# The BG's 4th manouevre coy



## Haligonian (1 Oct 2010)

Does anybody think that attaching a 4th coy to the BG will have a large impact in Panjwayii or is it too little too late? I'm leaving towards too little too late.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2010)

An extra infantry company is always a good move.


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Oct 2010)

It would cover off HLTA and injuries/ D@S as well. It's been two years now since I've been there but we would have loved to have extra boot's. Personally I feel/ believe there are zero non taliban in that area. They may not all be fighters but they are ALL supporters. That place needs a flood of soldiers for about 60 years to breed the taliban out of em.


----------



## Haligonian (2 Oct 2010)

You can say taht again.  With the 4th coy here were still stretched on the ground and tied down big time.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Oct 2010)

First of all, saying “4th manoeuvre company” implies that the other coys are actually manoeuvre companies.  We’re lucky enough to muster up a platoon as a manoeuvre element most of the time.

Secondly, “too late” for what exactly?

And I don’t see how they could “cover off” for HLTA, injuries and D&S since they are an element unto themselves.


----------



## Haligonian (4 Oct 2010)

I Coy is in the same posn.  We too are tied down to Tactical Infrastructure. Originally there was some talk of employing us as a "surge" coy that could move out and conduct cbt team level operations.  This did not materialise unfortunatly.

Too late to have a lasting impact in Panjwayii.  Basically 1 and a half tours will benefit from having a 4th coy then its time to pull out.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Oct 2010)

Assume for a moment that we followed our own doctrine, THEN this would make sense.

First of all, when threat levels reach a certain point, all leave is to be cancelled, according to our doctrine.  Yet we slavishly retain the idiotic policy that treats as a right one's HLTA.  Second of all, where is our "Replacement Holding Unit"?  It is from this RHU that losses are to be replaced, through injury or death of members, or destruction or break down of equipment and weapons.

So, elect me as your CDS, and I promise to rid you of HLTA, and to stand up a RHU, able to provide a replacement, in theatre, within hours of you requiring it.  Yes, your precious leave will not happen in tour; however, you will have 40 soldiers/platoon all the time, not 28 or so, with half of them checking the calendar.  And as a side benefit, you will get that fourth company that will allow rotation of tasks from "intense" to "less intense", allowing for vital down time, albeit in theatre.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2010)

This is the internet.  Stop using logic and common sense.


----------



## Jammer (4 Oct 2010)

I loved all four times...I didn't even want my HLTA, in fact I could backfill all the posns that had to be left vacant when others left. A trip back to KAF was all I ever wanted...wait a minute...21 days (not including travel to Mirage), and still get tour pay...hook me up brithers. Amen TV...I believe we had this convo in theater and came to the same conclusion.


----------



## pbi (7 Oct 2010)

Whether the fourth rifle company in a battalion would make any difference in our remaining time in Afgh might not really be the issue. The question might really be: why don't we maintain four rifle companies, permanently, as the standard for operations? (And thus, hopefully, the structure in garrison)

In 1994, following our tour in Croatia,  our unit (1 PPCLI) identified in our "Lessons Learned" report at that we were badly hampered by trying to run a large, busy AO with only three rifle companies. The result was a very thinly dispersed force with limited rapid response capability and long transit times over very predictable routes. Thankfully, although we faced challenges and lost people, we didn't confront anything like what Canadians have faced in Kandahar. It seems things haven`t progressed all that much.

In understand the institutional pressures and compromises that led us to basically shelve the fourth company, but IMHO it is a must for operations.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2010)

You can add another two companies and they wouldn't make a difference because they would never be used where they are needed the most IMO.

We had too many people in our platoon for our task and the amount of work we were doing. Half way through our sister platoon got chopped up and half of them sent to our platoon.
While other elements (OMLT, POMLT, PSYOPS) were screaming for more people we had guys spending all morning doing maintenance (playing cards in a tent) then dismissed at 1130am for the rest of the day. I think the record was 11 days straight of "working" 930am to 1130am.

I'm not sure if it's like that anymore.


----------



## Haligonian (8 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Whether the fourth rifle company in a battalion would make any difference in our remaining time in Afgh might not really be the issue. The question might really be: why don't we maintain four rifle companies, permanently, as the standard for operations? (And thus, hopefully, the structure in garrison)
> 
> In 1994, following our tour in Croatia,  our unit (1 PPCLI) identified in our "Lessons Learned" report at that we were badly hampered by trying to run a large, busy AO with only three rifle companies. The result was a very thinly dispersed force with limited rapid response capability and long transit times over very predictable routes. Thankfully, although we faced challenges and lost people, we didn't confront anything like what Canadians have faced in Kandahar. It seems things haven`t progressed all that much.
> 
> ...



What was the strength of the army at that time?  I think your right.  Of course having a four coy BG would be the way to go but could we maintain that manning? I'm inclined to think yes as my coy wasn't brought over from Canada but transitioned from being Stab A to being I Coy 1 RCR BG. Meaning that we were already here, we just needed to be re rolled.  If the army were to do this we'd probably want to go back to a 4 coy bn back in Canda as well though.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2010)

I agree with binning HLTA. I remember my last tour overseas and I hated getting out of the tempo of being on ops and then gearing back into on return (its disruptive). Yes its nice to see your family or have some down time but I feel it really does disrupt operational tempo. I would rather see extra days added on at the end of the tour.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2010)

For all you smart alecs out there,

By extra days added on the end of the tour I am referring to leave not days in theater (I can see the humour sharks circling me on that last remark).


----------

