# Should Armour crew the TUA? Which type of unit should it be in?



## Yard Ape

If TUA is consolidated into a Coy/Sqn for each brigade (or even just one for the country), should this be taken over by armour?  Armour fights mounted & TUA cannot be dismounted.  Infantry fights dismounted, so they can keep the TOW on Iltis/LUVW or tripod.


----------



## Infanteer

I would say yes, and TUA crewmen would come to the Infantry battalion just as LAV crewman would.


----------



## bossi

Interesting point - we have other non-infantry "techs" in inf bn (e.g. veh/wpn/med tech ...)
Somebody once told me the Aussies had created taxi regts (i.e. APCs without passengers)
Thus, the guys "behind the wheel/tiller bars" could concentrate on their "thing", and the biped/bipod infantry could focus on theirs ... hmmm ... (just like the veh/wpn/med techs get their trg from their corps ... hmmm ...)

And, after all - it's simply an extension of the "combined arms team" at a more basic level ... hmmm ...

Ya know, it's not the dumbest idea I've ever heard, as long as we don't go too far down the road of specialisation
(i.e. like the guys that can drive HUMVEEs, but can't change the tyres ... if ya catch my drift ...)


----------



## Yard Ape

I've heard talk of pulling TUA out of the infantry battalions to form a Bde anti-armour Coy.  I personally think this is wrong.  The range of TOW is appropriate to the Bn needs.


----------



## bossi

Sounds like a regrettable trend towards evisceration of the infantry ...
(i.e. first they took away the pioneers and mortars ...)

And, of course, the person(s) who thought this was such a great idea probably won't even be there when a Canadian infantry unit sustains heavy casualties because they lost their pioneers, mortars and TOW.

Can't help but wonder what's next ...  The radio's?  Bandages and shell dressings?  Rations?
Oh, well ... I'm sure it'll help somebody's PER (whereas anybody who opposes this will be labelled/libelled as a dinosaur).

Funny, isn't it?  We spent decades building and perfecting our infantry to be among the most capable and potent in the world ... and now ... they're being destroyed (not by the enemy, but from within).


----------



## devil39

Certainly not the ideal situation.   It is a PY issue I would guess.   Only so much money to go around.   Gotta feed CMTC, etc. 

I don't know what our options are quite frankly.     We could start cutting entire units or continue deconstructing Combat support Coy, platoon by platoon, as we are doing now.   If they would hurry up with the Javelin or Gill I would happy to let the Armour corps keep the TUA.


----------



## Yard Ape

Now that the decision is public that Canada will consolodate all of its TUA in the LdSH, does anybody know if there is an intent to eventually replace the infantry crewmen with cavalry crewmen?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Armour originally was issued the TOW, long before the Infantry took it over.  We (the armour) got rid of its last TOW units aomewhere around 1977 or 78.

The LdSH taking both the TUA and ADATS (MMEV) under command in the original order, said that _in the short term_ they would be manned by Infantry and Air Defense.  I take this to mean that the LdSH will have armour trained soldiers operate it in the long term.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Last I heard all the TUA's in the west are going west Wainwright with crews from the 1VP and possibly 3VP manning them until the LAV TUA's come online then its anyone's guess.  I have the notice at work and could scan it if anyone really wants it.


----------



## SALH

I thiink the Decision has been made, the Strats will hold all the direct fire assets for the army starting Oct. I believe.

Thus all ADATS, TUA, and LEO will be housed in the Strats orbat, they will lose the Coyote and gain these assets.  When Leo is phased out with Stryker they will lose the LEO at that point.

Comments.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If the Strats are losing the Coyote who will be taking over that role?


----------



## SALH

No clue.  Some Strats should be able to answer that one.  

But if you look at how this could play out, there would only be reserve recce in the west and no surveillance, hardly ideal.


----------



## Coyote43D

CFL said:
			
		

> If the Strats are losing the Coyote who will be taking over that role?



The Strats won't be losing all their Coyotes. They'll still have Recce Squadron equipped with Coyotes. It would make no sense to take away 1 CMBG's brigade recce asset would it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That's what I was confused about.


