Author Topic: The CCV and the Infantry  (Read 104187 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 121,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,424
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2011, 21:15:13 »
The infantry we have, have many many demands placed on them.  I am not convinced that we need them locked up in LAV Bns learning how to do what the RCAC already does.

They don't.  The Armoured Corps fights from its tanks and armoured reconnaissance vehicles.  The Infantry uses its vehicles to support all phases of its ground fight.  There is a difference.

Quote
The Brits have their Royal Armoured Corps and Household Cavalry made up of Tank Regiments and old time Horse Cavalry Regiments all doing the same jobs they did on horseback.

The Yanks Armor Branch includes Tank Companies alongside Cavalry Squadrons in Cavalry Regiments serving alongside Tank Battalions.  Their Cavalry includes Abrams and Bradleys operating in the same Sub-Unit (9 Abrams and 13 Bradleys).  Other Cavalry operate from Strykers.  Both conduct recce and "assault" missions as well as contributing to OOTW.

The Aussies RAAC, as noted cheerfully disregard terminology but includes any unit that ever rode a horse, including the Lt Horse - also known variously as Mounted Infantry or Mounted Rifles.  The defining commonality then was the horse.  The defining commonality between then and now was the ability of the units to range far and fast.

In Canada the RCAC is very much like the RAAC and incorporates Horse Regiments of various lineages and Tank regiments.

Again, many inaccuracies. 

The Brits have an Armoured Corps that fights from its tanks and armoured reconnaissance vehicles.  Their Infantry uses its vehicles to support its ground fight.

The Americans have an Armoured Corps that fights from its tanks and armoured reconnaissance vehicles.  Their Infantry uses its vehicles to support its ground fight.

See a trend here; guys on horses and historical nomenclature have nothing to do with any of this.  Fighting in modern warfare does.  I think your attachment to the term cavalry is clouding your inability to realize this; it might prove useful to drop it from the discussion entirely.

The Aussies have an Armoured Corps that fights from its tanks and armoured reconnaissance vehicles; and yes, it also is the odd man out in that it operates APCs for the Infantry to support them in the ground fight.  But, they do not have IFVs (their Infantry operate out of M113s and Bushmasters) and they have not, in the last 100 years, partaken in any serious and sustained mechanized warfare.  I'll take that for what it's worth.

Quote
What is the difference in capability (or burden) between a Mech Inf Coy (CCV) reinforced by a Half-Squadron of Leos and a US Cavalry Abrams-Bradley Troop reinforced by a Platoon of dismounted infantry?

The difference is that a U.S. Cavalry Troop with dismounted Infantry would have a bunch of foot-soldiers with no transport trying to keep up with a reconnaissance organization.  So you would have mechanized assets moving at the speed of marching soldiers.

Compare this to a Square Combat Team, where the infantry have the ability to keep up with the tanks and yet is still self-sufficient and mobile when the Armd Sqn needs to go somewhere else.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

R031button

  • Guest
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2011, 22:24:23 »
Kirkhill you realize that the joint Bradley / Abrahms units (Heavy Brigade Combat Teams) the Bradley companies are infantry right? And that the Recce units are actually using a different varient in a totally different role? The assault is done by Battalions operating two companies each of tanks and mechanized infantry... almost like a big square formation... Further more the Australians maintain 2 APC squadrons, both assigned to light brigades, I can only assume they function as a temporary battle field taxi, and are not expected to fight with the infantry they carry (keep in mind the Bushmaster is designated and "infantry mobility vehicle" not a proper fighting vehicle).

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 45,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2011, 22:54:26 »
What is the difference in capability (or burden) between a Mech Inf Coy (CCV) reinforced by a Half-Squadron of Leos and a US Cavalry Abrams-Bradley Troop reinforced by a Platoon of dismounted infantry?

I have difficulty seeing the difference.

