von Garvin said:
66 is such a "merde de taureau" number that it virtually makes me vomit. Consider this:
"Whole fleet management" requires that the number of vehicles to be deployed at a certain level (eg: squadron) be based in Montreal (?). Another same set of numbers with a unit for training. Then add a third set of same amount of vehicles for the first line deployment. So far, none have been allocated to the school. So, a fourth set of vehicles. That's 16 vehicles per, remainder of 2.
So, with LdSH (RC): 16 vehicles (training up for deployment)
In "whole fleet management" storage: 16 (for "just in case")
First line of deployment (eg: over in the Sandbox, or whereever): 16
Royal Canadian Armour School: 16 (for training with Tactics school on Combat Team Commanders' course, for"phase IV" training, as well as "Phase III" as well as 3A Crew commander and 3B Troop Warrant courses, etc.
Strategic Reserve: 2 (in case of war, break glass!)
Embarrassing? Yes!
(
Reminds me of Jay Leno shortly after 9/11. The joke went something like this in his monologue:
"Canada has pledged to fight along side us against those who committed these attacks. They said that we can borrow their tank.")
Now, the SCTF is "supposed" to have a Direct Fire Squadron with them as well. So, again, for every 1 vehicle, you need 3 for the same reason: 1 to actually "go over", one for training up, and the third for "whole fleet management". Are we at 8 vehicles per user now?
Here's a novel idea (copyright 2006: Garvco Industries Incorporated)
Purchase a tank (Leo 2A6? M1A2 SEP? Whatever) with the following allocation to units
Royal Canadian Armour School: 19 (enough for a squadron at 4 per troop and 3 for SHQ)
Royal Canadian Dragoons: 59 (3 squadrons and two for RHQ)
Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians): 59 (same as for RCD)
12e Regiment Blinde du Canada: 59 (la meme chose)
Keep the Recce squadrons OUT of those three regiments. Make them tankers, and tankers only (less the assault troops, naturally. Oh, yes, reactivate the assault troops)
Stand up "Channel 8" (8 CH) as a recce regiment with 3 recce squadrons.
Here's how "Feldmarschall von Garvin" would then make things happen:
First line of deployment: one armour regiment (for sake of argument, RCD, as part of 2 CMBG, from which all deployed elements come)
High readiness training: another armour regiment (for sake of argument, LdSH (RC), as part of 1 CMBG, from which all soon-to-be-deployed elements come)
Reconstitution: a third armour regiment (again, sake of argument 12e RBC, as part of 5 GBMC, from which all just-redeployed elements come)
Brigade recce? With my COA, a squadron from 8 CH would be an Army asset, attached OPCOM to each brigade. For example, A Squadron attached OPCOM to 1 CMBG (and would be stationed there in Edmonton with the rest of the Brigade). B Squadron with 2 CMBG (again, stationed in Pet) and C Squadron with 5 GBMC (living the dream in QC!). Their RHQ would be mostly administrative, and could be anywhere: Moncton? Sussex? Gagetown? Ottawa? Whereever.
Either this or add a "D" squadron to each of the three regiments for brigade recce. Personally I'd prefer that this brigade asset (Recce Squadron) would come from a different regiment so that, for example, the LdSH (RC) wouldn't have to share their gravy boats with those recce dudes. They would focus instead (and rightly so, I believe) on tank stuff, such as Full Spectrum Operations in the Contempory Operational Environment, or whatever.
Does this make sense to anyone but me? Or is this clear as mud?
Over to you for criticism :warstory:
Out of my lane again....sorry that this is becoming a habit.
For me anyway, this just comes down to "With the fixed budget we have, what can do that will best project power into any given theatre to first deter a potential enemy from even considering and attacking, and second if they do attack us, provides us the ability to first take their opening ambush, and then pound the everloving shiiiit out of them."
Since the budget is now in place to create a heavy lift capacity to get whatever we now want to our theatres, we can now engineer what our forces will look like with any vehicle mix we'd like given that additional funds are going to be harder to get.
For me, my first priority remains increasing the minimum protection levels on all vehicles including supply and logistics vehicles because if the enemy is able to choose the time and place of their ambush, they're going to try to hit the softest vehicle possible in order to maximize casualties. The new medium truck program is a start for the drivers. The additional Nyala's are even better. The LAV-III's seem to be doing a great job. But we have to take G-wagens and anything else that light out of IED/VBD environments. Ergo, before I bought new tanks I would be expanding our LAV-III fleet so that they make up a larger portion of any deployment (and if we don't have the funds to do that - then go with something a little less expensive like the Aussie Bushmaster vehicles or something).