----------



## Coyote43D

I just found this on the army website

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=216


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"That means the anti-armour platoons in Infantry battalions are about to disappear," he said.  "It is not, however, a net loss to the Infantry. We're taking all of those people and resources and reinvesting them back in the rifle companies â â€ we're reinforcing the rifle companies." 

Then why is it that 1VP pers will be manning this.  The centralization of these types of assests are moronic at best.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"The elimination of anti-armour platoons in the infantry battalions with personnel not required to establish the LRAAW company being reinvested back into the rifle companies. "

Oh the reinvestment will be worth it and significant.  Ya right.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

This plan is shortsighted and ill conceved.  In 5 years I expect a reversal of policies.  We do not have the necessary personal, equipment or resources for this plan, even if there goal is to make better use of what we have I just don't see it happenning.  Does this mean that the RCR or R22nd have to travel out west to use anti-armour assets.  If thats the case we have just majorly increased travel time, reduction in trainging etc.  We do not have enough equipment or troops to have this new laser take base plus fill all our normal duties.  Or put a stock pile of equipment on either cost "in case" we need to go some where.  This stock piling further reduces the equipment we need at the BN level.


----------



## MG34

tasking the TUA out to the armoured is one of the worst possible things they could have done. Yeah it now gives them something to do butit has also gutted the morale of the infantry Bns.The loss of Pnrs,Mortars and possibly TOW has gutted morale,not too mention taken away 3 advanced courses,this has played havoc with our carreer progression and crushed esprit de corps. It is a total waste of training time and money to re equip and retrain the black hats when the Infantry has perfected the use of the system and it's tactics.I hope this fragile house of cards crumbles fast.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Unfortunately when the cards fall we are underneath them.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Like I mentioned before, TOW was originally issued to the Armoured.  After training about 100 people, firing dozens of missiles, the decision was made to give them to the infantry.  Why?  Who knows?  All I know is that we taught the Infantry for about one year, before they finally started running their own courses.  Now the wheel turns......

So, where does the TOW really belong?  Should the Infanteer concentrate on closing with the enemy, as is traditional?  TOW has no place there.  The Armour, which preaches flexibility, mobility and firepower as its mantra?  TOW doesn't belong there either.  I just wish that instead o highly payed staff weenies losing and winning turf wars, that we would concentrate on a doctrine for the army, then deciding how to man it.  This is pathetic........


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

TOW allows the Infantry a defense against armour without having to rely on our own armour.  TOW also serves as a quasi recce element as well.  To close with and destroy the enemy also includes armored vehicles.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

TOW is strictly a defensive weapon.

I wrote the above tongue in cheek, BTW.  In my opinion, the TOW should belong to the Infantry, so they can employ it to suit their defense plan, and on the offense, the TOW can be used for flank security and, using the sights, it can also be used for overwatch.  TOW can be used by armour, of course, but why have two weapon systems that do much the same thing attached together?  If our few tanks are employed in a blocking force, or preparing a counter-attack, or whatever, at least the Infantry aren't left with nothing but the almost useless (because of range) Eryx as their only anti-armour weapon.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thanks for setting me straight.  Seriously.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Which branch should man the anti-armour units at the brigade (coy/sqn), division (bn/regt), and corps (bde/group) level?

Answer that question, and you will correctly identify the colour of the beret at the unit level.


----------



## Infanteer

This is what I dislike about the regimental/branch system in general.  I could care less on who mans a TOW, whether he be from the Infantry or the Armour; he could be a Refrigeration Tech for all I care.  The crux of the matter is that the Mechanized Infantry Battalion has been deprived of a crucial defensive asset for the sake of some bureaucratic juggling, and no replacement seems to be readily available.  All the talk about person years seems irrelevent when you acknowledge the fact that you have reduced the fighting power of one of our key formations.  I understand that the asset has been sent up to Brigade level.  That seems to be the wrong directing; historical trends show the neccessity of forcing combined arms down rather than up.

