# Different MOS's Fighting with Infantry



## dustinm (14 Aug 2008)

I apologize if this question has been answered before (I _did_ in fact search for it, however the only meaningful post I turned up was this one: "http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/71603.0.html" [Fighting Alongside Infantry] however due to some unforseen circumstances the question was not fully answered in that thread. I do have a related question which I would have posted there had the thread not been locked.

Anyhow, on to the question: several MOS's looked interesting to me (LCIS Tech, Med Tech, Sig Op, Intel Op, Imagery Tech, among others) but I'm mesmorized by the Infantry. I understand that I can do a 3-year <not sure of the word here> in Infantry, before switching to a different MOS; my question though is, *if I'm employed as, say, an LCIS Tech, will I have opportunities to fight alongside Infantry units while on a tour?* Would this be a rare thing, a common thing, or not allowed?

Again, if my question has been asked over, please feel free to chide me. It'll prepare me for when I enlist


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2008)

dustinm said:
			
		

> Anyhow, on to the question: .............my question though is, *if I'm employed as, say, an LCIS Tech, will I have opportunities to fight alongside Infantry units while on a tour?* Would this be a rare thing, a common thing, or not allowed?



As a LCIS Tech you would not have opportunities to fight alongside Infantry units, unless "all Hell broke loose" and 50 million armed combatants were overrunning your force.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Aug 2008)

dustinm said:
			
		

> I understand that I can do a 3-year <not sure of the word here> in Infantry, before switching to a different MOS;



You should keep in mind, before you join in a trade that you might not want to stay in, that being able to change trades is not guaranteed.


----------



## JBP (14 Aug 2008)

As a Med Tech or Sig Op you'd have the 'opportunity' to fight alongside infantry if you were posted to an infantry unit, which isn't too difficult for a switched on soldier these days.


----------



## dustinm (14 Aug 2008)

Thank you for all the responses, they're much appreciated.

I do understand that a transfer may not be forthcoming, however I would keep it on the table for after my 3-year <> in Infantry. 

As a second question, *what kind of fighting would I actually be doing as a Med Tech or Sig Op?* The best case scenario (dream job) would be one where I would be on the front-lines having direct contact with the enemy [as much as appropriate in a regular Infantry unit] while simultaneously performing a specialized task like medical care. I understand that with something like Sig Op that might be quite a bit more difficult, but I am willing to compromise


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Aug 2008)

dustinm,

*The simple answer is, if you want an opportunity to "fight as infantry", then join the infantry.*  Other trades have occasions to use their weapons in combat, it's not their primary job, and it's usually after the shit has hit the fan and the situation prevents them from doing their primary job.


----------



## dustinm (14 Aug 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> dustinm,
> 
> *The simple answer is, if you want an opportunity to "fight as infantry", then join the infantry.*  Other trades have occasions to use their weapons in combat, it's not their primary job, and it's usually after the crap has hit the fan and the situation prevents them from doing their primary job.



Ah. Yes, that simplifies things quite a bit. Thank you


----------



## dwalter (14 Aug 2008)

In the case of a trade such as the Med Tech, you may be assigned to an infantry unit, but the infantry commander can not use medics as soldiers. Medical staff are protected under the Geneva convention, and as such are not allowed to be employed as infantry. You carry a rifle for use in self defense and defense of your patients. You want to fight? Join a trade who's job it is to fight. You want to fight and do something special? Join the engineers.


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Aug 2008)

dustinm said:
			
		

> As a second question, *what kind of fighting would I actually be doing as a Med Tech or Sig Op?* The best case scenario (dream job) would be one where I would be on the front-lines having direct contact with the enemy [as much as appropriate in a regular Infantry unit] while simultaneously performing a specialized task like medical care. I understand that with something like Sig Op that might be quite a bit more difficult, but I am willing to compromise



While all three trades work together, they all have different functions and duties.

As a Sig Op (and I'm not going to tell you that Sig Op is an infanteer with a radio), your duties are to provide, maintain, and protect communications for the Commander. That is your priority. And there is NO guarantee that you would be posted to an infantry battalion. And even if you are, that doesn't mean you'll be out doing section attacks with the Platoons. You very well could be working in a Company Command Post. In addition to this, there are only so many spots at Bn for Sig Ops, and a lot of people want a shot at them.

