I understand and appreciate the academic exercise in play here, regarding what we could reasonably do in a European theater. I'll get back on track
My own, very limited opinion - I've been out for a while, and I never did exercise in ways some of you did back when the military was substantially larger (no dinosaur joke!) We just didn't train in numbers the way you guys did... so from my very limited experience...
1. Make the forces we do have more lethal. This could be done quickly and affordably with a decent AT system, and a decent GBAD system.
1 (a) By enabling our forces to maneuver and engage heavy armour at distance (NLOS Spike, or even recent Javelin) our troops could engage enemy armour while remaining mostly unseen in that type of terrain. (If I were an MBT and that terrain of hills and forests were infested with anti-armour teams, it would be a nightmare.)
These could be man-portable systems.
1 (b) By giving them a decent anti-air capability, we could REALLY limit the enemy ground fight. Russia has demonstrated a fantastic ability to gather intelligence, intercept communications, and target artillery, using drones. In the opening months of the Ukraine conflict, Russian units had drones literally orbiting overhead. As soon as anybody used a radio or anything like that, artillery was incoming almost immediately.
By giving our units a decent MANPAD system, we could engage enemy helicopters, drones, and low flying aircraft - drastically changing the dynamic of the fight. There are plenty of videos out there of helicopters and Frogfoots being shot down with primitive, outdated MANPAD systems. Imagine professional troops using a modern system?
The GBAD would, ideally, be 2 systems. One system in a MANPAD form, able to be used by troops hidden in forests and such. The second being a vehicle based system.
The US Army's interim AA vehicle seems like a great project to jump onboard. It uses the LAV chassis, easily integrates into our existing organizations, and brings both missiles & a gun to the AA fight. Manufactured in Canada too, so nice bonus.
2. Bring back 81mm and 60mm mortars, and give them to the infantry. It gives them another tool in the toolbox to provide their own quick, easy, and very effective indirect fire support.
Cheap to acquire and sustain. Easy to train folks on. And brutally effective. Super handy when IR illumination and smoke rounds are needed, or you just want some random explosions around your enemy to do what damage they do.
The C16 is great to have on some vehicles, and is really effective when put on RWT. Both the LAV and TAPV have the C16 mounted, and controlled by whoever is controlling the RWT. Fantastic option for quick, heavy, fairly close-in indirect fire.
But it isn't easily man portable, and it isn't ideal for use in the field. (Man portable to your area, then assembled, fire a few rounds, then disassembled and moved again.)
The C16 is great as an option for a vehicle mounted weapon, but the infantry platoons really could use mortars.
^^ Just the introduction of mortars, a modern AT system and a modern MANPAD system alone would make the platoons/companies SUBSTANTIALLY more deadly. None of the equipment is expensive, and none of it takes a long time to train anybody on.
3. Long range artillery - something along the lines of HIMARS.
Perhaps reorganize the Army so the M777 systems go to one artillery regiment & the school, while the other artillery regiment focuses on long range, precision strike such as HIMARS.
While both artillery systems offer long range fire support (distances notwithstanding) - the approach to their employment would be fundamentally different in terms of how the systems are operated.
HIMARS again would be fairly inexpensive and easy to acquire, and would be ideal as we could plug training and spare parts in with our brother & sisters from the south. 2 vehicles fit inside a C-17, making them fairly easy to deploy. It would give us the ability to take out key targets from extreme distances, such as enemy OP's, command vehicles, AA vehicles, EW vehicles, etc. All of which, when taken out, changes the fight in our favour.
In the short term, focusing on the goal of this thread, that is what I would do. All of the above is inexpensive, easy to acquire, easy to train folks on, easy to deploy, and would drastically change the game in a fight.
In the long term, acquiring SPG's and such would be ideal. But, looking at what is affordable and easy to do for a European operation, these are some things we could do in the near term.
If the enemy couldn't operate drones near us, it would make their artillery targeting and ISR substantially more difficult. If their tanks violently exploded at random, as small AA teams littered throughout the countryside picked them off with a modern AT system, it would drastically reduce their capabilities and complicate their planning. And if a long range precision fire weapon such as HIMARS could engage their radar systems, C2 systems, or high value targets such as vehicle AA systems from a few hundred km away, we could hollow out their forces in the region FAR better than we can now.
For the purpose of the academic exercise, FJAG, pre-positioning some of this equipment in Europe for emergency use if the balloon goes up would make sense. How much excess equipment we purchase, in order to ensure we have enough to pre-position in Europe, would be decided once all the details get worked out.
:2c:
