CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[markppcli]

@markppcli I thought the Danish were attached to the Latvian Mech Bde rather than the eFP BG?

They are I was looking at total nato contributions

 

[markppcli]

Anyone note that were sending a 15 tank squadron and not a 19 tank squadron? That basically makes it a three troop vice four troop squadron?

Am I reading too much into that or have we just had a small doctrinal nudge?

It’s a half Sqn, from the source I was talking to. Plan will be a rotation half Sqn, or Sqn minus depending on how you look at it, force generated by the LdSH with a recce Sqn generated by the RCDs or 12 RBC.

 

[GK .Dundas]

When you don't have sufficient people to do the job properly...fake it til you make it.

 

[markppcli]

When you don't have sufficient people to do the job properly...fake it til you make it.

15 tank half Sqn is more tanks than the polish tank company and Spanish tank commitment that’s there right now

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

This is a big deal, and a good thing. We have world-class tanks with world-class crews that are now going into a mission for which they were designed.

 

[GR66]

This is a big deal, and a good thing. We have world-class tanks with world-class crews that are now going into a mission for which they were designed.

Definitely a good thing. Some of us are greedy though and would like to have more of a good thing.

 

[FJAG]

15 tank half Sqn is more tanks than the polish tank company and Spanish tank commitment that’s there right now

This goes back to my old Combat Team Commanders course:

7. The squadron is structured to fight as a single entity. The functions of the OC and BC are complementary, not redundant. The Squadron administrative echelon is not double banked in critical support vehicles and tradesmen. It must not be allotted by half-squadron to different battle groups. Within the battle group, splitting the squadron in half or detaching troops must only be done after careful deliberation and with full acceptance of the risks of ignoring one of the fundamentals of employment: concentration. The control and administration of detached elements below squadron level are unwieldy and reduce endurance. It must be remembered that, although the troop is the basic fire unit, the squadron is the basic manoeuvre unit.

To me a Squadron Minus is run by the Sqn Comd with one or two troops detached. My guess is that's what we have here. What I'm wondering about though is this an economy matter or a conscious decision to form a smaller squadron. Based on our doctrine, the last time we deployed a squadron it was a full one. Why trim this one back?

This is a big deal, and a good thing. We have world-class tanks with world-class crews that are now going into a mission for which they were designed.

I fully agree. Regardless of the size of the squadron this fully justifies both past and continued combined arms training. It is a step in the right direction.

 

[markppcli]

This goes back to my old Combat Team Commanders course:



To me a Squadron Minus is run by the Sqn Comd with one or two troops detached. My guess is that's what we have here. What I'm wondering about though is this an economy matter or a conscious decision to form a smaller squadron. Based on our doctrine, the last time we deployed a squadron it was a full one. Why trim this one back?



I fully agree. Regardless of the size of the squadron this fully justifies both past and continued combined arms training. It is a step in the right direction.

to allow alignment with 6 Bns each providing a six month deployment I’d imagine. The realities of deploying three squadrons on a 6
month rotation would be extremely demanding on pers tempo.

Squadron minus = two troops led by the Oc
Half Squadron = two troops led by the BC

 

[Colin Parkinson]

15 tank half Sqn is more tanks than the polish tank company and Spanish tank commitment that’s there right now

Well in Lativa....
In total they have some 1,000 tanks
The Spanish have some 325 tanks, likley with similar maintenance and availability rates as we do.

 

[markppcli]

Well in Lativa....
In total they have some 1,000 tanks
The Spanish have some 325 tanks, likley with similar maintenance and availability rates as we do.

Well yes, we’re talking about contributions to the eFP so that seems relevant

 

[DBNSG]

This is a big deal, and a good thing. We have world-class tanks with world-class crews that are now going into a mission for which they were designed.

is this mission sustainable and is that the main reason for the NATO number Squadron of 15 instead of Canadian "doctrine" squadrons of 19? And to quote Martha, it is a good thing.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Anyone note that were sending a 15 tank squadron and not a 19 tank squadron? That basically makes it a three troop vice four troop squadron?

Am I reading too much into that or have we just had a small doctrinal nudge?

given @McG 's comments about the A6M's going in for refit and assuming that other than the RCD's tanks moving from Gagetown to Alberta that the info in the bottom right of this image remains largely true...

I'd say rather than a doctrinal shift 15 is simply the largest fleet of non-training tanks that we can send while still maintaining some in Canada for training and technical requirements. That number changes when the A6 refit is done, maybe the number in Latvia does to.

 

[IKnowNothing]

to allow alignment with 6 Bns each providing a six month deployment I’d imagine. The realities of deploying three squadrons on a 6
month rotation would be extremely demanding on pers tempo.

What's the limit to what the lead bn's could sustainably deploy at that tempo?

 

[markppcli]

What's the limit to what the lead bn's could sustainably deploy at that tempo?

Depends on what our impact and other deployment bill looks like that year quite frankly. Equipment wise it’d be fine to send a Bn, personnel wise….. well I left a Bn that was sitting around 300 all ranks. I’m not sure where they’re at right now, I don’t imagine pulling PLD has helped the numbers. Probably a second rifle company would be the limit to what we could send over I think.

 

[KevinB]

Depends on what our impact and other deployment bill looks like that year quite frankly. Equipment wise it’d be fine to send a Bn, personnel wise….. well I left a Bn that was sitting around 300 all ranks. I’m not sure where they’re at right now, I don’t imagine pulling PLD has helped the numbers. Probably a second rifle company would be the limit to what we could send over I think.

I still think my idea of a 4 year rotational cycle makes sense.
Inf units cycle on an offset 2 year cycle
The LdSH and Minor units and HQ are fixed in theatre. LdSH cycles troops and Minor units take individual postings on offset 4 year periods.

