIII.
The ARTY in a MECH BDE will have that truck mounted C3 and the UAV Batteries.
Now for the Light Brigade (and this will depend on us getting medium lift choppers) we have
-BDE HQ and SIG SQN
-3 x LIBs (one from each REGT)
-Aviation REGT (or TAC HEL GRoup, call it whatever)
-ARTY Battery (yes a battery only)
-Engineer Squadron
-SVC BN
The LIB will be structured for light, airmobile, mountain and amphibious operations. They will be similar in role to the RM Commandos of the UK. I would say keep Parachute capabilities to one company each (its too costly to train and equip all three battalions).
The LIB will be the early entry and possibly theatre QRF (with choppers) while the MECH forces will be the stay and fight/conduct operations type of forces.
In one scenario here is what I see.
Country X has gone to heck in a hand basket.
NATO plans intervention.
We committ our stand by LIB (wich has a company at all times on 48 hours notice to move) to the multi-national intervention force. They are light, quick and ready. During the early days of the mission they engage in minor fights but defeat the insurgents T55s, T62s and BTR60s using their .50s, Javelin ALAWS and Light or medium mortars. Their mission is to clear and secure 25 KM around City Y abandoned airfield long enough for heavier forces to arrive. The secondary task with assistance from the navy is to secure the harbour in said city.
2-3 months later a complete Canadian Battle group arrives on a JSS and airlift to boost up the strength and releive the LIB BG. There role is to actively pursue and drive out insurgent forces and then begin stabilization phase of the mission.
What do you guys think ?
Now in my world, lets promote me to General and declare me as CDS. Here is my structure.
The overall concept would be
1st CMBG (Western Area)
2nd CMBG (Gagetown)
5th CMBG (Valcartier)
4th CLBG (Light Brigade) Petawawa.
Each CMBG would basically have
-Brigade HQ and Sig SQN
-Armored REGT
-2 x LAV INF Battalions
-Arty REGT (re-roled)
-ENG REGT
-SVC BN
-FD AMB
The armored regt would now consist of HQ Squadron, Admin SQN and 3 x Combat Squadrons
There are two ways we can group them
(1) a Squadron Of Recce (Coyote surveillance), Squadron of Cavalry (Coyote plain varaint with 2 dismounts per vehicle) and a DFS Squadron (with three troops of "8 packs" wich is 4 MGS, 2 TUA and 2 MMEV) OR
(2) Three equal Squadrons of Recce Troop (Coyote surveillance), Cavalry Troop (Coyote plain varaint with 2 dismounts per vehicle) and DFS Troop (8 pack structure again)...
The armour could best decide which is the best way to structure the above.
The MECH INF would be similar to what we have with HQ Company, 3 x LAV Companies and an ADMIN Coy. We make MECH INF a hard trade IMO because of the skill sets involved in crewing LAVIII.
The ARTY in a MECH BDE will have that truck mounted C3 and the UAV Batteries.
Now for the Light Brigade (and this will depend on us getting medium lift choppers) we have
-BDE HQ and SIG SQN
-3 x LIBs (one from each REGT)
-Aviation REGT (or TAC HEL GRoup, call it whatever)
-ARTY Battery (yes a battery only)
-Engineer Squadron
-SVC BN
The LIB will be structured for light, airmobile, mountain and amphibious operations. They will be similar in role to the RM Commandos of the UK. I would say keep Parachute capabilities to one company each (its too costly to train and equip all three battalions).
The LIB will be the early entry and possibly theatre QRF (with choppers) while the MECH forces will be the stay and fight/conduct operations type of forces.
In one scenario here is what I see.
Country X has gone to heck in a hand basket.
NATO plans intervention.
We committ our stand by LIB (wich has a company at all times on 48 hours notice to move) to the multi-national intervention force. They are light, quick and ready. During the early days of the mission they engage in minor fights but defeat the insurgents T55s, T62s and BTR60s using their .50s, Javelin ALAWS and Light or medium mortars. Their mission is to clear and secure 25 KM around City Y abandoned airfield long enough for heavier forces to arrive. The secondary task with assistance from the navy is to secure the harbour in said city.
