Rick, Splash.
Just thinking weirdly.
No problem with your logic. Just that the outcome is that in all scenarios something has to give, some compromise. I happen to believe that your Stryker Brigade scenario will result in the Canadian government being less equipped for effective hasty interventions.
I agree that separating the troops from the carriers will result in them being less effective panzergrenadiers and the entire force being less effective in that role. But unless we bump up resources significantly so we can maintain a rapid reaction brigade of 3 battalions for hasty interventions and some 9 battalions of panzergrenadiers for sustained ops everything is a compromise.
So what selection of tools in what organization gives the maximum flexibility of response to the Canadian Government at the least cost to the Treasury and with the maximum security to the Troops?
Edited to add: Is it as simple as taking a top down approach rather than a bottom up view? Rather than starting from the Section and stipulating the number of troops in a section, sections/platoon, platoons/company......and the weapons necessary to meet capabilities (some defined in treaties and agreements) is it possible to start and say we have X number of troops. We will divide them into one rapid reaction force of 3 deployable teams and one sustainng force of 9 deployable teams. The manpower available in those teams allows us to man this equipment and perform these tasks, this is what we can contribute - regardless of how the rest of our allies organize to meet their obligations.
ArmyRick:
First off, I beleive that our army should be organized (regular) with 6 x infantry companies with 4 x LAVIII companies each
What I am proposing would be (if we add six fully equipped modern day LAV battalions) would be the purchase of say 56 x LAV III Mortar (basically a stryker mortar carrier)
That would be 2 x for each LAV Coy (x 24) and 8 more for the now extinct mortar cell at the infantry school. Each one would do as I said in an earlier post, be primarily 120mm mounted mortars, but I would have a dismountable 60mm mortar with a small number of rounds for dismounted ops. i would also bump up the mortar crew to 4 (the old canadian infantry det was 3).
MCG:
Quote from: Kirkhill on Today at 11:26:38
So what selection of tools in what organization gives the maximum flexibility of response to the Canadian Government at the least cost to the Treasury and with the maximum security to the Troops?
To answer that, you need to look beyond just mortars. You need to consider the role of mortars alongside other systems on the battlefield (like rockets, howitzers, CASW, TOW, etc), and you need to look at the larger doctrine & force structure.