Canada's tanks

[Halifax Tar]

More to the point they imagine clutch and hold with a full array of naval and air delivered fires. Giving up tanks is a much easier proposition when you’ll be supported by a floating air wing and AH assets.

So I can have a few of these ? I promise to use them to help you guys

 

[GK .Dundas]

A compound of reasons. Wainwright, Suffield and Shilo are good combined arms training ranges which places an armoured brigade in the west (yup, I know, wide separation). An armoured brigade typically has three manoeuvre battalions, at least one of which should be tank heavy. 1 CMBG has four manoeuvre units, LdSH(RC), and 1,2,3 PPCLI. 1 and 2 PPCLI are mech and 3 PPCLI are light. It seems logical to me to retain the LdSH(RC) and 1 and 2 PPCLI and use 3 PPCLI to fill out all the essential positions which are currently unallocated/unmanned in the remaining units.

If you want to see cap badge bias at its ultimate, you should see my org charts for a napkin force of two divisions based on heavy 30/70 use. Only five RegF cap badges survive. RCD, 1 RCR, 1 PPCLI, 1 R22eR, 1 RCHA. Everyone else gets ResF unit names/titles.

If you do ever get your napkin force up and running the thing you are going to have to is announce it at an Infantry Corp conference.
I really, really want to watch the look at the faces of heads of various Mafia families..err I mean chairs of the Regimental Associations.
Btw invest in body armour.

 

[FJAG]

I like this.

IF 3 VP is tasked as Light and trained as such the employment of a Light Company within a mech unit needs to be thought out. OR are we just gonna place them in LAVs?

I was thinking of integrating them directly into 1 and 2 PPCLI so that both battalions are fully manned with three rifle companies and a full CS coy however you want to man and equip those.

I'd turn 2 CMBG in Pet into a light brigade with 3 para battalions.

(as an aside, I actually do things differently in my napkin force. I poke around with the names a lot. 1 CABG's two infantry battalions are the LEdmR (with its RegF coy coming from 1 PPCLI and operating out of Edmonton) and RWpgR (with its RegF coy coming from 2 PPCLI and operating out of Shilo) The other mech PPCLI coys are allocated to QOR and RRC - in 32 CABG, Toronto; and the RHLI and L&WR - 31 CABG, London. The title 1 PPCLI moves to 2 CLBG, Pet together with 1 RCR, Pet, (both 70/30 Para battalions) and CHofO Ottawa and QOR Toronto (both 30/70 para, bns) - 1 R22R stays in Valcartier (as either a 100/0 or 70/30 mech inf bn)

If you do ever get your napkin force up and running the thing you are going to have to is announce it at an Infantry Corp conference.
I really, really want to watch the look at the faces of heads of various Mafia families..err I mean chairs of the Regimental Associations.
Btw invest in body armour.

I've read "Relentless Struggle" twice now. You can almost see the veins throbbing on the foreheads of a whole lot of RegF officers and honouraries as you slip from chapter to chapter - and those are all very minor issues that merely tweak the status quo rather than revolutionize things. I would expect to have form retirement letter available at the briefing for instant use (together with a none too polite communications strategy).

I'll be blunt - while the 30/70 concept is in my mind essential to move the yardsticks on making the ARes a viable, credible force, the naming policy has much to do with a) creating a Stage 4 mobilization structure [effectively 30/70 bns are aggregated elements with a company from each of at least three pre-existing ARes units who are allowed to keep their old regimental affiliation and each coy designed to be the core of an expanded battalion in Stage 4 mobilization] and b) to break up the Mafia power blocks as there will be only one battalion for each infantry regiment. I'm doing something similar with arty and armour. Army policy shouldn't be dictated from a smoke filled back room regardless of whether it is RegF or ARes.

So I can have a few of these ? I promise to use them to help you guys

Maybe an updated version of this.

 

[GR66]

While I typically beat my drum that commonality with the US Army in vehicles/equipment should be our default option, if we accept that the Multinational Brigade Latvia will continue to be the primary focus of our Regular Army then I'd say we should go for the Leopard 2A7 as our MBT.