You would most likely find your first posting be to a Signals Sqn. You might find yourself in a Tactical Radio Tp, or in an IS troop monitoring servers.

If you don't accept the fact that you could do this, and absolutely want to "close with and destroy the enemy" as infantry, then as Mr. O'Leary stated "join the infantry"


----------



## CFR FCS (14 Aug 2008)

From the Recruiting Webpage

Combat Engineer       

Overview      
 Your job is to ensure that friendly troops can live, move and fight on the battlefield, and deny the same abilities to enemy troops. 

Lots more but also. 

 When necessary, fight as infantry (includes use of personal weapons, reconnaissance and section-level tactics).


----------



## Run away gun (14 Aug 2008)

Fighting is the primary role of every soldier, regardless of trade.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Aug 2008)

Run away gun said:
			
		

> *Fighting* is the *primary role* of every soldier, *regardless of trade*.



Not if they are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

And please don't forget that just because someone wears a red cross brassard that doesn't mean they're a Medic (or doctor or nurse).  They could be a number of any other medical trades (PMed, BMet, HCA) or a support trade posted to a medical unit and covered by the same rules.


----------



## medicineman (14 Aug 2008)

Don't forget tooth fairies and padres too...

MM


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Aug 2008)

Run away gun said:
			
		

> Fighting is the primary role of every soldier, regardless of trade.



I'm not going to disagree with you, but It isn't so clear cut to me.

I agree with the idea that every soldier should be a rifleman first. Every soldier should have that base skill, and be capable of fighting when the situation requires.

However, there are times when certain soldiers, specifically tradesmen, must focus on their trade, and allow the combat arms to perform the fighting, in order to be able to help the fight be won smoothly.

Therefore, I think this statement is more apropos:

Fighting is the primary role of every soldier _when necessary_, regardless of trade, and is a capability that must be maintained.


----------



## McG (14 Aug 2008)

dustinm said:
			
		

> *if I'm employed as [place non-infantry trade here] will I have opportunities to fight alongside Infantry units while on a tour?*


I suspect you are going into this with some misguided Hollywood expectations in which you get to be the James Bond like super soldier that individually destroys the enemy then cements the victory through employing your special technical know-how against from some troublesome gizmo.  It is not like that.  Everyone is part of a team and they have their specific jobs to do.  The machine does not function when people don't do their jobs, and some of those jobs don't stop just because the enemy has started shooting.  As a medic or signaler, your job is not to rush to the sound of the guns and add another rifle to the section or platoon in contact.  That being said, everyone must be able to fight because anyone might have to fight.

... and if you really do need something James Bond-ish, then you really should be looking at the Engineers.  We get all the fancy gizmos & we fight.


			
				boondocksaint said:
			
		

> .... the Chimo's-- they also fought as hard as everyone else ...  when my Lav was broken for awhile, I had my sect in a Chimo Lav with their guys driving-gunning-crew commanding ...





			
				boondocksaint said:
			
		

> At the ground level, working beside the engineers daily, they tended to need to have the most flexibility of any of us.
> 
> Their tasks within a 1 hour period ranged from fighting beside us then conducting clearing of sensitive area's/items. This after building roads, camps, fighting, IED/EOD tasks and back again. Sometimes all of this within a matter of a day. *I envied them not.*
> 
> During a fight, even one that we pick, things tend to get confusing fast, the engineers we had ( with my Pl ) fought when they needed to and did primary roles as required.


----------



## dustinm (14 Aug 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect you are going into this with some misguided Hollywood expectations in which you get to be the James Bond like super soldier that individually destroys the enemy then cements the victory through employing your special technical know-how against from some troublesome gizmo.  It is not like that.  Everyone is part of a team and they have their specific jobs to do.  The machine does not function when people don't do their jobs, and some of those jobs don't stop just because the enemy has started shooting.  As a medic or signaler, your job is not to rush to the sound of the guns and add another rifle to the section or platoon in contact.  That being said, everyone must be able to fight because anyone might have to fight.
> 
> ... and if you really do need something James Bond-ish, then you really should be looking at the Engineers.  We get all the fancy gizmos & we fight.



