Should the CF retain MBTs?

[Zipper]

Your Single Combat Branch (SCB) unit to be formed as I suggested around a Light Infantry/Rifle core of 3-4 companies and Combat Support Company. BUT... whereas I suggested using the LAVs as a basic carrier for the Support Company use a 30 tonne tracked Carrier like the CV90 in its ISC, Mortar and 105/120 mm variants. That weight of vehicle seems to be reasonably RPG proof. Revive the old concept of the Infantry Tank. Slow and Heavily armoured.

The relatively small number of tracked vehicles (20-25) and their weight, coupled with the light companies, potentially motorized would make for a "medium" weight force with effective armoured support that would be relatively easy to deploy.

By contrast the Cavalry function, ranging over long distances rapidly, would still be best done by the LAV and its variants.

Remember our modern MBT is actually a Medium Battle Tank. It was the compromise between the Heavy Infantry Tank which was slow moving and heavily armoured, and the Light Cavalry Tank which was fast moving and supposedly heavily gunned. The Brits and the Israelis came at the MBT from the Heavy side and created the Merkava and Centurion, while the Germans, French and Americans came at it from the Cavalry side and created the Sherman, the AMX30 and Leopard.

However, to go to such a formation would basically kill the regimental system, and have us going over to the American numbered combat teams. Yuck.

As well, the Infantry Tank concept died for the most part during WWII. Yes, the Merkava and Centurion are weighted in that direction, but they are still effective platforms in their own right. So with that being said. What side of things should we consider? I'm still on the more well balanced side (Leo II).

As for your idea of an effective Medium weight force with light tracked vehicles, I think I need more info on that. Isn't that what they are trying now with this DFS idea? If so, then I would argue as to effectiveness when it comes to being able to survive anything above stray light arms fire. Any small gang of thugs with RPG's is going to wreck havoc. Especially since what are the chances of us buying CV-90's? Also, the idea of a LAV ranging over a wide area quickly gives me the shudders. Only if they have reasonably kept roads (that arn't mined) are they going to be able to do anything quickly without breaking down, and/or shaking their crews into jello.

 

[Kirkhill]

However, to go to such a formation would basically kill the regimental system, and have us going over to the American numbered combat teams. Yuck.

I don't believe it does impact on the Regimental system.  You could just as easily name such a unit Ld Strats as Princess Pats.  Horse and Light Infantry designators would become redundant but they already are.  Most of the Pats are Mech and the Strats have no horses, nor for that matter do the Dragoons. 

It would bust up the Infantry and Armoured Corps, the Armoured more than the Infantry.  But it needn't affect the Regimental system.  A Regiment could be home to Infantry Corps and Armoured Corps types, both at the same time.  They could possibly even be homes for Gunners and Sappers.  All wearing one capbadge (following this Infanteer ).  But just as we have 6 Infantry/Armoured Regiments now, all with proud traditions, we could maintain those Regiments and Traditions even if they are Multi-MOC entities.

The Infantry Tank died in WW2 largely because the American factories were turning out Shermans come what may and they were cheap and available.  After WW2 Britain was one of the few advocates of the Infantry Tank but the influence of others on tactics put British designs at odds with NATO tactics and strategy.  (Think also of the Enfield 4.85mm BullPup circa 1949).  It continued to produce tanks that were relatively heavily armoured and slow moving (under-powered in some eyes) but that were effective fire platforms.  The Israelis thought an awful lot of their Centurions and had ample opportunity to compare them to Russian and American designs.  When they designed the Merkava they tended to favour armour and survivability over speed of movement.

Also, as is indicated by the Kiwi Unit planning requirements ( a Kiwi Battalion is expected to cover an area 100x60km IIRC) and as noted in Iraq when the Strykers are covering hundreds of kilometers over night while the Black Watch had to mount up their Warriors onto transporters for a 500 km road move, the modern "Policing" environment demands the ability to cover extremely large areas.  This has to be done rapidly to make best use of the available troops.  No country can afford to cover its entire landmass with static forces to prevent undesirables taking root.  Speed and distance count.

