# Who Does More Infantry Work?  Artillery or Armoured



## ComplexR3TRO

I know.  ;D I've used the search button, Didn't find anything. If someone does. I'll gladly read it  :nod:

I do understand Artillery is Artillery and Armored is Armored but i would really appreciate what between the two have more work that is you can say what Infantry does. Specifically, dealing with personal weapons, tactics, survival training, all those Infantry things.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Romanmaz

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> I know.  ;D I've used the search button, Didn't find anything. If someone does. I'll gladly read it  :nod:
> 
> I do understand Artillery is Artillery and Armored is Armored but i would really appreciate what between the two have more work that is you can say what Infantry does. Specifically, dealing with personal weapons, tactics, survival training, all those Infantry things.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 :facepalm: Go to forces.ca, I highly doubt you used the search function.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> I know.  ;D I've used the search button, Didn't find anything. If someone does. I'll gladly read it  :nod:
> 
> I do understand Artillery is Artillery and Armored is Armored but i would really appreciate what between the two have more work that is you can say what Infantry does. Specifically, dealing with personal weapons, tactics, survival training, all those Infantry things.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



So you understand that Artillery is Artillery and Armoured is Armoured. What does that mean exactly? Do you really know what those branches do?

What is your question? Are you asking which one has the most in common with Infantry? 

Cheers

T2B


----------



## ComplexR3TRO

Romanmaz said:
			
		

> :facepalm: Go to forces.ca, I highly doubt you used the search function.



You shouldn't assume things. I checked Forces.ca, plenty of YouTube videos, many posts on Army.ca in which i can link you to, I fount bits of information but I'd like more. I highly doubt you ever give people the benefit of the doubt. :facepalm:



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> What is your question? Are you asking which one has the most in common with Infantry?



Yes.  ;D Which of the two are most in common with the Infantry.


----------



## OldSolduer

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> You shouldn't assume things. I checked Forces.ca, plenty of YouTube videos, many posts on Army.ca in which i can link you to, I fount bits of information but I'd like more. I highly doubt you ever give people the benefit of the doubt. :facepalm:
> 
> Yes.  ;D Which of the two are most in common with the Infantry.



If I was you I'd bite my tongue right now. You're in for an a$$ chewing.


----------



## jeffb

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> Yes.  ;D Which of the two are most in common with the Infantry.



Let me caveat this by saying that while I have been an infanteer and am currently a gunner, my knowledge of armoured capabilities only comes from working alongside the RCD's. 

In an honest attempt to answer your question, the answer is both and neither. It really depends how you are employed, what you are doing and what the threat is. Armoured Recce has a strong dismounted function that looks very much like what I guess you would think of infantry doing in some cases. Think sitting in a hole and watching stuff while living out of your ruck.  

Artillery has a infantry type task in defence of the gun battery. Gunners are trained on a range of small arms and support weapons although their offensive dismounted skills are limited at best. 

Neither armour or artillery are capable of holding ground in the way that infantry does. Neither is going to be as proficient in the infantry type tasks as the infantry is going to be and both will use their "infantry" skills as an enabler to accomplish their primary tasks. It would be a rare occasion that you would see artillery or armoured troops "closing with and destroying" the enemy in an offensive operation. In fact, I can't think of a single example in history where this has occured although there no doubt is one or two exceptions that prove the rule. 

Bottom line, if you want infantry, go infantry. If you want to be a gunner or a trooper, do so for reasons of what those jobs entail. Also, make sure you understand what the job actually entails. Don't choose infantry because you are really good at Call of Duty or because you've seen Generation Kill (good show) a million times.  

The people you are asking advice from are professionals for the most part and while this may blow your mind, you are not the first person to ask questions such as this. The whole "what does each trade do thing" has been covered here before. Here's a post that links to a whole host of topics on being a gunner for example. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22569.0.html and here's a thread on what crewman do. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/84498.0.html. That maybe took me 1 minute to come up with. Oh, and even better would be look up in this area to the post aptly titled "Comparing the Combat Arms (Inf vs. Engr vs. Armd vs. Arty)". That thread probably answers 95% of your questions. To echo what Jim said, check the attitude.

Best of luck moving forward.


----------



## George Wallace

jeffb said:
			
		

> ........ It would be a rare occasion that you would see artillery or armoured troops "closing with and destroying" the enemy in an offensive operation. In fact, I can't think of a single example in history where this has occured although there no doubt is one or two exceptions that prove the rule.



Guess you have never advanced with/behind Tanks onto an Objective.   >


----------



## helpup

Complex just what is it your looking for.  What of the other two arms have the most similar qualities that you feel the infantry does?

"dealing with personal weapons, tactics, survival training, all those Infantry things."

