Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[MilEME09]

M10 is not a tank.

More a tank then the Cougar was, The entire idea behind it is have light armour that is rapidly air deployable, but adds lethality to their forces. When looking at a tank, look at the role it is designed for, this is not a M1A2sep3 style point at the enemy and charge tank. It is very much a fast, hit and run tank, similar to the doctrine of the leopard 1.

On a related note, the USMC is getting two new versions of M72, A8 and A10, maybe we should get on this band wagon

Marine Corps Set to Receive New Light Assault Weapon System | Soldier Systems Daily

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — Marine Corps Systems Command is pleased to announce the acquisition of the M72 Light Assault Weapon Fire from Enclosure Mu ...

soldiersystems.net

 

[IKnowNothing]

We used AVGPs as tanks, as I recall, for training.

On that basis why not bring them back?

They were also used operationally.

Why don't we bring C1's back? We need MBT's.

Despite CAF choices in the intervening time period, an argument for the survival of the role/capability is not an argument for the vehicle itself. Canada last had the RCAC in a semi-homogenous fleet of MBT's with the Centurions in the 60's. We don't have the infrastructure or money to do it again. Ergo- small fleet of high end MBT's, bigger fleet of trainer/DFS vehicles.

 

[Maxman1]

Why don't we bring C1's back?

That may be a bit difficult.

 

[McG]

We used AVGPs as tanks, as I recall, for training.

On that basis why not bring them back?

Why don't we bring C1's back? We need MBT's.

Why don’t you drive a 1978 Corolla?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Why don’t you drive a 1978 Corolla?

Why didn't you quote the rest of the post that makes it pretty clear that that's a facetious retort to a facetious question?

 

[KevinB]

They were also used operationally.

Which was a travesty. And lucky that that wasn’t punished severely.

We don't have the infrastructure or money to do it again. Ergo- small fleet of high end MBT's, bigger fleet of trainer/DFS vehicles.

Your first point is exactly why the M-10 shouldn’t be considered for Canada. Someone will end up deploying them, due to lack of real tanks and they would get used as a tank.


Canada needs the M-10 like a hole in the head.
The CA just needs to be properly organized to fit into an Allied Division.
One can then justify having two divisions that can be sent either as whole Divisions in wartime, or Bde’s to an allied DIV.

I’d argue the most logical setup is to link into US Divisions, with 1 Light/Abn DIV and having Light/Abn Bde’s allocated to 11th ABN and XVIII Abn Corps, and 1 Armoured DIV to put an Armoured Force to Europe. You could make 1 Bde in each of those Div’s a LAV based Bde - to use the current LAV stock with some operational spares.
You’d then need 400 ish Tracked IFV and variants, as well as another 100 or so MBT.

Not cheap, but right now the CA doesn’t give good value to the taxpayer in how it’s setup.

 

[PrairieFella]

Some good tank chat going on, my two cents are that we should have two fleets. One heavy track and one medium wheeled. As much as I would love CV90120s, we're about as likely to get two RCAC tracked platforms as I am likely to win the 649. Heavy track should go to 1 and 2 CMBG with the LdSH and RCD being 100% tank regiments with a C/S 6 LRSS troop and an assault troop. Whether they're K2s, M1A2/3, Leo 2AX or Leopard 3s, that's neither here nor there. The most likely candidate if replacement is on the table is the M1 simply on the availability front.

5CMBG and the reserves should have a wheeled cavalry vehicle along the lines of a Stryker dragoon with ATGMs as well as the LRSS for C/S 6. 30mm, 2-4 Spikes, call it the CAVLAV. Great for raids, guards, screens, flank sec and on the attack in a pinch.

Imo one of the biggest threats to the RCAC is the herculean task of managing the logistics of the 12 or so F/Armd A Ech fleets we use. 2A4, 2A6, 2A4M, Coyote, LAV 6, LAV LRSS, TAPV, TLAV, ACSV, ARV, LUVW and Bison. Sure half are on their way out, but they ain't out yet. It could easily be rationalized into 5 or 6 vehicles. One mark of tank, ARV, LAV LRSS, CAVLAV, ACSV and an IMV (like the TAPV, in its proper habitat a bound or two behind) as a runner/assault troop transport.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Which was a travesty. And lucky that that wasn’t punished severely.

Your first point is exactly why the M-10 shouldn’t be considered for Canada. Someone will end up deploying them, due to lack of real tanks and they would get used as a tank.

As the US will deploy M10's, the Italians will deploy their Centauro's etc. etc. A tool for every job. Flying in half squadron such to support the next decade's COIN or PSO op alongside LAV's is not the same as sending an MGS to play tank in in a peer fight. The current alternative is a TAPV. Or an LRSS providing yet another 25mm. Or nothing.

I’d argue the most logical setup is to link into US Divisions, with 1 Light/Abn DIV and having Light/Abn Bde’s allocated to 11th ABN and XVIII Abn Corps, and 1 Armoured DIV to put an Armoured Force to Europe. You could make 1 Bde in each of those Div’s a LAV based Bde - to use the current LAV stock with some operational spares.
You’d then need 400 ish Tracked IFV and variants, as well as another 100 or so MBT.

And I'd argue that this has much chance of happening as you or I being chosen pope.

 

[MilEME09]

With the RCAC moving towards Cavalry instead of Recce, the M10 or similar absolutely fills the role as a Cavalry Tank vs a MBT. However I think we put the card before the horse in that we became cavalry without having the equipment to be cavalry.

 

[Kirkhill]

Did I just watch several minutes of a train crossing?

Or did you just watch several minutes of Patriot launchers at a train crossing?

