Inf Cbt Sp - Which Capability is MOST needed again (split from CASW)

[daftandbarmy]

The problem with brining back AAP is that it would immediately suffer from the same thing as its predecessors - "We haven't fought against tanks since Korea"itis.

Back when Bosnia was the big show and Afghanistan seeming to be a one roto wonder, I listened to the CLS comment on the huge number of PYs being consumed in AAPs when only two dets were ever operationally deployed.  In his eyes at the time, this was a huge area of fat to cut in order to create other Army priorities.  … and of course, “anti-armour” is a very niche capability when you know you will never fight an enemy with armour  …  rly:

Of course, a “Hy DFS Pl” with LAV TUA could have done wonders to help TF 1-06 and 3-06 in smashing grapehuts prior to the arrival of tanks in Afghanistan.

We do need AAP, but it needs to come with a name that will prevent them from too closely associating it with the Soviet tank hordes we are not going to fight while instead recognizing its multi-role utility.  Hopefully, this better name will also prevent those other guys from equipping it with hypervelocity KE missiles that would reduce the Pl’s utility to anti-armour only.

When we operated a MILAN platoon, we linked it in with the ISTAR plan as the MIRA was an awesome surveillance device. The thing didn't need the electric dart attached to be effective for us in situations other than WW3.

Each Coy would usually get two firing posts. Folks would have a look through the sights prior to various ops as part of their recce activity, and prior to departing the friendly FEBA/SF base, and we would have comms with the operator so we had coordinated overwatch. GPMGs (SF) from the MG Pl were usually colocated with MILAN (shred the soft bits that tumble out of the smouldering clankity clanks, eh wot?) so you had a nice little direct fire support package there, out to about 2 kms, if required as well.

And because Sp Coy usually sent the same guys to support the same Coys, we developed a good working realtionship that panned out well on operations etc.

 

[McG]

When we operated a MILAN platoon, we linked it in with the ISTAR plan as the MIRA was an awesome surveillance device. The thing didn't need the electric dart attached to be effective for us in situations other than WW3.

The same can be said of ITAS.  But, given all the other sensing systems that we have in our inventory, you will never sell growing an organization that only brings a fancy optics system.  The ITAS can be dropped into any rifle company without any additional PY cost if only the optics are to be used.  If you really want an AAP capability, then it needs to be based on a system that provides a useful firepower capability even in the absence of threat armour, and you need to call it something that will not make it appear to be the easy thing to cut when we don't foresee (or choose not to foresee) any near future armour threat.

 

[Kirkhill]

Does it make a difference if you are talking about the extremely cumbersome 3750m TOW rather than the Fire and Forget 2500m Javelin?

 

[vonGarvin]

If you want to talk any sort of platoon (even in a fantasy land), it's better to talk of capabilities than specific platforms.  Now, having said that, an anti-tank platoon could also be "re-named" as an "anti-material" platoon, or something.


I have no social life, and one day I did something up, starting with first principles, that of the force employment plan (such as it is).  Long story short, really rash decisions would have to be made, and I don't think they would survive first contact, because it involves reducing the number of infantry battalions from nine to six.  (But the six battalions would be near full strength, but I digress)

 

[daftandbarmy]

If you want to talk any sort of platoon (even in a fantasy land), it's better to talk of capabilities than specific platforms.  Now, having said that, an anti-tank platoon could also be "re-named" as an "anti-material" platoon, or something.


I have no social life, and one day I did something up, starting with first principles, that of the force employment plan (such as it is).  Long story short, really rash decisions would have to be made, and I don't think they would survive first contact, because it involves reducing the number of infantry battalions from nine to six.  (But the six battalions would be near full strength, but I digress)

Geez... what are you trying to do? Make sure that the Infantry will have an even worse chance of ever getting someone to the CDS level or something? 

 

[vonGarvin]

Geez... what are you trying to do? Make sure that the Infantry will have an even worse chance of ever getting someone to the CDS level or something? 

"Get an infantry officer to the position of CDS" was neither an assigned nor implied task.  Nor was it a constraint.  So, whatever...

If I get motivated, I'll formalise it.  Maybe.

 

[aesop081]

an "anti-material" platoon, or something.

How about "Expeditionary Broad-spectrum effects platoon" ??

 

[GnyHwy]

How about "Expeditionary Broad-spectrum effects platoon" ??

That reminds me of the MMEV.  The vehicle that "could" have carried every weapon from slingshots to SAMs,  "would" have required about 5 different trades to operate and probably "should" have required about 100 man months to properly qualify a crew.

 

[aesop081]

I was just seeing how many buzzwords i could cram into a platoon name.

;D

 

[GnyHwy]

At some point do we not have to ask ourselves?  Do we want a Btln size org to perform 3-5 capabilities effectively or 7-10 half assed? 

