8 Car RECCE Troop

[Recce41]

Fellas
Before the Armour School got rid, of you may say the Recce Troop SMEs. We had discussed this time in time out. We came up with this:
3 X Surv Patrols  - 3 x Coyote
1 X Tp Ldr Patrol - 1 x Lav 3 with UAV (mini), 1 X Coyote or Anti Armour MGS/LAV Tow.

A Tow/MGS is there for support or if need be fight. Remember A RECCE/SURV SQN MAY HAVE TO FIGHT. We have the sneak and peak train of thought still. But Look at the British, US or German Armies. Or even WW2, Recce fought. You cannot get info if you cannot get there.
I have a copy of the Aid to Memo re for the Recce Corp 42-45. One point comes up. A Recce Troop will fight to gain info.

But to go back, we came up with ether the Jr Sgt or Snr MCpl would be his baby sitter. Sorry 2B HAHA.

If you have to, a 96 hr OP would have to happen. The TV and BBQ would have to stay. Limit the use of water, limited hygene sharing of shave water. reboiling it to cook your rations or eat it cold. Get two meals out of one ration. We do throw out more than we eat.
I know if I had to spend 96+ hrs in an OP. I would make damn sure I was ready. And I think the Bg Commander, CO, and OC would have better things to do that see 41A's lil OP.
I would not have my RV like on EX, 400 meters from the base. It would be a  K+. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I see TOW/MGS as part of a higher element (perhaps as low as a Tp attached to the Sqn).  A single TOW or MGS is not a very good utilization of the system in my opinion.  It is easier to push assets down rather than pull them up and redistribute.  A mixed or "scrambled" Troop is a possibility but I would task organize it along the lines that some US Light Cav Tps approach it (although terms and organizations are changing down South in the Light Divisions).

I honestly think that having a Command Ptl would make the Tp more flexible.  If we don't want to do that then make the Tp Ldr a Ptl Commander and streamline the Tp.  Perhaps I've been warped by my US training.

As for OPs, long durations are certainly possible and must be trained for.  You might be suprised, however, about who shows up to visit OPs in Kabul.

Iain

 

[George Wallace]

Dave

I, too, see a single TOW or MGS a total waste of resources.  We work in pairs for a reason.  When you add UAV to the equation, you further complicate the operation of the Troop.  I see it as tying up a lot of resources and manpower needlessly and detracting from the Tp Ldrs job of running the Troop.  Leave the UAVs with the Int and Arty guys at SHQ or higher at RHQ.  MGS and TOW would be relegated to Support Troop or Support Sqn.

I can see Ptls changing to one Mud Recce Veh and one Coyote, and not have any affect on the Troops ability to fight its way into or out of a situation when Patroling.  We would have Ptls supporting Ptls in these cases.  The OP Screen is another story and situation that would in all probability not require the "Fighting" capability as much as Patroling, except oin extreme cases.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Well, let's see here...

Oh yeah the 8 car troop, that's what this started off about

My DP3B was run with this configuration and to tell the truth it made sense to me.

The Troopies wingman allowed him to have security, another set of eyes both to watch the troop in the front and watch for bad guys (them nasty bad guys don't always get seen by the Patrols!!!) It also gave the troop leader the flexibility to forward deploy that Golf C/S should one of his pointy end patrols have a C/S go t!ts up or die.

I would say this one vehicle doubled the flexibility of the troop. Got a contact point to man in the rear... send Golf and carry on... Bravo's blown a hub seal and needs Bluebell... Golf is your new Bravo, the old one can catch up to the TL later and join him. Resupplying your OP's and don't have enough room in your C/S troopie?... well you get the point.

The seven car troop worked, I think we can all agree on that but personally I always wondered about the TL's security (yep, I'm an old softie, no sense in that young pup gettin his self kilt just cause he was fixin a map when the baddies showed up) and we've all seen just how fast a troop can be rendered ineffective due to break downs or "deaths".

For once I think we're on the right track with this... now if we only had enough vehicles to man all the squadrons in all the regiments  :'(

We now return you to the derailment of this topic already in progress...

I don't think we need to start mixing and mashing vehicles together in a troop. One of the things this will do is increase the logistical tail and complicate the TL's resupply.

