# Arty to assume the DFS role?



## Infanteer (5 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Kirkhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why you'd give an Self-Propelled Gun to the Arty - it is supposed to be a direct fire weapon.

Anyways, all of this doesn't matter, since we are moving to PBI's "Single Branch Combat Arm" anyways....


----------



## Zipper (5 Mar 2005)

Why not? Arty started out and remained direct fire until WWI. They had direct fire AT during WWII. The Jagdpanzer's were SP and crewed by the Arty. It seems to be only recently that Arty is considered over the horizon.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2005)

Zipper:

I think the Denel SPH and the MGS are pretty much apples and oranges.  The SPH has as much in common with the MGS as the M109 has with the Leopard.  One is a low velocity howitzer that can be used in direct fire mode, the other is a high velocity rifle that can ONLY be used in direct fire, or at least low angle.

But on general principle, if the MGS, TUA/MMEV, AMOS and SPHs of this world are all really there just to supply fire support then, as you say there is no reason why the couldn't be arty tasks.  As you said there is plenty of historical precedent.

The RCHA started out doing direct fire support for the cavalry with 9 pounders and 13 pounders.  The RCA handled 17 pounder anti-tank guns in Anti-Tank Regiments during WWII.  The Royal Artillery squabbled with the Armoured Corps (and lost) over who should man the Striker - Swingfire vehicles for the British Army.  And indirect fire support is what they have always done.  So, as you say, why not turn all the Fire Support assets over to the RCHA operating in support of the Cavalry.

It has a very Boer War sense to it.. 

Cheers.


----------



## Zipper (5 Mar 2005)

Thanks. Its nice to see I talk some (small) sense around here. 

After thinking about, I agree. The SPH is very different.

I still question the MGS. Do we need it? The proposed way they are setting up the DFS (Strats) unit right now makes it look like a tank replacement. Which it is not.

And if we go over to Cav. (which I highly doubt), we have the TUA and MMEV still on the books to supply fire support. Unless they are thinking the the MGS is strictly a bunker buster for infantry support?

I don't know. 

I'm going to sigh again...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2005)

I don't know if this is why they have done it this way but I can think of one reason why I might have done it the way they have.

To develop common tactics and procedures, with a relatively small equipment set and close to the new WES range so that they can test out some of their theories.  Now, once I had things sussed I might be inclined to reallocate the DFS roles and the Recce roles and create 3 identical Regiments again.  But that's just me.

As for the utility of a high velocity, rapid firing rifle on the battlefield in direct support... has anybody ever turned down any type of fire support if it was offered to them?


----------



## Zipper (6 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To develop common tactics and procedures, with a relatively small equipment set and close to the new WES range so that they can test out some of their theories.   Now, once I had things sussed I might be inclined to reallocate the DFS roles and the Recce roles and create 3 identical Regiments again.   But that's just me.
> 
> As for the utility of a high velocity, rapid firing rifle on the battlefield in direct support... has anybody ever turned down any type of fire support if it was offered to them?



This is fine, and I wouldn't turn down fire support of any kind. But to change the tasking of an entire regiment to test a theory? Especially a theory with a as yet unproven platform? Hardly my idea of wise use of resources. Not to mention to change the taskings of 3 regiments with one test piece just to change all three again in a short time? Doesn't make sense.

What ever happened to testing and approving pieces of equipment *before* changing your entire TTP's? What happens if the Americans decide the thing doesn't work and drop it?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2005)

In the mean time all the tanks are concentrated in one regiment.  

And trying out new ways of operating.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Mar 2005)

It is interesting listening to ideas of having arty do direct fire support (they did in WW2 and esentially thats what they did pre-1900)..

Maybe first step is to look at the combat functions
they are

* Manoeuver
* Sustainment
* Firepower
* Info Operations
* Protection
* Command

In our army they are divided as
Manoeuver (Armour and Infantry)
Sustainment (I beleive service battalions)
Firepower (artillery)
Info ops (kind of everybody is involved in ISTAR but Recce SQN main area)
Protection (Sappers)
Command (Sigs and all the command structures are involved here)

So maybe having direct fire support batteries (MGS Battery, TUA Battery and MMEV Battery would be a good idea).
This would leave armour free to master the art of Armoured Cavalry (Mobility, Reconnaissance, Lethality, quick reaction, Flank security, etc)


----------



## Infanteer (6 Mar 2005)

DFS is an integral part of Maneuver.  A 120mm gun on a tank is Direct Fire Support.  You can't move without suppressing the enemy.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2005)

Direct Fire Support IS an integral part of Maneuver.     
That is why the Horse Artillery was attached to Cavalry Brigades, which also included Dragoons or Mounted Infantry.