I did try to avoid the Hollywood expectations  The only reason that I look for something combining both Infantry with some kind of specialized knowledge is that the requirements for Infantry are relatively low in comparison with some of the other jobs and I have a lingering fear that I would not be able to "prove myself" as a Soldier outside of combat duty without some kind of "academic discipline" to go along with it. While I do realize that if combat duty alone should give me plenty of time to prove myself, it is nice to have a skill one can "excel" at; While Leadership, Courage, and Geolocation (is that the term for manual navigation with a map?] are fine skills, it's also nice to be able to set yourself apart from the average Soldier in an Infantry unit while still being able to participate in combat with them.

*Edited* Now, though, that you mention the Engineers, that could be a career choice to consider. I assume you're referring to "Combat Engineer" (as far as Forces.ca's job listing is concerned) as I don't see anything else Engineering-like (though please correct me if I'm wrong).
Thanks in advance.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (14 Aug 2008)

dustinm said:
			
		

> I did try to avoid the Hollywood expectations  The only reason that I look for something combining both Infantry with some kind of specialized knowledge is that the requirements for Infantry are relatively low in comparison with some of the other jobs and I have a lingering fear that I would not be able to "prove myself" as a Soldier outside of combat duty without some kind of "academic discipline" to go along with it. While I do realize that if combat duty alone should give me plenty of time to prove myself, it is nice to have a skill one can "excel" at; While Leadership, Courage, and Geolocation (is that the term for manual navigation with a map?] are fine skills, it's also nice to be able to set yourself apart from the average Soldier in an Infantry unit while still being able to participate in combat with them.



Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but comments like "requirements for Infantry are relativley low" and "nice to be able to set yourself apart from the average soldier in an Infantry unit" and "leadership and courage are fine skills" strike me as a bit haughty.


----------



## dustinm (14 Aug 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but comments like "requirements for Infantry are relativley low" and "nice to be able to set yourself apart from the average soldier in an Infantry unit" and "leadership and courage are fine skills" strike me as a bit haughty.



My apologizes. I have zero military experience and am attempting to take the very large step of choosing a career. I can spout crap sometimes, I didn't intend to offend.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 Aug 2008)

No problemo!  

Cheers and best of luck.


----------



## dwalter (15 Aug 2008)

dustinm said:
			
		

> *Edited* Now, though, that you mention the Engineers, that could be a career choice to consider. I assume you're referring to "Combat Engineer" (as far as Forces.ca's job listing is concerned) as I don't see anything else Engineering-like (though please correct me if I'm wrong).
> Thanks in advance.



That's right, the Combat Engineer is what we are referring to. There are many other trades that fall into the 'engineering' category, however these are a significant number of officer trades requiring engineering degrees. For what you are wanting to do, Combat Engineer might be the one to consider.


----------



## clipz (15 Aug 2008)

im thinking about applying as an engineer as well. looks pretty sick!


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Aug 2008)

It might be helpful if someone who knows about the subject would explain the differences between combat arms, combat support, and combat service support.  (Being a naval type, I'm not the guy.)


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> It might be helpful if someone who knows about the subject would explain the differences between combat arms, combat support, and combat service support.  (Being a naval type, I'm not the guy.)



Do you want the OPFOR explanation:

*COMBAT ARMS*

Armour and Infantry who actually become in contact with, closing with and destroying the enemy "face to face".

*COMBAT SUPPORT*

Trades like Artillery, Recce, Engineers, Signals, etc. who are in "close support" to the Combat Arms with the use of Fire and/or observation.

*COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT*

Trades who provide the support that the other two require to operate.  We are talking here about the Cooks, Supply Techs, Maintainers, Dental Techs, etc. who are not likely to be in combat with an enemy.



The OPFOR definitions create a lot of discussion and some arguments as to who falls into which category.  Always a good topic at Happy Hour.   >



We usually refer to Artillery, Armour, Infantry and Engineers as the Combat Arms (LAND) here in Canada.


----------



## McG (15 Aug 2008)

clipz said:
			
		

> im thinking about applying as an engineer as well.


It might be worth your while to have a visit to this thread:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/22088.0.html



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> It might be helpful if someone who knows about the subject would explain the differences between combat arms, combat support, and combat service support.


It can depend on context, but in general the answers are here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/59939/post-556877.html#msg556877


----------