Abrams are getting worn out in Iraq after putting in 1500 km ( about 2 years worth of domestic training).  They can't be used for patrolling.

They need to be husbanded, when available, and maintained as a reaction/strike/counter-strike force.  They also need to be accompanied by an equivalently armoured APC to carry troops. And they need adequate wheeled transport to get them to the scene of the action speedily.

Tanks are needed but they are not the sole answer.  Wheels have their place.  The Mamba is wheeled and I would be happier taking my chances in a Bison than in an M113 with a mine threat in the area.

The Aussies and the USMC uses the LAVs for long range patrols and other armies use landrovers and similar vehicles for the same type of offroad movement.

As to the value of light tracked vehicles, actually I was arguing for Medium tracked vehicles.  Vehicles in the weight range of uparmoured Warriors, or Bradleys or the CV 90 or the new German PUMA.  All of which are designed to withstand RPGs and have withstood them.  That weight range is something between 25 and 35 tonnes.

Having said all of that Zipper,  here's where we agree... It would be nice to have the heavy armour support and it is unlikely that we will see either the CV90 or the Puma in Canadian service, much less a Heavy tank.  Pity....


Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

A bit of an aside to the Infantry/Cavalry tank concept.

Prior to WW II, most nations which experimented with tanks thought of them as motorized pill boxes, and both the doctrine and the actual vehicles were built to accompany Infantry into battle. Designs ranged from the small, heavily armoured "Matilda" series of tanks from the UK, large and elaborate French tanks like the Char "B" with a short barreled 75mm mounted in the glacias plate and a one man turret housing a 37mm anti tank gun, to the Russian T-35, which mounted from 3 to 5 turrets, depending on the model.

The Russians had a fleet of fast tanks (the BT series), which like other "cavalry tanks" throughout the world were fast, thinly armoured and lightly gunned. With engine and armour technology maturing, the BT series inspired the T-34, which resembles our conception of an MBT, combining the virtues of mobility, protection and firepower in the same package.

Post war, the victors were influenced by the powerful  German "88", and realizing weapons would only become more powerful, tended to err towards the side of armour protection, or experimented with light tanks in an attempt to avoid being shot in the first place. The Russians stuck with the winning formula; a T-55 is not fundamentally different from a T-34.

Automotive technology took a long time to catch up; the Israeli Army took the powerpacks from the "Patton" tank and installed it into the Centurion to get a much improved machine; Generation Two tanks like the Leopard 1 had reliable 900hp engines, and Generation Three tanks have engines which can produce 1500hp, giving "Cavalry" mobility to monstrous machines weighing 60,000kg. (The LeClerc is a Gen 3.5 machine, combining lots of high tech features to reduce the size and weight of the machine, still combined with a 1500 hp engine)

Given the need for combined arms groupings to survive on the modern battlefield, in any sort of terrain or setting, tanks and AFVs are "Infantry" tanks by default. Doctrinally true "Cavalry" machines are either medium weight and wheeled, or are not ground vehicles at all. Wave to the Air Cav platoon flying past everyone!

 

[Zipper]

lol, I'll go with that.

The idea of having all those trades in one regiment!! ARGH!!! Sorry, teeth hurting again. Must of the similarity to American doctrine. You had better watch it. An offended horse just might give you a swift kick.

I understand the role of wheeled vehicles, although I still don't like them as much. But they do fit the patrol bill better.

As for the Air Cav idea. Oh that would be sweet. Considering the PPCLI's name, you would think they would be perfect for the job. Let the RCR and R22e ride around in tin can buses. Not to mention the return of the Airborne. Like that will ever happen.

Man I love spell check.

 

[Kirkhill]

The idea of having all those trades in one regiment!! ARGH!!! Sorry, teeth hurting again. Must of the similarity to American doctrine. You had better watch it. An offended horse just might give you a swift kick

Thanks for the Heads Up.  See you the other side of Golden..

;D

 

[a_majoor]

I am unclear as to why you should object to having multiple skill sets in a single unit.

A 1980 era Mech Infantry Battalion needed to train soldiers to be track or wheel drivers, riflemen, machine gunners, mortar gunners, TOW gunners, Assault Pioneers, logisticians, signallers...and these were all MOC 031 Infantry soldiers. True, there were also attached Signals troops, medics, mechanics and so on, but this blend of skill sets made a Mech Infantry Battalion far more versatile than any other unit on the battlefield. Indeed, a Mech Infantry Battalion was virtually self contained, which explains its use as a model for the "Single Combat Branch" unit and several other ideas posted on various threads.

An Armoured Regiment also had several skill sets and trades residing under one roof, and if the full TO&E had been raised, many of the Infantry skills would also have been represented in the Assault Troop.

"Pure" regiments, like you seem to be alluding to, are only possible if you have a very large army, so a pure Tank battalion joins forces with a Motor Rifle Regiment to get the blend of capabilities needed on the modern battlefield. (Of course, even Tank battalions and Regiments in the Soviet Army had some Infantry as part of the unit).

 

[Zipper]

Agreed on many points.

I am still a believer in the old school, and do not wish to see the ends of the various corps.

On this note and referring to your comments. I still believe that we should not be trapped in this idea that large scale war is a thing of the past. If we gear our entire doctrine on small (light) scale, small (light) army, then we will lose what the Canadian Army has been (sort of) preparing for its entire history. That being able to raise Divisional to Corp levels of troops in a reasonable amount of time to aid our allies in their various wars.

If we go by what I think your saying and combining all skills in a singular unit, then we may as well kiss goodbye to more then half the existing regiments that we have today. Once again losing a great deal of history and tradition for a bunch of old guys to hang on to till they die and memory fades. Sad.

You're also assuming (and why not, as it has been years and years) that the government will continue to have its head up its ass and our budget will never exceed the 14 billion (1.1% of GDP). Maybe I'm a eternal optimist? But one day they will raise the bar, and our allies are going to need us in a larger way.

 

[George Wallace]

To further Zippers line of thought; we can all agree that it is better to use a soldier trained for war as a Peacekeeper than a soldier/person trained only for Peacekeeping.   One will never know when a situation   may escalate.   So, just as it is easier to "train down" to deploy on a Peacekeeping Mission, then it is logical that we keep highly trained Combat Troops properly equipped, who can downsize to whatever the Government envisions their next mission may be, and yet retain their skills to fight Total War when they return.

I have always used the Firehall analogy.   Others have used the Police analogy.   Which ever you want to use, describes our current situation.   Just because there hasn't been a fire or major crime in our little village for over a decade or so, doesn't mean that we can sell off the fire truck or lay off the policeman.

GW

 

[a_majoor]

While I am not a fan of the "Less with Less" model the CF is forced to use right now, having highly adaptable units which have the characteristics of what we now think of as several branches does not invalidate your argument. Right now we have 6 LAV infantry Bns, 3 Armoured Regiments, 3 Artillery regiments and so on, which are mixed and matched like LEGO to produce about 2 deployable battlegroups at any given time.

Rolling up the various skill sets into "single combat branch" battalions (to borrow PBI's terminology) will give the army 12 battlegroups, plus 3 LIBs. Three Battlegroups should be ready to deploy at any given time. The battlegroups can keep the names and many of the customs of their predecessor units, and just because the SCB units have the same TO&E does not mean they won't have fierce rivalries between them, or operate in exactly the same fashion (Personalities and "unit quiff's" will see to that). Adding the Reserves, we can expect each Brigade to be able to muster the equivalent of one SCB Bn; adding an additional 10 battlegroups to our ORBAT for follow up operations. Should the situation be deteriorating to the extent that an Order in Council is being contemplated or drafted to activate the Reserve, the green machine will be gearing up to train new soldiers for replacements and expansion, while we look for equipment for the build up. (Maybe even tanks, which is the point of this thread)

Optomistic? Perhaps.