A 120mm gun on a tank IS Direct Fire Support.   
But it is also much more.   It is a manoeuvre element on its own, unlike the Horse Artillery.   In some respects the MGS does harken back to the days of the RHA gunners, serving their guns within rifleshot of the Boers and protected only by a light metal gun-shield for the layers.

You CAN'T move without suppressing the enemy. 
The only questions are who is going to do the suppressing and with what these days.   Such a vast array of choices - machine guns to tactical nukes.   Which Corps belongs to which trigger or button.


----------



## McG (6 Mar 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Maybe first step is to look at the combat functions
> they are
> 
> * Manoeuver
> ...


It does not make sense to build units around territorially protected cbt functions.  Many units actually perform a spectrum to the cbt functions for the higher formation.  Engr did protection, sustainment, info ops, and manoeuvre (by giving the freedom to move to the manoeuvre arms). Many functions required the contribution of a variety of force elements.  "Protection" was provided by Engr, Air Def, MP, and Recce.  Lastly, everything on the battlefield needed to have those cbt functions considered in its structure in order to survive and to perform its "collective cbt function" for the higher force.

Besides, we've stopped using those in favour of Command, Sense, Act, Shield, and Sustain.  Act includes, but is not limited to, manoeuvre and firepower.


----------



## Zipper (6 Mar 2005)

I don't see what the argument is? Who cares if the Armour or Artillery has the MGS or DFS or not? There are good reasons for either. 

The way I look at it is if the Armoured take on the Cavalry role, which is not certain, then they will need to concentrate on that alone and not be having to learn Infantry dismount tatics, driver, gunner in Turret, CC for calavalry, etc. Plus learning to fire the MGS, TUA, MMEV. Way to many things.

Let the RCHA/Air defense boys who have lost their M-109's take on the DFS roll, and let the Armoured do the Cavalry thing while the Infantry go to Light. Then we have a nice rounded out force that can respond to any and all deployments asked of us.

As well, if we are going over to all arms regiments, then why not just let those who know their jobs stick with them? Its all moot.

If we do not go over to all arms, then it becomes a discussion on who has it.


----------



## McG (6 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> As well, if we are going over to all arms regiments, then why not just let those who know their jobs stick with them? Its all moot.
> 
> If we do not go over to all arms, then it becomes a discussion on who has it.


More of a turf war pissing contest.  Exactly the reason we need to go to an all arms regiment.  Then we stop these discusions of who should have what toy, and we focus on the important question of where does said "toy" need to be on the battlefield in order to best achieve the mission.  Protected branch territories have no place in defining doctrine.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> More of a turf war pissing contest.   Exactly the reason we need to go to an all arms regiment.   Then we stop these discusions of who should have what toy, and we focus on the important question of where does said "toy" need to be on the battlefield in order to best achieve the mission.   Protected branch territories have no place in defining doctrine.



Sounds good to me - the Refrigeration Techs can man the DFS vehicle for all I care, as long as they are incorparated into a cohesive and tactically sound combined arms unit.

Moving along now....


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2005)

I don't see necessarily a Corps based turf war.

I like the All-Arms Regiment.

I also like the notion that there are specialists in particular fields.

So, as I was suggesting to McG, in a Cavalry Regiment you would have graduates of the Infantry School  and the Armoured School combined into a Regiment independent of either school.  Likewise the Regiment would incorporate gunners as members of the Regiment, trained at the Artillery School.  Similarly with the Engineers and Service Support.

A Light Infantry force would likewise be an all arms force - permanent or ad hoc I know not.

Now as you move back out of the Regiments we may find Independent single Arms Regiments, especially amongst the Engineers and Service Support as well as the Artillery.  Although I believe that there would be a role in the organisation for the Artillery and Transport Regiments to have a high ratio of Reserve Sub-units handling firing duties and driving trucks.  Those Reg/Res Units would be single branch units.  As would Reserve Infantry and Armoured or Recce sub-units.