 

[markppcli]

I still think my idea of a 4 year rotational cycle makes sense.
Inf units cycle on an offset 2 year cycle
The LdSH and Minor units and HQ are fixed in theatre. LdSH cycles troops and Minor units take individual postings on offset 4 year periods.

I think you could probably have a Bn and a Sqn posted there. Adazi is actually a pretty shit training area so I would want some Sqns around to train maneuver warfare in Canada.

 

[GR66]

I still think my idea of a 4 year rotational cycle makes sense.
Inf units cycle on an offset 2 year cycle
The LdSH and Minor units and HQ are fixed in theatre. LdSH cycles troops and Minor units take individual postings on offset 4 year periods.

While of course the Russians are top of mind right now and I agree that win, lose or draw Russia WILL attempt to "build back better" once this is done and will require a strong NATO deterrent, I do however believe that most Canadian Army requirements going forward will most likely fall into the scope of the typical Cold War type deployments of the past 70 years. Security support missions with friendly nation forces against Russian/Chinese/Iranian-backed forces, peace keeping, presence operations in support of strategic and economic interests, etc.

Frankly we could easily "break" our Army by focusing just on the high risk/impact but low probability chance of Russia directly invading NATO (and the probable national suicide that would mean).

I think an achievable but effective model would be a Canadian-led Brigade in Latvia roughly comprising the following:

• Canadian or Canadian-led Brigade HQ as part of NATO Multinational Division (North)
• Existing eFP Latvia Battalion Group (less the new Canadian tank deployment and our existing artillery battery deployment)
• LdSH with a full regimental deployment of tanks (once we upgrade/replace our fleet) with one (rotating) squadron forward deployed and the balance of the squadrons pre-positioned for fly-over manning (and an additional squadron in Alberta for training)
• Pre-positioned Mech Battalion to be manned by fly-over troops. Once reconstitution has worked we could forward deploy a single company of the Battalion on a rotational basis (in addition to our existing eFP Latvia rotation). Ideally we would procure a tracked IFV for this pre-positioned Battalion (with extra vehicles for training companies in Canada) and save our LAVs for OOTW deployments.
• Our existing Artillery battery deployment with eFP Latvia would be expanded to a full Artillery Regiment to support the Brigade with the existing Battery rotational deployment augmented by two pre-positioned fly-over Batteries.

This would give Canada the ability to rapidly man a full Mechanized Brigade Group to Latvia in support of NATO where our need to rapidly deploy heavy forces is most likely without a radical increase over the existing manning we have dedicated to the mission. At the same time our LAV-based forces in Canada would still be available (and adequately equipped) for the much more likely types of non-peer conflict deployments they are likely to face.

 

[daftandbarmy]

While of course the Russians are top of mind right now and I agree that win, lose or draw Russia WILL attempt to "build back better" once this is done and will require a strong NATO deterrent, I do however believe that most Canadian Army requirements going forward will most likely fall into the scope of the typical Cold War type deployments of the past 70 years. Security support missions with friendly nation forces against Russian/Chinese/Iranian-backed forces, peace keeping, presence operations in support of strategic and economic interests, etc.

Frankly we could easily "break" our Army by focusing just on the high risk/impact but low probability chance of Russia directly invading NATO (and the probable national suicide that would mean).

I think an achievable but effective model would be a Canadian-led Brigade in Latvia roughly comprising the following:

• Canadian or Canadian-led Brigade HQ as part of NATO Multinational Division (North)
• Existing eFP Latvia Battalion Group (less the new Canadian tank deployment and our existing artillery battery deployment)
• LdSH with a full regimental deployment of tanks (once we upgrade/replace our fleet) with one (rotating) squadron forward deployed and the balance of the squadrons pre-positioned for fly-over manning (and an additional squadron in Alberta for training)
• Pre-positioned Mech Battalion to be manned by fly-over troops. Once reconstitution has worked we could forward deploy a single company of the Battalion on a rotational basis (in addition to our existing eFP Latvia rotation). Ideally we would procure a tracked IFV for this pre-positioned Battalion (with extra vehicles for training companies in Canada) and save our LAVs for OOTW deployments.
• Our existing Artillery battery deployment with eFP Latvia would be expanded to a full Artillery Regiment to support the Brigade with the existing Battery rotational deployment augmented by two pre-positioned fly-over Batteries.

This would give Canada the ability to rapidly man a full Mechanized Brigade Group to Latvia in support of NATO where our need to rapidly deploy heavy forces is most likely without a radical increase over the existing manning we have dedicated to the mission. At the same time our LAV-based forces in Canada would still be available (and adequately equipped) for the much more likely types of non-peer conflict deployments they are likely to face.

I know it's a DOMOPS thing but having watched the Army, and other arms and services, struggle mightily to sustain an extended effort over a couple of OP LENTUS summers - in Canada - I think you're being overly optimistic.

 

[markppcli]

I know it's a DOMOPS thing but having watched the Army, and other arms and services, struggle mightily to sustain an extended effort over a couple of OP LENTUS summers - in Canada - I think you're being overly optimistic.

Op Lentusnis a struggle because we have to down tools on everything else we’re doing. Which is usually enabling our training in the fall

 

[daftandbarmy]

Op Lentusnis a struggle because we have to down tools on everything else we’re doing. Which is usually enabling our training in the fall

Which is yet another excellent reason why the CAF/ Canada should tell the (whiny) Provinces to get their acts together and sort out the capacity requirements to address their own fire/flood etc issues while it focuses on it's own, unique, contribution to national security ....