My second priority would be mine/IED surveillance. My understanding is that Predator B operates at an altitude too low so that the enemy even if they cannot see them, can hear the buzzing. I would therefore like to find something that operates at a higher altitude with the highest-end thermal optics to act as an overwatch system feeding live video to the theatre command centre. Their job is constantly run loops on all the paths & roadways that our forces may travel upon looking for evidence of IED/mine set-ups. When identified, we can either engage with 155mm, drop a munition from the UAV or use coalition air support (at this point).
My third priority would be unmanned route-proving vehicles with downward and side looking ground penetrating radar. Quite frankly it's not like you have to get through that much ground to see an IED or mine, so you should be able mount such a configuration on a chassis as small as a heavy four-wheeler. If something is located, you call in a mine disposal team that is made up of (2) wheeled earth movers, and a couple more remote four wheelers - one of which will actually place an explosive charge over the identified mine/IED, back off, and then blow it up. The earth moving team then immediately fills back in the hole and away we go.
Now we're at tanks that can act in the role of mobile pill boxes as necessary. As per the link that Teddy provided one of the posters on Tank-Net hypothesized about putting a small squad of 3-4 Leo C2's at the highest point overlooking a valley with a Coyote and LAV-III escort and the absolute dominance that would provide over that valley. In my humble opinion, more than the firepower itself, it is the knowledge of the local civilians that the enemy has no ability to dislodge our people from those positions that would be the most important impact because it would bring stability and confidence. But bottom line is that based on COIN operations perhaps the natural TO&E for our transformation would include squads of MBT's in other regiments as opposed to keeping armour in large standalone units (which we are far less likely to deploy).
Again way out of my lane here, but what if we created regiments based on the following (by the way I'm already starting to duck-and-cover as I type this because I'm pretty sure I've got my terminology re: unit sizes wrong and so I beg everyone's forgiveness in advance):
(1) Headquarters Troop
___(8 ) Command and Control Vehicles including Air Traffic Control (probably Bison or LAV-III-based)
(1) Intelligence Troop
___(8 ) LAV-III based SIGINT/COMMINT and Tactical UAV Launchers/Retreivers
(1) Tube Artillery Battery
___(4 ) M777 155mm with datalinks to all UAV's and other aircraft
(1) Rocket Artillery Battery
___(4 ) HIMARS with datalinks to all UAV's and other aircraft
(1) Air Defence Battery
___(8 ) LAV-III based vehicles (pick your poison re: missiles)
(2) Engineering and Anti-Mine/IED Troops
___(to be determined, but again preferably based on LAV-III chassis with some remote vehicle support)
(2) Logistics and Support Troops
___(to be determined but based on heavy uparmoured trucks or Bushmaster equivalents)
(1) Aviation Company
___(8 ) CH-47 Heavy Lift Helicopters
___(4 ) Light Recce, Escort Helicopters with focus on thermal optics as opposed to radar
(2) Light Mechanized Squadrons
___(1)
Recce Troop (corrected as per GW)
_______(4 ) Coyotes with native tactical ultralight UAV's
_______(4 ) Nyala with upgraded optics
_______(4 ) Route-proving teams (vehicles are TBC)
___(3 ) Light Mechanized Rifle Companies
_______(1 ) Route-proving team (vehicles are TBC)
_______(8 ) LAV-III's (2 with eventual direct fire missile upgrade)
_______(4 ) Nyala
(2) Heavy Mechanized Squadrons
___(1)
Recce Troop (corrected as per GW)
_______(4 ) Coyotes with native tactical ultralight UAV's
_______(4 ) Nyala with upgraded optics
_______(4 ) Route-proving teams (vehicles are TBC)
___(3 ) Heavy Mechanized Rifle Companies
_______(1 ) Route-proving team (vehicles are TBC)
_______(8 ) LAV-III's (2 with eventual direct fire missile upgrade)
_______(4 ) Tanks (currently C2, but future model is TBD)
I'll now await summary execution....
Cheers guys,
Matthew.
P.S. If someone actually has any interest to rewrite that with your corrections to reflect proper terminology, I'd be greatly appreciative.
