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

Infantry Vehicles

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,720
Points
1,040
Fun fact. Did you know that the M109 at 24 to 27 tons was thought too heavy for the Canadian Army but the LAV6.0 at 25 to 28 tons is a "Light" Armoured Vehicle?
Not quite. The Army order moves the tanks "out west" but the CA and the RCAC haven't decided what that means in terms of Regimental and bde allocation.
Please don't tell me that anyone is actually considering grouping an RCD, and a 12 RBC and an LdSH tank squadron into one unit in Edmonton. That's right up there with the 2004 Direct Fire Unit.

:oops:
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
Fun fact. Did you know that the M109 at 24 to 27 tons was thought too heavy for the Canadian Army but the LAV6.0 at 25 to 28 tons is a "Light" Armoured Vehicle?

Please don't tell me that anyone is actually considering grouping an RCD, and a 12 RBC and an LdSH tank squadron into one unit in Edmonton. That's right up there with the 2004 Direct Fire Unit.

:oops:
I am not saying anything about future plans, but what if I told you that we have had a very happy and effective tank Squadron in Gagetown for the past decade that is half RCD and half 12e RBC?
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,720
Points
1,040
I am not saying anything about future plans, but what if I told you that we have had a very happy and effective tank Squadron in Gagetown for the past decade that is half RCD and half 12e RBC?
I'm not questioning its happiness nor its effectiveness. What I'm questioning is the turf protectionism and PY counting that goes on within the Army's regimental system.

I'm a great fan of Canada's regimental traditions and retaining as much as possible unit esprit de corps but the lengths we sometimes go to to remain symmetrical IMHO gets in the way of progress and efficiency.

If our doctrine states that we only need and can only afford one tank regiment and two reconnaissance regiments then lets form them and organize training and career progression around those.

Assuming for the sake of argument, that the LdSH are receive a tank squadron from each of the RCD and 12 RBC, does that mean the RCD and the 12 RBC will receive a recce squadron each from the LdSH?

I understand that this is a difficult issue and is very much tied to symmetrical brigades as much as anything. I'm also aware of the fact that sometimes its all too easy to criticize from the sidelines but to some of us who are now outsiders, the Army, all too frequently, fails to make the right choice because its easier to get consensus on the wrong one.

For what its worth, I have significantly more criticism on many of the decisions the army and the RegF artillery have made with respect to the artillery over the years. But both of our arms have struggled to remain relevant in what is essentially an infantry-centric army.

🍻
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
4,084
Points
1,160
Assuming for the sake of argument, that the LdSH are receive a tank squadron from each of the RCD and 12 RBC, does that mean the RCD and the 12 RBC will receive a recce squadron each from the LdSH?

You're assuming a lot, and the LdSH only have a single Recce Squadron.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,720
Points
1,040
You're assuming a lot, and the LdSH only have a single Recce Squadron.
It wasn't even anything as strong as an assumption. I was cuing off the line " the CA and the RCAC haven't decided what that means in terms of Regimental and bde allocation."

I was merely stating what I was hoping was not one of the options being considered.

I do assume that at the heart of this move is the simplification of the logistics burden imposed by tank units and centralizing them will reduce that burden and also provide for superior individual and collective training opportunities for a unit of massed tanks. Both of those are highly desirable and, IMHO, long overdue.

The simple logical course of action is to form one tank regiment out of one unit (and perhaps a small co-located training element of the CTC). The suggestion that the CA and the RCAC are still undecided of what that means in terms of Regimental and bde allocation raises the possibility of other potential courses of action which has me speculating and nothing more than that.

🍻
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,341
Points
1,360
You're assuming a lot, and the LdSH only have a single Recce Squadron.
Rumours are that the LdSH’s second recce squadron now rides aluminum steeds on the West half of the Mattawa… 😉
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,364
Points
1,160
Fun fact. Did you know that the M109 at 24 to 27 tons was thought too heavy for the Canadian Army but the LAV6.0 at 25 to 28 tons is a "Light" Armoured Vehicle?

Please don't tell me that anyone is actually considering grouping an RCD, and a 12 RBC and an LdSH tank squadron into one unit in Edmonton. That's right up there with the 2004 Direct Fire Unit.

:oops:
New Girl Facepalm GIF by HULU
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,014
Points
1,040
I wonder if you could install this on the back of an ISV? Would be nice to have a common chassis for LIB support weapons.

4x4_120mm.jpg
 
Top