Our primary partners in the Brigade will be a rotation between the Danes and the Swedes. The Danes use the Leopard 2A7DK and the Swedes are upgrading their Strv 122's to the new Strv 123A standard which will bring them pretty much in line with the 2A7 according to this site:

The upgrade includes the replacement of virtually all electronic components in the tank to align the system with other modern Leopard 2 tanks. It also features a new caliber L55 gun with enhanced programmable ammunition capabilities, new night vision devices for both the gunner and tank commander, a night vision camera for the driver, and a new suspension system, including tracks.

Commonality with our Brigade partners would simplify the logistics of supporting the Brigade in combat. Similarly we should shift the Reg Force LAV units to the CV90...again to provide commonality with the Danes and Swedes and transfer the LAVs to our Reserve 30/70 units.

 

[KevinB]

While I typically beat my drum that commonality with the US Army in vehicles/equipment should be our default option, if we accept that the Multinational Brigade Latvia will continue to be the primary focus of our Regular Army then I'd say we should go for the Leopard 2A7 as our MBT.

Our primary partners in the Brigade will be a rotation between the Danes and the Swedes. The Danes use the Leopard 2A7DK and the Swedes are upgrading their Strv 122's to the new Strv 123A standard which will bring them pretty much in line with the 2A7 according to this site:



Commonality with our Brigade partners would simplify the logistics of supporting the Brigade in combat. Similarly we should shift the Reg Force LAV units to the CV90...again to provide commonality with the Danes and Swedes and transfer the LAVs to our Reserve 30/70 units.

I’d look beyond the Brigade, and try to see what Division, that Canada would be assigned to hold as well, and what Corps it would fall into as well.

To main reasons as if Combat started for NATO, the Multinational Bde’s would only exist for a short period, then (assumably) most of the Europeans would form to larger formations. As well as the US Army V Corps would be around.

Latvia has ~140km frontage to Russia, and a slightly smaller frontage to Belarus. They have a Regular Bde, and a Reserve Division as far as conventional Army forces.

Significantly more frontage that the MNB and Latvian Army could hope to cover.

Dismissing Belarus, (as Poland and Lithuania share a border to it and would have no issues running through it if push came to shove) the Russian border is still too large for the forces allocated.

Napkin math suggests a DIV should hold no more than 5km for defense and 15-25km for attacking. Now in this day no one is going to stack up 5+ Corps on the Russian border - but a Corps dedicated to Latvia and Estonia wouldn’t be an unreasonable assessment of tensions started to grow dramatically.

One then needs to figure out what would that Corps look like ? Based on the forces in the area - and who can move ‘easily’ and still support itself - I suspect that would end up being US Army V Corps, with XVIII Airborne on the Polish border zone with Belarus, and III Corps forming up in Germany and Western Poland.


Most importantly whose logistics system is best suited to supporting a forward deployed entity? I don’t think anyone can deny that is is the US Army, and thus I think Canada would be best served by using interoperable equipment with the US Army.

 

[quadrapiper]

I’d look beyond the Brigade, and try to see what Division, that Canada would be assigned to hold as well, and what Corps it would fall into as well.

To main reasons as if Combat started for NATO, the Multinational Bde’s would only exist for a short period, then (assumably) most of the Europeans would form to larger formations. As well as the US Army V Corps would be around.

Latvia has ~140km frontage to Russia, and a slightly smaller frontage to Belarus. They have a Regular Bde, and a Reserve Division as far as conventional Army forces.

Significantly more frontage that the MNB and Latvian Army could hope to cover.

Dismissing Belarus, (as Poland and Lithuania share a border to it and would have no issues running through it if push came to shove) the Russian border is still too large for the forces allocated.

Napkin math suggests a DIV should hold no more than 5km for defense and 15-25km for attacking. Now in this day no one is going to stack up 5+ Corps on the Russian border - but a Corps dedicated to Latvia and Estonia wouldn’t be an unreasonable assessment of tensions started to grow dramatically.

One then needs to figure out what would that Corps look like ? Based on the forces in the area - and who can move ‘easily’ and still support itself - I suspect that would end up being US Army V Corps, with XVIII Airborne on the Polish border zone with Belarus, and III Corps forming up in Germany and Western Poland.


Most importantly whose logistics system is best suited to supporting a forward deployed entity? I don’t think anyone can deny that is is the US Army, and thus I think Canada would be best served by using interoperable equipment with the US Army.

Might have missed a decision, but aren't the Koreans trying to sell armour to Poland?

