# Thunderbolt and New Doctrine



## Tebo (29 May 2004)

I have spent the last few hours completely immersed in the Stryker escapades and the changing roles of the armoured and infantry.

For Background on where I am coming from reference:

 http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf 


Page 118 for information on the Thunderbolt mobile gun which combines an Abrams like 120mm gun and RPG defeating passive armour with a diesel/electric hybrid engine that guzzles 24 times less fuel and can run silent off electric soley for 30 mins.  It also makes room for 4 infantry soldiers in addition to the three man crew.


That being said, and drawing from conclusions by both the US Marines and the ISF it seems like the force we should be looking at is tracked offensive vehicles with built in infantry support.  The Thunderbolt delivers this in spades and when operational costs are taken into account I do not see how the Stryker can even compare financially.


Furthermore, this sort of combat regime breaks down the division between the infantry and armoured.  Almost like we could field ‘combat officers‘ and soldiers could specialize in mounted or dismounted trades.   


These are my two thoughts on where we might look to head.  Other than being frustrated about the Stryker, I would appreciate some critiques of my views.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

I know this report has been tagged with accusations of innacuracies and politicing before on the ‘net.



> Furthermore, this sort of combat regime breaks down the division between the infantry and armoured. Almost like we could field ‘combat officers‘ and soldiers could specialize in mounted or dismounted trades.


I‘m all for this idea.  The trade "infantry" becomes strictly light, focusing on difficult terrain and FIBUA, while the Armoured Corps and mechanized infantry are rolled up into a "Armoured Cavalry Corps", with trade specializations as a dismount or a crewman.  

Would the officer specializations require this as well? (ie: dismounted panzergrenadier officer and a mounted panzer commander to run both aspects of mechanized combat?)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 May 2004)

all good but...
money and troops aren‘t in spades
without a solid defined role for this military I wouldn‘t waste my time dreaming up concepts.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

> all good but...
> money and troops aren‘t in spades
> without a solid defined role for this military I wouldn‘t waste my time dreaming up concepts.


Well, that is true.  That would definately be step 1.

Doesn‘t mean we can‘t play Gedenkenexperiment to amuse ourselves.  What would of happened if Guderien and Von Seekt would have said "money and troops aren‘t in spades" in the 1920‘s, Versailles-chained Wehrmacht?


----------



## Tebo (29 May 2004)

Three responses and another fun, unsubstantiated rumour:

While the report is completely prone to it‘s own spin, the nature of the systems they discuss seem to jive in some fashion.  I think it makes the case about leadership and the Stryker even if you strip away all the subjective adjectives and political postering.

I do not think the officer role would require a further division.  Officer goes to the main effort and the section commanders and warrant hold the fort in the other areas.  If anthing, it might finally get some real coordination between infantry and armoured assests as the commander‘s intent can encompass the capabilities of a far more diverse fighting force.  

Also, I think  that FIBUA being the realm of light infantry is only true in the most delicate of operations.  Otherwise, rolling down the road with a tank as you clear buildings seems like a much more keen practice.  Seems to be what the marines have adopted in Iraq - counts for something.

Finances.  If the diesel-electric uses 24 times less fuel and requires less than the Stryker‘s 8000 modifications to face down RPGs I don‘t see how it can be more expensive over expected life time.  Manpower. It sounds like we WILL have a number of armoured soldiers looking for somthing to do.

I actually had heard some rumours thrown around Gagetown about a ‘Combat Officer‘ trade where everyone is simply trained as an infantry platoon commander then graduated into Arty or Armoured specializations as required. I think the idea was to have maximum infantry assests and do away with converting a company or two of arty to infantry for deployment as has been done in the past.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2004)

> I do not think the officer role would require a further division. Officer goes to the main effort and the section commanders and warrant hold the fort in the other areas. If anthing, it might finally get some real coordination between infantry and armoured assests as the commander‘s intent can encompass the capabilities of a far more diverse fighting force.


I think I‘m going to agree with you on that one.



> Also, I think that FIBUA being the realm of light infantry is only true in the most delicate of operations. Otherwise, rolling down the road with a tank as you clear buildings seems like a much more keen practice. Seems to be what the marines have adopted in Iraq - counts for something.


Yeah, I figured that much as I was writing that.  What I was aiming for in defining a new infantry was focusing it towards the unconventional war/low-intensity conflict (ie: mountains, jungles, cities, insurgencies, etc) while the Panzer force would gear towards the mid to high intensity conflict (ie: Gulf War I and II).



> Finances. If the diesel-electric uses 24 times less fuel and requires less than the Stryker‘s 8000 modifications to face down RPGs I don‘t see how it can be more expensive over expected life time. Manpower. It sounds like we WILL have a number of armoured soldiers looking for somthing to do.