The worst possible thing we could do would be to take a page out of the French army's WW2 plan and start throwing bits and pieces of the offensive kit (MGS, TOW's etc) around in little easy to chew packets. Make a troop of each in a Sqn if you want but fer godsakes have 'em handy in one place should you need them.  This piece meal thing has been tried before, as an assault trooper I remember an OC that decided that each troop would get a section of Assault Tp, fine and dandy, he was the boss. On exercise with air bullets sure a section of Assault troop can clear a building for you or conduct an ambush on a 10 vehicle convoy... but you best not be trying that in real life, or a lot of troopers are gonna end up real dead.

just my .02

 

[Recce41]

2 Bravo
I take Kabul as a Bosnia with sand. We had more bored folks just show up at are OPs. But what I'm talking about is, a real war. I don't think Simonds   cameup and visited old 41A in his OP, during the push on Groningen?
Martin, the DP3 TPWO was a mess, not what we designed in the Recce Tp. You hit some of the pts, we cameup with. The idea is to have a mini UAV. For the new system may go out to 40+ks, with a UAV 60+.

 

[George Wallace]

........ For the new system may go out to 40+ks, with a UAV 60+.

Dave

As we add range to some of these systems, we also create larger gaps through which infiltration may occur.   As you move your UAV out further, the areas that it IS NOT covering, to left or right flanks, gets larger.   It currently can not be all seeing - all doing, so we will have to take that into consideration and not put too much trust in it as a system.   A good system to have, but make sure you have back ups and overlaps to cover any deficiencies in it.   That is why Recce gets paid the big bucks  ;D .

 

[Recce41]

George
Your very correct, but we are now a techie Army. We old get in the mud fellas are few. I have troops from the Regt, that showup at the school with no basic OP skills. Its "What I have to get out of the Coyote?" So I guess someone has to change.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Reccesoldier,

Good sitrep.  I guess more is always better, but is the wingman being used more as a spare vehicle than as a wingman?

Recce41,

Senior officers and other sundry specialists may visit an OP because that OP is a key part of the most important ongoing operation in the town.  We like to focus on WW II and the Cold War, but I think that we are much more likely to operate in Kabul than in Groningen.  All that being said, you are absolutely right that some folks visit OPs just because they can.

As for mini-UAVs, will these have airspace coordination issues?


2B

 

[Reccesoldier]

Reccesoldier,

Good sitrep.  I guess more is always better, but is the wingman being used more as a spare vehicle than as a wingman?

2B

The real answer is that he is both. He's the wingman when everything is going well and he's prepped to be whatever he's told when the sh!t hit's the fan. The one major problem they are talking about now is what rank the commander should hold.

Some say it should be a Sgt rank but I disagree.

I know I wouldn't want to be following a TL around as a Sgt. :boring:  Perhaps it would be a good spot for a senior MCpl. He might get a little more insight to what the TL does which would probably help him out quite a bit on the DP 3B when it comes time for that.

Also if it was the Patrol Commanders C/S that happened to get brewed up and he has to replace it it would make sense to have the senior MCpl in the troop ready. This might also alleviate the potential problems of having 2 senior NCO's ending up in the same Patrol.  :threat:

 

[George Wallace]

Good points Martin.  I was leaning towards a Junior MCpl, but bow to your logic as being the better choice.

I also liked the idea that the DP3A was being run with the Students filling the role of Tp Ldr, more than Ptl Comd.  As it is the job of the Tp WO and Snr NCO's to train the new Troopie, it only makes sense that they have the skills to do so.  This also reinforces the Troop Ldr posns, in that in cases where there are no Officers (KIA or lacking in numbers), whereby the Snr NCO's can fill the slots.  Makes for a good means to keep skills alive and continuous in the Corps.

 

[plattypuss]

2Bravo - Airspace coordination will possible be a large concern depending upon the altitude which the UAV operates.  Obviously the nature of UAV that will be delegated down to a recce patrol is very much in debate however the US Marines have tried various systems in Iraq to mixed degrees of success however they have a smaller sytem which has proved very promising and can be launched by hand.  Airspace coordination issues are a large part of the Arty argument that they should be CofE for UAV systems.  I know there is a term "air corridor" which will limit how low an aircraft can go when operating in conjunction with a UAV. 

