LAV 6.0

[Humphrey Bogart]

Are you sure about Humphrey?  Or is just that there is failure to "concentrate the forces" available?

Grouping all the tanks in a single regiment, with a battalion or two of infantry, Divisional Arty and Engineers in one location would, it seems to me, promote the opportunity to polish up skills.  The other brigades could focus on ligther/GP taskings.

One regiment of tanks still only gives you a squadron of deployable tanks if you follow a proper train-fight-rest cycle. 

Now I'm not talking about a mobilization.  If we had the opportunity to mobilize i.e. like WWII the Canadian Army would look radically different and probably have different equipment, orbats, etc. 

You'd probably see us fall in initially on American made kit and our CMBGs would probably look more like Armored BCTs and Infantry BCTs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

:goodpost: :bravo:

As a Armour soldier, I have long argued the fallacies of going with Wheels over Tracks for mobility.  We have witnessed in Afghanistan that lightly armoured vehicles are easy kills for an enemy that is not even a peer.  We should have learned before we even went there from the Russian experience. 

If anyone missed it, look back at the Armour Corps discussions in these forums on the MGS and Stryker.

And Gawd help us if we need to fight anyone in the snow, ironically for Canadians. The only thing you'll need to separate the armour from the infantry will be the nightly precipitation experienced in an average Ontario January evening.

Unlike in 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fK8hvND5sE

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

And Gawd help us if we need to fight anyone in the snow, ironically for Canadians. The only thing you'll need to separate the armour from the infantry will be the nightly precipitation experienced in an average Ontario January evening.

Unlike in 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fK8hvND5sE

The tripping in mukluks footage is priceless  ;D

 

[Eland2]

At the risk of overstating the obvious, both the Canadian and US militaries have been forced to go with wheels rather than tracks for a reason. Wheels are cheap, tracks are not.

Even the Russians, with their fleet of BTR-60s, BTR-70s and later BTR-80s and 90s, had a Cold War doctrine that envisioned deploying the wheeled vehicles as follow-on forces after the T54s, T55s, T62s and T72s had punched through enemy lines after bearing the brunt of enemy counterattacks.

Here, we've got it arse-backwards - deploy tanks in penny-packet numbers if we absolutely have to, but use wheeled armoured vehicles as primary combat vehicles the rest of the time. The only time wheeled vehicles can be really successful in combat is when you're engaged in low-intensity warfare, roads and terrain are good, the enemy forces don't have much beyond small arms and grenades - AND the vehicles are kept well away from any really serious threats, like RPG teams located in well camouflaged or defiladed positions.

 

[ballz]

http://acims.mil.ca/org/EcoledInfantrySchool/RCIC/ICNL/Official/Infantry%20Corps%20Newsletter%20-%20Volume%201,%20Issue%203.pdf

An acims link to the newsletter... also worth reading the last article about marching fire written by Maj Matt Rolls.

 

[a_majoor]

Once again, a lot of this really comes down to not having any real doctrine to speak of, so decisions are based on how much spare change the CDS can find in his couch.

Wheeled vehicles have a time and place, and I could make a case for smaller, faster and lighter vehicles like the "Combat Guard", which weigh 8 tons, can carry an infantry section and have very high degrees of cross country mobility. Combat Guard is protected against many threats by the ability to carry a system like "Trophy" to shoot at incoming missiles and rockets. Chris Pook can make a case for even smaller and lighter vehicles (essentially technicals and ATVs) on the basis of strategic mobility and tactical air portability. This presupposed fighting like Cavalry and Mounted Rifles.

OTOH, if we are concerned about hitting complex defences manned by peer opponents, then we should be talking about Merkava C1 tanks supported by Achzarit HAPCs and some equivalent heavy engineer vehicle that can all move together in the assault. Massed heavy firepower by artillery and mortars would also have to be part and parcel of this sort of force.

And if we were serious about arctic sovereignty, as well as operating in Canadian winter with the side ability to operate in disaster relief like the recent floods in Quebec, then we would be kitted out like the Royal Marine Commandos with Bronco or Viking MTV's. (From a personal perspective, I think this option has the most flexibility, as well as being easily transportable to distant AO's. It also gives us a toolset to engage in other tasks like amphibious landings).

And we could have all kinds of side arguments about carrying enablers and what sort of special kit we would want to add to the mix as well, but unless *we* actually decide what it is we are supposed to do (this ties back with the arguments of National Interest and Grand Strategy), then we will continue to get deny packets of vehicles on an almost "ad hoc" basis (look at the multitude of micro fleets we got in Afghanistan) to deal with the problem of the day, rather than a comprehensive approach that encompasses everything from training and logistics to TTP's.

 

[Underway]

OTOH, if we are concerned about hitting complex defences manned by peer opponents, then we should be talking about Merkava C1 tanks supported by Achzarit HAPCs and some equivalent heavy engineer vehicle that can all move together in the assault. Massed heavy firepower by artillery and mortars would also have to be part and parcel of this sort of force.