Unfortunatly, as CFL alluded to, at some point some guy in Ottawa is going to have the blood of Canadian soldiers on his hands when a pack of T-72s decide to come rumbling over the flanks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If that happens and I survive it, I'll be taking a little trip to the glass palace and go medievel on that sum bitch.   Then I check into the rubber room for some much needed head space and timing.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Blood on the hands"will only occur if no one - infantry, armour, refrigeration techs - provides an integral or attached (eg. from a brigade anti-armour squadron) platoon to a battalion which faces a risk of massed armoured attacks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'd rather have the assets as an integral part vs relying on another unit to provide security because when the shit hits the fan who knows what will happen.  Why not have a cohesive force with all the basic elements, anti armour elements, immediate fire support, immediate engineering support, immediate recce elements all in one harmonious unit.  Have redundant elements for the bigger picture.  What are these officers using to formulate the future of our army?  Military for Dummies?  Time to clean house.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> Why not have a cohesive force with all the basic elements, anti armour elements, immediate fire support, immediate engineering support, immediate recce elements all in one harmonious unit.



You mean like we already had with the now defunct Armoured Assault Troop or the Infantry Pioneers?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well I'm not familiar with the armoured assault troop (educate me please)?   As far as mortars and pioneers go then yes.


----------



## Infanteer

> "Blood on the hands"will only occur if no one - infantry, armour, refrigeration techs - provides an integral or attached (eg. from a brigade anti-armour squadron) platoon to a battalion which faces a risk of massed armoured attacks.



Obviously, the topic of TOW's refers specifically to Armoured threats, which may or may not be low on the threat horizon right now.   However, I figure it is the core of the issue that I am opposing; that being that when we remove the greatest percentage of firepower from a maneuver unit (Infantry Battalion, Armoured Regiment) we are depriving it of fighting power.   Saying it will have the abilities augmented is potentially making promises you can't keep.   I remember hearing that the C-6 provides 80% of the firepower to the platoon.   Would we have a platoon depend on 80% of its firepower to come from another source, one that has its own problems during battle?   I remember reading that one of the reason for German tactical successes in both WWI and WWII was that they built their small units around the heavier supporting arms (ie, an MG) rather then simply building a unit around the rifles with a few heavier weapons to spice things up.

What if we removed all the support weapons (C-9s, C-6s, 60mm, and Carl G's) away from the Infantry Platoon and sent it up to company or battalion in order to pool the resources.   What would happen when 35 guys carrying rifles required suppressive fire in order to maneuver around the enemy?   They would be up shit creek if all those assets were away at another sector of the battlefield, or worse, not even present because they were all used on the last ROTO in order to patrol Bosnian coffeeshops.

Forcing combined arms doctrine down should enable a significant force multiplier for smaller units in the field.  The small unit commander simply has more at his disposal.   Removing these capabilities to higher echelons which will provide the support can only serve to curb the initiative and the ability to react to the ever changing situations on the battlefield for lower level commanders, ultimately serving to slow down actions and increase friendly casualties.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm lecturing.   I'm just trying to give the reasoning behind my rational for thinking this is a bad choice.


----------



## Coyote43D

CFL said:
			
		

> Well I'm not familiar with the armoured assault troop (educate me please)?   As far as mortars and pioneers go then yes.



CFL,
 Assault Troop is the armoured version of an infantry Pioneer Platoon. They are part of Recce Sqn


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thanks.


I'm getting a bit tired of our military being bastardized for some smucks grand vision.  Anyone know where I can find the Offical Oppostion Parties defence critics name and email.  Also Peter Worthington's email while I'm at it.


----------



## Armymedic

Check under

www.parl.gc.ca 

specifically:http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&Sect=hoccur&Order=PersonOfficialLastName

and look for the email of the Conservative Defence critic, Mr. O'Connor from Carletonâ â€Lanark. 

 email: OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca

Next time do your own darn homework and you won't be a CFL forever. ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Hey I like it where I am thank you very much.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If the capabilities removed as part of a redistribution of personnel to overcome current shortfalls are not returned if we mobilize formations (brigade+) with the intention of mid- to high-intensity warfighting against modern mechanized formations, then the change is likely to be a bad risk.  (Hedge: if the capability is revolutionized, it may not be necessary to vest it in a combat support element; an example would be a dismounted fire/forget LRAAW which could realistically be distributed one per section.)