I noticed that George Wallace had suggested the pairing up of Coyote and Mud recce vehicles in terms of a patrol and forgive me if this is mentioned earlier in the thread but realistically this would mean teaming up a LUVW C&R variant with a Coyote.  I don't think that the Regts are getting enough LUVW C&R to do this and I'm not sure if we want too.  I think if we look at reconnaissance in terms of Layers, it would be better to keep the close recce vehciles together as they, ideally would be operating in pairs in areas either unreachable by Coyote (although I am not confident in the LUVW cross-country  mobility) physically or through the surveillance package.  Now if we were to get a "real" close recce vehicle maybe this is more realistic.  On an aside has anyone else heard that they(DLR) are thinking of upgrading the Coyote surveillance suite with a smaller profile system with much shorter range (@10km)?

Unfortunately the trend of thinking lately has been that the DP3 Tp Wo course is more of a "master patrol commander" course then an emergency troop leader course.  This change in focus is a result of the feeling that because of the increased speed with which an NCO is developed and thrown into a Patrol Comd position (coupled with a lack of real experience in the vehicle due to vehicle fleet reductions) that it is more important for a Troop WO to develop the Patrol Comds then the Troop Leader. I'm sure that this may generate some discussion on its own.

That's all for now. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Plattypuss,

I think that many people in the Army assume away the issues involved with UAVs.  I learned first hand what the issues are.  While I remain optimistic about their capabilities, I have also had my eyes opened as to what is involved.

Looking at doctrine, I wonder if we still truly have a close/medium distinction in recce?  I can see using LUVWs for Light Forces in situations where you cannot get Coyotes into theatre, but I do not like the idea of Coyotes overwatching soldiers in jeeps who are going forward to do recce by death in true Cold War fashion.

The whole "surveillance/reconnaissance" split is not a good one, in my opinion.  I guess I am a Coyote believer!


Cheers,

2B

 

[12alfa]

Returning to my recce drills just this last March on a week long recce FTX, I have seen a few things.

This talk of the Tp Ldr's security: when in the 7-car troop   doing standard route recce he was between 2 ptls, secure I would think. When in a Op he was co-located with a ptl, again secure. Just how much more do we need to protect him, or has he turned into a 7/24 security problem? We can't seem to carry on without the Tp Ldr anymore? Why does the Tp Wo train to take over comd then?
So many questions, and no really good answers, lots of "we need to change" answers though.

I can live with the 8 car troop, but in my opion its a waste of pers and vehs, when as you all know all to well , we don't have either, and gettin even less in the future.

But heck ya! lets form a whole troop around protecting the Tp ldr, the poor defenless officer in a 3 block war mission.

Don't fix what is not broken, was the 7-car really broken? Or was someone just bored and needed to write a paper on a "new" recce tp for his up coming PER ?

Rant-off................ahhhh that feels much better, sry guys I need that.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Returning to my recce drills just this last March on a week long recce FTX, I have seen a few things.

This talk of the Tp Ldr's security: when in the 7-car troop  doing standard route recce he was between 2 ptls, secure I would think.

How many Km between those two roads?  Road Recces... I love road recce.s As an Assault Trooper I know it's the best time ever to conduct an ambush, and no, not on the lead C/S

When in a Op he was co-located with a ptl, again secure.

Um, the TL is normally not with a patrol in the OP. He is normally in a position of communications with SHQ and failing that he is required for resupply, collection of Talc's and tapes when on radio silence, orders groups with SHQ. Come to think of it I have never seen a TL with a patrol in the OP it limits him too much and there is too great of a possibility that the OP base will be compromised when he moves around doing his job.

Just how much more do we need to protect him, or has he turned into a 7/24 security problem? We can't seem to carry on without the Tp Ldr anymore? Why does the Tp Wo train to take over comd then?
So many questions, and no really good answers, lots of "we need to change" answers though.

You have managed to completely miss the mark on this. How about we apply the same principals with regard to the TL that we have applied to every single other vehicle in a Recce Troop since Christ was a Cpl? That is to say, one foot on the ground AT ALL TIMES, move in support of your other car AT ALL TIMES, Stay in the weapons range of your patrol AT ALL TIMES.

Gee, all these years I guess I had it wrong, maybe the TL is just a disposable call sign, after all we have a WO trained to take his place... Yeah that's it, Fu<k'em, they don't deserve to have anywhere near the security the patrols do. Why should we bother to live by the platitudes we preach to our young Jr. Car Commanders.

I can live with the 8 car troop, but in my opion its a waste of pers and vehs, when as you all know all to well , we don't have either, and gettin even less in the future.

But heck ya! lets form a whole troop around protecting the Tp ldr, the poor defenless officer in a 3 block war mission.

