# Armoured Light Recce Vehicle for PRes Armd? (Merged splits from LAV III MGS and from TAPV)



## Colin Parkinson

I would love to see some of the reserve armoured units get a tracked light recce vehicle, but even if there was the interest and the money there is not much really being offered. The light tanks seems to have been taken over by the IFV.  

There was a light tracked recce vehicle offered with the 25mm chaingun, looked a lot like a modern M3 Stuart.


----------



## dapaterson

Lots of things I'd like to see in the Reserves.  But without maintenance resources it won't happen.

Best solution would be a erturn to the split Armd Corps - those units within 100km or so of a Reg F base withe the kit would be trained on the same kit as the Reg F, maintained at the same base - and can conduct sub-sub unit trg with their Reg F counterparts, ready for augmentation tasks.  The remaining units can train on other kit, most likely MOTS vehicles, for other roles.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Lots of things I'd like to see in the Reserves.  But without maintenance resources it won't happen.
> 
> Best solution would be a erturn to the split Armd Corps - those units within 100km or so of a Reg F base withe the kit would be trained on the same kit as the Reg F, maintained at the same base - and can conduct sub-sub unit trg with their Reg F counterparts, ready for augmentation tasks.  The remaining units can train on other kit, most likely MOTS vehicles, for other roles.



That would make some sense, and as such, not likely to happen.  Then again, it might bring about the reactivation of the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards in Ottawa.........but that is a whole different topic altogether.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I remember when I first joined and even up to a few years back, the regiment (12RBC) would "hold" the vehicles for the reserve units (RCH, 12RBC, SHER H) and would maintain/use them during the week and prep them for weekend exercises.

I thought that made sense as the reserve units don't have the man power to maintain them, as we all know.

As for tracks vs. wheeled?  That debate has been and will go on for years!!  I can't believe we have a recce vehicle that is too big, high and can't swim.  

I started life as a tanker and joined just as the Lynx disappeared.  I would have played more with that platform, added a 20mm and mast to the back of it.  It swam, was small and quick and it shared components with the M113 series.

My two cents.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then again, it might bring about the reactivation of the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards in Ottawa



Isn't reactivating a certain northern Alberta regiment far more important than that?


----------



## Loachman

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I started life as a tanker and joined just as the Lynx disappeared.  I would have played more with that platform, added a 20mm and mast to the back of it.  It swam, was small and quick and it shared components with the M113 series.



The Dutch put 20mm on theirs, on a pedestal mount similar to Marder, and they tended to fall over during fast turns.

They may have still been able to swim, but probably gun-down/tracks up.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That would make some sense, and as such, not likely to happen.  Then again, it might bring about the reactivation of the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards in Ottawa.........but that is a whole different topic altogether.



Nope - the R de Hull can get to Petawawa just fine.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> The Dutch put 20mm on theirs, on a pedestal mount similar to Marder, and they tended to fall over during fast turns.
> 
> They may have still been able to swim, but probably gun-down/tracks up.



The mount on the Lynx was a 20mm mount.  We were too cheap to buy the 20's, and mounted .50 Cal instead.


----------



## George Wallace

Now you are talking of a Unit crossing Area boundaries.  R du H belong to SQFT, not LFCA.  That, no doubt, would raise the ire of LFCA units.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> Isn't reactivating a certain northern Alberta regiment far more important than that?



javascript:void(0);

The SALH would fill the bill, being in Edmonton already.  They could probably take up some corner of the LdSH (RC) lines and parade there, rather than in their current location.


----------



## dapaterson

See, when I am king, there will be a single Res Bde spanning from Mtl to Brockville.  So there will be no problem.

Alternatively, in the near term, put all NCR Res units under 33 CBG - so the R de Hull is in "Ontario" - just like Thunder Bay isn't in Ontario...


----------



## George Wallace

See.  You're making sense again.  Now we know what that means.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

RdeHull, one of "my" units is supported by Uplands for vehicle repairs etc.. yet belongs to SQFT and reports to me in Montreal.

They do a lot of training in Connaught so I am thinking Meaford would not be a tough go.  Show up on a Friday, sign for RCD "cars" and go break them all!  Very simple stuff.


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> javascript:void(0);
> 
> The SALH would fill the bill, being in Edmonton already.  They could probably take up some corner of the LdSH (RC) lines and parade there, rather than in their current location.



- The 'SA' in SALH is 'South Alberta'.  Consolidating them in The 'Hat and re-constituting 19 AD would make sense.

- We asked about 20mm cannon for Lynx in the mid-eighties, since that is what the mount was built for, and in fact was used for on the varietal US M114 C&R.  Interestingly, the Canadian Bobcat APC project floundered over the delays caused by the development of Depleted Uranium ammunition for it's intended 20mm.  The Cdn DU research was passed on to the Americans, to good effect...

- Anyway, we asked for some 20mm about the early to mid 1980s, hoping, I guess, that a few Pontiac M39A2 might fall off an Air Weapons Tech truck behind a Voodoo or a CF-5...  Eventually, we were told the 20mm's in storage had 'cracked receivers'.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The SALH would fill the bill, being in Edmonton already.  They could probably take up some corner of the LdSH (RC) lines and parade there, rather than in their current location.



Hey - my carefully-thought-out text disappeared when I hit "send", and I cannot remember what I said.

Editted to say "





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The SALH would fill the bill, being in Edmonton already.  They could probably take up some corner of the LdSH (RC) lines and parade there, rather than in their current location.



Hey - my carefully-thought-out text disappeared when I hit "send", and I cannot remember what I said.

Editted to say "





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The SALH would fill the bill, being in Edmonton already.  They could probably take up some corner of the LdSH (RC) lines and parade there, rather than in their current location.



Hey - my carefully-thought-out text disappeared when I hit "send", and I cannot remember what I said.

Editted to say "Hey - my carefully-thought-out text disappeared when I hit "send", and I cannot remember what I said".


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> javascript:void(0);
> 
> The SALH would fill the bill, being in Edmonton already.  They could probably take up some corner of the LdSH (RC) lines and parade there, rather than in their current location.



- Some poor Sally living in Mill Woods would have a hundred km commute every Tuesday night if they did that.

- Besides, the Strathcona ORBAT gets any bigger, they will need to be asking the SALH for parade space...


----------



## tabernac

TCBF said:
			
		

> Besides, the Strathcona ORBAT gets any bigger, they will need to be asking the SALH for parade space...



How does their ORBAT compare to 12RBC and RCD? I understood the Strats to be no bigger than the other 2 regiments, not including E Coy (PPCLI), but even that shouldn't throw the balance out of whack.


----------



## dapaterson

LdSH, as the unit primarily tasked with force generation of tank crews, will have a different ORBAT and pers entitlement compared to the other Reg F Armd units.  Similarly, 1 CER as the slole holders of AEVs will be different from the other Reg F CERs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Take the Milcot pickup, put the optional tracks on it in place of the wheels, mount a hatch on the roof and there is your "Militia tank"  ;D


http://www.mattracks.com/index.htm


----------



## Fishbone Jones

There's no sense looking at vehicle, or anything else, until the Corp decides to define a role and supply a suitable doctrine. Right now, Reserve Armour has neither.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

After all these years you are still an optimist! A suitable doctrine and role has been more like a bucket of gold at the end of the rainbow, over the last decade. While I totally agree with you in one sense, I wonder if waiting for the definitions without a firm timeline for them is a waste of time. We have a lot of people with recent combat experience and a good idea of the range of current and potential threats we will face over the next 20 years. You can also plan on never having enough money and politicians changing the goalposts at a whim. 

I know the lack of equipment held by the Militia Armoured units influenced my choice of trades and I know quite a few others that used the same consideration. Lack of equipment to train on effects retention.


----------



## TCBF

- FALLEX 88: a whole bunch of 'Flyovers' exercise the REFORGER bridge and flush out 4 CMBG.  Recce Sqn, 8CH(PL) eventually gets a dozen... Reserve Artillerymen surplus to  W Bty.  No Crewmen, though, they were busy walloping pots someplace.  Post Ex, I found a few Res Crewmen outside our HQ building.  "How do we go with Recce Sqn next time !??!!?? "  they asked.  "Join the Artillery Reserves!" I said.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In 86 they sent me to 1 Service Bat. Actually I really enjoyed it, the NCO's were really good and it certainly changed my perception of the Svc Bat, at that time I would say that 70% plus of the staff were ex-combat arms. So thee is some good that comes from cross pollination.


----------



## tango22a

Well I'll set myself up for a royal ream job and suggest a variant of  the XM800T with rubber band tracks.front engine  and a 4-5 man crew with rear exit as in Merkava.
 Mind you, its not state of the art but should be do-able.

tango22a


----------



## George Wallace

First problem I see is the Rubber Band Tracks.  They have not received high praise on any of the testing we have done to date.....except for ideal conditions.  They are quiet, but really can't take the beating that 'normal' track takes.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First problem I see is the Rubber Band Tracks.  They have not received high praise on any of the testing we have done to date.....except for ideal conditions.  They are quiet, but really can't take the beating that 'normal' track takes.


Rubber tracks have moved beyond testing.  They are the norm for deployed TLAV right now, and the other week I saw ADATS riding about with them.


----------



## dapaterson

We still need to start with a role:  role first, equipment to meet it second (and in this case, where different units could get different roles, equipment may vary).

As well, who will maintain these vehicles?  Crewmen like to drive their vehicles hard; someone needs to be there to bring them back to running order afterwards.  Where will soliders train?  The number of training areas large enough are few.


----------



## Franko

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Show up on a Friday, sign for RCD "cars" and go break them all!  Very simple stuff.



We have no vehicles in Meaford. Also, the budget for said broken vehicles would come out of the reserve unit's coffers now wouldn't they? Know the price on an SLS cable? There goes the budget.      



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Rubber tracks have moved beyond testing.  They are the norm for deployed TLAV right now, and the other week I saw ADATS riding about with them.



The rubber tracks are fine for sunshine and ideal conditions. They either break in half or fall off in winter/ icing conditions. Seen it too many times.

Regards


----------



## Kat Stevens

I can see the meeting on doctrine vs equipment going something like this:

Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!
[air guitar)


----------



## dapaterson

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I can see the meeting on doctrine vs equipment going something like this:
> 
> Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
> Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
> Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
> Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
> Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
> Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
> Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!
> [air guitar)



So you're suggesting we re-role all the Res Armd units to Heavy Metal bands?

Therefore, we'll also have to increase the size of the medical units to handle the after effects of increased interaction with groupies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pool vehicles and 'borrowing' from out Reg counterparts was and will be a total fiasco that will deprive everyone of time, money and training. It didn't work before and it still won't. Forget that horse in the wadi and move on.

Forget tracks and fighting the Russians. Noch ein toter gaul.

Outlying units, away from large training areas and lacking huge maint orgs could be given dedicated Convoy Escort\ RAS\ QRF roles. These could be done on civie roads with G Wagons to train with. Given a defined role as this, with the proper support, these outlying units could well send formed sub units (2x3car patrols) for deployment, on a regular basis. Switching up, and training all unit pers on something like an RG-31 could easily be done at the Unit level during a full summer concentration. It's not far off what we do now, but cement us into it and make it our role and doctrine. The only thing stopping us from becoming the SMEs on something like this, is the bun fight that would result because the Corp would lose their pool of red headed step children for GDs and CTs.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Outlying units, away from large training areas and lacking huge maint orgs could be given dedicated Convoy Escort\ RAS\ QRF roles. These could be done on civie roads with G Wagons to train with. Given a defined role as this, with the proper support, these outlying units could well send formed sub units (2x3car patrols) for deployment, on a regular basis. Switching up, and training all unit pers on something like an RG-31 could easily be done at the Unit level during a full summer concentration. It's not far off what we do now, but cement us into it and make it our role and doctrine. The only thing stopping us from becoming the SMEs on something like this, is the bun fight that would result because the Corp would lose their pool of red headed step children for GDs and CTs.