Side question.  Is a Merkava even rail transportable?  I didn't think it was as its just to damn big.  If that's the case then it's automatically a non-starter as a Canadian option.

 

[Loachman]

Not that there are many, if any, Canadian bases served by rail anymore.

 

[Underway]

Not that there are many, if any, Canadian bases served by rail anymore.

Directly or nearby.  Shilo and Shearwater are directly served.  Suffield has a rail pretty close as does Wainwright IIRC.  Winnipeg does as well.  Don't know about any of the others though I wouldn't be surprised if Pet has one nearby and Valcartier is so close to Quebec City I'm sure there's one close as well.

 

[George Wallace]

Directly or nearby.  Shilo and Shearwater are directly served.  Suffield has a rail pretty close as does Wainwright IIRC.  Winnipeg does as well.  Don't know about any of the others though I wouldn't be surprised if Pet has one nearby and Valcartier is so close to Quebec City I'm sure there's one close as well.

You can scratch most of those off the list.  Last I unloaded in Wainwright it was 50 km or so South of the Base.  Petawawa and Gagetown no longer have any rail lines.  Everyone in Winnipeg has been moved to Shilo, which is a fair distance from the Main Line.  Canada has been pulling up Rail lines faster than it can build a Tim Hortons.  Seems Bicycle and Ski trails are the way to go.

 

[LightFighter]

Last I unloaded in Wainwright it was 50 km or so South of the Base. 

Wainwright has a rail line on the base.

http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2017/05/17-0146-pa01-2017-0146-012.jpg
United States Army M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks prepare to be offloaded from a train at Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit Wainwright, Alberta during Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE on May 11, 2017.

 

[George Wallace]

You can scratch most of those off the list.  Last I unloaded in Wainwright it was 50 km or so South of the Base. 

Wainwright has a rail line on/near the base.

http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2017/05/17-0146-pa01-2017-0146-012.jpg
United States Army M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks prepare to be offloaded from a train at Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit Wainwright, Alberta during Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE on May 11, 2017.

It depends on the 'carrier' as to where they bring their cars.  We unloaded to the South of Base around the town of Hughenden.

 

[kratz]

Borden and Halifax are the only two bases I'm certain that continue to have rail service that allows unloading ability. Are the depots at both locations.

 

[Loachman]

Borden has no rail service.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Borden has no rail service.

They probably did that as an ironic gesture as it's the centre for all our logistics training, right?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Have they disclosed max turret weight for the LAV 6?

I was just going to see if I could find turret info for various SPAAG turrets already in use to see what would be possible vs impossible (in the context of our GBAD thread).

That is in advance, M. 

 

[Loachman]

They probably did that as an ironic gesture as it's the centre for all our logistics training, right?

There were once both CN and CP passenger stations and freight operations in Borden, plus the CN station in Angus. That was during the steam era, before highways were paved and trucks were rare. The BFT trail follows old roadbed, and there is a short length of track still embedded in asphalt at clothing stores.

The CP line left the still-operational north-south mainline via a wye (three-way triangular track formation) just north of Baxter, where there was a tiny station built to look like a small castle and name Ypres. The roadbed can still be traced on the ground, and easily seen from the air.

The former CN line from Barrie-Allandale (once a major facility) to Collingwood through Angus was sold to Barrie and Collingwood many years ago, and operated as the Barrie-Collingwood Railway, based in Utopia east of Borden and south of Highway 90, where it interchanges with the same north-south CP mainline. A single train went from there once weekly in either direction, restricted to 10 mph due to the poor condition of the track. Collingwood bowed out of the operation a few years ago. The Barrie section may still be in operation, but I've not been through Utopia for some time so I do not really know.

 

[MilEME09]

You would think they would want bases close if not on a rail line still. Take Edmonton for example, wouldn't having 7 CFSD on or very very close to a rail head be possibly a good idea? ditto for 1 Svc BN.

 

[Ostrozac]

You would think they would want bases close if not on a rail line still.

The Canadian economy as a whole has been largely moving away from investing in rail infrastructure in favour of doing more with trucks, and this has been gong on for decades now. The military's own logistics by necessity are piggy backing on that civilian infrastructure.

Personally, I wonder if the damaged railline to Churchill is going to be permanently repaired, or if they'll just put in a temporary patch and start work on a highway.

 

[MJP]

You would think they would want bases close if not on a rail line still. Take Edmonton for example, wouldn't having 7 CFSD on or very very close to a rail head be possibly a good idea? ditto for 1 Svc BN.

There is no need for the rail head to be right on the base in Edmonton nor would we or any rail service sink the upteen millions of dollars in infrastructure and upkeep. There is a major rail loading facility less than 20kms away, that is used when required.