Yep.  Don‘t get me wrong, I‘m not the biggest fan of the all-LAV force either.  I think we should (ideally) aim for a track/wheel mix, as to benefit from the advantages of both.



> I actually had heard some rumours thrown around Gagetown about a ‘Combat Officer‘ trade where everyone is simply trained as an infantry platoon commander then graduated into Arty or Armoured specializations as required. *I think the idea was to have maximum infantry assests and do away with converting a company or two of arty to infantry for deployment as has been done in the past.*


I don‘t like that idea because of the band aid reason it was put forward for.  However, the theory fits into the way the Royal Marines do things, although they have the benefit of getting the Gunners and Sappers from the Army.

  http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2677.html  

I‘ve been a proponent of doing that with the Ranks, why not apply it to the officer corps as well?


Anyways, I‘d like to see what some of the resident zipperheads have to say.


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2004)

Which way should we take this thread?  Should we discuss whether soldiers and officers should all be trained as one common CBT Arm or should we discuss the Stryker vs Track aspect of the link?

Briefly, I am of the opinion that all CF personnel should be a Infantryman first and a then a Tradesman.  All CF pers should be trained in the Basic Infantry skills first,then become Infantry, Armour, Aviation Tech, Vehicle Tech, Underwater Weapons Specialist, or whatever.  Every member of the CF must know how to handle our basic weapons (C 7/8) and understand at least Section Tactics.  We could take this thread in this direction and cover a lot of ground or then we could discuss the Stryker and some of the data coming out of Iraq.

Burning tires cooking the crews inside is a new idea to me.  The report you link to is lengthy and definitely not too positive in it's review of the Stryker or for any wheeled transport as a matter of fact.  The bias towards 'Tracks' is quite obvious.  

New RPG 7 rounds are able to disable Strykers.  True.  They are equally able to disable M2/3 and M113A3s.  There is also reports of a mystery munition that slices through M1 armour like a hot knife through butter.  The "Wheels Vs Tracks" arguments could branch this thread in a totally different direction.

Which way shall we go?

GW


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

> Briefly, I am of the opinion that all CF personnel should be a Infantryman first and a then a Tradesman.  All CF pers should be trained in the Basic Infantry skills first,then become Infantry, Armour, Aviation Tech, Vehicle Tech, Underwater Weapons Specialist, or whatever.  Every member of the CF must know how to handle our basic weapons (C 7/8) and understand at least Section Tactics.  We could take this thread in this direction and cover a lot of ground or then we could discuss the Stryker and some of the data coming out of Iraq.



I know I have someone who actually agrees with my idea.  As I've said before, ALL Army soldiers should go through something akin to the 30 Week Royal Marines Commando Course and move on to a period of trade training. preferably after a stint in a combat arms unit.


----------



## MJP (31 May 2004)

I agree with the everybody is a rifleman first concept as well.  I think the SQ course was a necessary and a step in the right direction.  One of the major problems is the staff on the course need not be infantry/combat arms and the teaching of weapons and section level tactics(sect attacks) is weak at best.  These instructors might be great at teaching but when they don't have the background, certain things are missed.  Compounding this problem is the cutting out parts of the field phase for certain trades on the PLQ MOD 6.  If they've never been assessed doing a section attack how can they competently teach it?

One of the major points that came out of the recent Iraqi war was the need for more combat training for CSS types not less.
I think more common cbt training is needed in all trades/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2004)

I agree with the concept of training everyone to be a rifleman first, trade second.

One of the primary lessons that will come out of the Iraq war is that logistical troops and vehicles are the Achilles heel of the modern army. The Insurgents of the future will attempt to stay away from the armoured fist of the combat units and try to destroy logistical support units. Therefore it is imperative that all modern armies start right now to toughen up the logistical support and give them the tools and training to defend themselves

Some people talk about following the US army lead on future warfare, but I would say that the US marines/British Army would be a better model for us. The Marines force structure is smaller and more flexible, it's mission, except for the amphibious assault is closer to the Canadian missions. The US army is so big that it can afford to experiment with entire brigades.

The article is heavily slanted against wheeled armour and in favour of tracks for everything, which is unfortunate as there are some concerns. In the US there is a battle between these two camps and the first victim is the truth, followed by the soldier.

The MGS as a tank replacement is truly nuts, it has neither the armament, armour, mobility, situational awareness or ammo load to carry out the task of an MBT. To use it as a mobile AT screen and infantry support, it will likely do ok to well. If we must replace the tank with an wheeled vehicle, than at the very least an updated Centaro or the 10x10 LAV with the GAIT turret.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 May 2004)

I am in favour of taking it one step farther...what if everyone did their initial BE in the combat arms trade of their choice? All and all you would have much better trained CF personnel across the board.


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am in favour of taking it one step farther...what if everyone did their initial BE in the combat arms trade of their choice? All and all you would have much better trained CF personnel across the board.