However, as long as combat support platoons continue to be attached under full command of infantry battalions and recce squadrons when necessary, it is almost irrelevant that they are not part of the permanent unit establishment.  The caveat is that the platoons should train collectively with the supported unit types on a regular basis.  The critical risk with removing pioneer, mortar, anti-armour, assault, etc platoons from the battalions and squadrons is not that they will never be provided under some form of command arrangement, but that they will not train collectively often enough for the attached elements to retain the institutional knowledge of infantry battalion, recce squadron etc TTPs.


----------



## Infanteer

I fully agree with the assessment in your last statement, Brad.

Here is a potentially daunting question yet one that must be asked; I remember the issue was floating around prior to 9/11.

Perhaps, with current manning conditions, we may have to break up one Infantry battalion from each brigade.   The numbers would be used to fill up their remaining two sister battalions, bringing them up to strength (Should we bring them back to four companies, or is that part of doctrine completely antiquated by now?) and filling out the training establishments.   One Battalion can focus on Mech tactics and doctrine while the other performs the Light Infantry role.   Since I can't see a CMBG ever being used as a manuever formation in the next while, it shouldn't be necessary to stick to Brigade TO&E.

Does anyone think it would be better to have two full strength battalions then three emaciated ones?   I have my own opinion on the matter, I'm just throwing the bone out for discussion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

During the 90's wasn't that the case?  10/90


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If the capabilities removed as part of a redistribution of personnel to overcome current shortfalls are not returned if we mobilize formations (brigade+) with the intention of mid- to high-intensity warfighting against modern mechanized formations, then the change is likely to be a bad risk.  ...
> 
> However, as long as combat support platoons continue to be attached under full command of infantry battalions and recce squadrons when necessary, it is almost irrelevant that they are not part of the permanent unit establishment.  ...


The move to LAV III TUA will result in a reduced number of platforms (not all M113 TUA will be converted to LAV) so we will not have the option of returning the capability in the event of a high intensity war.

By concentrating all the TUA in the LdSH it will also mean that 2 and 5 brigade units will only train along side TUA once every three years.  Is this often enough to maintain interoperability with TUA and those formations?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

well no its not but hell I've been to the range once a year.


----------



## George Wallace

When it comes down to it, I think the Armour Corps should bring back its' Support Sqn and include TUA as well as 120 mm Mortars in its' inventory.   To change the subject a bit, the variants of ammo now available for the 120 mm Mortars provides a lot of flexibility in their employment, from Anti-Armour to Indirect Fire Support to Illumination, etc.

I personally disagree with the removing of the Pioneers, TOW and Mortars from Inf Bns.   The on again, off again policies of having an Assault Troop, Jump Troops, etc are distroying morale and capabilities within the various Corps.   

I am not being a dinasaur in my beliefs, but a little more realistic than the twits making these changes.

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I agree with just about everything you say except I'm a little perplexed as to why armour would need mortars.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>so we will not have the option of returning the capability in the event of a high intensity war.

Sure we do.  Buy vehicles and ammo, recruit and train soldiers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Takes time to build veh and train people.  I'm not talking WW2 here but something like Iraq type conflict.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >so we will not have the option of returning the capability in the event of a high intensity war.
> 
> Sure we do.  Buy vehicles and ammo, recruit and train soldiers.


That is not compatable with a "come as you are" war.


----------



## Brad Sallows

What do we have that can go as it is (<6 months)?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well thats kinda the point.  Why weaken us any further when we can't even meet that goal.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What do we have that can go as it is (<6 months)?


ATOF should have at least one untasked BG in high readiness all the time.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Who would fill that bill right now.  2VP is in transition, 1 and 3 VP are sending guys to Afghanistan and would both be undermanned if called upon.


