• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The DFS Regt & other Future Armoured Regiment ideas

"The only downsides I see are that with having a Reg Force mentor cadre, what happens when those "Leopard Gurus" all retire... "

- Matt,   this is a question that has been asked, though in relation to CMTC.   The Comd LFDTS knows that if CMTC had to flush out an OPFOR Leo C2 sqn, the big shortage would be in crews, not tanks (I doubt my walker will fit in the hatch in a few years).   We have 114 gun tanks (Wainwright, Gagetown, Montreal (202 Paintshop Depot), and Borden).   Even as those numbers shrink due to any planned cannibalizing or disposal (until their eventual replacement by 66 MGS), that is enough to keep the CMTC OPFOR Tk Tp of four Vismodded Leo C2 rolling.   The four crews in that troop will be part of the 80 man permanent   OPFOR cadre.    There are another few dozen Leos in Wainwright to draw on, but that probably won't happen unless one of the OPFOR agony wagons goes teats up.   The Strathconas still come up and use "their" tanks, and will until they get replaced by MGS.   The OPFOR will not need more than four 'sustainable' Leos unless a future Roto destined for someplace is expected to achieve Battle Task Standards against a very robust enemy with a tank company.   That is unlikely.   The most prob scenario is a BTE rotating in through CMTC, having been directed to achieve BTS against an OPFOR that has a tank company, again, unlikely, but doable (with some pain) in the short term.  

Your proposal for retaining a Leo C2 Sqn is a good one, but we have been painted   into an administrative corner by the way we are directed to cost account our activities, and something has to give.   The Army has been deliberately underfunded for years - a way of stopping us from retaining capabilities you and I know we will need some day -   and we are spending money on training for the missions we do now, at the expense of retaining some   capability for a heavy metal punch up later.  

The intent may well be to spend money on kit and capabilities we need to deploy on missions NOW (our society's focus seems stuck in the 'NOW' gear), and whatever force that process results in will have to adapt to any future that demands a maximum effort as best as it can.   1914, 1939, 1950 all over again.  

"In my proposal, 1 reg. force sqn. of Leopards is maintained so that a seed corn at the reg. force level is still maintained.   That way you've got reg. force pers. at all levels (Tpr-Maj.) who are versed in the art and science of working with tanks, rather than Sr. NCOs and officers being parachuted into an organization which they're supposed to provide the subject matter expertise, but have no experience on."

- Good reasoning. I tried to tie into that with my reserve summer training tank regt proposal a few days ago, but my post was unclear.   Even if they had experience on the kit at one time, skill fade would come into play, so, as you say,   we need a trained permanent cadre.   A Regiment would be nice, Sqn would be OK.   But all we get is an OPFOR Troop.  

I think if the Cdn Army crews another tank, it will be exchanges on American M1A2s, like the exchanges the Strathconas and the Hussars did with M60A1 units in Ft. Hood in the 70s and 80s, and like the Gunnery competitions the Strats do with the   NG Abrams units today.   During Gulf War One, Ottawa was 24 hours from giving the Strathconas orders to move into the US and start trg on Abrams to go overseas, but the decision to NOT send 4CMBG from Lahr/Baden to the gulf nixed trg the Strats on the Abrams.  

We seem to be stuck in a sort of groundhog day/year of 1934.   We are losing hard won capacity and capabilities that the visionaries among us know we will need desperately in the future.   Yey the masses scream that we will never again mobilize a large land army, or fight a conventional war.  

So, where will the next Dieppe be?   Or the next Hong Kong?
 
I saw a truly wonderful line today " The tank is the zombie of the moderen battlefield .Everybody keeps saying it's dead but it just continues to lurch around on the battlefield kicking ass!" :tank:
 
Tru dat.   weapon systems aren't 'pulled' from the battlefield so much as they are 'driven' from the battlefield by other weapon systems.   If I can paraphrase someone elses quote about a nation's military preparedness:   "Every country has tanks - either their own or someone else's."
 
Matt

I think I can add to Tom's sentiments a bit in saying that the US has large numbers of tanks and that experience is a lot more prevalent in the Reserves there than what we can ever hope to find in Canada.  The numbers here are far too small, due to the Trudeau years, when we lost our 'large numbers' of tanks in both Reg and Reserve Units.  Dropping down to only one Tank Regiment, the RCD in Germany, in the 1970's greatly affected the production of any great number of experienced "Tankers" for the Canadian Forces.  We don't have Ex'Tankers from the Army and Marines joining our Reserves and National Guards like in the US.  We have kids out of High School and no facilities or equipment to train Tankers for Reserves, and just the minimal to train Reg Force Tankers, which is disappearing by the second as we speak.  Canada's Experienced Tankers are all reaching CRA and are being treated as "Dinosaurs" by the New Regime who believe more in High Tech than in Soldiers Combat Skills.  There is no happy medium, nor blending of some of those beliefs.  114 Leo C 2s (Minus) are not enough to maintain any true Cbt Tanker Skills for long into the future. 
 