That, and there are not enough surplus RG-31 for giving away to reserve summer concentrations (let alone the pre-concentration driver & gunner training).

The CLS has stated that he will not go after getting million dollar vehicles for the reserves.  Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that any role dependent on a fighting vehicle platform is exclusive of the reserves.


----------



## dapaterson

It's a pity LFRR never delivered real plans or resource requirements, as there had been millions in vote 5 earmarked for that.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First problem I see is the Rubber Band Tracks.  They have not received high praise on any of the testing we have done to date.....except for ideal conditions.  They are quiet, but really can't take the beating that 'normal' track takes.





			
				Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> The rubber tracks are fine for sunshine and ideal conditions. They either break in half or fall off in winter/ icing conditions. Seen it too many times.
> Regards



Also heard they pop off when you do a pivot turn in the sandbox too.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> That, and there are not enough surplus RG-31 for giving away to reserve summer concentrations (let alone the pre-concentration driver & gunner training).
> 
> The CLS has stated that he will not go after getting million dollar vehicles for the reserves.  Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that any role dependent on a fighting vehicle platform is exclusive of the reserves.



OK. Let's get out of the box. How long does it take armoured guys to figure out a new truck FFS. We're not asking for them in our TO&E. Just long enough to get qualified. The deploying pers can train on them before they leave. Just like everyone else does. Don't give it to us for concentration. We'll use our Gwagons for that. Or perhaps that's been what we've been talking about all along. Fuck you Reserves. We only need you as grunts and gate guards. Good thing we couldn't say anything when the Regs stole our Bisons eh? Let's get out of the weeds and leave the niggly little details to staff wienies. I'm looking for a role and doctrine here. If you're going to 'na, na can't have it' without offering any kind of alternative, I've got enough people already blowing smoke up my asshole.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> OK. Let's get out of the box. How long does it take armoured guys to figure out a new truck FFS. We're not asking for them in our TO&E. Just long enough to get qualified. The deploying pers can train on them before they leave.


We already complain about the length of time in "the road to war."  Having units who only learn the tools of their trade after getting onto this road will only make this worse (stretching out the time for work-up).

We may have pressed the whole CF into a situation where it is currently forced to learn many tools on the way out the door, but that is a dysfunctional process.  Really good drivers have learned their vehicles with several exercises of experience under belt.  Mechanical quirks that need special attention, tricks to extend performance, and the ways of living most effectively in the vehicle are not fully learned in this last second approach that we are currently stuck with.

Doing this permanently & intentionally by way of force design would be doing the reserves a disservice.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm looking for a role and doctrine here. If you're going to 'na, na can't have it' without offering any kind of alternative...


Perhaps you might be interested in a role where the equipment can be provided such that individual & collective training enable personnel to be employed within trade?  There are many more than just the 'grunts' that are being effectively employed in their own occupations.  In fact, the other two combat arms (Gunners & Engineers) are both being heavily employed within their own occupations  ... a fact enabled by these two arms being exposed to significant common equipment domestically between the reserves & regular force.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> OK. Let's get out of the box.


Maybe getting outside the box requires looking for roles that don't simply try to fit what you've always been doing into the current fight.  Maybe it requires looking for capability deficiencies and identifying ways that reservists can fill that gap, or maybe it involves identifying niche capabilities that the regular force is struggling to force generate and identifying a more manpower effective way of sustainably filling the niche.

The Regular Force has had difficulties force generating mini-UAV Ops.  Maybe that is something a reserve unit or two or three could do.  We are bringing in a new persistent surveillance capability (towers & aerostats) that (maybe) could provide a role for another unit or two.


----------



## George Wallace

I think you have most closely answered the problem with this statement:



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> That, and there are not enough surplus RG-31 for giving away to reserve summer concentrations (let alone the pre-concentration driver & gunner training).
> 
> The CLS has stated that he will not go after getting million dollar vehicles for the reserves.  Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that any role dependent on a fighting vehicle platform is exclusive of the reserves.



The solution of training on UAVs and other sophisticated Surv Suites is nice, but these are still multimillion dollar platforms.  Will the CLS permit "Reservists" to utilize them?


----------



## McG

Other capabilities based on million dollar equipments are being given to the reserves.  The critical thing is that these are small niche capabilities and the equipment fleets are relatively small.

There are plans to migrate ROWPU fully to the reserves.  The equipment is expensive, but there is not a lot of it.

As for mini-UAV, I would be surprised if Skylark is running anywhere near even a single million.


----------



## tango22a

Well I only got crisped a little around the edges. Reserves need both a vehicle and above all a ROLE ! Years ago, when I was young and more stupid, we used to go to Petawoowoo and use VIIICH Lynx and M113s during Milcons. Didn't have any trouble converting to a vehicle we only saw 2 or 3 times a year.

Maybe we should bring back a new LYNX variant....all the needed expertise in design is there. Only thing is that they would have to come with something to keep all the old RegF Recce soldiers from nabbing them back for themselves.

tango22a


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't care much what it is. They have to define it, give us ownership and let us get on with it. We're tired of holding the door open while others waltz through.

As far as the Arty and Engineers, they hold a vital interest in what goes on within their family, whether Reg or Reserve. Armoured, not so much.


----------



## tango22a

Recceguy:

RCAC  has NO time to waste on problems facing PRes Regiments. They seem to feel that if WE (PRes) have no viable Role then we can be ignored and left to muddle along as we have for countless years,

tango22a

It's possible that they feel that if PRes Armour had a defined Role that then they would be forced to support us???


----------



## McG

tango22a said:
			
		

> They [the Armd branch] seem to feel that if WE (PRes) have no viable Role then we can be ignored and left to muddle along as we have for countless years ...
> 
> It's possible that they feel that if PRes Armour had a defined Role that then they would be forced to support us???


If there is no viable role for reserve armour, then maybe it is time for the units to seek roles outside that branch?  The branch should not be inventing unnecessary roles to justify keeping units in its beret colour.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> If there is no viable role for reserve armour, then maybe it is time for the units to seek roles outside that branch?  The branch should not be inventing unnecessary roles to justify keeping units in its beret colour.



Bring it on.


----------



## tango22a

MCG:

How can there be a VIABLE Role for PRes Armour if the RCAC refuses to define a Role for it?


tango22a


----------



## Franko

tango22a said:
			
		

> MCG:
> 
> How can there be a VIABLE Role for PRes Armour if the RCAC refuses to define a Role for it?
> 
> 
> tango22a



What's stopping the various Regiments from getting together and drafting up a paper and presenting it at the next Corps meeting?

Just a thought.


----------



## George Wallace

tango22a said:
			
		

> MCG:
> 
> How can there be a VIABLE Role for PRes Armour if the RCAC refuses to define a Role for it?
> 
> 
> tango22a



It is a common theme.  Has been for the past twenty odd years.  Why did the Infantry have to standardize C-6 Drills........Then do the same with the 25 mm Drills?  The Branch has been dropping the ball for a couple of decades.


----------



## George Wallace

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> What's stopping the various Regiments from getting together and drafting up a paper and presenting it at the next Corps meeting?
> 
> Just a thought.



You are a joker aren't you?    >

You may want to see what goes on at a Corps meeting, or read the minutes.  A lot of indicision going on there, and political posturing, to ensure nothing constructive/creative gets done.


I suppose we should play a game of "Shock the Monkey".   >


----------



## Franko

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You may want to see what goes on at a Corps meeting, or read the minutes.  A lot of indicision going on there, and political posturing, to ensure nothing constructive/creative gets done.



You forget, I was there in the late 80s/ early 90's....I've seen some pretty neat stuff in the room.

Regards


----------



## tango22a

MCG:

Why do I get the impression that you have absolutely NO use for PRes Armoured Regiments? Sorry, but  that's the impression that I read into your posts.


Der Panzer Kommandant:

Do you think that the RCAC really cares what we PRes Plugs think or how we feel since as someone stated before "we are the red-headed step-children of the Corps" ? Many good ideas may have been postulated at RCAC Association meeting but they NEVER seemed to trickle-down to the PRes Regiments.Also all that "neat stuff" never left the room!!



tango22a


----------



## Bzzliteyr

NBC recce.


----------



## McG

tango22a said:
			
		

> MCG:
> 
> Why do I get the impression that you have absolutely NO use for PRes Armoured Regiments?


I have no use for any unit which does not capably fill a doctrinally supported role.  This is nothing specific against Armoured, PRes or the combination of the two.

I'd like to note that a unit with a doctrinally supported role that it is not capable of meeting is just as useless as a unit with absolutely no doctrinally supported role.  To wish for a role dependent on equipment that will never be available is to be living in a fantasy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> NBC recce.



...and become coffee fetchers for the Trenton boys : If the real thing happened we'd only be providing a cordone for 'those guys'.

I did the old civil defence NBCW role in the sixties. Back then, it's what it would be now. A way to keep us busy without any monetary outlay while patting us on the head, and keeping us out of trouble.


----------



## tango22a

Buzz:

BTDT... took courses from Civil Defence in late 60s, since this was part of our tasking at the time.

tango22a


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> I have no use for any unit which does not capably fill a doctrinally supported role.  This is nothing specific against Armoured, PRes or the combination of the two.
> 
> I'd like to note that a unit with a doctrinally supported role that it is not capable of meeting is just as useless as a unit with absolutely no doctrinally supported role.  To wish for a role dependent on equipment that will never be available is to be living in a fantasy.



What I've been saying. Give us a role and doctrine, we'll figure out the TO&E after those first two things are firmed up and are more than someone's wish from a power point presentation.


----------



## tango22a

MCG:

I "think" that you would agree that it is harder for a "unit" to perform a non-doctrinally supported tasking as opposed to a "unit" that is/or is not performing a doctrinally supported tasking. It tends to make one feel as if one is all dressed up with no place to go.

tango22a


----------



## Fishbone Jones

tango22a said:
			
		

> MCG:
> 
> I "think" that you would agree that it is harder for a "unit" to perform a non-doctrinally supported tasking as opposed to a "unit" that is/or is not performing a doctrinally supported tasking. It tends to make one feel as if one is all dressed up with no place to go.
> 
> tango22a


When you're done with the flyshit\ pepper discussion, perhaps we could get back on track.

The heck with it all. I've said what I wanted to say, I don't see any big changes in our future.


----------



## tango22a

Recceguy:

Sorry about that, I'm outta here!

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## McG

tango22a said:
			
		

> I "think" that you would agree that it is harder for a "unit" to perform a non-doctrinally supported tasking as opposed to a "unit" that is/or is not performing a doctrinally supported tasking. It tends to make one feel as if one is all dressed up with no place to go.


???
Reserve unit without a doctrinal role = useless
Reserve unit that is institutionally unable to achieve its doctrinal role = useless

If armoured reserve units cannot avoid both those pitfalls while remaining armoured, then it is time to look at re-role.  The Army should be directing this, and units with an interest in their own future should be working to guide their way to a role they want (and which fits the Army's needs).  Don't wait for the Branch to do it.  The Armoured branch does not care to find non-Armoured roles for its reserve units.