----------



## McG

1 CMBG is not the high readiness brigade yet.  It is still 5.

However, recent deployments have broken from the ATOF cycle and it is possible that we do not have anyone at the rediness level required.


----------



## Brad Sallows

My point is: if we can't deploy a brigade (three TUA platoons for the three infantry battalions plus three more for a brigade anti-armour squadron) and in fact can only deploy a battalion or two, we only need a TUA platoon or two "ready".


----------



## George Wallace

In WW II the Recce Reg'ts had M3 Halftracks in their Support Sqn mounting howitzers.  If we are stepping backwards with the acquisition of MGS, then go all the way and give the Armd Regts Mortars and TUA.

GW


----------



## Yard Ape

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> as long as combat support platoons continue to be attached under full command of infantry battalions and recce squadrons when necessary, it is almost irrelevant that they are not part of the permanent unit establishment.


3 x AAP for 12 x manoeuvre units.  That means we have a single AAP for every 4 BG we claim we are able to form.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My point is: if we can't deploy a brigade (three TUA platoons for the three infantry battalions plus three more for a brigade anti-armour squadron) and in fact can only deploy a battalion or two, we only need a TUA platoon or two "ready".


Brigade Anti-Armour Sqns have not been part of doctrine for a few years now (because anti-armour sub-units do not do very well on their own & must be part of an all arms grouping).   However, ATOF is based on 4 manoeuvre units being available to go out the door over the course of a year (or up to to BG deployed concurently and rotated indefinitely.   A single TUA Sqn will not have the man power to support this Op temp for all the Canadian Land Forces.

If MMEV can live up to its potential, it may be a suitable system around which to build the anti-amour squadron of a brigade (but only because NLOS missiles would provide a capability never imagined with past anti-armour sub-units).  TUA should remain in the mech battalions, but it would be acceptable to use Armd Crewmen to man & fight these vehicles.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>because anti-armour sub-units do not do very well on their own & must be part of an all arms grouping

A curious excuse, if true.


----------



## Yard Ape

MG34 said:
			
		

> tasking the TUA out to the armoured is one of the worst possible things they could have done.


No.  Reducing the number of TUA vehicles is worse (and "they" are doing that too).



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> When it comes down to it, I think the Armour Corps should bring back its' Support Sqn and include TUA as well as 120 mm Mortars in its' inventory.


I think Armd Regts should have a Cbt Sp Sqn that is identical to the Cbt Sp Coy in a Mech Bn.  The Army wants to say that each brigade has four manoeuvre units on which to base BGs.  If this is to be the case, then each manoeuvre unit better be able to provide the full spectrum of combat support if it does form the base of a BG for an Op.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >_anti-armour sub-units do not do very well on their own & must be part of an all arms grouping_
> 
> A curious excuse, if true.


Armour is typically more mobile, it has a faster rate of fire, and better protection than anti-armour.  Historically anti-armour had greater range,  but modern tanks are typically on par with modern anti-armour.  As we are talking of TOW my arguments focus on line of sight systems (and non-line of sight has not yet been fielded anywhere).  So, how does anti-armour defend without infantry to hold ground & provide close protection, and/or without armour to provide counter manoeuvre?

Anti-armour is a supporting capability.  It does not fight alone & win.


----------



## McG

Mountie said:
			
		

> If they are insistant on moving the TUA to the armoured corps I think it would make more sense to spread them out. ...
> 
> This would evenly distribute ... the LAV-TUAs throughout all three brigades.


Mountie,
In your proposal to put an equal number of LAV TUA in each Armd Regt, would you see the vehicles being crewed by armd soldiers or infantry (as is the plan for the LdSH's TUA).

In the end, rather than send infantry soldiers to crew TUA in an armd regiment, would we have been better off to send armd to crew TUA in infantry battalions?