If we followed the thinking of Matt and guys like Matt - us - and put all of those tanks in one unit again, that would help.  But, during the lean years after 1970, at least the school trained all Tp Ldrs and Crew Commanders in tank.  We know that still led to problems in skill fade when they went back to their regiments to crew Ferret, Lynx, and Cougar - and I personally know that more than most - but at least we had a school.

With the new Armour School focus on Recce, even having a regt of tanks in Wainwright or Gagetown  would lead to some growing pains.  We may still have to retain a 'tank' standards cell - notwithstanding the MGS purchase.
 
George Wallace said:
  Canada's Experienced Tankers are all reaching CRA and are being treated as "Dinosaurs" by the New Regime who believe more in High Tech than in Soldiers Combat Skills. 

The really sad thing is a tank, with its protection, large amount of ammunition stowage, sophisticated sight system and tactical mobility, coupled with "high tech" like through tube missiles and off board target feeds makes the ideal MMEV.
 
  I have yet to see anything that proves the tank is obsolete .But then again what do I know, I dont work for either the Polaris group or the PMO
I suspect that we will end up filling body bags and the the military's political masters will be shocked and surprised ,of course it will not be their fault!
 
GK .Dundas said:
I dont work for either the Polaris group or the PMO

Someone should run an M1 Abrams through Steve Staples house and see if he still preaches that message....
 
Infanteer said:
Someone should run an M1 Abrams through Steve Staples house and see if he still preaches that message....
    Do'nt be silly, we all know that tanks are obsolete and would never be used in an urban  area anyway!
 
GK .Dundas said:
    Do'nt be silly, we all know that tanks are obsolete and would never be used in an urban   area anyway!

My fault - what was a thinking.   Someone should roll a LAV up to his neighbourhood, pray that insurgents don't tag it with a 7 dollar weapon system, "Sense" and "Act" on the house, and hope that the MMEV can nail it through all the clutter in a complex environment (by which time the house has been converted into a place of worship and deemed no-go).
 
Infanteer said:
Someone should run an M1 Abrams through Steve Staples house and see if he still preaches that message....


As long as he doesn't have a basement!
 
OHHHHHHHH.......Tanks and Basements, Bad Dreams.

"Tanks don't roll where the washers and dryers go."
 
As is, our Armour Recce Regiments are hurting in the way of equipment.  They need more Surv Suites to do the job.  Coyotes are expensive and perhaps it is too late in the game to buy more, if we are in the process of procuring LAV III for other Arms.  Perhaps it would be cost effective to purchase more Surv Suites and do as the Aussies did and mount them in Bison or Stryker (LAV III without turret).  This may be a way to stretch out our Coyote Fleet and slowly upgrade it to LAV III (with turrets).  The Corps will soon be dead, or at least dead in the water, unless we can fully equip our regiments.  Three Squadrons working with one Sqn's worth of vehicles will not work for more than a year or two.  We may have just driven the Corps into that "basement".
 
We bought 203 Coyotes.  We had one roll into the Mediterranian at Split, so we are now down to 202. We could add Gen 2 Surv suites (as soon as it is invented) to the command variants, and that should be enough for 8 squadrons.

Hey, you want 100,000 AFVs, move to RUSSIA!

Tom ;D
 
Is there a thread for Whole Fleet Management (WFM)?  Things aren't too bad in the RCD right now for vehicles, since we have a Sqn overseas and another will go when the other comes back.  While there may be enough Coyotes for eight Sqns, the School and some spares, two of those Sqns will most likely be at CMTC with another two in Op Stock either on deployment or awaiting deployment.  I understand the rationale but it is a tough sell on the hangar floor.  I have done two Coyote re-allocation plans this year and will have to do another one next month.  The TQ, RQ, SQs and BCs are a bit sick of me!  I've lost track of the number of VMOs this year.

That being said there are plenty of good recce skills that can be taught and maintained by a Sqn during a year without Coyotes.  "Mud" OPs and patrolling are both skills that do not rely exclusively on vehicles.  A year "post-tour" without vehicles can also be used to get people on career courses and get soldiers "triple qualified" on the Coyote. 

The Infantry battalions are also going through this, so it is not an problem exclusive to the Armoured Corps.  I do recognize that the infantry are less vehicle reliant, but if they want to develop LAV skills they will face some hurdles.  Hmm.  I think I see a solution to all our problems...

Cheers,

2B
 
a_majoor said:
Speaking of which, has there been any more response to tha Armoured Cavalry idea?

With that being asked. When does the next issues of various journals (Armour Bulletin) come out?
 
Well
We don't need a MBT, we need a useful tank for our Army. As in another post a light tank would do. We could buy a 1000 tanks but if we are not going to use them, it's a useless. If we buy a transportable one, it could be deployed, and used.
 
A few years back, in one of our professional journals, a civilian recommended we get out of the MBT business and buy the AGS-XM8. It is portable, tracked, and perfect for our roles.  Naturally, we all poo-poo'd the whole idea.  Clearly, the man was ahead of his time - a tough slot to be in.  Now, if MGS falls through, the USA may well adopt a variant of the AGS - XM8.  Here we go again.
 
Back
Top