----------



## George Wallace

Talk about a "Dysfunctional Family".


----------



## George Wallace

I know I told myself to walk away, but this seems like a good input to the discusion from another thread:



			
				Grognard73 said:
			
		

> So, let me rejuvenate this topic given whats going on today.  For the last 5 years the Reserves have provided substantial augmentation to the the mission in Afghanistan.  They have become an active resource for domestic operations from running MCDVs to Land operations.  They are an important part of the CF's operational capability.  On top of this there are approx 10,000 "full time" Class Bs working in the CF keeping it functioning day to day.  In fact many of the departments and branches could not function without them.  This dynamic accounts for almost one in three Reservists are working full time. This is an operational Reserve.  What is missing is the policy and systemic work to enhance this capability to allow for effective management of the resource.
> 
> At the same time, the CF has left the National Mobilization concept clearly behind.  The Strategic role of the Reserves and it is a very important one is the critical link to our communities across the country.  One could also argue that the basic structures of the Army Reserve and Navres provide a strategic expansion structure if required.
> 
> The pressures on the Reserves now have fundamentally changed its nature.  Sure reservists still parade on weekends and nights at their locations and sure there is a part time reality to the Given all of this and the fundamental change to the nature and use of the reservesservice but this reality has been impacted by large numbers of "Combat veterans" who are demanding more than the usual Tuesday night parade.
> 
> As a direct result of these new roles, training and military education has moved to new levels of harmonization.  The Air Reserve and the NavRes now complete the same training as their regular components while the Army has made substantial advances to the same objectives.
> 
> Given all of this and the fundamental change to our understanding what should be the future?  What does the Reserve gain or lose by moving to a purely strategic resource or embracing a more operational role?
> 
> grognard73



The thought  then developed in my mind that if the Corps really wanted to bring Reserve Armour up to speed on the current equipment and tactics, etc., then perhaps the Corps should budget now, and plan now to spend time in the Summer months to run Crses for Reservists.  Run Turret Operator (25 mm and 120 mm) for Reservists.  Run Surv OP courses.  Run D&M Crses.  Get rid of the Training Delta.  Provide for a good pool of trained pers to draw from to supplement Operations.

What does it take?  Drive and Determination and above all, Strong Leadership at the top in the Corps.


----------



## TCBF

- Surv Op is about the cheapest course, folowed by Coyote Driver.  Doable.  If the Reg F foots the bill for the man-days, R&Q, etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George what are the possibilities of putting turret simulators into the armouries? At least 1-2 per brigade so some regional training and familiarization could take place. I am a big fan of Steel Beasts and the Professional version seems a fairly cheap way to give some gunnery training and some training for Officers commanding AFV’s units?


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> George what are the possibilities of putting turret simulators into the armouries? At least 1-2 per brigade so some regional training and familiarization could take place.


All existing trainers require the slaving of an actual vehicle.  Therefore, the chance of getting these is none.  Buying synthetic environment crew trainers which do not require the actual vehicles would be an option, but this would require getting the momentum for a capital project to make it happen.  Even more than money, limited manpower resources in DLR & DGLEPM would prevent this from happening in the near future (unless you can convice CLS that these trainers are more important that TAPV, CCV, FME, LWTH, LRPR, etc, etc).


----------



## George Wallace

Makes the CLS sound like a "dinosaur" doesn't it.  No money for Training Simulators on the big ticket items, but lots for small ticket items.  We have small arms simulators, why not simulators to train on the 'big' guns?  The price tag for Tank and LAV turrets and Trg is quite high and it has been proven that very valuable training can be done cheaper on simulators.  Small arms ammo is far cheaper than 25, 105 and 120 ammo.  Let's cut those costs with more simulation.  

On the downside, Colin, is the training and retention of operators to keep the simulators functioning.  These similators can be expensive (not as expensive as a real LAV or Tank) and complex pieces of equipment.  Perhaps a couple of "National" centers set up in Edmonton/Wainwright, Petawawa and the CTC, along the lines of what is set up in Ft Knox would be more practical.

Just to cover the Turret Stand question a little:  A Turret usually means that there is a Hull sitting somewhere, hopefully being used for D&M rather than sitting useless in the back 40.


----------



## dapaterson

There are projects to acquire simulators - the goal is to have them integrated, so exercises can be conducted between non-colocated units.  Problem, as always, is money - not so much availability of it (though that is a concern) but the estimated value of the project exceeds MND authorities - therefore approvals are much more involved, and are challenging other, similar big-ticket items or other items requiring external approvals for priority.


----------



## George Wallace

To add to that, with the speed of advancements in technology, and the amounts of technology out there, there is the fairly complicated matter of finding the right simulators and technology for this.  Will it be upgradable, or will it just become obsolete the minute it comes online?


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> If the Reg F foots the bill for the man-days, R&Q, etc.


No.  We’d be going down the wrong path in telling the RCDs that they have to cover all the costs (from pay to rations) in order to run reserve individual training courses that the Army did not find important enough to provide a budget for.  It is an outstanding recipe for failure.

George has it right.  If the decision makers in Ottawa feel that such an approach is appropriate, then the resources should be given to the reserves in the Army & Areas’ business plans.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The thought then developed in my mind that if the Corps really wanted to bring Reserve Armour up to speed on the current equipment and tactics, etc., then perhaps the Corps should budget now, and plan now …


But, it is probably already too late even for the 10/11 FY.  If the Armd Corps is going to decide it will take a new direction for the training of its reserve units, it needs to make that decision and sell it to the Army early enough that the planning direction can be included when the call letters start cascading downward in the spring.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Makes the CLS sound like a "dinosaur" doesn't it.  No money for Training Simulators on the big ticket items, but lots for small ticket items.  We have small arms simulators, why not simulators to train on the 'big' guns?


Only if you don't look at this in any sort of context of time lines.  The SAT & WES did not have to compete with TAPV, CCV, LRPR, etc for project manpower resources or a time slot at PMB, TB, etc.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> … spend time in the Summer months to run Crses for Reservists.  Run Turret Operator (25 mm and 120 mm) for Reservists.  Run Surv OP courses.  Run D&M Crses.  Get rid of the Training Delta.  Provide for a good pool of trained pers to draw from to supplement Operations.


Unfortunately, there are not enough vehicles for the regular force to provide this level or training for itself.  The plan for all the vehicle procurements that we have planned will only see this reality continue or get worse.  I don’t doubt there is significant value to having reserves qualified on the same platforms for individual augmentation, but not if that compromises the regular force capability.

As discussed above, there may be a middle ground with synthetic environment training systems.  However, even here there must be dispassionate assessments as to what reserve units could be effectively sustained through this means and contribute to operations.  If some usage of the real equipment is required (and it probably should be) then there may be a ceiling on the number of Armed Res that actually can be effectively sustained even with the synthetic environment trainers.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> What does it take?  Drive and Determination and above all, Strong Leadership at the top in the Corps.


Maybe.  I was recently accused of blaming “the multitude” (the poor individuals of the Armd reserve units at the bottom) for what is really “lack of leadership from above” (those bad men in the RCAC hierarchy).   

In reality, I feel there are a lot who could be blamed though very few (if any) who could be blamed individualy.  However, there has been a deficiency of initiative & leadership at many (to all) levels from the units up to the top of the Army.

At the top, the Army & the RCAC should have identified a problem.  If there is a surplus of Armd Res units, then that should have been identified (including a breakdown by brigade and metropolitan areas) and solicitations should have been made to the units in order to find who might have been willing to transform into a new (and more potentially more relevant) role outside the branch.

At the bottom, units “left hanging for years and years minus a Role or Doctrine to implement” (without a viable, attainable and doctrinally relevant role) have continued to hold to a pipedream of training on modern AFV for individual to Lvl 3 training.  It is not going to happen.  COs should have recognized their predicament and could have pushed for a new role (sans black hat) that is doctrinally supported and achievable in a way that is more relevant to the Army.

All the layers of command & staff in between might have observed and achieved momentum for a solution based on a perspective with some combination of the previous two.

In the end, it is collectives & organizations which have failed to adequately resolve the problem of the PRes Armd “place” in the larger picture.


----------



## tango22a

MCG:

Firstly: Why don't you come out and admit to yourself and others on this thread that you ARE prejudiced against the PRes in general and PRes Armour in particular?...starve them of equipment, a VIABLE ROLE, training etc....and when they complain DISBAND or RE-ROLE them!

Secondly: I could sit here for a Millennium crossing swords with you but it's not worth my time or effort!
With your armour of righteousness (I'm RIGHT and the other a$$hole is WRONG!!) it' a lost cause!

Thirdly: Due to SITE CONDUCT GUIDLINES I can't really say what I really want to say about you, but IMHO you are suffering from a terminal case of C.R.I.S (thanks "medicineman")

Fourthly: Since I am"an old R011C Recce Crewman Dinosaur" I have been posted to the Old Dinosaur Farm and am presently waiting for the Wrecker/flatbed to haul me off.

tango22a


----------



## SeaKingTacco

T22A,

With all respect, that is not how I read any of MCG's posts.  He is simply laying out the situation as it currently is, not how you wish it was.  It is not Reserve bashing- you will note, that if you actually read his posts, he lays plenty of blame on Regular Force decision makers.

If you honestly think anyone in Canada is going to download Leo 2s or Coyotes or LAVs to any reserve unit, you are not living in the real world.

I agree with him.  It may be time for the more forward thinking Regiments to go actively search out a new role.

And you seriously need to take some of the emotion out your posts.  It really hurts your credibility when you come off like a raving lunatic.


----------



## tango22a

Sea King Tacco:

I stand corrected. I may be a raving lunatic but unfortunately I feel that I have to stand up to people who dispense their views from ivory towers. I will admit that I have a major attitude problem, but when people step on my crank with their golf spikes I feel that I should be allowed at least one teeny-weeny scream of pain. I will resume "Lurking in the shadows" and leave this thread to persons better qualified.

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A few comments/observations:

- I can't say I disagree with MCGs position here, as I see it, he is forcing *us* to ask, think about and answer some basic, though hard to swallow, questions.  I think that is a good thing.  How can you fix something properly before even addressing the "what is wrong" aspect.

- the absolute best trg ever done in my old unit was probably the stuff we did at the Mounted Warfare Simulation Center in Fort Knox.  Why?  In the Bradley sims, we had to adapt QUICKLY to (1) a veh with a turret (2) having a Gnr (3) hatches-down at all times [no more tapping someone on the shoulder and saying "no no over there".  It forced dvrs, gnrs, CCs, et al to get rid of the *Iltis-Warrior skill-set*.  Anyone who did Iltis recce knows the bad habits developed in that time for the P Res Recce world.  Also, we went as 60 Tp for a Tank Sqn.  That was a new beast in itself that most people had never seen before.  On one of these trg ex's I was on, we worked with Apache crews who, IIRC, were sitting in their simulators in Germany or something like that; atleast that is what the MSG told our RSS staff when we showed up on Adv Party.  I could go on and list all the *small* things that made the trg the best I had ever attended.

- I have always thought the Engineers did it right when they stood up RETS (Reserve Engineer Trg Sqn) when CFSME moved to Gagetown.  For whatever reason, the Res Combat Engineer courses were never a part of the ARTS slate and I envied them for this.  Although we used Armd School resources (bays, Dvr Examiners, etc) we never "belonged" to the Armoured School and, IMO, CFSME did (if they still do it this way) right.  Although out of the PREs and Armour worlds now, I will always think that the Armour School should have a Reserve Trg Sqn and all Res Crmn trg should come from that organization.  