All three branches deal with what you just mentioned.  Do you like those things specifically and are not planning to go infantry there for you want to know if Arty and Armoured are the closest?  Are those two trades open and Infantry closed?  If you want half decent advice you need to ask half decent questions starting with yourself and how you search for it.  

On the assumption that you like dealing with the glowing words.  I am going to say focus less on the "that stuff is cool so I want to do allot of that" Focus on finding out what each trade does.  I will tell you Arty and Armoured to both do your main points but each brings another skill set to the table.


----------



## Infanteer

jeffb said:
			
		

> It would be a rare occasion that you would see artillery or armoured troops "closing with and destroying" the enemy in an offensive operation. In fact, I can't think of a single example in history where this has occured although there no doubt is one or two exceptions that prove the rule.



You obviously haven't studied much history then....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jeffb said:
			
		

> only comes from working alongside the RCD's.



And while we're picking on you ;D

It is The RCD. No apostrophe 's'. That would be like saying Royal Canadian Dragoons's.


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is The RCD. No apostrophe 's'. That would be like saying Royal Canadian Dragoons's.



Like pantses......you have to be from Manitoba to understand it.


----------



## jeffb

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess you have never advanced with/behind Tanks onto an Objective.   >



George, of course you are absoluetly correct. What I forgot to include was the key phrase "in a dismounted role". That made sense in my head but alas, you are not all mind readers.


----------



## aesop081

jeffb said:
			
		

> you are not all mind readers.



I have no wish to be. Some people on here have serious issues.

 ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have no wish to be. Some people on here have serious issues.
> 
> ;D



I'm in the room here guys!!


----------



## AmmoTech90

Example from my dad.  The ship carrying the RCD' vehicles were slightly slow getting to Italy.  The RCD were put into the line as infantry until more vehicles were rustled up.  Caption from the photo:


> The Gang just before going in for our first crack at Jerry as Infantry near Lanciano.  February, 1944.



So there you go.


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have no wish to be. Some people on here have serious issues.
> 
> ;D



And I'm one of them. Watch out.   :rage:


----------



## helpup

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Example from my dad.  The ship carrying the RCD' vehicles were slightly slow getting to Italy.  The RCD were put into the line as infantry until more vehicles were rustled up.  Caption from the photo:
> So there you go.



Nice touch with the past.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> Yes.  ;D Which of the two are most in common with the Infantry.



It would be great if the Canadian Forces had a "sorting hat" that would tell you what branch you should join. 

Until then, do you play hockey?


----------



## Journeyman

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Until then, do you play hockey?


Even the VanDoos have recruiting caps....


----------



## George Wallace

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Example from my dad.  The ship carrying the RCD' vehicles were slightly slow getting to Italy.  The RCD were put into the line as infantry until more vehicles were rustled up.  Caption from the photo:
> So there you go.



As they did in WW I.  For the majority of WW I, the RCD fought in the trenches as infantry, only near the end of the war did they fight as part of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade.

In Armour, if your vehicle gets shot out from under you, and you survive, you will continue to fight as a "ground pounder".  In Armour Recce, you may be so far behind enemy lines that the safest way to patrol without detection is on foot.  

Trying to say that Infantry have a monopoly on being "two cylinder jobs/ground pounders" is as good as saying Armour has a monopoly on riding in vehicles.  Infantry ride around in LAV III as well.  

Every Combat Arms soldier will at one likely be in close combat with an enemy.  Warfare blurs all distinctions.


----------



## Old Sweat

Well said, George. I was going to mention the Canadian Cavalry Brigade in the trenches.

More recently, I am aware of at least one FOO party doing a building clearing prior to establishing an OP, and another FOO party joined with the supported company command group to carry out a "section" attack. Both events took place in the current war. 

No body can say for sure they will never have to use their personnel weapon.


----------



## OldSolduer

Funny thing, my grandad (RIP  - he died in 1966) was a WO2 in WWI with the 5th Bn, commonly known as the Western Cavalry. He fought as Infantry.

I don't know if he could even ride a horse.....Regardless, I was nine when he died and I remember him as my grandad who always had a cat in the house, smoked a pipe and adored his grandkids. He's passed on that trait to me. Damn dust..... :'(


----------



## Michael OLeary

While there are, as mentioned, exceptions, especially during wartime, I believe that the OP is trying to determine which trade (with Infantry closed or nearly so) will give him the best chance of doing "infantry type stuff" *in today's Canadian Army*.  While both artillery and armour will give him the chance to drive vehicles, clean weapons and dig holes, neither are going to guarantee him a chance to go on patrols, clear trenches or assault enemy positions with rifle and bayonet (if he's not carrying an M203 or C9) in hand. The skillset overlap is not in those activities which probably make the infantry appealing to him as a primary trade choice, nor will those desires likely be fulfiulled in any of the other combat arms. Rather than focussing on the exceptiosn to the rule - how about identifying to what degree his normal round of duties as a soldier in either armour or artillery will compare to those of his peers in the infantry.