 

[Kirkhill]

Optomistic? Perhaps.

Certainly possible.

What's the date of the budget?  Didn't I hear just recently that the Foreign and Defence Policy Reviews were to be made public before then?

 

[Zipper]

Oh how we are all holding our breath for that little policy review. Not to mention the budget.

12 battlegroups from 6, 3, and 3? Are you assuming that they are all equipt and have proper personal? It seems to me to field 12 regiments/battlegroups with enough infantry alone would require a lot more personal then what we have now with 6, 3, and 3. Or are you saying that each regiment with all trades would be enough to constitute a battlegroup? If that were the case, you would have to increase the number of people in each regiment to that of an Infantry standard. Thats alot of people.

Or would it be what we have now? 1 Inf bns, 1 Armour sqn, 1 Battery, all with support elements? Wouldn't that still only equal 6 regiments?

I'm confused...

 

[a_majoor]

The trick, Zipper, is not to watch the hand holding the magic wand.....

Two assumptions in the last post were that five years from now we really do have those promised 5000 troops (please call Paul and ask where they are, would you?), and that PBI is now the CDS and converting the 12 (6+3+3) "mechanized" units into combined arms Single Combat Branch Battalions. (My own term for this sort of thing would be Manoeuvre Battalions, but I will deffer to PBI in this case).

Like today, I would not expect the SCB Bns to have their full TO&E, but the fact they are similar would make standing up three deployable battalion battlegroups much easier than the current system of scrambling to get troops from across the area and specialists from across Canada to raise a deployable battlegroup. This system would also provide more "depth" for contingency planning, especially to cover a crisis at home or abroad.

Getting back to tanks for a moment, given certain constraints imposed by economics and politics, I would not expect to see a quantum jump in our force projection capabilities. Something like the CV-90 family of vehicles would be ideal for the next generation of combined arms units, but perhaps not as deliniated as they are now. The 120mm gun tank version could be modified to provide both DF and IF capabilities (the gun mount is modified too fire at high angles, and the 120mm mortar shell is adapted to fire from a "stub cartridge" out of the gun breech), with the IF sub sub unit using the same vehicle but a different ammunition load. Removing the rear ammunition bins would provide space for a small dismounted section, a handy capability in certain situations. Given these capabilities, would a unit equipped with the "CFCV-90" be an "Armoured Regiment"?

A lot of different threads seem to be converging on this solution, a combined arms units with blended capabilities to deal with two or all three blocks of the "Three Block War Scenario". In the end, the "Regimental Spirit" that bonds the soldiers together into an effective team is not drependant on what Corps the unit belongs to and TO&E the unit has, but a much more intangable thing made up of the  social interactions of the soldiers in the unit.

 

[Zipper]

Once again I cannot argue your points as they are solid and make alot of sense.

I will put in that in most cases, those 5000 extra troops are most likely going to be allocated to replacing the many (majority) technical positions that will be retiring over the next few months to years. As I am sure you are aware, the forces is almost dead in the water for want of specialized support and techs. Heck, even Medics are hard to find.

Even though I cannot argue with your "regimental spirit", as it is apart of every fighting unit in every nation. It is our regimental and corp system that I speak of that I would not like to see go the way of the tank.

As for the purchase of CV-90's (and family). No argument there. It is a great piece of kit that I can see thus far. However, being tracked once again will probably kill it. Are you sure you would want to remove any ammo for the use of inf? Why not just have the 2 separate vehicles in the same formation? CV9025 (to streamline ammo needs) for the Inf and the CV90120 for the Armour support? It would round out things better and allow for more versatility. It sounds like a very nice light tank/AFV family. Those swede's!!

I just cannot figure out how a country with less then 10 million people can have all the medicare, free to low cost education, and still be able to have a strong military with all its kit (tanks, planes, etc.) built in country? Must be all those nasty taxes.