2-3 months later a complete Canadian Battle group arrives on a JSS and airlift to boost up the strength and releive the LIB BG. There role is to actively pursue and drive out insurgent forces and then begin stabilization phase of the mission.
What do you guys think ?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Not bad.
Two things though.
One, your still thinking in cold war terms with the Armour and Mech infantry. Mech Infantry is not supportable without tanks, and Armour split up your way would not be sustainable for more then a couple of tours.
Two, we have to make up plans for what we have already. Your plan means a lot more Vehicles and Soldiers, both of which may not be supportable by the budget at this time.
Otherwise nice...
Two things though.
One, your still thinking in cold war terms with the Armour and Mech infantry. Mech Infantry is not supportable without tanks, and Armour split up your way would not be sustainable for more then a couple of tours.
Two, we have to make up plans for what we have already. Your plan means a lot more Vehicles and Soldiers, both of which may not be supportable by the budget at this time.
Otherwise nice...
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,013
- Points
- 1,010
Actually if you add up the vehicles, we have/will be getting that many.
66 MGS = 12 per REGT x 3 + 30 (split between waiting deployment, training and CMTC)
I am not sure how many TUA or MMEV we are getting but my numbers put only 6 of each in a regiment.
I can not remember how many coyotes we have but it is an impressive amount (enough to do what I am talking about).
As for the idea of this being cold war? Not really, my formations would be wiped out in a flash by a russian tank division.
We will still have to do some plug n play because of each mission having its own specific requirements.
I could see a deployable LAV (I will use that term instead of Mech) BG consisting of a LAV Battalion with a composite Armoured Squadron attached (The type I mentioned combining all three troops in above post) as well as the engineers, arty assetts.
Now if we conducted a larger scale operation then I could see both a armoured BG and an LAV Infantry Battle group.
My one problem with putting all LAV assetts in one unit (LAVIII, Engineer, Arty OP, MGS, MMEV and TUA) is that it could become quite complicated in terms of training and development of the crews. So there fore I leave the LAVIII with Infantry battalions and the other LAV assetts with the armoured.
Would there be a requirement in the future for an armoured heavy BG? I would say yes.
If we tackle on missions that involve alot of convoy escorts than I could see the security force for a typical convoy being a LAVIII Platoon mounted and an MGS Troop with the convoy. The Recce screen would consist of TUA and Coyotes. Keep in mind this one example of what I am talking about.
66 MGS = 12 per REGT x 3 + 30 (split between waiting deployment, training and CMTC)
I am not sure how many TUA or MMEV we are getting but my numbers put only 6 of each in a regiment.
I can not remember how many coyotes we have but it is an impressive amount (enough to do what I am talking about).
As for the idea of this being cold war? Not really, my formations would be wiped out in a flash by a russian tank division.
We will still have to do some plug n play because of each mission having its own specific requirements.
I could see a deployable LAV (I will use that term instead of Mech) BG consisting of a LAV Battalion with a composite Armoured Squadron attached (The type I mentioned combining all three troops in above post) as well as the engineers, arty assetts.
Now if we conducted a larger scale operation then I could see both a armoured BG and an LAV Infantry Battle group.
My one problem with putting all LAV assetts in one unit (LAVIII, Engineer, Arty OP, MGS, MMEV and TUA) is that it could become quite complicated in terms of training and development of the crews. So there fore I leave the LAVIII with Infantry battalions and the other LAV assetts with the armoured.
Would there be a requirement in the future for an armoured heavy BG? I would say yes.
If we tackle on missions that involve alot of convoy escorts than I could see the security force for a typical convoy being a LAVIII Platoon mounted and an MGS Troop with the convoy. The Recce screen would consist of TUA and Coyotes. Keep in mind this one example of what I am talking about.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Sounds workable. But how does this fit the all arms concept? If we go that way that is...
Of course, everything we talk about on these boards is nothing but wishing. Although a couple of people around here actually write articles for our military journals, so they must have some kind of impact on the decision making? Don't know.
