LAV 6.0

[KevinB]

It's also a pretty uniquely North American approach to assume that you will be the only 'game in town' when the balloon goes up, so you need to be fully self-contained, which can be extraordinarily wasteful and isolationist while ignoring all the benefits that a strong foreign policy/ diplomatic arm can accrue to any intervention force.

Some European forces, for example, plan on having 'host nation' support when they get on the ground wherever they're going, in some way, whether that be through wepons, armour, logisitcs vehicles and other similar support. This can be a huge load off of the military side of the force.

Cardinal rule, never trust a Euro…
ABCA only is my general rule (note I left out NZ…).

 

[GR66]

It's also a pretty uniquely North American approach to assume that you will be the only 'game in town' when the balloon goes up, so you need to be fully self-contained, which can be extraordinarily wasteful and isolationist while ignoring all the benefits that a strong foreign policy/ diplomatic arm can accrue to any intervention force.

Some European forces, for example, plan on having 'host nation' support when they get on the ground wherever they're going, in some way, whether that be through wepons, armour, logisitcs vehicles and other similar support. This can be a huge load off of the military side of the force.

Kind of like Wagner being supplied by the Russian Army?

....oh wait....

 

[FJAG]

It's also a pretty uniquely North American approach to assume that you will be the only 'game in town' when the balloon goes up, so you need to be fully self-contained, which can be extraordinarily wasteful and isolationist while ignoring all the benefits that a strong foreign policy/ diplomatic arm can accrue to any intervention force.

As far as the Americans are concerned it makes sense to have that attitude. Very few countries bring the esoteric enablers to the table that the Americans have. Most of the Western European countries don't even have the standard enablers such as artillery of any consequence. Surprisingly it's taken this Ukrainian war to show that while they might have been dealing with old kit, some of the former Soviet block have continued to maintain a more balanced force.

As far as Canada is concerned; well ... we gave up the fully self contained concept a long time ago in dribs and drabs holding tightly to our infantry core. The Navy has very little jointness to it while the Air Force is hanging in there but just.

I don't have my finger on exactly how badly off our logistics system is, but my general impression is that its pretty close to being on life support. It was severely strained in Afghanistan supporting one battle group and a bloated brigade headquarters and, if I understand correctly, has gone downhill from there. We have three functional brigades but can't sustain even one for long.

Currently re-reading Conrad's book and taking a closer look at the issue. I'd forgotten how negative his views about the Army's leadership's attitude to logistics were.

Some European forces, for example, plan on having 'host nation' support when they get on the ground wherever they're going, in some way, whether that be through wepons, armour, logisitcs vehicles and other similar support. This can be a huge load off of the military side of the force.

Planning on having that host nation support greatly limits the operations that you can participate in because the nature and extent of such support, if it exists, varies greatly. It's wonderful if its available, and as you say will take a load off, but I think any prudent force structure needs to be built on the assumption that support will be nonexistent in at least some circumstances. This is why the US still has some ship-to-shore terminal battalions and a Marine Corps.

🍻

 

[markppcli]

Cardinal rule, never trust a Euro…
ABCA only is my general rule (note I left out NZ…).

I read this as Yoda saying ACAB and had to do a couple double takes

 

[Fabius]

Inside the Div, the SFAB’s I suspect will be used for rear area security, MSR security and convoy protection for the Support Bde.
I think their utility in larger war fighting has been questioned and a role fitted so that can be retained for Peace Support/COIN missions in the future.

I thought I saw somewhere when the SFABs were first created that the plan for them was to serve as the nucleus for forming additional actual BCTs either Armoured or Infantry in the event of a large war needing more formations.

Separately I think the SFABs have a key role in their actual Assist role in linking US allied formations like Canada’s into the US divisions and corps networks. This is one of the key takeaways from JRTC etc. that the SFAB attachments are critical to integration of Cdn units into US BCTs. Interesting to see if there is any recognition of that role for them in the US Army war fighting SoM for them.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Not sure if this was discussed. The Kongsberg RWS that is slated for the ACSV also has an option for a bolt on Anti Tank missile.
Kongsberg RWS for Can
Is this the same RWS that is on the TAPV?

 

[Kirkhill]

Not sure if this was discussed. The Kongsberg RWS that is slated for the ACSV also has an option for a bolt on Anti Tank missile.
Kongsberg RWS for Can
Is this the same RWS that is on the TAPV?

I've kind of gone off those singleton launchers. I can see them as a self-defence measure but are they useful in the offence? Or are you better with a bucket load of ready to fire missiles on one vehicle?

Second Amendment Assault Rifles? Pshaw. Hold my beer.

 

[Kirkhill]

The British Striker above also had the remote control system permitting the gunner to offset from the launcher and missile - and hide in the grass with the distinctive maroon beret.