----------



## medicineman

I guess I could add an old dude I knew who was a Major with the 8CH in Italy - they spent most of their time on horses or boots, especially the Recce Sqn.  My  :2c:.

MM


----------



## Old Sweat

In line with M O'L's suggestion, which I had been framing in my mind, here goes.

Employment in the artillery can vary greatly, but don't expect to do a lot of classic close with and destroy infantry work, unless you are in a FOO or BC Party, and these people are in the minority.

On the gun position, the boundaries of your horizon will probably only be the crest or wood line a few hundred metres to your front. Your work, especially as a member of a gun detachment, will be repetitive, tiring and labour intensive. Be prepared to handle several tons of ammunition and dig big holes. You will also work long days, including sentry shifts and be expected to do it all error free. The enemt seen by many troops who serve on the gun position, and its echelon, are either bodies or prisoners. All this can, however, change quickly and you could come under ground, air or indirect fire attack.

As noted, the FOO - for Forward Observation Officer - Party and the BC - or Battery Commander - Party live and travel with the supported arm, including during helicopter or arborne assaults, assault crossings of obstacles, dismounted operations and the rest. 

There are other, less  well known areas such as being a member of a radar or sound ranging detachment in a forward friendly position to detect and locate enemy indirect fire weapons. There also may be small unmanned aerial vehicle detachments in situ. All these gunners must be prepared to be integrated into the company commander's plan for the defence of his position and will be expected to fight as infantry as required. It, of course, is a 24/7 operation and the consequences of failing to find an enemy mortar, for example, could cost Canadian soldiers their lives.

The same could be said for certain air defence weapons systems which are located in forward areas, while others could be sited to defend vital assets to the rear of the immediate battle area. Again, this work is tiring and demanding with long hours the norm.

Last, and this is important to lock in at the start, the artillery is a supporting arm and the gunner's job is to always give that extra bit of effort to aid your comrades being shot at. It may mean, as a result, that you are often out of sight, out of mind, but your job is vital and the expected standard is to excel. This also may mean that you don't get to do the really neat stuff on exercises, but that is not an excuse for slackening off. 

In summary, most of the employment is not really that close to classic infantry stuff, but there are exceptions. If you become a gunner you may well experience long periods of excrutiating boredom and hard labour that most people believe went out with the end of the galley slave era. However, you can also console yourself by remembering there are two types of people: gunners; and targets.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> Yes.  ;D Which of the two are most in common with the Infantry.



Armoured reconnaissance has some similarity to Infantry. You won't generally be assaulting trenches, but dismounted patrolling and observation posts are certainly part of your field duties. You'll be expected to be able to handle a variety of small arms and be proficient at fieldcraft. You are expected to be in contact with the enemy (although not necessarily shooting at him depending on the situation/theatre).


----------



## GnyHwy

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> Specifically, dealing with personal weapons, tactics, survival training, all those Infantry things.



You will do all of those things in either the Arty our Armd.  Not to the level or extent of the Infantry but, very close if you are Armd recce or in an Arty FOO party.  You will get survival training as you would in any cbt arms unit.

Speaking from being in the Arty in regards to weapons.  The Arty has mostly the same weapons as the Infantry plus a few bigger ones also.  As well, when you are at the Jnr NCO level it is in your best interest to specialize in certain weapons.  Every Arty unit will have a handful of guys at the Jnr level that are very good with MGs, antitank wpns and also navigation (likely having the recce patrolman course).  Further, airborne and air mobile Arty is coming back as well.

In closing,  I have known lots of guys who have practiced much more Infantry stuff than Arty stuff all the while being in the Arty.  Myself included, although several years ago.

P.S.


			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> However, you can also console yourself by remembering there are two types of people: gunners; and targets.



Nice 1 OS.


----------



## McG

ComplexR3TRO said:
			
		

> Which of the two are most in common with the Infantry.


Have you thought about any other occupations?  You will find Sigs & Medics out on foot with the infantry quite often, and combat engineers are the only group with a doctrinally stated secondary role to act as infantry.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I'm only a lonely 12RBC guy but I am sure it's "RCD" and not RCDs...

Dragoonss.. ? The apostrophe doesn't belong there (as seen on page 1) and neither does the s.

As for the original question, I can confirm that on my last exercise we foot patrolled (albeit in a much smaller capacity), we dug and occupied an OP trench, and we practiced mounted tactics.  In Afghanistan we did dismounted foot patrols (albeit smaller sized ones), we occupied built up OPs and did overwatch, and we practiced mounted tactics.

To sum things up on the armoured recce side of the house, there are some infantry similar things.  I will not even pretend to know what field artillery does.

Bzz


----------



## George Wallace

I have a lispppppppp.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have a lispppppppp.



Its "Lithp" ;D


----------