 

[STONEY]

Sounds like what we need is to be like the US Marines . They have MAU's (SOC)  1200 - 1400 strong with Tanks, LAV'S , APC'S, Artillary, Engineers, Light Infantry, Helo Gunships, Helo Trooplift, Air Support  etc., etc. all worked up together loaded on Amphibous ships forwarward deployed and ready to rock and roll. Every man jack, cook , writer,mechanic right up to pilot all considered an infantryman first and their individual MOC second, and no one can claim they don't have tons of espirit de corp. Then again maybe not. 

 

[plattypuss]

The problem with using a Marine Corps model is the fact that although they have what appears to be a good mix of combat capability they rely heavily on their Air assets.  In fact they are proud to boast that they have the third largest air force in the world (3rd or 5th fading memory )  This is of course a path that we are not prepared to take on our own with the commitment of requisite resources and manpower.  It will be interesting to see, with the news that Gen Hillier is "re-writing" the CF military policy paper and his American command experience, where he takes the Army (and CF).  I think he is big on strategic lift (which is still a big part of MGS's attractiveness) and rapidly deployable forces.

 

[Zipper]

Agreed. What scared me about Gen. Hillier today was the report that the Defense Minister pushed "very hard" to have him in the job. The idea that we now have someone who was hand picked by our beloved anti-military Liberal Government sends shivers down my spine.

 

[a_majoor]

Even Dr Rice got better treatment at her confirmation hearings.

Gen Hillier carries out the mandate of the government, and provides professional advice to the cabinet as to how the military can best carry out the roles and missions the government assigns. If you think the solutions are cheesy, well, you can push "better" ideas up the food chain or you can get out. (As you can see, I choose to push). If Gen Hillier could single handedly change the CF, we would be living in 1970 era Argentina, and his title would be "Generalissimo".

Seriously, even if Hillier had Sun Tsu, Napoleon and Infanteer on his personal staff, it would make no difference so long as there is no political cost to the government for ignoring the advice of the CDS. 2Bravo should be congratulated for coming up with a doable idea based on realistic constraints on manpower and equipment, and letting us join in to examine, critique and add to his idea. If Gen Hillier is lucky enough to get briefed on the idea, he will have another potential tool in his kitbag when the government comes asking for help again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well said a_majoor.

It's only another few weeks to Christmas.  We've all waited this long we might as well wait and see what Santa brings before cursing him.  He might surprise us all and not bring another lump of coal.

Cheers

 

[RCD]

In a single word (YES)

 

[a_majoor]

Going back to first principles, why should we have a tank?

Several reasons for a tank or large AFV come to mind, and not the common ones about armour protection or cross country mobility.

1. Tanks have large stowage capacities. The Leopard C1 and C2 could carry 51 105mm rounds, so each one could carry as much ammo as three MGS.

2. Different natures of ammunition can also be carried, including through tube missiles. One platform can stand back and fire indirect or even semi indirect and support its own or flanking formations from a long way away. The Israeli LAHAT missile has a "DF" range of 8km, and can be fired "semi-indirect" at targets up to 13km away. Given the availibility of UAV, Coyotes or other forward observers, this is a usable capability. One platform takes the place of the "troika".

3. Tanks can carry Infantry. Traditional "tank riders" on the back, or modern machines with space in the back which can be adapted to carry infantry would be able to bring along close protection right into contact, or out again in an emergency. Merkava tanks and a version of the Centurio tank destroyer can carry 4-8 infantry wedged in the back.

4. Tanks and heavy engineer vehicles can share the same platform, simplifying logistics.

Given the desire for a "medium" military and the ability to deploy with limited transportation assets, heavy vehicles based on past or current MBTs (Leopard, M-60, Leopard 2, M-1 etc) are out of fashion. The CV 90 family is the current tracked platform of choice, but various families are possible based on the Marder, M-2, Puma and so on.