----------



## Mountie

I would have all the direct fire support assets crewed by armoured soldiers.  This would be the LAV-III DFSV (25mm), LAV-III MGS and LAV-III TUA.  This would be the same as how the artillery soldiers are now crewing the mortars.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

Its has been my experience that these forums tend to be armoured centric, but sorry to burst your bubble.  Although the TUA and ADATS are scheduled to become part of the LDSH (RC), which is currently an armoured Regiment, I would not stock the kit shop with black berets for all the new members. The DFS Regiment will prove to be the testing ground for the Regimental system as we know it in the CF.  Regiment pride and history in our small organization complicates things to much.  I can't wait to see the new cap badge! I agree that it should not matter what trade mans the equipment, just as long as they do an outstanding job when called upon.


----------



## Infanteer

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> Its has been my experience that these forums tend to be armoured centric, but sorry to burst your bubble. Although the TUA and ADATS are scheduled to become part of the LDSH (RC), which is currently an armoured Regiment, I would not stock the kit shop with black berets for all the new members. The DFS Regiment will prove to be the testing ground for the Regimental system as we know it in the CF. Regiment pride and history in our small organization complicates things to much. I can't wait to see the new cap badge! I agree that it should not matter what trade mans the equipment, just as long as they do an outstanding job when called upon.



Which is why I've proposed change here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/24924.15.html


----------



## McG

. . . and other changes proposed here:   http://army.ca/forums/threads/24461.0.html

I think TUA could be an "any manouvre arm" job, and if the MMEV makes gunners proficient in the DF tank killing role, then they could get the job too.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The whole reason as I understand to TOW coy is that it is to allow the amoured to catch up.  However if a new system is going into place in the near future then why not leave the TOW elements were they are and stand them back up.


----------



## ArmyRick

As a TOW Gunner, I agree. 
I think it is silly of the CF to concentrate all its DFS assetts into one REGT. Personally I think each armoured REGT should be some what identical. Why not divide the MGS and ADATS between the RCD, LdSH and 12RBC? 

TUA should stay with the Infantry in my opinion and I would also bin the Anti-armour platoon and have the TUA permamently assigned to the companies.


----------



## MG34

AAP needs to be a seperate entity,the TUAs were/are not a unit resource but a Brigade one having them in Rifle Coys can't happen as the Coy is not equipped to support the TUA in any way,not too mention resupply. We train (ed) with our BNs because that's all we had,the AAP could at any time be called away from the unit for tasks at brigade level,that means it's entire support network has to go with it,not an option in a Rifle Coy. You are a TOW Gunner you should know better than that. ;D


----------



## McG

I would not get too caught up in who owns what.  If the Comd wants, he can pull a rifle Coy from a Bn to go do a Bde task.  He can pull a half dozen C6 teams to do a bde task.  He is the Comd, and technically it is all his.  There are certain groupings that he is more likely to call on units to detach, but he is not restricted to those.  However, leaving assets the provide greater capabilities in the hands of lower commanders allows for greater application of the manoueverist approach to war and for quicker reaction to enemy threats.

CFL,
Part of the "new" system is TUA.  The old vehicles will go of to some workshop and have the turrets transfered to LAV III.  These new TUA will then be sent to the LdSH as a third of the "new" system that includes ADATS and 105 mm cannon.

I agree with ArmyRick: at the very least, every brigade should have its own.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I understand that but it is my impression that the military is looking towards a new missle (new system) which would make the TUA a non-issue and therefore negate the need for the Infantry as everyone would be starting off fresh with a new turret and missle system.


----------



## Badanai

Since no one has posted on this issue in a while
I'm an ex TOW GOD so yes TOW or anti tank should stay with the infantry  Hunting TANKS with tow is differnent that hunting tanks with tanks. SPEED, moblility, use of the ground the ability to get out of YOUR Vehicle is also a key when  deploying TOW. In ten years in the RCR I haven't seen a TANKER get out of his tank or off of it YET!! LOL except those armoured recce guys


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

Cutter...I agree...Just like an ADATS will always be an ADATS or ATADS, not a tank. Use of the ground and sighting conditions are very important.  Moving across country at a whooping 58 Km hr (more like 15-20 km), halting, then acquiring and shooting the tgt is at least a one to two minute process.  Trying to fight it like a tank is suicide.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but it has been confirmed that the Patrica's will be black hatted with VP cap badge once this thing is stood up.