Lockheed Martin Launches Patriot Missile From VLS in First-Ever Test - Naval News

Lockheed Martin vertically launched a PAC-3 MSE for the first time in a test that downed a cruise missile target.

www.navalnews.com

The discussion was about bringing ships into Ottawa, and by inference, other Canadian cities, to supply air defence. This was made possible by adding Mk70 PDS Sea Cans to the decks of the ships.

Or you could forget the ships and shunt trainloads of Mk70 PDS Sea Cans around the country by rail.

One hundred rail cars = one hundred launchers with 400 cells.

Cells with SM2s, SM3s or SM6s or CAMMs or ESSMs (4 per cell). And now Patriots.

Other options include Tomahawks and NSMs for Coastal Defence.

 

[PrairieFella]

With the RCAC moving towards Cavalry instead of Recce, the M10 or similar absolutely fills the role as a Cavalry Tank vs a MBT. However I think we put the card before the horse in that we became cavalry without having the equipment to be cavalry.

My conspiratorial idea is the Cav switch was secretly a way to reduce troop size for most of the corps so we could still meet our force generation goals with less men and kit. When easier to generate a 16 man troop vs a 32 man troop.

 

[IKnowNothing]

However I think we put the card before the horse in that we became cavalry without having the equipment to be cavalry.

Inversely, couldn't you argue that getting the kit before the doctrinal shift would be the same or worse? How would you run a project to get cavalry tanks to squadrons trained and organized as armoured recce?

Edit: regarding the Booker specifically- I'm not convinced it's the right choice for the role- unless the future MBT is an Abrams with the high degree of commonality. At risk of trusting manufacturers brochures- the performance claims of the Centauro 2 make a pretty compelling case for how much capability could be delivered with the reduced infrastructure/ logistical / maintenance burden of a well made 8x8

 

[MilEME09]

unrelated, but shows we are buying things

 

[FJAG]

Edit: regarding the Booker specifically- I'm not convinced it's the right choice for the role- unless the future MBT is an Abrams with the high degree of commonality. At risk of trusting manufacturers brochures- the performance claims of the Centauro 2 make a pretty compelling case for how much capability could be delivered with the reduced infrastructure/ logistical / maintenance burden of a well made 8x8

Despite my opposition to the M10 (on the grounds that it is one more vehicle type to maintain and can be seen as a "tank" by people who don't know better) and the MGS (due to its technical problems) I'm not adverse to a DFSV. I'm not fond of the Centauro 2, for the same reason as the M10 (one more vehicle type.) but not adverse to the Centauro 2 turret if it could be mounted on a LAV chassis in order to standardize the fleet. From a distance it may be doable albeit the Centauro seems to have a bit more mass and a stronger engine than the LAV6.

I could see it as an infantry support vehicle like the MGS - lets say nine per mech battalion - and a recce support vehicle.

In my imaginary kingdom I would see an armoured brigade with an M1 or Leo2 A6/7 tank regiment (44 tanks) and two mech LAV battalions (but without DFSVs) and one mech bde with three mech LAV battalions each with 9 DFSVs (36 DFSVs) and a light brigade with 3 light battalions each with 9 DFSVs (36 DFSVs). In addition there would be three cavalry regiments each with a squadron of 14 DFSVs (42 DFSVs).

That's 44 tanks and 114 DFSVs plus training and spares for phase 1.

Phase 2 would form two more reserve-based armoured brigades for another 88 tanks and six battalions worth of IFVs as well as converting the recce regiment to a divisional recce regiment with probably 14 more tanks and 30 IFVs releasing the existing LAV and DFSV holdings to form another mech bde (-)

 

[PrairieFella]

Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan a front-runner for new chief of defence staff, sources say

To change gears a bit, anyone have any thoughts on this tidbit about who may be charged with implementing Our North? I know nothing about the good general minus the very disturbing rumours she may have been a regular ole foxhole Norman in Iraq in 2020. Can anyone speak to or crush that rumour?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They were also used operationally.

Why don't we bring C1's back? We need MBT's.

Despite CAF choices in the intervening time period, an argument for the survival of the role/capability is not an argument for the vehicle itself. Canada last had the RCAC in a semi-homogenous fleet of MBT's with the Centurions in the 60's. We don't have the infrastructure or money to do it again. Ergo- small fleet of high end MBT's, bigger fleet of trainer/DFS vehicles.

Any Leopard 1 worth using is either in a Museum or Ukraine. To be fair the US could have saved a pile of money and just had new upgraded Leopard 1's built rather than the Booker, as they are the same weight, same gun and engine made by the same company. So if you want a tank in the 42 ton range, the Booker under licence is likely your best bet.

 

[markppcli]

Any Leopard 1 worth using is either in a Museum or Ukraine. To be fair the US could have saved a pile of money and just had new upgraded Leopard 1's built rather than the Booker, as they are the same weight, same gun and engine made by the same company. So if you want a tank in the 42 ton range, the Booker under licence is likely your best bet.

Well there’s like 40 being used as targets in Cold Lake lol

 

[MilEME09]

Well there’s like 40 being used as targets in Cold Lake lol

Leopard 1 to Ukraine was a terrible idea, 60% of the ones Germany sent were rejected and sent back fir repairs. Spare parts are hard to come buy and the hulls are badly worn out. some of ours had 1mm of lower hull plate left so we had to weld a steel plate on.

 

[suffolkowner]

Any Leopard 1 worth using is either in a Museum or Ukraine. To be fair the US could have saved a pile of money and just had new upgraded Leopard 1's built rather than the Booker, as they are the same weight, same gun and engine made by the same company. So if you want a tank in the 42 ton range, the Booker under licence is likely your best bet.

The Japanese Type 10 is in the neighbourhood

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Japanese Type 10 is in the neighbourhood

Creeping up to 48 tones, but may have better protection than either vehicle.