- In '96, we did ARCON in Bisons.  It took about 1-2 days for the crews to get used to this veh from an Iltis.  I'd say that was the best exercise we ever did in a trg area (we were in the Lawfield for most of it).  Knowing the Bison's are all spoken for before I say this, I will say, IMO, this veh was the BEST veh for PRes Armour types to train with as a stepping-stone to the Coyote or other "real" recce veh.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - I have always thought the Engineers did it right when they stood up RETS (Reserve Engineer Trg Sqn) when CFSME moved to Gagetown.  For whatever reason, the Res Combat Engineer courses were never a part of the ARTS slate and I envied them for this.  Although we used Armd School resources (bays, Dvr Examiners, etc) we never "belonged" to the Armoured School and, IMO, CFSME did (if they still do it this way) right.  Although out of the PREs and Armour worlds now, I will always think that the Armour School should have a Reserve Trg Sqn and all Res Crmn trg should come from that organization.



Not sure if you want to hold us as high up on the pedestal as you want......


RETS has it owns problems within CFSME if you catch my drift.......

We usually are the child that no one wants...... example we have some hard training classrooms to use but if FETS (Field Engineer Trg Sqn, REG FORCE) is there we get thrown out to the makeshift classrooms (i.e. MOD tents) . Same goes for equipment, most of our stuff is TSR'd from the units and are usually the only items we are allowed to use, the stuff in the storage bays are for the Reg Force courses only.....

I can go on but that shouldn't be for the open forums.


There is talk of doing away with FETS and RETS and replacing it with an Engineer Training Squadron which will train both sides of the house year round.


----------



## blacktriangle

Reading Infanteer's post in the TAPV thread, I think his idea might be the smartest thing. Buy LAV H, put a new surv suite in them with some dismounts. Keep a turret. Take that money out of TAPV.

Call the reserve units. "OK guys, good news and bad news. You don't get any vehicles but you are staying blackhat"

DP1 will be dismounted training and patrolling, OP's, Comms etc (take some of the training out of the PRes DP2 recce observer course, and the DP1 inf) Take that the first summer. Screw driving G wagons, it's not like they will be around forever anyways.

Second summer if they are still in and doing well, pick the best troops and send them on a surv op crse. 

During the training year, units would train on dismounted skillsets and would not require vehicles. Train on comms, weapons handling and physical fitness. If we're going to get any simulators, let's simulate the surv suite for the reserves.

You would then have a small pool of semiskilled individuals who could volunteer to go on ex with the reg f to gain experience, or if they self ID for a tour, they are already employable and could be loaded on additional courses if needed. 

MCG is bang on.There are some really good people at PRes armd units, give them a doctrine and a task and you will get some excellent individual augmentees. The army needs to step up and define something realistic, and the units should help themselves and begin pushing for a new role. 

So if the reserve armd world is to have a point besides working Class B at the CFRC, let's get on with it already, otherwise, re-role/stand down. 

Any thoughts? I joined at 16 as a reserve crewman if anyone is wondering my interest...

TCBF do you happen to know the ballpark difference in cost of a surv op course when compared to the training already undertaken by an armd reservist? 

Just me trying to think outside the box.


----------



## George Wallace

OK.

It is really nice that there are so many posting here with all kinds of suggestions.  Unfortunately, it is really grating on Armour Corps personnel when people who have absolutely no smic of what they are talking about, start making suggestions about what the Armour Corps needs.

LAV H with a Surv Suite and dismounts is just the latest example.  There is no room for dismounts with a Surv Suite in the back.  

If you don't have the knowledge and experience, you are only making a mockery of the discussion.  Your "outside the box" ideas are for the most part out of the ballpark in the realms of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.


----------



## Kat Stevens

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Not sure if you want to hold us as high up on the pedestal as you want......
> 
> 
> RETS has it owns problems within CFSME if you catch my drift.......
> 
> We usually are the child that no one wants...... example we have some hard training classrooms to use but if FETS (Field Engineer Trg Sqn, REG FORCE) is there we get thrown out to the makeshift classrooms (i.e. MOD tents) . Same goes for equipment, most of our stuff is TSR'd from the units and are usually the only items we are allowed to use, the stuff in the storage bays are for the Reg Force courses only.....
> 
> I can go on but that shouldn't be for the open forums.
> 
> 
> There is talk of doing away with FETS and RETS and replacing it with an Engineer Training Squadron which will train both sides of the house year round.



Me, Shane Stachnik, and a few others spent our entire summer on Swan Lake as boat ops for mostly RETS courses, with a Phase whateverthehellitisnow course thrown in for good measure.  A good chunk of my squadron was there as support to ALL Field Engineer training, not just FETS.


----------



## tango22a

Popinfresh:

No Vehicles? Train on Comms, weapons handling and PT? NO problem! Should do wonders for retention and enlistments.

Perhaps we could also study Guard Mounting and Duties of a Sentry?

I realize that we will never see front-line vehicles in the PRes, but give us a break,please!

tango22a


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So what do you suggest?


----------



## tango22a

SeaKing Tacco:

Most PRes Regiments do "Mud Recce" at this time. We do not do strictly Cavalry tasks, but operate more like Mounted Infantry, using our vehicles for extra mobility.

I, personally would like to see a four to six-wheeled vehicle,carrying weapons suitable for defence, crew of four to six and equipped with night vision devices. It should be reasonably mine proof and armoured against at least 14.5mm on the frontal aspect. It might also come equipped with either Slat armour or ERA as a defence against IEDs, EFPs and RPGs. These extra armour add-ons would only be used in a   war zone.

By having this vehicle on the ground at the Regiments, formed crews would be possible. People would be able to learn the ins and outs of the vehicle and the best way(s) to employ it.

I really would prefer to have a tracked, amphibious vehicle but its nearly impossible to train on them confined to the local road net.

tango22a


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ok.  So would this vehicle be the same as is used by the Regular Force units, or a unique fleet to the Reserve Force?  

If unique, who does the project management (given that there is no one left to project manage the stuff currently on the books)?  Where, doctrinally does this fleet in?  Most importantly- what is its operational role?  You have to admit, it would be a tough sell to any government to buy a fleet of (expensive) vehicles whose only purpose was to train people.

Now- How many vehicles for each Regiment?  A Troop? A Squadron? How do you propose to maintain these vehicles at each armoury?  How many maintainers and supply techs are you going to post to each Reserve Regiment to hand repairs and the Spare Parts accounts?  Which regular force units are you going to take them from?  Or are you just going to get the Minister to authorize 100s of new full-time positions?

Not to be cynical, but I think you are glossing over a lot of important details here and are given to wishful thinking.  And before you tell me to bugger off- I have more than a little experience in the Total Force world from the 1990s where a Reserve Unit was given almost a full Air Defence Battery's worth of equipment to use and maintain.  We had over 30 full time people working in the unit and it was a nightmare maintaining just trucks and Iltis, within 30 mins of Petawawa.  I cannot imagine a Reserve Armoured Regiment maintaining armoured vehicles without a significant manpower bill.  Who pays?


----------



## tango22a

SeaKing Tacco:

Proposed vehicle could be used by RegF. If one type of vehicle were chosen by both RegF and PRes it would surely ease the task of PRes soldiers converting to RegF vehicles.The only problem being that once RegF pounds the piss out of theirs they make up their shortages out of vehicles ear-marked for the PRes.

One troop (7 veh) per Regiment, Unless the Regiment has the trained manpower to man an extra troop.I would suggest using G-Wagons for training in basic Recce tactics leading up to conversion to the new vehicle. 

Duties to include Zone Recce, Route Recce, Spot Recce, Screens, Convoy Guards, Advance to Contact, etc.

Maintenance is a poser, but if there is  a Service Battalion nearby they could perform some of the maintenance supported by an MRT posted to the Regiment supplemented by the trained vehicle crews It won't be cheap but if you want trained augmentees for RegF Armoured Regiments you're going to have to spend some money. It's much cheaper to train PRes pers at their home Regiments than to fly them to Gagetown periodically.Possibly we could learn a bit from watching how the Army National Guard supports its Cavalry Regiments.

tango22a


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So, if I understand you correctly, you want to buy at least 119 vehicles (17 reserve armoured regiments x 7 cars).  But you don't want the Regular Force to touch them.  Which means they will never be used on operations, correct?  And the Regular Force could not really help with instructors or maintenance, right?

Let us say that we get each vehicle for 5 million dollars (a pretty cheap armoured vehicle, IMHO).  That would be $595 million.  Plus spares and tooling, ammuntion, simulators, vehicle hangars (I'm assuming each armoury does not have appropriate hangars right now)- could we agree that $1 Billion would be cheap for what you want to buy?

You want to spend around a billion dollars so that about 1700 reserve soldiers have a cool vehicle that would never be used on operations.  Am I putting words in your mouth? I'm not sure how these soldiers would then augment the regular force, if the vehicle is not the same as the Regular Force vehicle.

And you are still glossing over the maintenance issue.  It is nowhere as easy as " nearest Svc Bn, MRT".  Remember- you implied that you don't want the Regular Force to have anything to do with this vehicle, as you said: 





> The only problem being that once RegF pounds the piss out of theirs they make up their shortages out of vehicles ear-marked for the PRes.


.

Anyway, this has been fun, if completely unrealistic.  Have a great day!


----------



## dapaterson

Keep in mind that to support such a fleet, the Reserve Svc Bns would have to be enlarged significantly.  And, since the Army Reserve is at or about its paid strength limit, reductions would have to be found elsewhere.

So, which group should we reduce in strength to increase the number of vehicle techs and weapon techs?  plus, given the increasing use of electronics systems in modern fighting vehicles, we'll have to introduce EO techs to the Reserves, and bring back LCIS techs into the signals world.


----------



## TCBF

I will reply to a couple of posts:
1. by 'Reg Force' paying for Reservists on a PCF Crse, I did not mean (nor did I imply) that the Regt conducting the crse would be the Reg Force element paying the tab.
2. Shortages are qual instructors, not vehs.  Most of our "F" vehs spend 90% of their time parked. 
3. I cannot cost a Surv Op crse as I am 10 1/2 timezones away at the moment. 
4. Coyote COULD have had dismounts if a bench seat had been installed instead of the 'sex' chair.  Newer Surv Op stn could/should be smaller. 
5. 2001, teaching ARTC, we put the Res Recce students in M113A1 APCs for the last "All Phase 3 and 4" exercise.  They then changed from 'vehicle movers' to 'Crew Commanders' over the next few days in the field.


----------



## tango22a

SeaKing Tacco:

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Looking back over the years I can well remember the Cougar fiasco and also the Bison fiasco where vehicles MEANT to be used by the PRes were diverted to the Regf to make up for vehicles that the RegF had trashed. The Bison was originally meant for the PRes, but we never were issued with even one (1).I even saw one ex-regiment Cougar in Ottawa in May, destined to become a gate guard. I had gunned, driven and crew-commanded that same vehicle before it was withdrawn from the Regiment to make up RegF shortages. Mind you, I realize that RegF needs take priority but you will agree that it is extremely hard to remain current in a vehicle when you don't have one.

Perhaps, for a change, sufficient vehicles COULD be purchased and sufficient spare parts to ensure that both RegF and PRes have enough for their needs with a reserve to cover vehicle casualties.

In the absence of Simulators it is necessary to have vehicles on the ground to train with.