----------



## 30 for 30

Interesting. Not sure why they don't just give the whole unit the Strathcona capbadge, and properly unify it as a DFS regiment. It seems to me capbadge affiliation is being taken a little too far, but I suppose a black hat on all heads is a step in the right direction, for what it's worth.


----------



## McG

RNW said:
			
		

> Interesting. Not sure why they don't just give the whole unit the Strathcona capbadge, and properly unify it as a DFS regiment.


Because the Patricias in the TUA platoons will eventually be posted back to Patricia battalions.


----------



## BGM-71F

KP said:
			
		

> Interesting. Not sure why they don't just give the whole unit the Strathcona capbadge, and properly unify it as a DFS regiment. It seems to me capbadge affiliation is being taken a little too far, but I suppose a black hat on all heads is a step in the right direction, for what it's worth.



KP...I assume you have no regimental affiliation, otherwise being forced to rebadge would make your blood boil. Volintarily switching to another trade is one thing, but to take your affiliation (capbadge) away because your equipment now belongs to the tankers? Approach any former member of the Airborne regiment, see what capbadge they wear on the inside of thier beret.. 



			
				Cutter2001ca said:
			
		

> I'm an ex TOW GOD so yes TOW or anti tank should stay with the infantry  Hunting TANKS with tow is differnent that hunting tanks with tanks. SPEED, moblility, use of the ground the ability to get out of YOUR Vehicle is also a key when  deploying TOW. In ten years in the RCR I haven't seen a TANKER get out of his tank or off of it YET!! LOL except those armoured recce guys



Yeah, tankers..... combat uniforms seem to be a wate on them since all they wear is rubber gumbies and cioveralls. Cutter...what battalion were you a TOW dog with? Maybe our paths have crossed....1 RCR AAP...93-98..



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> As a TOW Gunner, I agree.
> I think it is silly of the CF to concentrate all its DFS assetts into one REGT. Personally I think each armoured REGT should be some what identical. Why not divide the MGS and ADATS between the RCD, LdSH and 12RBC?
> 
> TUA should stay with the Infantry in my opinion and I would also bin the Anti-armour platoon and have the TUA permamently assigned to the companies.



ArmyRick....same q as i asked Cuttere, when n where you a TOW diog. TUA's assigned to the companies, training would take a hard nose dive.


----------



## ArmyRick

I was TOW dog for a while in the mid ninties and I must confess that I have not touched a TOW or TUA since 1996. I am a little rusty. I understand that TOW (in our old doctrine) as a platoon was a brigade assett (In theory if I remember correctly the 2-3 AAP in a brigade could be concentrated to form a TOW Coy). Great for the old cold war doctrine.

The reason I beleive that TOW should be attached to the companies directly is that we don't really do OPS as a battalion, there better off being permanently attached to the largest unit that fights a battle as a unit (the company). I also beleive in attaching mortars permamently tot he coy as well (Yes I am a mortar dog as well). The american Stryker Infantry coy has TOW, 120mm mortars and 3 rifle platoons permamently built into it and they seem to be having success. Keep in mind of course the stryker TOW variant is in lieu of the MGS (wich has a million hick ups in development it seems).


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Dont forget the Artillery gave up Anti Armour first to the Armour long before the AInf got the role. Back to Armour now is it, with that thought process then I guess guns will get it back in time. :blotto:


----------



## McG

I know it's an old thread, but I thought it a good place to debate this question:


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I will argue that people in TOW ... did suffer significant skill fade in the bayonet skills.


Did manning the AAPs have a negative impact on the dismounted fightinig skills of the battalions?

If the AAPs are brought back (this would mean buying more LAV III TUA than is currently funded), should Armd Crews be posted into the battalions to fight the vehicles?


----------



## AVIDARMY

I think that I will finish this thread once and for all.  Tow in the infantry is dead.  The LAV TUA now belongs to the LdSH.  Trust me I was a former member of E-Coy.  The TUA's are now covered with gravy!


----------