Could see, if the Poles (or anyone else) goes Korean, with manufacturing in Europe, a good argument for Korean armour for Canada, especially if factories can be established in Canada as well (maybe East and West Coast, along with significant maintenance facilities at population centres near whichever bases have tanks).

 

[suffolkowner]

While I typically beat my drum that commonality with the US Army in vehicles/equipment should be our default option, if we accept that the Multinational Brigade Latvia will continue to be the primary focus of our Regular Army then I'd say we should go for the Leopard 2A7 as our MBT.

Our primary partners in the Brigade will be a rotation between the Danes and the Swedes. The Danes use the Leopard 2A7DK and the Swedes are upgrading their Strv 122's to the new Strv 123A standard which will bring them pretty much in line with the 2A7 according to this site:



Commonality with our Brigade partners would simplify the logistics of supporting the Brigade in combat. Similarly we should shift the Reg Force LAV units to the CV90...again to provide commonality with the Danes and Swedes and transfer the LAVs to our Reserve 30/70 units.

I dont know if the Multinational Brigade should be the factor but maybe who we are going to be fighting next to and with. We just announced a support agreement on maintenance for the Leos.

Does it include a guarantee of parts availability?
Is the 2A7 the upgrade pathway for the 2A4?
By the time we move on this they will be doing some kind of 2A9. But going forward in the near term we are looking at something in the neighbourhood of

148 Challengers
200 Leclercs
100 Arietes
390 Abrams
180+ K2
2500 Leo2

The Russian-Ukraine war has pretty much resulted in the extinction of the T72 in NATO

is there a parts supply issue with 2A6, 2A7 or is it an older model problem?

 

[GR66]

I’d look beyond the Brigade, and try to see what Division, that Canada would be assigned to hold as well, and what Corps it would fall into as well.

To main reasons as if Combat started for NATO, the Multinational Bde’s would only exist for a short period, then (assumably) most of the Europeans would form to larger formations. As well as the US Army V Corps would be around.

Latvia has ~140km frontage to Russia, and a slightly smaller frontage to Belarus. They have a Regular Bde, and a Reserve Division as far as conventional Army forces.

Significantly more frontage that the MNB and Latvian Army could hope to cover.

Dismissing Belarus, (as Poland and Lithuania share a border to it and would have no issues running through it if push came to shove) the Russian border is still too large for the forces allocated.

Napkin math suggests a DIV should hold no more than 5km for defense and 15-25km for attacking. Now in this day no one is going to stack up 5+ Corps on the Russian border - but a Corps dedicated to Latvia and Estonia wouldn’t be an unreasonable assessment of tensions started to grow dramatically.

One then needs to figure out what would that Corps look like ? Based on the forces in the area - and who can move ‘easily’ and still support itself - I suspect that would end up being US Army V Corps, with XVIII Airborne on the Polish border zone with Belarus, and III Corps forming up in Germany and Western Poland.


Most importantly whose logistics system is best suited to supporting a forward deployed entity? I don’t think anyone can deny that is is the US Army, and thus I think Canada would be best served by using interoperable equipment with the US Army.

The Canadian-led Brigade ultimately falls under Multinational Corps North East which includes the following Units:

• Multinational Division North
  • Multinational Brigade Latvia - including eFP Latvia (Leopard/CV90 & LAVs and a mix of multinational armoured vehicles)
  • Danish 1st Brigade (Leopard/CV90)
  • Latvian Mechanized Brigade (no MBTs/Patria 6x6)
• Multinational Division Northeast
  • Lithuanian Iron Wolf Brigade (Leopard/Boxer)
    • eFP Lithuania (mixed French/German/Czech/Dutch/Norwegian armoured vehicles)
  • Polish 15th Mechanized Brigade (PT-91 being replaced by K2/BWP-1)
    • eFP Poland (mixed US/British armoured vehicles)
• Estonian Division
  • Estonian 1st Brigade (no MBTs/Otokar Arma 6x6)
  • Estonian 2nd Brigade (no MBTs/Otokar Arma 6x6)
    • eFP Estonia (mixed French/British/Belgian armoured vehicles)

Definitely a mixed bag of vehicles there but Leopards/CV90s are likely the most represented in the Corps with US vehicles limited to a single US combined arms battalion.

As I mentioned in my post normally I'd agree with you that US kit should be the first option that we look at, but with Canadian mechanized forces in all likelihood almost exclusively focused on our Latvia commitment within Multinational Division North/Multinational Corps Northeast I think the Leopard/CV90 combo would be a pretty good option for us.