As to service I realize we would require the support of a dedicated MRT supplied by RegF. Possibly some EME pers on their sunset postings would be interested ?

From some of the comments by others on this thread they cannot see any reason to purchase " OH MY G*D" ONE HUNDRED and NINETEEN (many exclamation points!) for the use of the PRes. This will divert support away from various projects which they feel are more important. If the vehicles are purchased in
sufficient quantities, with the emphasis on Sufficient, I feel there should be no problems.

IMHO a usable vehicle could be purchased for less than $5m per vehicle.Remember this vehicle does not have to be a LAVH or one of its clones. The vehicle I postulated in previous posts was only armed for self defence.

tango22a

OK all you SMEs feel free to roast my butt!


----------



## dapaterson

OK, so Reg F MRTs.  Let's assume a toal of 8 Reg F pers per Res unit = 17*8 = 136 new Reg F positions.  Again, where do they come from?  Do we disband one company from 3 PPCLI, convert the positions to EME and Sigs, then recruit and train them?  Where do the PYs come from to provide this ability?

Second, where do the PYs come from for more complex maintenance, beyond the abilities of the MRTs?  There's already a surplus of maintenance work out there, so when things are broken beyond the limited ability of the MRts, who fixes it?  (I have great faith in the ability of crewmen to use, abuse and break vehicles).

Third, what sort of recovery assets will be needed?  Sounds like a new ARV would be required - probably with about 20 vehicles (1 per unit = 17, 1 each for the Armd school and the EME school one log stock).  Unfortunately, development costs are fixed for such a thing, so the cost per unit goes up significantly.

Fourth, you spoke of "if there's a Svc Bn close by", then amended that to Refer to the Reg F.  Therefore, we're limited to Armd units close to Edmonton, Valcartier and Petawawa - only three Reg F Svc Bns.  That means that units like the BCD, Windsor Regt, and many others won't be covered - so what do we do with them?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Re-badge them as 19th Alberta Dragoons, of course!


----------



## Franko

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Re-badge them as 19th Alberta Dragoons, of course!



:rofl:


----------



## tango22a

Gentlemen:

I really must admit that I only got involved in this as deeply as I am at the behest of SeaKing Tacco who asked what did I suggest. There seem to be a lot of non-Armour pers on this thread who really don't look at things from an Armour view point. My ideas are dated as I have been out on retirement for over twenty years, but I am not using that as a defence.

Whether you people like it or not we NEED a new Recce vehicle for both REgF and PRes!

All I can say is TANSTAAFL 

You get what you're willing to pay for and for G*D's sake don't skimp on vehicle numbers, spares or equipment. We're going to have to pay now for being miserly in the past.So, unhappily will our troops if they are not provided with the best vehicle that we can procure. If the vehicle we purchase makes it difficult or impossible to do the job?....then we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Moving fast across target range,

tango22a

Flame me all you want....us old dinosaurs are impervious!

Above all else, please don't ask me HOW to do it...SHOW me how we can do it!....and together we will succeed


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So, let me play this one out...

Bob:  We need new vehicles for both Reg and Res armd recce.

Jim:  Ok.  What do they need them for?

Bob:  Well, to do their job, of course.  We need to replace the Coyote's for the Reg folks...and the Res folks need a replacement to carry out their tasks.

Jim:  What are their tasks exactly?  Like...what part of 'fighting the good fight' do they fill in?

Bob:  Well...ummmmm.  


Define the roll, before anything else.  

When I was in D Sqn, it was easy for us to fill up the trg nights, weekends, etc.  Grab the "Recce Sqn in Battle" and "Troop Leader Manual", flip to a page and voila...pick something.  Can't find either of those?  AFV/AC rec.  Slides are missing?  OK.  Stables everyone.  Dvr's, off to the veh compound.  Obs, off you go with the Tp Gnry NCO for some wpn maint.  While we were doing "something" and at the Tp level, it was effective use of time, I can't say that our Sqn had a well-defined role to play within the Bde.  All you had to do was go to a Bde Ex and see what tasks they came up with for Recce Sqn to figure out NO ONE had a smick what to do with us, other than make us go away with a pat on the head and our FOA.

Define the role first.  Go from there.  Everything else, IMO, is another game of "pin the tail on the donkey', with the PRes Armd playing the role of the blindfolded kid who can't find the donkey's ass, with everyone else snickering and giggling.

Time to get rid of the damn blindfold isn't it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So, now we're right back where I started this. We can't consider what we need in a vehicle until the Corps decides to take us serious enough to provide a 'viable' role and doctrine.

Until they wish to bring us into the fold, we're spinning our wheels and perhaps it's time to part company. 

I think we've chewed the cabbage in this thread long enough. Thanks to everyone for their input.

T22A,

Time to put your spurs back in the closet, you're fighting a battle with twenty year old mentallity that no longer applies, if it ever really did. Leave it be, you're done here. You tried and that's all that can be asked. Your ideas are flawed to the max and as such, please quit speaking for us.


----------



## Franko

tango22a said:
			
		

> Above all else, please don't ask me HOW to do it...SHOW me how we can do it!....and together we will succeed



So, you identified a problem, have no viable solution to it at all to push higher, expecting everyone in the Corps to stop Ops and training to figure it out.

We're at war right now and have bigger things to take care of.

Regards


----------



## Fishbone Jones

DP,

Please don't go down that road. We've been taking the piss since well before we went into Afgahnistan. The Corps doesn't need that as the excuse.


----------



## TCBF

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... All you had to do was go to a Bde Ex and see what tasks they came up with for Recce Sqn to figure out NO ONE had a smick what to do with us, other than make us go away with a pat on the head and our FOA. ...



- I have served in Reg Force Recce Sqns in Petawawa, Lahr, Edmonton not to mention Zgon and Kandahar, and even in the Regular Army, no one had a smick how to properly employ a Brigade Recce Sqn.  Lahr came the closest - no surprises there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ok.  So would this vehicle be the same as is used by the Regular Force units, or a unique fleet to the Reserve Force?
> 
> If unique, who does the project management (given that there is no one left to project manage the stuff currently on the books)?  Where, doctrinally does this fleet in?  Most importantly- what is its operational role?  You have to admit, it would be a tough sell to any government to buy a fleet of (expensive) vehicles whose only purpose was to train people.
> 
> Now- How many vehicles for each Regiment?  A Troop? A Squadron? How do you propose to maintain these vehicles at each armoury?  How many maintainers and supply techs are you going to post to each Reserve Regiment to hand repairs and the Spare Parts accounts?  Which regular force units are you going to take them from?  Or are you just going to get the Minister to authorize 100s of new full-time positions?
> 
> Not to be cynical, but I think you are glossing over a lot of important details here and are given to wishful thinking.  And before you tell me to bugger off- I have more than a little experience in the Total Force world from the 1990s where a Reserve Unit was given almost a full Air Defence Battery's worth of equipment to use and maintain.  We had over 30 full time people working in the unit and it was a nightmare maintaining just trucks and Iltis, within 30 mins of Petawawa.  I cannot imagine a Reserve Armoured Regiment maintaining armoured vehicles without a significant manpower bill.  Who pays?



We kept a full Ops tasked battery in the 80's going with about 10 people fulltime, RSS and Class B with some support from the local Brigade HQ in Vancouver. It wasn't that hard, we did most of our own vehicle maintenance, including engine rebuilds of our 3 ton stack truck to keep it from being sent to Crown Assets. A couple of vehicle techs, a comms guy, QM staff and RHQ.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> We kept a full Ops tasked battery in the 80's going with about 10 people fulltime, RSS and Class B with some support from the local Brigade HQ in Vancouver. It wasn't that hard, we did most of our own vehicle maintenance, including engine rebuilds of our 3 ton stack truck to keep it from being sent to Crown Assets. A couple of vehicle techs, a comms guy, QM staff and RHQ.



? What Ops tasks for 15Fd?   As I recall, the biggest sub-unit there is the band - I thought the guns were just part of the percussion section...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin,

With respect- keeping 6 C1 Howitzers, some 5/4 tonne trucks and (then) new MLVWs serviceable with 10 guys is not even in the same league as contemplating penny-packeting armoured vehicles with complex surveillance and fire control systems around the countryside.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Never mind expensive, maintenance intensive tracks, Never mind surveillance vehicles. Give me back my Ferret, a GPMG and an AN/PPS 15. Cheap, easy and the ultimate mud recce vehicle.

Mechanically sound, cheap, no fancy electronics and perfectly suited to the 'pseudo' role the corps 'seems' to have relegated us to.

Everything you want us to do with the overpriced Mercedes SUV I can do with a Ferret in spades.

It's a armoured box with a radio and power train. For what it cost for our soccer mom vehicles, we could have probably built twice the amount of Ferrets.

Reserve crews would have no problem up keeping this virtually, maintenance free vehicle.

Our 'role' and 'task' has not changed since we used the Ferret. It was perfect then, there is no reason why it can't be now. 

I don't know one person that spent more than six months properly employing that vehicle that doesn't moan the loss. A measure determined by corporate lobbying and short sighted boards who are now retired and don't have to live with the stupid decision that sent us down this path.


----------



## tango22a

SeaKing Tacco:

Pres Armour does not want or need complex surveillance suites or complex turrets. These are the purview of the RegF. NVGs and possibly a thermal viewer would be all that are needed.

Please listen to Recceguy, he's been doing this role for over 40 years, both RegF and PRes.

tango22a

Why do I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness?


----------



## TCBF

recceguy said:
			
		

> Never mind expensive, maintenance intensive tracks, Never mind surveillance vehicles. Give me back my Ferret, a GPMG and an AN/PPS 15. Cheap, easy and the ultimate mud recce vehicle.
> 
> Mechanically sound, cheap, no fancy electronics and perfectly suited to the 'pseudo' role the corps 'seems' to have relegated us to.
> 
> Everything you want us to do with the overpriced Mercedes SUV I can do with a Ferret in spades.
> 
> It's a armoured box with a radio and power train. For what it cost for our soccer mom vehicles, we could have probably built twice the amount of Ferrets.
> 
> Reserve crews would have no problem up keeping this virtually, maintenance free vehicle.
> 
> Our 'role' and 'task' has not changed since we used the Ferret. It was perfect then, there is no reason why it can't be now.
> 
> I don't know one person that spent more than six months properly employing that vehicle that doesn't moan the loss. A measure determined by corporate lobbying and short sighted boards who are now retired and don't have to live with the stupid decision that sent us down this path.



- That was A Sqn.  In B Sqn (Lynx), we loved how you guys could park five ferrets (a full Troop!) in the space that we could only fit 2 Lynx (of SEVEN in a Troop!).  Of course, the night one of your Ferrets woke up, realized that it's electrical system was English by design, set itself on fire, set the spare tire on the Ferret beside it on fire, coat the inside of the entire hangar (and my Lynx) with dead pigeons and rubber-tire soot...

Wait! Wait! Maint free? don't drop the fluid cuplink thingy...

At least when we got back from Cyprus in April 1979, the Ferrets were gone and were replaced by jeeps.  Finally, a cross-country vehicle for A Sqn!  Until they got four Cougars in January 1980...


