At that point why not just buy the armoured senators in whatever variant? The cost difference is a rounding error in government budgeting and now we actually have a fleet thats semi useful in operational and hom defence roles from coast to coast.
We have different views on what an armored vehicle actually is.
The CA could not have afforded the cost of fuel or training ammo to put M1 Abrams into the PRes, let alone fuel and ammo with the coming budget cuts.
Sure, but none of those “large than battalion sized organizations” are not actually organizations; they are institutionally assigned identities with some administrative back-end. Also, why not let Armoured units call themselves Squadrons (and then introduce platoon and/or company at a lower level)? Then “squadron” would have commonalty of meaning across CA & RCAF.
Buttons & Bows will not fix PRes structures.
I mean, it had done that by page 2. It may as well be merged with its mothership: Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army ReservesI, for one, am just glad that this thread has now morphed into yet another Reserve Restructuring thread
Why Not, but first we must test the shit out of the vehicle for two years, then spend three + years going through procurement. Add another year to introduce/distribute.
You can’t start testing until you have an active procurement project so that every month of testing consumes project staff salary and reduces the available funding for the actual acquisition.
Or just make use of the existing TAPVs.
If the RegF is looking to dump all the TAPVs to the reserves once they're fixed, I'd be ecstatic. Are they good? Hell no. Better than a kick in the dick? Definitely. Move forward with the proposed concept of mixed weapons like having 50s, ATGMs and 40mm all in the same troop, you might have moderately effective ARes troops that could augment, not just integrate Reg capabilities. Treat them as weapons dets attached to square light or med Sabre Sqns.
I have honestly no idea what the plan is or was for the TAPV deliveries. There’s a dozen at 1 RCHA and no one really seems to have any idea oh what they’re supposed to be for. Can’t do CP stuff out of them, no EPLARS, can’t do FOO stuff. I’ve never seen anything official about changing their armament but sure good option. Attached to sabre squadrons though? I don’t see what they’d add to tanks or LRSS unless they mount ATGMs. Give them all to the FGH? Yeah I’m down with that plan. I could get behind the idea of motorized infantry Bns from the reserves using TAPv as mobility and fire support. Or x number of light cavalry, to use the current nomenclature, troops per Sqn being reservists.
There are proposed plans to add 50 Cals and ATGMs to TAPVs in composite troops with 40mm armed TAPVs so they can actually engage armour. That's what I'm referencing. So by attaching a reservist troop of these to the SHQ they could either a) provide force pro for the SSM's ech b) detach with the BC and whichever troop to man the firebase with multiple types of fires or c) in emergencies, act as a reserve and add some extra gusto to the light or med Sabre Sqns.
"Proposed plans" are not advanced as far as the MMEV was. There is no funding. There are no engineering studies. There are no staff looking at those as capability deficiencies.
Exactly. The unit is the battalion - the formations are the brigade and division - subunits are companies, batteries or squadrons - sub subunits are troops or platoons. Leave regiments as administrative entities to manage a particular corps or branch.
Because their sub units are squadrons as they've been in our traditional sense. See also the air force in its traditional role when squadrons were led by squadron leaders whose rank was the equivalent of major. Squadrons were grouped into a wing led by a wing commander who had a lieutenant-colonel's equivalent rank. The rank inflation in the air force was necessitated as complexity of the sir systems grew. Just because US cavalry has an inflation of what squadrons and troops are is no need to do it here. Let's get back to basics, in the horse borne US cavalry unit was a "regiment". The sub unit name changed over time from company to troop and consisted of 40 to 90 men commanded by a captain. A regiment usually had 10 or so troops and could form ad hoc battalions by detaching 3 or 4 troops. (See Custer who broke his regiment into three battalions at Little Big Horn)
It wasn't meant to. It was suggested to clean up terminology across the board and not just within the PRes.
It sure as hell won't. A lot more is needed then that. But ... it won't hurt, and it would make it much easier to create hybrid units where posted in RegF personnel can easily change their unit identification to that of their new reserve unit without needing a major tailoring job or issue of "regimental dress."
Tracking. It's a proposed measure I've been reading about because we're stuck with these things anyways. That's all.
SE MB, southern Sk, all of Ab and Ne BC see those weights regularly.
There is no proposal to mount ATGMs on the TAPV; there were some talks about a LAV retrofit with NLOS ATGMs, but that went or is going no where.