So this is not by way of creating empires, but concentrating skill sets - individuals and dets to sub-units trained by the Branches but employed by the Manoeuvre Regiments.


----------



## pbi (7 Mar 2005)

Personally, I would like to see the MGS (or whatever system eventually replaces both it and our indirect system...) operated by the Direct Fire Support sub-unit integral to a Cbt Branch Unit. But, remember my caveat-the Cbt Branch article was predicated on several assumptions, one of which was that heavier combat systems have gone the way of the dodo for us. If we are actually going to structure and equip the separate Cbt Arms such that they can each bring something unique and powerful to the battlespace: fine. If not, then stop worrying about what branch does what and treat DF, IF, etc as skill sets to be taught to soldiers.

I still feel, as I have felt for quite a while before I ever thought of writing the article, that the forward march of technology is blurring the distinction between IF and DF and will eventually remove it, while bringing us systems similar to MLRS which has, I am told, a much lower training threshhold than tube gunnery (Yes-thanks--I do realize the difference between splattering a grid square and striking a target more precisely...). The later versions of MLRS have improved accuracy for individual projectiles: it is IMHO only a matter of time before there is a practical and affordable system on the market that does both IF and DF equally well. Remember, even a weapon system as simple as the GPMG can (and has been..) used in both direct and indirect roles, so the concept of dual purpose is a long established one.

Cheers


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (9 Mar 2005)

The DFS Regiment will be the best thing to ever happen to the CF.  Throw away the black beret rhetoric Arty/Infantry chants, and let's get on with it.  We are taking the experts and putting them into a single combined Regiment.  I will admit the air defence is a little behind in the DF concept due to fact that we have never really trained for it, but come another year or two we will be right up there with the LDSH and PPCLI guys within the DFS. Let's get rid of the trades..have one beret, one cap badge.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Mar 2005)

Birdgunnesrule (Funny your screen name contradicts your thoughts)..

It will be interesting to see if we do just that with Hillier at the helm.

As a mid dog (too little time to be an old dog) I am both scared and welcoming of a new combat arms branch.  ???

I beleive in the long run it will work better for us.


Lets watch and see what happens...


----------



## Zipper (10 Mar 2005)

Some little problems with the DFS concept. All arms aside, as it is an idea that I think is coming and may just work (as all arms regiments).

Only 1 regiment is being made DFS, which means there is no chance of deployment sustainablity. 

Also, the whole concept of having a layered approach is rather interesting. Since we seem to be trying to move to a "light" more rapid style of formation, then why bog yourself down with a DFS type of unit that has to take time to set itself up properly to be effective?

Having the ADATS as a component of your layered approach means that you have to spend the time setting the thing up to fire, by which time if your lucky to have perfect terrain, your mechanized forces will have probably moved to the outter range of your effective fire. In which case, you then have to break it down again to move. All taking time and slowing down your ulitmate mobility. 

If you don't have perfect terrain, which is the majority of what will be operated in, then you won't have time to set it up anyway before your forward elements have moved behind a terrain feature.

Of course considering the problems with ADATS (300,000+ per shot being just one), we may be going to a entirely different system anyway.

So is it actually the best thing that has ever happened to the military? I think not.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Some little problems with the DFS concept. All arms aside, as it is an idea that I think is coming and may just work (as all arms regiments).
> 
> Only 1 regiment is being made DFS, which means there is no chance of deployment sustainablity.



Now you are entering into another topic; the problems that are plaguing the "PLUG N PLAY" concept being put into effect by the wizards at NDHQ.

GW


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (10 Mar 2005)

The DFS concept is the best because it is a real attempt to get rid of the Armoured/Arty/Infantry politics that dominate the Army. Sustainability will be a problem.  A Regiment built around the TUA may be more suited and much more sustainable.  P.S.  An ADATS missile does not cost 300,000 +.  They cost around 100,000 in the late 1980's when they were purchased. Its the same as that 1965 mustang that in mint condition. Probably paid 30000 for it, but its worth much more today because its vintage.  Problem is no one makes them anymore and the few hundred we have left in stock are becoming more valuable as we await for the high and mighty MMEV. Zipper, I agree with 95% of what you say.  I just think that the DFS is start of one army one cap badge experiment.