What about the Gwagons? Everyone seems to forget we're getting these things? Or is it militia only and thus ignored?
Of course, everything we talk about on these boards is nothing but wishing. Although a couple of people around here actually write articles for our military journals, so they must have some kind of impact on the decision making? Don't know.
What about the Gwagons? Everyone seems to forget we're getting these things? Or is it militia only and thus ignored?
- Reaction score
- 3,881
- Points
- 1,140
The system is actively pinging right now, trying to track down "good ideas" to be considered by the two Action Teams that the CDS put together. If you have a fleshed out idea, PM me - I can see that it gets to the right place - and it can be attributed, or un-attributed.
Dave
Dave
- Reaction score
- 3,881
- Points
- 1,140
One of the first things that the new CDS did was to create two planning action teams, each led by a MGen, and staffed with selected pers from across the force (mostly from NDHQ - likely a cost / culture thing). I believe their remit is to flesh out the org and doctrine side of the CDS's transformation plan. One of them is led by the ACLS - and it is his full time job right now.
I am NOT part the action teams. I do however have a direct line to one of them, based on previous work relationships. Basically I am offering to be a conduit for fleshed out ideas - ie ones that have been written up and are coherent, complete ideas. I make no guarantees that they will be read etc - just that they will get to the right place.
I hemmed and hawed about making this offer, but I think that there is some truly original thought going on in Army.ca, and realise that people can be frustrated by a sense that "no one is listening". Well, people are listening, and events have conspired to create a small (and closing) window of opportunity.
So, if you have an original and fleshed out idea that is easily forwarded (Word or long e-mail will do) PM me and I will forward it to the right place.
Dave
I am NOT part the action teams. I do however have a direct line to one of them, based on previous work relationships. Basically I am offering to be a conduit for fleshed out ideas - ie ones that have been written up and are coherent, complete ideas. I make no guarantees that they will be read etc - just that they will get to the right place.
I hemmed and hawed about making this offer, but I think that there is some truly original thought going on in Army.ca, and realise that people can be frustrated by a sense that "no one is listening". Well, people are listening, and events have conspired to create a small (and closing) window of opportunity.
So, if you have an original and fleshed out idea that is easily forwarded (Word or long e-mail will do) PM me and I will forward it to the right place.
Dave
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thanks for that Dave... 
Now I've been asking myself for some time on this board why our forces are gearing so heavily towards recce type units and vehicles. Even the discussion about Armoured Cavalry, which in my mind could be a vaible combat force if equipment and doctrine were adapted properly. But even here, the idea of scout and recce Cav operations seemed to be the focus.
Now I know why. I was on a world affairs website and I found this statement. And I quote...
So there is my answer that I'm sure everyone else knew before hand. As usual I am the last to have this leak through my thick skull.
Our entire exisitance as a military force is now and I guess has been for some time now, totally dependant upon being the scouting boys for the bigger boys. We are no longer being considered a "fighting" Bull dog if you will, but as a beagle or sight hound. Yes we have teeth, but they only come out when we're cornered. Otherwise we look for the bad guys and bay out warning for our larger masters to come in for the kill.
Melodramatic? Yes... ...but that is the short of it.
Now I've been asking myself for some time on this board why our forces are gearing so heavily towards recce type units and vehicles. Even the discussion about Armoured Cavalry, which in my mind could be a vaible combat force if equipment and doctrine were adapted properly. But even here, the idea of scout and recce Cav operations seemed to be the focus.
Now I know why. I was on a world affairs website and I found this statement. And I quote...
So there is my answer that I'm sure everyone else knew before hand. As usual I am the last to have this leak through my thick skull.
Our entire exisitance as a military force is now and I guess has been for some time now, totally dependant upon being the scouting boys for the bigger boys. We are no longer being considered a "fighting" Bull dog if you will, but as a beagle or sight hound. Yes we have teeth, but they only come out when we're cornered. Otherwise we look for the bad guys and bay out warning for our larger masters to come in for the kill.
Melodramatic? Yes... ...but that is the short of it.
Similar threads