 8)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

TCBF said:
			
		

> - That was A Sqn.  In B Sqn (Lynx), we loved how you guys could park five ferrets (a full Troop!) in the space that we could only fit 2 Lynx (of SEVEN in a Troop!).  Of course, the night one of your Ferrets woke up, realized that it's electrical system was English by design, set itself on fire, set the spare tire on the Ferret beside it on fire, coat the inside of the entire hangar (and my Lynx) with dead pigeons and rubber-tire soot...
> 
> Wait! Wait! Maint free? don't drop the fluid cuplink thingy...
> 
> At least when we got back from Cyprus in April 1979, the Ferrets were gone and were replaced by jeeps.  Finally, a cross-country vehicle for A Sqn!  Until they got four Cougars in January 1980...
> 
> 
> 8)



Yeah, I think that was TJ's. It did create quite the mess. Good thing the fire piquet skipped his rounds and didn't open the doors allowing fresh air and oxygen in. I think he was from B Sqn :blotto:

It was seven ferrets per troop, parked in the same space as two lynx, not five ;D

The thingy you're trying to describe is the fluid coupling filler plug. You're right, if you dropped that down inside the housing you about had to pull the vehicle apart to get it out, but other than that, pretty much maint free  

The rest of my points still stand though.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Why can't the PRes Amd use BV206s? 

We've already got them in our inventory, and the bloody things go anywhere and can carry or drag just about anything. I remember trying to 'stalk' a platoon of Norwegians on a winter ex, them on BV206s and us on skis, and there was no way we could follow them up the slopes they effortlessly cruised up (but they had to sleep sometime!).

We used them in Afghanistan on earlier tours. The Royal Marines have even armoured their BV206s, which they call the Viking, and are using them in Afghanistan.


----------



## McG

tango22a said:
			
		

> Pres Armour does not want or need complex surveillance suites or ...


Unfortunately, the question cannot be just about what the PRes Armour wants.  Force Structure & capability design must be based on answering the question of what the Army needs.  Within the answer to that question we can determine who wants to do what.  I do not see the "no frills" reserve vehicle addressing any military needs.  In our current operational climate, such a vehicle will never deploy and in the unlikely event that we find ourselves in the middle of another global mass mobilization war, our large peer enemy will have the sensor capabilities to detect and destroy such vehicles before they have had a chance to influence the battle.  

To be relevant integrated night vision & thermal are not options; Ground Moving Target Radar is not an option; and integrated digital communications are not an option.  All this costs money (which the CLS has stated he will not invest into a vehicle for the reserves), additional techs, and more training time.

.... and at the same time, I am not sure that such a unique PRes vehicle is what the reserve units want either (though I'm open to be told otherwise).  There has been a significant amount of complaint from the Armd Res on these forums that the only operational jobs open to them are the gate guards & Combat Arms Any.  Burdening them with a unique non-deployable vehicle will only entrench that dynamic further into the future.  If the reserves want a hope of keeping the training delta small enough for individual augmentation within trade, then the tools of the trade need to be mostly the same.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Colin,
> 
> With respect- keeping 6 C1 Howitzers, some 5/4 tonne trucks and (then) new MLVWs serviceable with 10 guys is not even in the same league as contemplating penny-packeting armoured vehicles with complex surveillance and fire control systems around the countryside.



Try ancient Deuce's and M38's, M141's along with the 5/4. Not to mention everybodies crappy radios and other kit. Actually the hardest part was fending off a jealous Brigade headquarters eager to get their hands onto the "extra kit".

Please enlighten me. Other than exercising the recoil system, lubricating, cleaning and boresighting what other frontline service would a unit do to the main gun? 
Civy street uses tracks as well, including old M4 hulls with drills on them in some pretty nasty and remote country and worksites. While I agree that the FCS & surveillance suite is beyond a normal militia units ability to maintain, components would have to be swapped out on a regular basis. The rest of the vehicle is not that horribly complicated, perhaps a pain to work on. One benefit of the reserves is they can often draw upon some some very talented people. Also the vehicle could be equipped with a simplified FCS & surveillance suite just on the cost basis alone, as long as it can equipped with the more complex version as required.  

 No matter what vehicle placement you have it will be imperfect, however having AFV at certain Militia units will improve knowledge of the vehicles, improve recruiting and give a sense of mission to the troops. Although I have to admit that unless you have close by training areas, you need wheeled armour for the Reserves.

Lets face the real reason you need AFV's at reserve units is: "Who else are the reg force going to steal them from?"  ;D   (Now off to my bunker to await incoming fire)


----------



## tango22a

Colin P:

As I said in PM: thank you,thank you, thank you,for saying what my aging brain and typing skills were unable to do!

tango22a


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the question cannot be just about what the PRes Armour wants.  Force Structure & capability design must be based on answering the question of what the Army needs.  Within the answer to that question we can determine who wants to do what.  I do not see the "no frills" reserve vehicle addressing any military needs.  In our current operational climate, such a vehicle will never deploy and in the unlikely event that we find ourselves in the middle of another global mass mobilization war, our large peer enemy will have the sensor capabilities to detect and destroy such vehicles before they have had a chance to influence the battle.
> 
> To be relevant integrated night vision & thermal are not options; Ground Moving Target Radar is not an option; and integrated digital communications are not an option.  All this costs money (which the CLS has stated he will not invest into a vehicle for the reserves), additional techs, and more training time.
> 
> .... and at the same time, I am not sure that such a unique PRes vehicle is what the reserve units want either (though I'm open to be told otherwise).  There has been a significant amount of complaint from the Armd Res on these forums that the only operational jobs open to them are the gate guards & Combat Arms Any.  Burdening them with a unique non-deployable vehicle will only entrench that dynamic further into the future.  If the reserves want a hope of keeping the training delta small enough for individual augmentation within trade, then the tools of the trade need to be mostly the same.



Make up your fucking mind. We say we want the same equipment and reduce the delta, you argue we can't have them, and have to come up with something else.

We make a suggestion, tongue in cheek or not, and you come back with, nope equipment has to be the same.

Shit or get off the pot. It's dealing with attitude like this that's put the PRes in the situation they are in now.


----------



## TCBF

- Give the PRes Armd Recce regts a role: Soveriegnty Patrol - South.
- Surv Ops on the longest undefended border in the world!
- Yanks have Preds to spare on the 49th - we don't, so mud recce and NVGs!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Give the PRes Armd Recce regts a role: Soveriegnty Patrol - South.
> - Surv Ops on the longest undefended border in the world!
> - Yanks have Preds to spare on the 49th - we don't, so mud recce and NVGs!



TCBF,

We floated that idea to the RCD when they got the Coyote and a few of us got the Surv Op course. That contact lasted about 30 incredulous seconds  :


----------



## tango22a

TCBF:

If the Coyote (or its replacement) was used for Border Surveillance we would get nothing but Flak from the media and various civil rights organizations. Especially if the ARMY did it!

Can't you just imagine the s**tstorm if the Coyotes were used to monitor the border around Akweswasne? We would be accused of exposing people to harmful radiation and denying them their civil rights to sneak around, plus invading their privacy!

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## Infanteer

The problem with giving the Reserve armoured units, or any reserve unit for that matter, some unique task is that the system is built around individual augmentation and mass mobilization.  Give it a role like sovereignty ops or whatever, and the Army finds itself backfilling that role with regular soldiers because planning capabilities off of how many guys are going to fill in the class A/B sheets is a crap shoot at best.

The reserves role is to plug holes in the Reg Force manning chart - that's it, that's all.  Let's quit tapdancing around it.  Until the system itself is changed, there is no scope for anything else because you cannot reliably plan around it.  That being said, the Reserve units role should be IBTS training and low level BTS training (Level 4 - maybe 5).

So, to get a role and a vehicle, lets think about the low level training a reserve unit conducts.  Since reserve Brigades are paper brigades and actually form a rough Battalion, have the Reserve Armoured become "DFS" for these "Light Battalions".  Reserve Armoured regiments keep their jeeps and get M2s, Mk19s and an ATGM when we get one.  They can form something similar to the CAAT that USMC Battalions have.  They can also do the Mud Recce stuff that Infantry Regular Force Recce Platoons do.  Whenever the Reserve Rifle Companies go out for an exercise, the Recce and CAAT teams can support them.

May not fit a capbadge (if I had my way, all reserve regiments would be 0 strength with 9-10 new ones to replace the Reserve Brigades) but who cares.  These soldiers have a few skills sets (GMR and/or shooting the heavy weapons) that they can take to the Reg Force when they augment a Task Force.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... having AFV at certain Militia units will improve knowledge of the vehicles, improve recruiting and give a sense of mission to the troops.


Providing troops a warm & fuzzy feeling is a wonderful tertiary argument for spending resources.  However, all the primary & secondary arguments toward buying an AFV need to be about creating an operational capability.  There are calls to spend money to provide the reservists with some light armour patrol vehicle like the old Ferret or the Panhard VBL.  Why?  If the vehicle will never be used operationally (as its supporters have suggested in this thread), then why spend the money for something armoured when a Jeep or GWagon can provide all the same training opportunity?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Make up your fucking mind.


Hello Pot, this is Kettle!

You have complained about a lack of doctrine & relevant role, and now you want to pour effort into a vehicle that will do nothing significantly different from what you've done before. You have complained about the limited operational employment available to the Armd PRes, and now you want to pour money into a vehicle that will continue that dynamic.  I have accepted your initial suppositions, and I believe what you are now asking for flies in the face of fixing the problems that you have raised.

If you want a non-operational toy to beat-around in the country side, then be happy in the G-Wagon C&R.  However, don't ask for the government to take our limited resources out of operational capital projects so you can have a sexier vehicle, and do not whine & complain when the only operational deployments open to you are gate security and Force Protection Pl.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Shit or get off the pot.


Indeed.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It's dealing with attitude like this that's put the PRes in the situation they are in now.


The PRes, or the Armd PRes?  It seems the other three combat arms have plenty of opportunities for operational employment within occupation.

I have not provided any solutions in this thread.  That is because I do not have them.  However, I have been describing the criteria that a solution would have to meet.  I think that there are enough intelligent people in this thread that we could start hammering together a skeleton of what a solution might look like.  This might require letting go some sacred cows, or maybe it does not.  It absolutely must involve identifying the Army's needs and then seeing how those can be met while accommodating unit 'wants' (which may differ from unit to unit)  



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> May not fit a capbadge


and some beret colours may have to change too.


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> and some beret colours may have to change too.



...definately - something implied in my "all regiments to 0 strength" remark.

I use 4th Marine Division (the Marine Reserve) as a good example to follow.  The entire US Marine Reserve has 1 Armoured Battalion and one LAV Recce Battalion, dispersed across the country.  If we applied this model, most Armoured Reserve units would be folded into new reserve battalions as part of Combat Support Companies (...and thus wearing a green beret) with a few reserve Armoured units being folded into 1 or 2 Regiments (spread across Canada) and somehow linked into their Reg Force counterparts.  A much smaller footprint like this could be a much more realistic approach to a Reserve Armoured capability, whether it be tanks or LAV-cavalry.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm willing for a role change and TO&E. The post for the ferret (type vehicle) was made because everyone was insisting on maintaining the status quo. If you can't beat em........

As far as what we do and how we do it, most Armoured recce, Reg and Res, can attest to the well known fact, that on exercise and elsewhere, very few outside the corps, if any, know what we do, how we do it or how to employ us. Somehow though, this thread is just packed full of experts for some reason.