 

[PrairieFella]

The Canadian-led Brigade ultimately falls under Multinational Corps North East which includes the following Units:

• Multinational Division North
  • Multinational Brigade Latvia - including eFP Latvia (Leopard/CV90 & LAVs and a mix of multinational armoured vehicles)
  • Danish 1st Brigade (Leopard/CV90)
  • Latvian Mechanized Brigade (no MBTs/Patria 6x6)
• Multinational Division Northeast
  • Lithuanian Iron Wolf Brigade (Leopard/Boxer)
    • eFP Lithuania (mixed French/German/Czech/Dutch/Norwegian armoured vehicles)
  • Polish 15th Mechanized Brigade (PT-91 being replaced by K2/BWP-1)
    • eFP Poland (mixed US/British armoured vehicles)
• Estonian Division
  • Estonian 1st Brigade (no MBTs/Otokar Arma 6x6)
  • Estonian 2nd Brigade (no MBTs/Otokar Arma 6x6)
    • eFP Estonia (mixed French/British/Belgian armoured vehicles)

Definitely a mixed bag of vehicles there but Leopards/CV90s are likely the most represented in the Corps with US vehicles limited to a single US combined arms battalion.

As I mentioned in my post normally I'd agree with you that US kit should be the first option that we look at, but with Canadian mechanized forces in all likelihood almost exclusively focused on our Latvia commitment within Multinational Division North/Multinational Corps Northeast I think the Leopard/CV90 combo would be a pretty good option for us.

It's probably not a bad idea to pivot our kit towards our Nordic neighbours across the Arctic. They make some of the finest winterized kit in the world. As our interests in the Arctic become more threatened by Russia and China (and the US who doesn't recognize our territorial waters in the NW Passage), we should ensure we can actually defend what is ours.

 

[FJAG]

Our primary partners in the Brigade will be a rotation between the Danes and the Swedes. The Danes use the Leopard 2A7DK and the Swedes are upgrading their Strv 122's to the new Strv 123A standard which will bring them pretty much in line with the 2A7 according to this site:

Not sure if the Danes and Swedes are actually deploying tanks with their battalion, but standardization is out the window already in the eFP Latvia battle group with Italian Arietes, Spanish Leo2A6Es, Canadian Leo2A4M, and Polish PT-91 Twardys.

Quite frankly, as long as there is fuel, track and ammo compatibility, that's probably as good as it gets for compatibility in a multinational environment. Each partner will need its own logistics/maint chain for radios, electronics, optics and probably even many engine and hydraulic/turret drive etc components.

 

[PrairieFella]

Not quite sure where Armoured Recce/Cavalry posts that aren't tanks fit so I'll post this here. Sorry in advance if wrong mods.

Here's the layout of a French cavalry platoon using the new (and wicked) EBRC Jaguar. Note the similar layout to a tank platoon with the integrated armoured car group on top of the AFVs and also interestingly, an integrated supply truck within the platoon. Very unique. Between the vehicles you have 40CT cannons, .50s, 7.62s, ATGMs, integrated drones and a built-in Ech. I would hate to have to deal with a squadron or regiment of these guys. Tons of firepower and flexibility.

Post from Battle Order

The current doctrinal thinking for France's new 🇫🇷 EBRC Jaguar armored cavalry platoons. A future video mayhaps

youtube.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

To main reasons as if Combat started for NATO, the Multinational Bde’s would only exist for a short period...

Most importantly whose logistics system is best suited to supporting a forward deployed entity? I don’t think anyone can deny that is is the US Army, and thus I think Canada would be best served by using interoperable equipment with the US Army.

Astute.

To me the question isn't what do we have there when the ball drops, its how do we sustain replace the equipment casualties when the ball drops. Because there will be massive equipment casualties. Who is best suited, amongst our allies, for us to buy into and get support from ? For my money, its the god ol' USA.

Our supply lines will be much longer the Russia's and I expect the factories and plants in Europe to be in ruin quickly.

 

[KevinB]

Astute.

To me the question isn't what do we have there when the ball drops, its how do we sustain replace the equipment casualties when the ball drops. Because there will be massive equipment casualties. Who is best suited, amongst our allies, for us to buy into and get support from ? For my money, its the god ol' USA.