We "try" to do the same thing within an Arty Regt which has less numbers than a Btln.  Trying to fulfill all the way from a Bde HQ role, to FOOs for each fighting echelon within the Bde, to UAV/sound ranging/counter mortar, to M777, to 105mm, to air mobile/jump mortar troops  and still trying to maintain basic infantry skills.  Wow, that was a long sentence.

At some point you go from accomplishing a lot on paper to actually accomplishing a whole lot of nothing.

 

[OldSolduer]

At some point do we not have to ask ourselves?  Do we want a Btln size org to perform 3-5 capabilities effectively or 7-10 half assed? 

We "try" to do the same thing within an Arty Regt which has less numbers than a Btln.  Trying to fulfill all the way from a Bde HQ role, to FOOs for each fighting echelon within the Bde, to UAV/sound ranging/counter mortar, to M777, to 105mm, to air mobile/jump mortar troops  and still trying to maintain basic infantry skills.  Wow, that was a long sentence.

At some point you go from accomplishing a lot on paper to actually accomplishing a whole lot of nothing.

And I agree. We in the infantry (back me up here TV!) were excellent mortarmen, and knew how to employ them. They were the bn's only integral indirect fire sp that the CO could call on. From what I have heard, the arty think the 81 mm is a man portable weapon. Just  :2c:
As far as I am concerned, the Arty should handle all the UAV stuff and big indirect (105mm and up) stuff. Give the 81mm back to the infantry.

 

[Webgear]

Why give the UAV to the arty? Why not Armour?

I never understood the though prcoess behind this line of thinking, anyways this is just a quick question before heading to work. More to follow later.

 

[OldSolduer]

Why give the UAV to the arty? Why not Armour?

In my mind, the UAV can search for targets for the guns....and relay info to the Infantry and Armoured.

To add to my previous thoughts about the 81 mm, it is an offensive weapon, and from what I have heard, it is now used as a defensive weapon. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks!!

 

[Redeye]

In my mind, the UAV can search for targets for the guns....and relay info to the Infantry and Armoured.

To add to my previous thoughts about the 81 mm, it is an offensive weapon, and from what I have heard, it is now used as a defensive weapon. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks!!

I heard the same thing from a fairly reliable source - that the 81mm is basically used for local defence of gun positions - or envisioned in that role?  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me given the tremendous utility it has.  At the terrible risk of seeming to revitalize a long mortally wounded horse, why were they ever taken from the Infantry anyhow?

 

[OldSolduer]

I heard the same thing from a fairly reliable source - that the 81mm is basically used for local defence of gun positions - or envisioned in that role?  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me given the tremendous utility it has.  At the terrible risk of seeming to revitalize a long mortally wounded horse, why were they ever taken from the Infantry anyhow?

I think the bigger brains can answer that, but IMO I think for the same reason we lost Pioneers. The reasoning seems that indirect fire should be only an Artillery role and "we don't deploy without Arty, so why have mortars in the infantry?" . Pioneers were lost I think because the reasoning was "we don't deploy a BG without engineers so why do we need Pioneers".

 

[Old Sweat]

Let me address both the UAV and the 81mm. First, there are a variety of these devices, with the larger types controlled by experience air crew. The smaller types - sometimes described as MUAVs for mini UAVs - are basically model planes with limited range and sensor capabilities. These are operated by the gunners as they are an extension of the eyes to the other side of the hill, not ranging farther out which is the role of recce. The larger UAVs also have a target observation and marking role and usually stream their data to the FSCC, where they are integrated with other armed and unarmed resources to attack the enemy. In terms of simplicity and response, they are best controlled by the gunners.

As for the mortars, in the earlier rotos they were used offensively in support of troops out on the ground and for protection of FOBs and separate gun positions. From what I have read, in more recent rotos, with a less mobile tactical situation, they seem to have spent the majority of the time in static locations. That is not to say that they have not been used. The enemy seemed to have deduced that the FOBs were unable to respond to indirect fire quickly as clearance had to be obtained from higher up the chain. They therefore began to mortar our positions with impunity, at least until the self defence rule used in previous rotos was brought back. This resulted in shoot outs between the enemy and our mortars, which tended to reduce the enemy's mortaring over time. Note that the restriction of firing applied to the guns as well, so the amount of ammunition fired in a roto has been reduced by quite a lot.

I have no idea why the arty got the mortars, but a number of years ago a retired very senior officer referred to mortars as "obsolete" in a conversation with me. I have no idea what the great minds had in mind for mortars back then, but it could be they saw the whole capability phased out. That is an opinion on my part, based on very little hard information, and the experience in Afghanistan may have changed some minds.