The US Heavy Cavalry Troop I trained for had M1s and M3s had tanks combined with scouts. Those M3s were carrying scouts - not infantrymen. Those scouts were a subset of the Armor branch. While a dismounted scout might look like an infantryman (although women naturally find the scouts more irresistable), they have different roles and associated training. The only infantrymen in the Cavalry Troop were manning the two mortars.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,952
  • What the????
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2011, 11:34:25 »
Kirkhill,

This really is not a slam but I think your arguing something with those that have far more experience than yourself.

CDN Army Armour= Tanks, Coyotes (soon to be TAPV), G-wagons.

US Combined Armoured Battalions=2 Coys Tanks + 2 Coys Bradley Infantry
---M2 Bradley 3 crew + 6 bayonets
---M3 Bradley 3 crew + 2 eye balls/TOW loaders

US Cavalry = Scouts (M3 Bradley) and Tanks combined

Brit Armour has Challenger Tanks or Scimitar Recce vehicles and one regiment is tasked as CRBN. The household cavalry do a "ceremonial Tasks" as well on horses

Austrlian armour has a Tank Regiment of MBT, 2 regiments of cavalry (ASLAVs) with a combination of aussied Coyote and Bisons. The Dismounts in these units are for little more than scout and security work. They are not intended to conduct major assaults.

Forget the historical roles of what armoured/mounted rifles/dragoons/light horses/hussars, etc, etc. Its an ARMOURED corps (branch really) that defeats the enemy through the aggressive use of battlefield mobility and fire power.

The CCV carries with it, as said, bayonets. The Infantry or the bayonets are the dismounted close combat fighting element.

Listen to what people say. No one is tied up for ever and ever to a LAVIII vehicle. Yes, Armoured Crewman are the best at gunnery in Leos, LAVs and coyotes (I do beleive they still design and come up with the training plans for all armoured vehicles? SMEs?)

However, as Infanteer said. If you ditch the LAVIII or CCV, there is 3 more grunts on the ground. If its crewed by armoured, then if a commander ditches the CCV/LAV, he DOES NOT get those 3 crewman for fighting.

I have noticed your very creative thinker but you have to be able to aply the practical experience as well (Good in theory but doesn't always work type principle?)



Off to Starbucks for a bold, black coffee (I can't get at Timmys) and then off to practice singing YMCA... A joke for those that were on that thread...
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Haligonian

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,182
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 304
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2011, 16:16:10 »
Off topic: What do the M3's bring to the table in the US Cavalry Regiments? Why not just have the tanks?  Is it for the scouts they carry? Make the formation cheaper by being lighter but still survivable?  I don't think they carry a mast or anything specialized like the coyote does.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,880
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2011, 16:40:50 »
Kirkhill,

This really is not a slam but I think your arguing something with those that have far more experience than yourself.


Agreed.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,880
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2011, 17:23:27 »
Before I close my role in this discussion down....

US Infantry

 - now organized in
20 Infantry or Light Brigade Combat Teams - 2 Battalions of 3 Rifle Coys and a Wpns Coy with a Light Cavalry Squadron.  Vehicles - foot or administrative    21/45 Brigade Combat Teams

8 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (2 reroled from Cavalry and 1 found from 1 Armd Div) - 3 Battalions of 3 Rifle Coys and a Stryker Cavalry Squadron
8/45 Brigade Combat Teams
Structure basically equivalent to Infantry with ADDITIONAL resources to man carrier vehicles. 
The infanteers can dismount, leave their vehicles behind, along with their crews, and conduct operations in exactly the same manner as the other Infantry in the other 20 IBCTs.

16 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams - 2 Combined Arms Battalions of 2 Bradley Coys (14/Coy - 12 with 6 Dismounts) and 2 Abrams Coys (14/Coy) and a Cavalry Squadron of 3 Troops of 6 Bradleys with 2 Dismounts.
Brigade Total of 56+ Abrams, 74+ Bradleys with 288 dismounting "rifles" and 36 dismounting "scouts".
16/45 Brigade Combat Teams
The HBCT Infantry Structure is unique and directly tied to employment with Tanks.

Of 80 infantry battalions in US service 16 of them have a unique organization optimized for operation of a turreted vehicle which is used in concert with Tanks.