I can see this going nowhere, let alone fast and it's not worth the aggravation to me trying to bore a hole in a cement wall by pissing against. It may be possible, but I just don't have that many years left in me


----------



## TCBF

tango22a said:
			
		

> TCBF:
> 
> If the Coyote (or its replacement) was used for Border Surveillance we would get nothing but Flak from the media and various civil rights organizations. Especially if the ARMY did it!
> 
> Can't you just imagine the s**tstorm if the Coyotes were used to monitor the border around Akweswasne? We would be accused of exposing people to harmful radiation and denying them their civil rights to sneak around, plus invading their privacy!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> tango22a



- Nobody is complaining about the Preds, why would they complain about the Coyotes?

- Get Mayor Miller of Toronto on board by explaining to him that the Border units will stop handgun smuggling...

 ;D


----------



## Infanteer

recceguy said:
			
		

> As far as what we do and how we do it, most Armoured recce, Reg and Res, can attest to the well known fact, that on exercise and elsewhere, very few outside the corps, if any, know what we do, how we do it or how to employ us. Somehow though, this thread is just packed full of experts for some reason.



Well, I've seen alot of this on this thread - "nobody knows how to use us but us" as if getting in a vehicle and finding stuff is some black magic art.  Since many have made reference to this black art, please let the rest of us unwashed masses know the secret to the center of the caramel bar (ie: armoured reconnaisance).

I may not be an expert on Ground Maneuver Reconnaisance (I have the PAM and I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express) but I have worked with these guys.  I know that Armoured Recce can keep up with the LAVs, isn't afraid to get out in front, bypass badguys, or go off an set up a decent OP, and has enough "umph" to form a good firebase while we get on an objective.  What am I missing?

Give me this Rosetta Stone and maybe this discussion can move on.  Better yet, I'd be interested in hearing what the SMEs have in mind.  Hint - a proposal should be able to answer critical questions posed of it rather than stating "you don't know how we operate" when a hole is poked.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> (I have the PAM and I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express)



Isn't that evidence of knowledge of Air Operations, vice Armoured operations?


----------



## The Bread Guy

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Nobody is complaining about the Preds, why would they complain about the Coyotes?



I'm going with T22A on this one re:  info-ops potential....


			
				tango22a said:
			
		

> If the Coyote (or its replacement) was used for Border Surveillance we would get nothing but Flak from the media and various civil rights organizations. Especially if the ARMY did it!
> 
> Can't you just imagine the s**tstorm if the Coyotes were used to monitor the border around Akweswasne? We would be accused of exposing people to harmful radiation and denying them their civil rights to sneak around, plus invading their privacy!



It's not lots now, but it's not zero, either...
Globe & Mail
Mohawk Nation News


----------



## Infanteer

So it's settled then - we are giving the Armoured Reserve units Predators to patrol the border between the United States and Canada.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So it's settled then - we are giving the Armoured Reserve units Predators to patrol the border between the United States and Canada.



Yup, just one big fucking joke. This whole thread has reminded me why it's so onerus to get something done from within, never mind outside.

Toodles.


----------



## George Wallace

This topic has friggin expired.......demised.......


----------



## dapaterson

This does perhaps point to a cleavage within the Armd Corps: Sense vs Act.

Do we want an Armd Res that augments both capabilities, or only one?  What skillsets are viable to train, maintain and hone in a part-time construct?

Our current road to war (for both Reg and Res) is flawed - kit is delivered for training a few months in advance; operators are trained but not experienced when they deploy.  We need to look beyond Afghanistan and try to find a model that works - not just for the Armd Corps, but for the rest as well.


----------



## TCBF

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I know that Armoured Recce can keep up with the LAVs, isn't afraid to get out in front, bypass badguys, or go off an set up a decent OP, and has enough "umph" to form a good firebase while we get on an objective.  What am I missing?



- Above is a good description of Combat Recce or Close Recce at unit level. But, Medium Recce for a Bde or aa part of a Div or Corps covering force needs to be employed by a staff knowing more than just how their own arm or service operates.  Even Armour leaders mis-employ Recce.  (Especially Armour leaders...).


----------



## Kat Stevens

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm going with T22A on this one re:  info-ops potential....
> It's not lots now, but it's not zero, either...
> Globe & Mail
> Mohawk Nation News



RE the Mohawk news bit;  Wow. Just, wow.  Someone made their tinfoil hat three sizes too small before writing that piece.  As to the predators patrolling the border, it brings up an interesting question.  How keen would these senators from the US be if it Canadian surveillance taking a peek 10 miles into US territory?  Not very would be my guess.  Sorry, tangent ends.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> RE the Mohawk news bit;  Wow. Just, wow.  Someone made their tinfoil hat three sizes too small before writing that piece.  As to the predators patrolling the border, it brings up an interesting question.  How keen would these senators from the US be if it Canadian surveillance taking a peek 10 miles into US territory?  Not very would be my guess.  Sorry, tangent ends.



Not sayin' it's all AUTHORITATIVE, but it's out there, and I agree we'd see similar stuff if CF units, Reg or Res, were tasked with border surveillance - tangent, out.


----------



## tango22a

Well, I guess that it's time to fill in the OP,.prepare what remaining vehicles and stores we have for demo and saunter off into the sunset, shedding our dignity and uniforms as we go.

After literally a quarter of a centuries' search for a role and doctrine, after years of making do with diddly squat, after years of being the "redheaded stepchildren" of the Armoured Corps, it looks as if the final indignity is about to happen....NO new Recce vehicle for the PRes.

" We don't have anything for you to do but supply warm bodies for gate guard and General Duties, Thanks for coming out!.... and please don't let the door knob hit you in the a$$ on the way out....it might take the shine off it!"

D**n right I'm pi$$ed.... whatever happened to Loyalty up and Loyalty down?

tango22a


----------



## tango22a

My old Regiment celebrates its Sevety-Fifth Anniversary in 2011. And even then I am willing to bet that they will still be waiting for a Role and Doctrine and support from higher!

I expect that it will be the last I attend as a blackhatter! (if I live that long.)


tango22a


----------



## TCBF

tango22a said:
			
		

> Well, I guess that it's time to fill in the OP,.prepare what remaining vehicles and stores we have for demo and saunter off into the sunset, shedding our dignity and uniforms as we go.
> 
> After literally a quarter of a centuries' search for a role and doctrine, after years of making do with diddly squat, after years of being the "redheaded stepchildren" of the Armoured Corps, it looks as if the final indignity is about to happen....NO new Recce vehicle for the PRes.
> 
> " We don't have anything for you to do but supply warm bodies for gate guard and General Duties, Thanks for coming out!.... and please don't let the door knob hit you in the a$$ on the way out....it might take the shine off it!"
> 
> D**n right I'm pi$$ed.... whatever happened to Loyalty up and Loyalty down?
> 
> tango22a



- In Lahr, someone once asked the Recce Sqn OC how many OPs he man in a pinch, and he said about thirty, but not sustainable.  We had 21 Lynx in the troops, but in a pinch he would deploy the Sqn Cook in his MLVW with a 77 set, and anyone else with wheels and comms, if he needed to.

- Doctrinal? Not for the cooks, mechs and techs, but we use what we have. I don't see  a prob with no armd vehs with each Res Recce Regt as long as they can get Tk/Coy crses for deployments.  The rest of the skills can be taught on trucks. Think 'Technicals". 

- Give us 24 old MLVWs, NVGs, GSRs, 130 Pres Recce types and three weeks and we will give you a doctrinally proficient Recce Sqn that is ready for their Coyote courses.


----------



## tango22a

TCBF:

Works for me. That's what being done at this time. The only problem being is that it is much,much easier for these augmentees to be slotted into positions as gate guards, etc. rather than to train them on Leopards or Coyotes. As I understand it, even RegF is having trouble training its people on the vehicles it will use on Tour. Instructor shortages, equipment shortages,etc. do tend to throw a wrench into the works.

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## TCBF

- Same all over.  Light bn's re-roling into mech bn's for a roto causes the Inf even greater issues.

- Filling non-unit roto slots is a very messy exercise.  A lot of the skilled pers who are capable of doing the job will not be allowed to go by their bosses. This lowers the quality of the org, and you see a lot of 'staff' people to whom a roto is the longest weekend exercise they have ever been on.  Twenty years ago, they would not have gotten anywhere near a formation level staff with a ten foot pole.


----------



## George Wallace

Shortage of Instructors is a Force wide problem.  Perhaps the TOP should come up with a plan for experienced Instructors leaving the CF to have an option of becoming "Double Dippers" and stay in uniform as Reservists.  They can even keep their hatbadges, as they would be in the Schools, or perhaps still in their Regiments, as Training Cadre on PRL.  That would mean that no Reserve Unit would be responsible for their administration, even though they were Reservists.  They could beef up the Regular Force Trg system as well as open up opportunities to run crses for the Reserves.

.....But we know that will never happen......eh!  They would rather become Civvies and work for Calian or GD Land Systems.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TCBF said:
			
		

> - In Lahr, someone once asked the Recce Sqn OC how many OPs he man in a pinch, and he said about thirty, but not sustainable.  We had 21 Lynx in the troops, but in a pinch he would deploy the Sqn Cook in his MLVW with a 77 set, and anyone else with wheels and comms, if he needed to.
> 
> - Doctrinal? Not for the cooks, mechs and techs, but we use what we have. I don't see  a prob with no armd vehs with each Res Recce Regt as long as they can get Tk/Coy crses for deployments.  The rest of the skills can be taught on trucks. Think 'Technicals".
> 
> - Give us 24 old MLVWs, NVGs, GSRs, 130 Pres Recce types and three weeks and we will give you a doctrinally proficient Recce Sqn that is ready for their Coyote courses.



This is probably my *Top Pick* post from this thread.  Especially the last point.  We used to teach the "doctrine" side in the sandbox we had built.  Trg aids consisted of some mine-tape, miniture AFVs, some pine tree branches, and "whatever knowledge of recce" your brain held.  I was also a supporter of TEWTs in the PRes BEFORE we started our little wknd trg ex's.  

All you have to do is look to see what you *can* do with what you have, not what you *want* to do with things you don't have.  I've visisted my old PRes recce unit and seen the Troops sitting around idle on a trg night, waiting for the Mess to open.  I blame that on lazy NCOs and people who like titles (such as Tp WO) more than they want to actually do the job.

I still think, in its current state, the PRes Armour world should be using Bisons and G-Wagons (if we have any to go around, or if/when any come home from the sandy place that aren't VOR...).


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> As far as what we do and how we do it, most Armoured recce, Reg and Res, can attest to the well known fact, that on exercise and elsewhere, very few outside the corps, if any, know what we do, how we do it or how to employ us. Somehow though, this thread is just packed full of experts for some reason.


I'm sorry, but this thread has about the most informed audience you to have to convince on the way forward for PRes Armd.  The participants include turret qualified combat arms with infantry/arm-specific recce experiences, technical & procurement backgrounds, force development & project experience, land operational deployments (including going to war), combat arms tactics qualifications, and Primary Reserve time.  If one wants to introduce a new/improved capability with a project for capital, reorganization, or infrastructure, then one has to be able to convince a whole range of individuals from Air & Navy to Civilians internal & external to DND.  If this group cannot be convinced on sound arguments, then the idea could not get far in the real world (unless it became one of those politically mobile things that typically leave us worse off in the end).

You might be the Recce SME, but you are talking to an informed audience.  Pulling the "only I know enough to understand & discuss" card is a smokescreen and an insult.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I still think, in its current state, the PRes Armour world should be using Bisons and G-Wagons.


When TAPV delivers, there is likely to be a few more G-Wagon C&R available as its role will be largely (to fully) replaced in the regular force.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> This does perhaps point to a cleavage within the Armd Corps: Sense vs Act.
> 
> Do we want an Armd Res that augments both capabilities, or only one?  What skillsets are viable to train, maintain and hone in a part-time construct?