 

[Danjanou]

We need all, however the Anti Armour Pl, as I understood it, was a Bde asset and was only grouped with the battalions for administrative purposes. In time of war, I believe that the TOW Platoons would have been a TOW Company, that reported to the Bde Comd. Am I right or out to lunch?

Actually a bit of both, I was doing some reading /research on this and if I remember correctly (Edward or Brian may know better) The Brigade in Germany  (4CMBG) had both am independent Bde AT Company of 3 platoons each of 6 weapon systems, initially 106mm RR and/or SS11s and then TOWs and each of the 3 Mech Bns had a AT platoon of6 weapon systems. That meant a total of 36 AT weapons platforms at the Bde Comd's disposal. I'm presuming this AT Company was a throwback to the WW2 vintage Support (MG/Mortar) Bn that each Infantry Division had.

The Trudeau cutbacks saw the removal of the third Bn in 4CMBG and the Bde AT Coy. Ironically someone forgot to cut the number of AT weapons down, hence the reason the two remaining Bns had AT platoons with 18x TOWs each.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I have no idea why the arty got the mortars, ...

The artillery got the mortars and the engineers 'got' the pioneers' tasks because two infantry colonels were one day tasked to identify where "X" number of positions could be removed from the infantry battalions for some grander re-allocation plan. The transfer of the mortars to the arty and the assumption that the sappers would take over pioneer tasks was the argument offered to show that the "capabilities" were not being removed from the army. There was no tactical analysis, no combat study, nothing of the sort - it was a bureaucratic approach to shuffling PYs.

...but a number of years ago a retired very senior officer referred to mortars as "obsolete" in a conversation with me.

And this sort of ignorance explains why we removed 18 platoons of specialist infantry soldiers from the Corps instead of reducing the number of rifleman and balancing it with an entrenched plan for Reserve augmentation for all exercises and operations.

 

[Old Sweat]

Actually a bit of both, I was doing some reading /research on this and if I remember correctly (Edward or Brian may know better) The Brigade in Germany  (4CMBG) had both am independent Bde AT Company of 3 platoons each of 6 weapon systems, initially 106mm RR and/or SS11s and then TOWs and each of the 3 Mech Bns had a AT platoon of6 weapon systems. That meant a total of 36 AT weapons platforms at the Bde Comd's disposal. I'm presuming this AT Company was a throwback to the WW2 vintage Support (MG/Mortar) Bn that each Infantry Division had.

The Trudeau cutbacks saw the removal of the third Bn in 4CMBG and the Bde AT Coy. Ironically someone forgot to cut the number of AT weapons down, hence the reason the two remaining Bns had AT platoons with 18x TOWs each.

In the early sixties the Canadian army did a serious anti-tank study involving its tactics and doctrine board, the war gamers and a full scale FTX in Gagetown named "Tribulation" if I recall correctly. At several stages in the exercise we were ordered to stand fast and Lancasters flew over and photographed the exercise area so it could be war gamed. The decision was taken to convert 3 R22R to an anti-tank battalion and one of it companies, B I think, was posted to 4CIBG as the brigade anti-tank company. It had three platoons of mixed 106mm RR and Entac ATGM (four of each per platoon I think) and one platoon of SS11 ATGM. The Entac had a range of about 2000m  while the SS11 could reach out to about 3km. The battalions had a section of 106mm in each of its four companies and an anti-tank platoon of another four RRs. The 106s and Entacs were jeep mounted while the SS11s were originally mounted on 3/4s, but this eventually was changed to M113s. If my recollection is correct, 4 CIBG had 48 106mm, 12 Entac and 15 SS11 anti-tank weapons, plus the armoured regiment.

Edited to add: The example for the anti-tank battalion probably was the Second World War anti-tank regiment which was a gunner organization. I recall before the exercise we had a brigade officer training session on coordinated anti-tank defence. One of the presenations was by a BC in 1 RCHA who had been a troop commander in an anti-tank regiment during the war.

 

[mad dog 2020]

As a somewhat qualified Combat Arms type (70/80s), Infantry and arty. I don't understand why the 81s were moved to the arty. I was a MFC and arty tech as well as TOW. I liked the Bn self contained aspect. I
See the added bonus of the RR.
The idea that made sense was a OR had an option for progression and change with the support platoons.  To stay in a rifle section could be a long career. 
The Germans proved the worth of pioneers in WW 2.
The arty has enough career paths with survey, tech, Met, AV (remote planes), driver, comms, advance tech, advanced survey, master gnr, and they had heavy track.
When the remuster program was cut, it eliminated another path. So the poor grunts were tour after tour.
I agre to go back to the Cbt Sp concept with Pioneers, mortars, anti tank, Recce, sits and transport. Independent self contained units
With specialty skills spread out.
I think we change for the sake of change or a study paper reviewed by the unknowing but saves a few bucks. Sounds good and damn the long term affect or common sense.