Is our LAV, our CCV, with their turrets and 6 dismounts closer in concept to an Abrams or the Stryker?

Forget all my meandering through the weeds of nomenclature.....obviously that didn't help what I was trying to say.

Try this on for size

Why not use the HBCT/Combined Arms Battalion concept as a model for an RCAC Heavy force based on Leos and CCVs?
As to the LAVs - why not supply at least some of them to the RCAC to create Light Armoured Forces - maybe even eliminate the turrets on some of the rest of the LAVs to allow Light, Regular, Standard infantry to be carried when the situation requires.

Perhaps each infantry regiment could supply a small, permanent Armoured Co-Op battalion to work with the RCAC Heavies.  The other two battalions would just be Infantry.  The RCAC could reciprocate by supplying permanent LAV Recce Squadrons to cooperate with each of the 6 Infantry Battalions.

But .... as you say.....



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline GnyHwy

  • Is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,318
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2011, 18:28:11 »
Before I close my role in this discussion down....Is our LAV, our CCV, with their turrets and 6 dismounts closer in concept to an Abrams or the Stryker?

Why not use the HBCT/Combined Arms Battalion concept as a model for an RCAC Heavy force based on Leos and CCVs?
As to the LAVs - why not supply at least some of them to the RCAC to create Light Armoured Forces - maybe even eliminate the turrets on some of the rest of the LAVs to allow Light, Regular, Standard infantry to be carried when the situation requires.

Perhaps each infantry regiment could supply a small, permanent Armoured Co-Op battalion to work with the RCAC Heavies.

The CCV/LAV is like a Stryker.  The Stryker has one significant thing that our current LAV and maybe future CCV will still require and that is networking. i.e. Blue and Red PA and quick exchange of orders.

As for the HBCT question.  I believe, we are already somewhat like that, or at least as close as we are likely to get.  Not as large as the US, but a fully fitted Bde would resemble that.  To take it further, I believe the decision has already been made to move all Leos to 1 CMBG.  2 CMBG is emphasizing the light role, and I would think that would leave Le Cinquiem as a medium Bde.

I love the idea of a heavy Div/Corps recce, but that is not in the cards for our small but capable army.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 18:35:20 by GnyHwy »
Luck is for Suckers - GnyHwy

If you're gonna speak outside the box, you should understand the inside of the box first - GnyHwy

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 121,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,424
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2011, 18:59:34 »
Is our LAV, our CCV, with their turrets and 6 dismounts closer in concept to an Abrams or the Stryker?

Is the LAV III closer to an M1A2 Main Battle Tank or a Stryker?  Is this what you are asking?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

R031button

  • Guest
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2011, 20:23:06 »
I think Kirkhill is trying to say that the SBCT forces are less tied to vehicles then the infantry in a HBCT are, and that is carried to then ask if our CCV will be preforming a role closer to the Styker or Heavy force? Maybe? I'm at a loss. Are the infantry in a heavy formation some how less able to walk then other infantry?

The CCV is an AFV that's primary role is to deliver infantry onto or close to the objective and support their fight, exactly like the LAV. Across the world armies have realized that it makes the most sense to have these vehicles and dismounts permanently attached to each other. Since the CCV will deliver infantry, it should be part of an infantry battalion. But that point has been made, I'm not going to get my head around this obsession with giving the RCAC an infantry role. Doesn't make sense to me and smacks of somebody that's a bit out of touch or ignorant to how mechanized formations work.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 45,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2011, 22:28:11 »
Off topic: What do the M3's bring to the table in the US Cavalry Regiments? Why not just have the tanks?  Is it for the scouts they carry? Make the formation cheaper by being lighter but still survivable?  I don't think they carry a mast or anything specialized like the coyote does.

The M3s are the recce vehicles. A heavy Troop has two tank platoons and two scout platoons. Each M3 has two scouts, and with a pair of vehicles you have a self-contained dismounted patrol that can check defiles, crests etc. There were several options on my Cavalry Leader's Course, but generally when conducting a zone recce or advance to contact you led with your scout platoons and followed up with your tank platoons. In a screen/guard you had your scouts forward in OPs finding the lead enemy elements and the tanks were held back and dispatched to whack the advancing enemy.

