Canada's tanks

[suffolkowner]

There are no IFV based ones that I could tell.
Which to me is a good thing as the IFV isn't big enough or powerful enough to do that task. There was a brief attempt at making a Bradley dozer, and the old M109 chassis ARV, but they couldn't do a lot.

so it does make sense that the tank based support units will be used in the mechanized formations as well as @MilEME09 suggested

 

[KevinB]

so it does make sense that the tank based support units will be used in the mechanized formations as well as @MilEME09 suggested

Every Mech formation has tanks - so yes.
They removed all their Service BN's from the maneuver Bde's, so I am guessing a lot of the ARV's will be Div support for those units, as well as the Bridge Layers in the Div Engineering Bdes

 

[markppcli]

Italy has 2 Armored Divisions, and 4 Mech Divisions (III and 5 Corps respectively) they are all combined arms setups, but currently the Armored Divisions are 1 Armored Bde, and 2 Mech Bde's, the same as their Mech Divisions (yeah I don't understand that logic either, and the new tanks are only replacing their Leopard 1 tanks - so there doesn't seem to be an increase planned for the number of Tank Battalions/Armored Bde's).

There are 2 Tank Battalions and 1 Infantry Battalion in each Armored Brigade, as well as a Artillery Regiment (M109), and Engineer Company
They have 1 Tank Battalion and 2 Infantry Battalions, 1 Arty Reg't (M109), as well as an Engineer Company for each Mech Bde.

They don’t have divisions per se at all. They have the “force commands” and two divisional HQs with no troops assigned. Their 3 tanks regiments are split with two in 132nd “Arete” armoured Bde, and the 4th tank regiment in the Garibaldi Bde. Beyond that your “average” Italian mechanized Bde is 3 infantry Regiments (Bn with a weird sustainment company and HQ) and a Cavalry regiment in Centauro.

They retired the Leo 1 in 2008, there may be up to 96 in storage. The rest were scrapped in 2020. Lastly each Bde has an engineer regiment.

 

[KevinB]

They don’t have divisions per se at all. They have the “force commands” and two divisional HQs with no troops assigned. Their 3 tanks regiments are split with two in 132nd “Arete” armoured Bde, and the 4th tank regiment in the Garibaldi Bde. Beyond that your “average” Italian mechanized Bde is 3 infantry Regiments (Bn with a weird sustainment company and HQ) and a Cavalry regiment in Centauro.

They retired the Leo 1 in 2008, there may be up to 96 in storage. The rest were scrapped in 2020. Lastly each Bde has an engineer regiment.

Interesting the Italian MoD page suggests they have more - and I couldn't follow their Wiki page as it was clearly OBE.
Even more oddly - the Italian Panther procurement documents speak to replacing the Leo1's -- so I wonder if that means they are planning on reforming new Brigades.

 

[FJAG]

There are 2 Tank Battalions and 1 Infantry Battalion in each Armored Brigade, as well as a Artillery Regiment (M109), and Engineer Company
They have 1 Tank Battalion and 2 Infantry Battalions, 1 Arty Reg't (M109), as well as an Engineer Company for each Mech Bde.

I don't recall Italy ever having M109s. They currently use PzH2000, FH70 and still some L5s.

There was a brief attempt at making a Bradley dozer, and the old M109 chassis ARV, but they couldn't do a lot.

The M578 light recovery vehicle (LRV aka LARV) for M109s batteries in the past used the same tracked carriage as the 175mm M107 and the 203mm M110 howitzers. The current recovery vehicle within the ABCT Forward Support Coy (FAB) are the M88 ARV and the M984 series HEMTT Wrecker which has almost the same winch capacity as the M578 did but has only about half the crane capacity of the M578.

The old M78 could handle the earlier generation on M109s. The newer ones have been gaining weight - a lot of weight - and the the M578 would not be able to handle them. The M88 can easily do the job.

 

[FJAG]

Interesting the Italian MoD page suggests they have more - and I couldn't follow their Wiki page as it was clearly OBE.

I've just done a quick concordance of the Wiki page and the Italian MoD page and the Italian army has the following key elements:

a) an Alpini command with two mountain bdes,

b) a northern command with a cavalry bde, an armoured bde and a para bde;

c) a central command with 4 mechanized bdes, and a "Bersaglieri" bde (heavier than mech, lighter than armoured);

d) two separate deployable divisional headquarters; and

e) a flurry of various additional CS, CSS, SOF and aviation etc commands/bdes.

The manoeuvre bdes are, more or less, structured as bde gps. There is no particular rhyme or reason as between which bdes are equipped how albeit the armoured and Bersaglieri bdes are both tank and tracked IFV equipped in different ratios while other mech bdes vary as between tracked and wheeled IFVs/LAVs

It looks well (adequately) structured to have a several regional force generation organizations and the ability to field two divisions with divisional support enablers.

Beyond that your “average” Italian mechanized Bde is 3 infantry Regiments (Bn with a weird sustainment company and HQ)

You're right. It's weird. Around the time I was in Italy in the early '70s with the 1st Mtn Arty Regt, Italian regiments were true "regiments". E.g. 1st Mtn Arty Regt had three "groups" of three batteries of 4 guns each (i.e 9 batteries; 36 guns) supporting an Alpini Regt of three battalions.