----------



## Zipper (10 Mar 2005)

Ok. With that part out of the way.



			
				birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> The DFS concept is the best because it is a real attempt to get rid of the Armoured/Arty/Infantry politics that dominate the Army.



I myself do not understand this politics? There has been "friendly" (and not so in the bars) rivalry between the arms for as many years as they have exsisted. I think we should keep the separate arms as in a way of training the various skills, as well as a way to keep their individual histories alive. 

Why they cannot co-exsist under a particular cap badge or beret I don't know? If we go the way that has been bandied about on some of the other threads, it would be nice to see our "light" forces wearing the green beret, while the Cav wear the black. Does this mean the Arty lose out because they are part of another force? No. They have their guns, and they have their history.

Do people who are trained in armour and once were part of an armoured regiment any less armoured because they are now part of a "light" infantry regiment that has jeeps or armoured cars attached and wear a green beret? No.

Same with those who were infanrty that are now trained cavalry dismounts and wear a black beret instead. 

What I'm trying to say is, that if your a ground pounder/zipperhead/gun jock, you'll still throw insults at the others because that is the thing to do. And more power to you.

What the combined arms may do is get rid of the backroom politics as far as resources are concerned. Although I doubt that happens much anymore either. Its not like the old days of the Horse Guards controlling everything and doleing out equipment as per your political standing at white hall.


----------



## Gobsmacked (11 Mar 2005)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> Sustainability will be a problem.  NO ARGUMENT!  NOT TO MENTION SURVIVABILITY!
> (ESPECIALLY IN THE ENVISIONED '8-PACK' [4x MGS; 2x LAV-TUA; 2x MMEV-ADATS] DEPLOYMENTS THAT CAN BE EASILY OVERWHELMED BY DETERMINED OPPOSITION WITH MULTIPLE MBTS.)
> A Regiment built around the TUA may be more suited and much more sustainable.  VERY DEBATABLE.
> P.S.  An ADATS missile does not cost 300,000 +.  They cost around 100,000 in the late 1980's when they were purchased. Its the same as that 1965 mustang that in mint condition. Probably paid 30000 for it, but its worth much more today because its vintage.  Problem is no one makes them anymore and the few hundred we have left in stock are becoming more valuable as we await for the high and mighty MMEV.



Hate to burst your bubble, but as I've previously pointed out on the Re: ADATS and Ex Perfect Kill  thread  http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=0ed9b740a58b798c33821d68a6635008&topic=18535/post-101223#msg101223   
your superiors know otherwise.
A 9 May 2003 CLS _'Training Ammunition Request - ADATS Missiles'_ BN notes _"the estimated replacement cost, should production be started, is *a minimum of C$360K per ADATS missile.*"_   
Definitely Not Cost-effective for shooting <US$100K T-72s or recce vehicles.  :


----------



## Zipper (11 Mar 2005)

Which is why I stated somewhere around here that we would be able to afford MBT's and their supports for as much as we'll spend on training gunners on the ADATS. Of course, we could REALLY afford CV-90's or their like for the same amount as well.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Mar 2005)

Zipper, the CF is not going with the LAV MGS, TUA and MMEV because of cost.
They are going with an all wheeled force because of deployment issues and they want they assetts to move around rapidly. Tanks don't move rapidly from one city to another.

Your still stuck in cold war mentality and thinking combat team is the only way to go. MBT and IFV blasting their way across the rhine. Or in your case the cougar blasting from the firing pad in meaford.

Thats not the type of mission the CF has been doing in the last decade.

Have you seen some of the new roles the arms are tackling? Probably not since your profile puts you out for awhile..

Arty (UAV tasking as well as Light Gun)
Reserve armour is all mounted on G-wagons or worse silverado (where is the armour in that?)
RegF Armour will now handle DFS and Surveillance.
Infantry has no mortars, pioneers or TOW.

So um yeah, A single arms regiment will more than likely work.

Just about every tour the sub units are gathered together (plug 'n' play) to form battle groups under the command of an inf or armour HQ.


----------



## Zipper (11 Mar 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Zipper, the CF is not going with the LAV MGS, TUA and MMEV because of cost.
> They are going with an all wheeled force because of deployment issues and they want they assets to move around rapidly. Tanks don't move rapidly from one city to another.



Huh??? ???

The LAV MGS, TUA, and MMEV ARE wheeled? Hence the LAV part. The Strats moving to a DFS unit (whatever the hell that is) are slated to use just those vehicles. Which is the whole argument from my side.