A scout platoon with six  M3s can cover more ground in a dispered manner than a tank platoon due to the dismounts.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 45,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2011, 23:09:52 »
To take it further, I believe the decision has already been made to move all Leos to 1 CMBG. 

Negative Ghostrider.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline GnyHwy

  • Is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,318
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2011, 23:14:03 »
Just hearsay on my part.  I would argue it though.  You need tanks in the prairies.
Luck is for Suckers - GnyHwy

If you're gonna speak outside the box, you should understand the inside of the box first - GnyHwy

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 45,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2011, 23:27:25 »
Just hearsay on my part.  I would argue it though.  You need tanks in the prairies.

As opposed to someplace else? Are we planning to fight in the prairies?

There will be a tank squadron out East.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 121,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,424
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #64 on: September 10, 2011, 00:54:22 »
  I would argue it though.  You need tanks in the prairies.

I'll echo T2B - we don't position our Reg Force units in Canada on where they are likely to fight.

As for tanks, here you go:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,102346.msg1072643.html#new
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Haligonian

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,182
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 304
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2011, 13:47:17 »
The M3s are the recce vehicles. A heavy Troop has two tank platoons and two scout platoons. Each M3 has two scouts, and with a pair of vehicles you have a self-contained dismounted patrol that can check defiles, crests etc. There were several options on my Cavalry Leader's Course, but generally when conducting a zone recce or advance to contact you led with your scout platoons and followed up with your tank platoons. In a screen/guard you had your scouts forward in OPs finding the lead enemy elements and the tanks were held back and dispatched to whack the advancing enemy.

A scout platoon with six  M3s can cover more ground in a dispered manner than a tank platoon due to the dismounts.

Thanks alot Tango2Bravo.  The American ACR is becoming alot more clear to me now... it's a recce organization as I thought.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2011, 15:34:40 by Haligonian »

Offline Rick Goebel

  • Donor
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 21,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 93
    • http://www.ducimus.com
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2011, 16:57:55 »
GnyHwy said "The CCV/LAV is like a Stryker."

This is not quite the case.  The Stryker carries half again as many dismounts, two thirds the crew, and a much less capable weapon system.  The difference in organizations of Bradley and Stryker units in the US Army reflect this difference.  I'm pretty sure that the Canadian Army has nothing like the Stryker in the infantry.
Rick Goebel
Calgary

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,952
  • What the????
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #67 on: September 10, 2011, 20:19:34 »
I have my way of looking at US units

Armoured Cav Regt... Poke around for enemy, find them and start a fight, maybe finish it if its not too big of an enemy.

Stryker BCT...Loads of infantry with fast wheels and some fire power, need bayonets that move fast, call these guys.

Heavy BCT...Loads of fire power, loads. moderate amount of dismounts. When they come, its the heavyweight slug fest!

Infantry BCT...Light and easy to move around by chopper. Very limited on fire power but handy for mountains and jungles.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 183,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,251
  • Freespeecher
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #68 on: September 10, 2011, 22:24:26 »
Throwing it out there, a CCV equipped formation is similar in nature to the heavy infantry of ancient times. Rather than shields and breastplates, they use a heavily armoured vehicle for protection, and thus can assault prepared positions or manoeuvre under fire. A secondary role would be like the Hammipoi, specially trained Infantry who gripped the manes of Cavalry mounts and jogged alongside to provide close protection to the Cavalry; in modern terms the CCV equipped units are able to keep up with the tanks and accompany them in close and complex terrain.

The role of the Infantry does not change, just the way they commute to work!
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,851
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,801
  • OBEY!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #69 on: September 10, 2011, 23:01:03 »
A secondary role would be like the Hammipoi, specially trained Infantry who gripped the manes of Cavalry mounts and jogged alongside to provide close protection to the Cavalry;

well, if they have to hold on to manes, then I suppose giving the CCV to PPCLI battalions only makes sense, so they can grip the hair of those Strats ;D
So, there I was....