Shortly after that as they dropped the draft and downsized to a volunteer force and they got rid of the "regiments" but transferred the "regimental" identities/heritage to single remaining "battalions."

On yet another, more recent, reorganization they recreated the "regiments" as mostly single battalion entities, with that strange structure of a regimental HQ commanding a support company and an operational line battalion. I never knew whether this was a political decision; a way of creating a lot more colonel positions, a way of creating a depot training and support cell for a battalion; or for some other practical reason.

I think the French do something similar where one can find a regimental "III" symbol on a unit which is in effect a battalion-sized organization but has a regimental headquarters, is commanded by a colonel and has attached depot and reserve base companies.

It's even more confusing than the Brit terms "regiment" and "battalion" and one has to be careful when looking at org charts as more often than not (but not always, the "III" tac symbol for regiment really stands for a "II" battalion-sized unit.

 

[GK .Dundas]

It's even more confusing than the Brit terms "regiment" and "battalion" and one has to be careful when looking at org charts as more often than not (but not always, the "III" tac symbol for regiment really stands for a "II" battalion-sized unit.

Battalion plus ?
Reminds me of the the old Canadian Airborne Regiment. There were a couple of periods during their history when their org charts seemed to change on a near daily/ hourly basis.
They were basically a permanent battle group.
But trying to figure out their TO&E seemed like an exercise in madness.

 

[FJAG]

Battalion plus ?
Reminds me of the the old Canadian Airborne Regiment. There were a couple of periods during their history when their org charts seemed to change on a near daily/ hourly basis.
They were basically a permanent battle group.
But trying to figure out their TO&E seemed like an exercise in madness.

They weren't the only ones. Concurrently much of Mobile Command went to a Combat Group structure which one could easily have called a brigade group minus. It was a funny time where we downsized losing thousands of soldiers so that we could no longer man four brigades. Instead kept one reduced brigade group in Europe, two even weaker combat groups in Canada and an even tinier Airborne Regiment.

TOEs. Talk to me about it. I was the UEO for 2 RCHA and had to keep the load tables for an artillery regiment which only had one battery of L5 howitzers on its establishment and which was cross allocated to the AMF(L) battlegroup and therefore was a tracked battery porteeing guns in M548s. The other battery was permanently allocated to the RCAS in Gagetown and had everything from L5s, through C1 to M109s.

Fun times.

 

[MacNav63]

They weren't the only ones. Concurrently much of Mobile Command went to a Combat Group structure which one could easily have called a brigade group minus. It was a funny time where we downsized losing thousands of soldiers so that we could no longer man four brigades. Instead kept one reduced brigade group in Europe, two even weaker combat groups in Canada and an even tinier Airborne Regiment.

TOEs. Talk to me about it. I was the UEO for 2 RCHA and had to keep the load tables for an artillery regiment which only had one battery of L5 howitzers on its establishment and which was cross allocated to the AMF(L) battlegroup and therefore was a tracked battery porteeing guns in M548s. The other battery was permanently allocated to the RCAS in Gagetown and had everything from L5s, through C1 to M109s.

Fun times.

As I recall, for a while after the move south 4CMBG wasn't even called a brigade group but a battle group.

 

[FJAG]

As I recall, for a while after the move south 4CMBG wasn't even called a brigade group but a battle group.

That happened on 1 July 1970 when 4 CMBG was reduced by one battalion and other odds and sods and moved to Lahr. It lasted until 1973. The term "battalion group" was in vogue at the time.

Incidentally I think that the CanadianSoldiers site (as well as the odd Government of Canada sites) is wrong when it says that the western brigade didn't get renamed 1 Combat Group until 1972. I joined 3 RCHA in Shilo in 1970 and it was already called 1 Combat Group then. I've looked back at some contemporary documents (The Canadian Gunner) and the term was used there. The 1968 edition entry for 2 RCHA states at pg 54:

"On 1 June 1968, the brigade groups in Canada were reorganized into combat groups. Each infantry battalion lost one company, the armoured regiment one squadron, and in keeping, the artillery regiment was reduced by one battery. Thus, as a part of the new Third Combat Group at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, the Second regiment, Royal Canadian horse Artillery became a two battery mechanized regiment. Along with the change came the eagerly awaited M109 self-propelled howitzers to replace the 105mm towed howitzers.

3 CG and the M109s there would be a short term affair as within the next year or so it was reduced to nil strength and 5 CG stood up in Valcartier. 2 RCHA moved to Petawawa where 4RCHA - which had previously been there - was reduced to nil strength (a new regiment - 5 RALC - was formed in Valcartier). 2 RCHA took one battery - D Bty - with it to Petawawa and converted to 105mm L5s while E Bty remained behind with the newly moved RCSA (then becoming the CFSA before eventually becoming the RCAS)

I think the change in terminology was 1) a function of organization size reductions and 2) the renaming of the Canadian Army to Force Mobile Command. Much shit happened because of this.