That to me sounds quite reasonable.   The Cbt Arms currently are sadly understrength.   Fill them up and that would make it easier for CO's accept the fact that Cpl's may wish to OT to other trades.   There would be far less loss to the Cbt Arms when people leave, if the 'supply' of pers coming in to replace them was 'endless'. :flame:

GW


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am in favour of taking it one step farther...what if everyone did their initial BE in the combat arms trade of their choice? All and all you would have much better trained CF personnel across the board.



100% agree.   I know I use this example alot, but here is how the RM does things.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2752.html

Everone is a rifleman, and goes on to a trade after completing a "draft" as "General Duties: Rifleman"; of course we could expand that to the combat arms in a more general, Army setting.

Look at the resume of the RSM of 42 Commando (a Marine battalion).

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/content.php3?page=4812 

His trade is as a clerk, and yet is fully qualified to the Sergeant Major level for infantry formations.   I think moving to this system would help us in eliminating the chauvinism that exists among branches (especially the Infantry) and particularily directed towards the CS and CSS trades.   If everyone has a common background, it would help to reinforce the idea of SOLDIER FIRST (just wanted to try that out!) and that all trades are required to work togeather to win the land battle.

PS:   Notice the trade "Swimmer Canoeist", is that not the most ubercool name for a Jedi Knight.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

As an afterthought, something along this line could also help to address a few more issues.

1) A universal fitness standard.   Now that the message is Soldier First, everyone could be held to a single Soldier Standard.   Something like the Warrior Program could be the Army standard.

2) Universal Marksmanship standard.   No more of these lame Level II shootings for the rear ech guys.   All soldiers should be expected to maintain competence with the service rifle, and as such, will all be put on the range to practice when possible and complete the basic Infantry marksmanship standards (ie, the run down).   As stated above, this can help us to avoid our own pathetic, _Jessica-Lynch-who-never-fired-a-round-in-defence-because-of-improper-weapons-maintainence-and-handling_ story.

However, this would also involve the Army moving further away from the Air Force and the Navy in terms of training (IE, abolishing a common recruit training center in St Jean) as we would want to move to instill the "grunt" mentality at the earliest possible level (ie: screaming at them to get off the bus at two in the morning )


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As an afterthought, something along this line could also help to address a few more issues.
> 
> However, this would also involve the Army moving further away from the Air Force and the Navy in terms of training (IE, abolishing a common recruit training center in St Jean) as we would want to move to instill the "grunt" mentality at the earliest possible level (ie: screaming at them to get off the bus at two in the morning )



I wouldn't go that far.  I'd want them all to do it; Army, Navy and Air Force.  There are where our Tradesmen are coming from.  Many of the trades are Air Force or Navy.  How many Medics do you know who where the Black Beret (a pet peeve of mine) and are not in an Armour Unit?  How many Truckers, Welders, etc. are wearing 'Blue'?

In some cases, they need the Cbt Trg as much as the Cbt Arms types.  Boarding Parties in the Navy need some Cbt Trg and Wpns proficiency.  How about all those REMFs doing Base Defence Force duties?

No...Everyone, means Everyone!

GW


----------



## D-n-A (31 May 2004)

Go more along the lines of USMC training perhaps.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16676.0
Post I made on some USMC reac ech personal, an how they are getting combat training.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

Okay, compromise is alright.  However, my plan goes into a grander scheme of deunifying the Forces.  Each branch has its own requirments, and can train to such.  Navy and Air Force requirements that need "grunts" could fulfill that need with something akin to Marines or the RAF Regiment.

As for not enough tradsmen belonging to the Armoured regiments, my solution would be for these essential trades to be as "regimental" as the Combat Arms.  Assigning a Mechanic or Medic to the Strats should be no different than assigning a Panzer Crewman.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 May 2004)

George, I can see your point but it does not make sense to train a NLBP to the standards of an infantry section. Our training deals more or less in combat in confined spaces in two man teams. It could be done but I think it would detract from our training.


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> George, I can see your point but it does not make sense to train a NLBP to the standards of an infantry section. Our training deals more or less in combat in confined spaces in two man teams. It could be done but I think it would detract from our training.


 

Opps!

You took my point too too far.   I am not saying to train them to the standards of an Infantry section, but to have all Members joining the CF to be trained with the 'Basic' Cbt Arms skills.   That would take them up to learning levels of Basic Section tactics, but not get into the higher standards of the Infantry Section in a Bn.   I would like to see all members of the CF to be proficient with their weapons handling and to understand the Basic skills of Fire and Movement and how to stay alive in the "Front".   Some Basic Field Craft, etc. which would be a basis for future Survival Training.   Things that all Members of the CF would have to know in a Major Conflict.   Jessica's story is an example of why we should do this.

GW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 May 2004)

Ah ok....apologies then I misunderstood your point.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2004)

I moved this here to see if it would get a little more traffic.


----------