Our supply lines will be much longer the Russia's and I expect the factories and plants in Europe to be in ruin quickly.

To me it gets even easier when you ask yourself who has the most Armor in Europe? The US Army

I really like the CV90, and I’m not specifically against the Leo2 for Canada, except the logistics issue of continued support.

The US Army has an Abram’s refurb and repair facility in Poland for the Abrams (rumor has it there may end up being a GDLS Abram’s manufacturing site planned for Poland there as well).

Two Corps worth of Armored Vehicles in POMCUS Depots in Europe (Germany and Poland).

As well as the Sierra Army Depot - which has more tanks in storage than the rest of NATO has period.

Then of course more Air and Sealift Capabilities than the rest of the world combined.

Logistics of such keep Armies fighting…

Then the whole aspect that new Leo2 A8 and other upgrades are now being counted into a decade from now.

 

[GR66]

If we were forward thinking we would have designed our Brigades to be plug-and-play with US Divisions and instead of leading eFP Latvia we could either have joined eFP Poland along with the US or provided a 3rd rotational ABCT to Poland (with pre-positioned equipment) for the US as part of Atlantic Resolve.

Unfortunately one of the (many) failings of the CAF and GOC is that we are NOT forward thinking

 

[Halifax Tar]

To me it gets even easier when you ask yourself who has the most Armor in Europe? The US Army

I really like the CV90, and I’m not specifically against the Leo2 for Canada, except the logistics issue of continued support.

The US Army has an Abram’s refurb and repair facility in Poland for the Abrams (rumor has it there may end up being a GDLS Abram’s manufacturing site planned for Poland there as well).

Two Corps worth of Armored Vehicles in POMCUS Depots in Europe (Germany and Poland).

As well as the Sierra Army Depot - which has more tanks in storage than the rest of NATO has period.

Then of course more Air and Sealift Capabilities than the rest of the world combined.

Logistics of such keep Armies fighting…

Then the whole aspect that new Leo2 A8 and other upgrades are now being counted into a decade from now.

You don't have to convince me. A land war in Europe is going to be won or lost in the North Atlantic.

 

[PrairieFella]

You don't have to convince me. A land war in Europe is going to be won or lost in the North Atlantic.

A tale as old as time.

 

[KevinB]

If we were forward thinking we would have designed our Brigades to be plug-and-play with US Divisions and instead of leading eFP Latvia we could either have joined eFP Poland along with the US or provided a 3rd rotational ABCT to Poland (with pre-positioned equipment) for the US as part of Atlantic Resolve.

Unfortunately one of the (many) failings of the CAF and GOC is that we are NOT forward thinking

It isn’t just a failing of the CAF/GoC, as the growth of the eFP wasn’t very well thought out. When they expanded to Bde’s and the MND’s and MNC’s NATO was thinking more like Oliver Twist and trying to get more from the Nations - than sitting down and saying this is the end state of what we need - how can we put the building blocks for that together.

You don't have to convince me. A land war in Europe is going to be won or lost in the North Atlantic.

What’s old is new again

Honestly I suspect a land war in Europe will be stopped only by RCH sorties from the USAF C17’s - for nothing other than the ability to move material to the competition area before the Russians can amass forces.

If that doesn’t work, then the North Atlantic ‘highway’ becomes the lifeline of Forces in Europe once again.

 

[markppcli]

It isn’t just a failing of the CAF/GoC, as the growth of the eFP wasn’t very well thought out. When they expanded to Bde’s and the MND’s and MNC’s NATO was thinking more like Oliver Twist and trying to get more from the Nations - than sitting down and saying this is the end state of what we need - how can we put the building blocks for that together.

This is exactly it. EFPs aren’t built by logic but rather by who will give what. If you saw the eFP Latvia orbat it becomes pretty clear no one was really planning it.

 

[GR66]

This is exactly it. EFPs aren’t built by logic but rather by who will give what.

Put together by countries like Canada who recognize that due to Russia's actions they politically have to be seen to do something but just can't bring themselves to truly accept that we really are in a conflict with nations that consider us as "enemies" and are making concerted efforts to weaken us.

 

[KevinB]

This is exactly it. EFPs aren’t built by logic but rather by who will give what.

I keep hoping there will be a reset on this. Simply because I ‘believe’ that SHAPE has war plans that envision a much larger NATO force.