This brings back our previous suggestion of Mini-UAV Units, and Land Persistent Surveillance units.


----------



## dapaterson

It seems that the Armd corps as a whole missed the boat in some respects; the Artillery community has been able to take on a number of sense functions and grow, while the Armd community dithered, fixated on steel beasts and missed out on growth opportunities in the Reg F.


----------



## TCBF

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It seems that the Armd corps as a whole missed the boat in some respects; the Artillery community has been able to take on a number of sense functions and grow, while the Armd community dithered, fixated on steel beasts and missed out on growth opportunities in the Reg F.



- I don't count going from 72 x SP 155 tubes to 8 x towed 155 tubes growth, but I will leave that to the artillerists.

- Armour is doing fine.  New steel beasts, PRes augmentees on ops, leaving us with the most operationally experienced corps (at troop level) since WW2.  As well, the experience is concentrated in our young soldiers - this will serve us well in the future.

- As to the issues of garrison trg and kit shortages, it seems to me that using imagination as a force multiplier may be a dying art.  Methinks our enemies could teach us something here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this thread has about the most informed audience you to have to convince on the way forward for PRes Armd.  The participants include turret qualified combat arms with infantry/arm-specific recce experiences, technical & procurement backgrounds, force development & project experience, land operational deployments (including going to war), combat arms tactics qualifications, and Primary Reserve time.  If one wants to introduce a new/improved capability with a project for capital, reorganization, or infrastructure, then one has to be able to convince a whole range of individuals from Air & Navy to Civilians internal & external to DND.  If this group cannot be convinced on sound arguments, then the idea could not get far in the real world (unless it became one of those politically mobile things that typically leave us worse off in the end).
> 
> You might be the Recce SME, but you are talking to an informed audience.  Pulling the "only I know enough to understand & discuss" card is a smokescreen and an insult.



Yeah, I suppose I deserve that. It's what I get for posting tired and frustrated. I'm no loger tired, just frustrated. All this thread has done for me is raise my blood pressure. Nothing said or done here has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving first contact. As such, I'll not do any more dreaming, and will withdraw to plod along in the job doing the best we can, but still hoping that snowball gets through. Guess I'll have to come up with a new name for a qualification or course so I can get that leadiing change bubble done. :brickwall:


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this thread has about the most informed audience you to have to convince on the way forward for PRes Armd.  The participants include turret qualified combat arms with infantry/arm-specific recce experiences, technical & procurement backgrounds, force development & project experience, land operational deployments (including going to war), combat arms tactics qualifications, and Primary Reserve time.  If one wants to introduce a new/improved capability with a project for capital, reorganization, or infrastructure, then one has to be able to convince a whole range of individuals from Air & Navy to Civilians internal & external to DND.  If this group cannot be convinced on sound arguments, then the idea could not get far in the real world (unless it became one of those politically mobile things that typically leave us worse off in the end).
> 
> You might be the Recce SME, but you are talking to an informed audience.  Pulling the "only I know enough to understand & discuss" card is a smokescreen and an insult.
> When TAPV delivers, there is likely to be a few more G-Wagon C&R available as its role will be largely (to fully) replaced in the regular force.
> This brings back our previous suggestion of Mini-UAV Units, and Land Persistent Surveillance units.




In all my experience, I have never known, nor seen, an Inf Recce Platoon, even with Coyotes, do the same kind of Recce as Armour Recce.  On this point I do find a flaw in your logic.


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In all my experience, I have never known, nor seen, an Inf Recce Platoon, even with Coyotes, do the same kind of Recce as Armour Recce.  On this point I do find a flaw in your logic.



I have - it's called an OP.  Find away....


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I have - it's called an OP.  Find away....



Lateral Drills, Blind Corner Drills, Gap Drills, Obstacle Drills, Contact Drills, and numerous other Drills.

Route Recces, Area Recces, Sector Recces, Point Recces, and the numerous other types of Recces that they do; not just setting up an OP or OP Screen.

The various types of Escorts that they do, such as: Convoy Escort, VIP Escort, etc.

Movements like Leapfrog (Alternate Bounds), Caterpillar (Consecutive Bounds), and Snake Patrol.

The way that their "Resupply" is carried out is also quite different.

On a whole, Infantry may do the same things as Armour by “Name”, but the way that they do it is quite different.  I would be hesitant to take an Inf Coyote and throw its crew into an Armour Recce Troop and expect them to perform well without days/weeks of ‘conversion trg’/familiarization to the different ways that they operate.  

On a whole, I have found that Infantry really have no concepts of how Armour works.  I have worked with 2 RCR, when I was in C Sqn RCD, and even they, who worked with us Tankers on a regular basis, did not know how Armour worked; although I must admit, they were light years ahead of every other Infantry Bn in Canada (4 CMBG Inf Bns worked with Armour on a regular basis and also had a fair idea of how to work with Armour, but still had problems.)  The major problems/differences will be first noticed in the Resupply/Replen systems (as has been discussed in other threads).


----------



## ArmyRick

I think most of us grunts understand that Infantry Recce platoon carry out different task than Arm Recce Squadron.

Convoy escort is being performed by force protection (mostly reservist) these days in theater and its mostly infantry guys.

As far as "infantry guys don't know how to work with armour" or is it Armour does not how to work with Infantry?

In My opinion, COIN is mostly an infantryman's fight and in this case, armour becomes a supporting assett.

Now the task that ARM Recce do, I can see as supporting the entire brigade or contingent in this case. 

I do beleive all battalions have moved their coyotes back to the armour corps.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Once again I am waaaay late to this thread (moved this summer). 

Since much of this thread has talked about doctrine I thought I might throw some 2008 Ground Maneouvre Reconnaissance (GMR) out there. Regarding the levels of recce, we have:

a.   Combat Recce - collection of info by elements below unit level engaged in close combat with the enemy. A combat team conducting an advance to contact can be seen as a form of combat reconnaissance.

b.  Close Recce - Recce tasks performed by the infantry recce platoon within a battle group's area of interest.

c.  Medium Recce - Mounted recce tasks conducted by the armoured recce squadron within the battle group or formation's area of interest.

d.  Long Range Recce - collection beyond the limits of medium recce.

I note that Medium Recce includes collection for a battle group HQ. I also note that my 1979 edition of The Reconnaissance Squadron in Battle had some somewhat different definitions on the levels of close and medium recce (same definitions for combat and long range as exist in GMR):

a. Close Recce - conducted by a battle group or brigade headquarters on specific tasks. This is the domain of the brigade reconnaissance squadron and of infantry reconnaissance platoons.

b. Medium Recce - Conducted by recce units under the direct control of a higher formation HQ.

All that to say that we need to be careful when we use Medium/Close Recce as a dogmatic way of saying what Armoured and Infantry Recce elements do and do not do. I think that there is a certain amount of overlap and the 1979 doctrine certainly had this overlap. 

Going back to GMR, the difference between Close and Medium Reconnaissance becomes a little more clear when it is explained that in the current construct Medium Recce finds the enemy while Close Recce defines it. For example, the armoured recce elements could be executing a Zone Recce that find enemy platoon positions with six-figured grids and a general idea of obstacles while the infantry recce coming up behind are defining those platoon positions down to section positions with to eight-figured grids and the exact definition of obstacles. The infantry recce guys might also be providing guides to combat teams while the armoured recce guys are seeking to push past the enemy to get into the depth. None of this is all that different from what occured in the past. The big takeaway for me is that a Recce Sqn or Troop equipped with Coyotes can certainly execute tasks in support of a Battle Group and still be doctrinally correct. I also suggest that Armoured Recce can execute what might be called Close Recce tasks since they were originally conducting Close Recce anyway.

Looking at tactical tasks from GMR more closely, armoured recce have the Zone Recce task while the infantry  recce troops do. Armoured recce can conduct counter-reconnaissance and reconnaissance in force if they have "Act" attachments. The infantry conduct close target reconnaissance while the armoured do not. The infantry have explicit guiding/marking tasks while the armoured do not. Beyond that they share a common constellation of tasks (Route, Area, Point, Screen, the range of Tactical Security tasks and the range of Stability Operations tasks). I take from all this that there is a certain level of commonality that we can exploit while still recognizing that an armoured Patrol Commander and an infantry Recce Section Commander may visualize the battlefield a little differently and come up with different ways to execute similar tasks. 

Bringing this back to the PRes Armoured and the thread, they do indeed have a role and associated tasks. GMR provides a doctrinal framework for the Armoured Recce Troop (Light Mounted). The manual is careful to say that the Pres Armoured Recce Troop does not perform close recce even if they dismount, but I think that they might have been exagerating the point a little too much. Nevertheless there is a role and doctrine for the PRes Armour.

I think that the real issue is a lack of vehicles and radios. You can improvise vehicles but it is hard to improvise communications. I think that if every PRes Armoured unit owned a Squadron of LUVW with full comms installations we wouldn't have this thread. Coming up with a new role or doctrine will not necessarily slay that dragon.

All that being said, I think that the new proposed tasks (expeditionary convoy escort, domestic CRBN and domestic close recce) can certainly work if they come with equipment. They all exploit some aspect of what a Recce Troop can do. A troop of LAV RWS in each area in 2012 for Convoy Escort training would be a nice start. 

I will also say that the existing PRes Armoured Regiments can certainly provide augmentees for Regular Force units even if they lack Coyote qualifications. It creates a bit of a PCF burden at the start but that shouldn't be seen as a show-stopper. They can come with important baseline skills and Armoured Corps ethos that lets them integrate despite a lack of PCFs.

Sorry for the long post!


----------



## a_majoor

OR the PRes can get this:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/status-of-flying-cars-parajet-samson.html



> *Parajet Skycar*
> 
> The Parajet skycar costs $80,000 and can be ordered now and is scheduling deliveries for late 2010 Parajet flew and drove its prototype from London to Timbuktu in January 2009.
> 
> The Parajet SkyCar in “fly mode” is suspended by the latest ram-air wing and capable of take-off from a field or airstrip in less than 200 metres. It will be easier and safer to fly than any other aircraft, as it has no pitch control and therefore impossible to stall or dive. Should the engine fail, the pilot would simply glide down into the nearest field or strip of sandy desert.
> 
> In the unlikely event of catastrophic wing failure, car connection system failure or mid-air collision, an emergency ballistic reserve parachute can be deployed.
> 
> Wing: Custom-made Paramania Reflex Wing
> Wing Span: 38 sqm
> Take off Speed: 37 mph
> Max Speed: 100mph
> Cruising Speed: 82 mph
> Range (miles): 200
> Take off Range: 150 meters
> Max. Altitude: 15,000 ft
> Estimated standard price: £50,000
> Deposit (fullly refundable): £10,000
> Delivery date: Late 2010


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No way! The Air Force will demand that they operate it when in flight mode and the recce guys will have to drive it to the nearest airbase, wash it and clean the interior before being allowed to bring it on base, they won't actually be allowed to drive it on the base, a special section of ground personal will be the only ones allowed to drive it on base up to the flight line and then after preflight inspections have been carried out, the pilot will move from their heated/AC internet connected trailer to to the car with the flight crew ensuring the seat is prewarmed. As for armament in the air there will be a 5 year running debate about equipping the pilot with a Sig 225 or 226, both firearms will be banned when it's discovered that only the 229 was aircraft certified.  :nod:


----------