Unless there has been another announcement say that we are no longer considering them?

As for changing roles and tasks. I am well aware of that. Yes it has taken me some time to come around to such thinking, but I have. That is why I have referred to some of the other threads which talk about the use of Cavalry and light Infantry units. All of them are combined arms regiments.

Is the regimental system going to die. I don't think so. 

Are they going to be made into these combined arms units, but keep their names? That is what I think most likely.

Which is why I referred mainly to one of the more accepted ideas (around here) of the Infantry moving towards a totally light tasking with all the other arms adding their capabilities within the unit. Same with Cavalry. The Armoured units would move towards this tasking using LAVs and having all the other arms included within the same beret or cap badge.

The Infantry/Armoured/Arty Corps would still exist, but mainly as a means of working through there various schools to train each of the components of an all arms regiment.

Will any of this actually happen? I don't know. And I doubt it.

NDHQ works in its own way.

If anything, they are still stuck in a cold war mentality with the idea of keeping the Infantry mounted as Mech Inf. Mech Inf cannot work properly if they do not have Tank support. Thus get rid of Mech Inf and move all the vehicles to a more rapid Cavalry idea. Make the infantry into Light so they can rapidly respond to any mission. (like the RM, Rangers, etc...)

If anything, they are still stuck in a cold war mentality with this DFS idea. The MGS is NOT an tank. So it cannot move, fire, and support like one. Yet what are they doing with their 4 MGS/2 TUA/2 MMEV idea? Moving like a tank. As well with only 1 regiment tasked, they are basically taking them out of the ability to be deployed.

If anything, they are still stuck in a cold war mentality with the idea that we need so many Armoured Recce units. Why? Every unit is capably of doing recce, and calling in fire missions with the ISTAR. You don't need 6 or more squadrons of armoured recce to support your other units, since we vary rarely deploy anything larger then a battle group. As well, with all your militia regiments going recce, and since we increasingly use the militia. Just plug a squadron of militia Gwagons into your formation and your covered. 

Also on this topic and covering the Cavalry idea. Since we have lost the Tank, and thus any kind of true bite we had, we need to reconfigure our forces to gain some of that back. Thus the Cav. If you go and read the Light vs Medium thread, you'll see that is just what is being discussed. And fully deployable in a sustainable manner and capable of supporting the other elements within our own forces and well as out.

But I say again. Will any of this happen? I doubt it. NDHQ has its own agenda.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Mar 2005)

I do agree with you on NDHQ being stuck on cold war however give General Hillier a year or two there to shake some sense into them (That would be a miracle in its self).

I don't agree with the idea of concentrating the DFS system all in one regt (No logic). I beleive they should divide up the DFS assetts between each armoured regt and that would give each of these regts a DFS Squadron. 

I will ease off on the trigger as far blasting you for cold war thinking. From reading what you posted it seems as though your thinking transformation rather than blasting away on the front in Germany (old school)

I am embracing the MGS. Why ??? WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD I DO THAT ??? Because we have to. We have to learn what this weapon is capable of and what its limitations are and employ it as such. The question should not be "Should we purchase the MGS". That decision has already been made, like it or not. Its being forced on us therefore we must make it work.

As long as we don't use MBT tactics.

Cheerio.


----------



## Zipper (11 Mar 2005)

Now we agree for the most part! ;D

Hee hee

I wonder about our vaunted CDS in that he seems to be fully behind the DFS unit. We'll see.

I agree that we have to work with what we're getting. I still think the MGS is a load of crap, and may still be axed by the States. If that happens, then I have no idea what will happen.

If you read the Light vs Medium thread. I incorporated the MGS (2) into each of what I would like to see as a Cavalry troop. This brings a large amount of firepower to use within each troop as support (they would be behind by 1 or more bounds) and thus give each Cavalry troop the hitting power somehwat similiar to the old tank troops. Along with TOW on the turrests of the LAV III's and the dismounts, this would give each troop alot of hitting power and still keep the mobility high. As well with each of the LAV III's able to tie into the ISTAR, and a troop of Gwagons out front locating targets quietly, fire support can be called in from either the Arty boys or air support.

This formation is still able to engage reasonably heavy opposition, but able to patrol, scout, screen, etc...


----------