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #70 on: September 10, 2011, 23:03:49 »
From what i've seen it should be the other way around. Although feathers are hard to hold on to.  >:D

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,952
  • What the????
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #71 on: September 11, 2011, 09:59:27 »
Don't give anybody in Ottawa a cost saving bright idea like this! Next thing you know, PT is fall in beside the Strats riding troop and double march...
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 191,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,505
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2011, 16:35:07 »
“close and destroy” ......

Apparently that is also the role of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps and, as McG notes, used to be the role of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.

As Technoviking points out, and as I noted at the beginning, there are no qualifiers to that statement when it comes to the infantry.  The application is therefore unlimited.  The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the Queen’s enemies: regardless of time of day; regardless of season or weather; regardless of terrain.  And by inference, from an old and not nearly well enough thumbed copy of CLO, regardless of vehicle and regardless of weapon.
 
My inference from CFP 165 is that all can be ignored or abandoned if it furthers the effort to destroy the enemy.  If the infanteer’s vehicle, if the infanteer’s rifle, hinders his ability to “close with and destroy” the enemy then the infanteer is expected to discard them and take on the competition in “hand to hand combat”.

That is an extraordinary undertaking.
We had a fairly lengthy discussion in another thread, and seemed to come to the conclusion that an arm's role should not have such limitations/constraints, and it should also be free of caveats such as "how."

So it's settled then - an ideal "role" does not need to include a "how".

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,880
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #73 on: September 20, 2011, 10:30:03 »
Quote

Role of the Artillery
To destroy or neutralize the enemy with indirect fire as part of the all arms battle.

Role of Armour
To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.

Role of the Infantry
To close with and destroy the enemy.

MCG - If you delete the "how" reference from the role statements of the above three branches you end up with essentially the same role: to destroy/defeat/neutralize the enemy.

At that point it is hard for this voice in the cheapseats to understand how the three branches are differentiated.  I know that you said earlier that you didn't want to re-open the all-arms manoeuvre branch debate but it seems to me that this discussion has ended back at that point.

If all the arms exist to eliminate the enemy,  and there is to be no allowable distinction on the basis of how that goal is accomplished then why is there any distinction at all amongst them?

My efforts above were predicated on the notion that branches were differentiated and that while there were logical reasons for the differentiation, equally, around the edges where things get fuzzy, there will always be a degree of abitrariness.

I can understand the formation of a single manouever branch of 6 regular cap-badges, with Gunners and Engineers enroled within those regiments.   I don't think regimental politics would ever permit it but I can understand it.

Equally I can understand retention or modification of the status quo.

But to argue that the branches should remain differentiated by their roles should be undifferentiated - I'm afraid I'm clearly not following the discussion.

The existance of the branches is predicated on the "How" - their technologies, training and procedures are what define them.  The Ordnance would not exist were it not for gunpowder and the guns.  The Cavalry would not have existed were it not for their horses.  The Tanks are their technology incarnate.

How do you separate the Branches from the "How"?

Or is this just another armless suggestion? ;D




As an aside: apparently the Arty, perhaps because of their gentlemanly upbringing, are much nicer than the Infantry and can accept merely neutralizing the enemy as an alternative to destroying them; the Armour will apparently accept the enemy's surrender - it being enough that they are defeated; only the Infantry is mean, nasty and brutish enough to demand the utter destruction of the enemy.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 191,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,505
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #74 on: September 20, 2011, 10:48:39 »
MCG - If you delete the "how" reference from the role statements of the above three branches you end up with essentially the same role: to destroy/defeat/neutralize the enemy.

At that point it is hard for this voice in the cheapseats to understand how the three branches are differentiated. 
If you go back to the source thread of the role discussion, then you will note that the published role of artillery discusses assisting in or contributing to the defeat/destruction of the enemy.  As such, the Artillery is a supporting killer and the role is distinct from the Armoured and Infantry.

Therefore, if you remove the "how," only the manoeuvre arms (or basic arms if you want to take a historical label) have that common role of the intimate destruction of the enemy.