Medium Cavalry: Critical Capability or Poor Man’s MBT?

[GR66]

I basically agree with everything in that we need a mix of forces. We need primarily one thing for domestic operations and primarily another for expeditionary. Note the use of the word "primarily" here.

I'm not so sure we need a "varied Expeditionary Response Option." Expeditionary operations are essentially discretionary - we choose to go or not to go. That means that we can choose not to be the Jack of all Trades and concentrate on a specific type of expeditionary operational commitment. (I think that "agile force" is a delusional buzzword that we need to jettison) If we choose to make the NATO Baltics commitment a long-term one (and I believe that we should) then we must be structured for that in a serious way for years to come - and to me that means heavy MCO (whatever form that takes for the future). All other expeditionary roles are discretionary.

Should we have other expeditionary forces structured for a lesser tasks - say that old failed-state-scenario? IMHO - No. We should avoid those like the plague.

Should we keep both light and medium forces in Canada? Absolutely. We already have a lot of LAVs and can build more? Why not? They are useful if used and configured properly so keep them and have them available. If push comes to shove and the government chooses a new expeditionary mission then we could deploy light or medium contingents from our domestic force or heavy from our expeditionary force as is appropriate to the situation.

That may not seem like an obvious difference, but structurally it is. It focuses each of the light, medium and heavy forces on specific primary missions. It focuses our expeditionary commitments to a narrow band to prepare for. But, it also leaves some flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances.

Barring a decision to switch from the LAV to a tracked IFV we won't have a Light/Medium/Heavy mix but rather a Light/Wheeled Medium+ mix.

I don't necessarily think that is a terrible thing as it basically matches our new two Division structure with the LAV-equipped expeditionary Division supporting our Brigade-level deployment to Latvia and being available for other expeditionary missions requiring a Medium force. The Defence of Canada Division provides the Light Expeditionary force (the Reg Force Light Regiment should be moved there in my opinion to act as the Rapid Response force).

 

[ArmyRick]

I basically agree with everything in that we need a mix of forces. We need primarily one thing for domestic operations and primarily another for expeditionary. Note the use of the word "primarily" here.

I'm not so sure we need a "varied Expeditionary Response Option." Expeditionary operations are essentially discretionary - we choose to go or not to go. That means that we can choose not to be the Jack of all Trades and concentrate on a specific type of expeditionary operational commitment. (I think that "agile force" is a delusional buzzword that we need to jettison) If we choose to make the NATO Baltics commitment a long-term one (and I believe that we should) then we must be structured for that in a serious way for years to come - and to me that means heavy MCO (whatever form that takes for the future). All other expeditionary roles are discretionary.

Should we have other expeditionary forces structured for a lesser tasks - say that old failed-state-scenario? IMHO - No. We should avoid those like the plague.

Should we keep both light and medium forces in Canada? Absolutely. We already have a lot of LAVs and can build more? Why not? They are useful if used and configured properly so keep them and have them available. If push comes to shove and the government chooses a new expeditionary mission then we could deploy light or medium contingents from our domestic force or heavy from our expeditionary force as is appropriate to the situation.

That may not seem like an obvious difference, but structurally it is. It focuses each of the light, medium and heavy forces on specific primary missions. It focuses our expeditionary commitments to a narrow band to prepare for. But, it also leaves some flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances.

To summarize some of what you said and I agree with. I served 1990-2018 for context.
-We mistakenly believed in the post cold war (post Warsaw pact) era was a "troubled peaceful" era
-We mistook the GWOT as the wars of the future
-We failed to pay attention to the changes in warfare technology occurring right under noses in the last 10-15 years
-If we go expeditionary, we have to select carefully what we get involved in
-On expeditionary, I personally think we will always be a contributor to a larger effort, never or very rarely operating solo.
-We must recognize that Canada is not within some sacred "safe land" that will never be invaded, we must be prepared to defend ourselves
-Being flexible on kit used is a good idea for us

sound about right?