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

Recent content by TangoTwoBravo

  1. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    There is indeed a difference between a Stryker and a LAV 6 due to the weapons system. Its been that way since the US went with the SBCT. Our CMBG has a number of differences. We have, in theory, tanks. They have TOW and Javelin. Their TOW and Javelin make their infantry at least able to Block or...
  2. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    You can have a "light" tail if you are driving through an operational theatre where there is an in-place force and use their logistics. You could drive across Canada if you rely on gas stations and restaurants. You do realize that a Deuce and a Half does not replenish itself as it rolls...
  3. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    LAVs, while heavier than their name would indicate, are transportable. Within the context of FORCE 2025 one of the assumptions is that we are a LAV-based force. A LAV infantry battalion has all sorts of capability for peacekeeping, COIN and stability operations that light infantry lack. Working...
  4. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    If we are delivering a BG or CMBG to Europe (or the ME or Africa etc) we don't need the shipping itself to be RCN. It doesn't need to be military. I am having a hard time finding a plausible scenario where we are in an opposed-entry. It might be subjected to all sorts of things, but its not Juno...
  5. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    If it is intended for the Canadian Army to fight in conventional operations then you need tanks. If the argument against tanks is that loitering munitions can kill tanks then surely that argument extends to everything else. While the lessons of the Azerbaijan/Armenian war are interesting, they...
  6. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    Indeed. At the risk of derailing the thread, the rotational approach to COIN has drawbacks, among them the need for each rotation to prove oneself in combat. The Brits, though, took a light force into Helmand in 2006 and relied on a heavier force to bail them out. Putting aside the chances of...
  7. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    True that. Perhaps Light infantry and mortars would have featured more prominently.
  8. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    The good news is that we are not a civilian corporation. Please don't presume to lecture me on service.
  9. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    Looking at a COIN scenario, what do we need? I think the army that we have now is the result of our Kandahar experience. Some things have been put aside and others added on, but at the end of the day I think we would recognize the situation and would know roughly what to do. Acknowledging that...
  10. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    Trust me, I have read SSE. Worked at Div and CMBG level. Was happy to see the CMBG included in SSE, but I also see things as they are and not how I wish they were to be.
  11. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    I am going to change gears for a second and look at some other mission sets. Let's say that the GOC turns to the CA and says "we need to you to provide a Battalion to a UN peacekeeping mission in xxxxx. Maybe a Sector HQ as well?" Having served in Southern Lebanon alongside UNIFIL, a divisional...
  12. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    I think a 120mm SP mortar for a BG would be awesome. Not sure it would have the range, though, to be a Bde-level artillery replacement. Others would know more on that! Fair point that equipping the infantry with a Javelin-equivalent would need more than "Here you go, carry this around with...
  13. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    If we are in a conventional setting but not quite a linear as WW2 there will be lots of open flanks. A Canadian BG could be a "cavalry/security" unit for a Brigade or Division. Guard tasks, either front flank or rear could all be tasks for such a BG whether the parent formation is conducting...
  14. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    It would depend. The company group would be part of a Battle Group (BG) that would in turn be part of a Brigade. The BG would certainly be Canadian. The Bde might not be. We should have some form of Battalion/Battle Group level fire support - most armies use mortars. The Bde would have a...
  15. TangoTwoBravo

    FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

    As always, it depends, but the frame for conventional conflict would be an adversary with modern equipment in open conflict. It might not be linear, but it is not COIN. We have fairly established force ratios as a guide. So could a Canadian Battle Group defeat an adversary equipped with modern...
Top