Don't fix what is not broken, was the 7-car really broken? Or was someone just bored and needed to write a paper on a "new" recce tp for his up coming PER ?

Rant-off................ahhhh that feels much better, sry guys I need that.

What tripe

 

[12alfa]

How many Km between those two roads?    
Where did I post "two roads"? ???

Um, the TL is normally not with a patrol in the OP.

Where does he and his crew sleep? (doing standard route recce)

in a Recce Troop since Christ was a Cpl? .

I have heard that before.Started in 71


Gee, all these years I guess I had it wrong,

I hope not. :

:maybe the TL is just a disposable call sign, after all we have a WO trained to take his place... Yeah that's it, Fu<k'em, they don't deserve to have anywhere near the security the patrols do. Why should we bother to live by the platitudes we preach to our young Jr. Car
Commanders.

What tripe

Well I can't say I never heard that before.......

I never posted ,that the Tp Ldr security should be de-graded (I think), how ever, I see few problems with a 7 car troop, in reguardes to troopee's security, resupply, orders, etc, in operations other than 3 bolck missions.
Tell me if you would, how much time in a 7 car and 5 car troop doing standard recce drills do you have? And in what positions.

Do the rest of us here think that the Tp Ldr is less secure in a non ptl setup ?

PS: Thought the Tp Wo did resupply in troop doing standard recce drills
???

 

[Lance Wiebe]

In ops where a recce troop is providing a screen, living in OP's for long durations, the TL has acted as a kind of Rover.  He knows where his OP's are located, and has conducted emergency resupply runs to the OP's.  During periods of electronic silence, he also has picked up OP reports and so on.  The concern is that this is not correct, that the TL, or actually any armour vehicle, should never operate alone.  It is also quite the waste to have high priced help wandering around delivering toilet paper in a high priced vehicle.

Now of course, when the OP is established, and the zulu harbour is set up, then nobody drives in or out of your location.  So the TL will meet someone at the RV to pass on his resupplies.  Which is dumb, if you think about it.  Dropping off rations and water for six or eight guys, disregarding any POL, is still quite the large drop, and will take a few guys some time to hump all of this junk to the OP site.

I am of the mind set that the TL should not be operating alone, doing next to nothing most of the time.  The TL really doesn't have a job once the screen is in place and operational.  So, why not give him another car, and use him in another OP site?  That allows the troop to cover more area. 

You also brought up another concern.  How does one car provide his own security?  The answer is he can't, not for any length of time.

The counter-argument to much of this is that the friendly side of the screen is just that, friendly.  And we don't have to worry about the TL wandering around on his own.  Right.

 

[plattypuss]

Remember non-contiguous - there is no good and bad side of a screen anymore, the threat is all around.  Which seems to make it common sense for a Troop Leader to have a wingman.

In addition given that there is a possibility that a Tactical UAV may be downloaded onto a Troop's responsability, it would need to be controlled and carried by the 8th C/S.  That being said the latest on the CLS website has the airforce running a TUAV program on our behalf with principally Artillery support.

 

[12alfa]

In ops where a recce troop is providing a screen, living in OP's for long durations, the TL has acted as a kind of Rover.   He knows where his OP's are located, and has conducted emergency resupply runs to the OP's.   During periods of electronic silence, he also has picked up OP reports and so on.   The concern is that this is not correct, that the TL, or actually any armour vehicle, should never operate alone.   It is also quite the waste to have high priced help wandering around delivering toilet paper in a high priced vehicle.

Long Ops, do require additional pers and equipment true, I was thinking of a standard 48hr Op.


Now of course, when the OP is established, and the zulu harbour is set up, then nobody drives in or out of your location.   So the TL will meet someone at the RV to pass on his resupplies.   Which is dumb, if you think about it.   Dropping off rations and water for six or eight guys, disregarding any POL, is still quite the large drop, and will take a few guys some time to hump all of this junk to the OP site.

I am of the mind set that the TL should not be operating alone, doing next to nothing most of the time.   The TL really doesn't have a job once the screen is in place and operational.   So, why not give him another car, and use him in another OP site?   That allows the troop to cover more area.  

The problem that I can see with this is, the Op is a temp one, whereas the Tp Ldr will soon be called away for various tp duties, and the said Op will be short a crew. However if the Op is a short one, this might work if he is left in place.

You also brought up another concern.   How does one car provide his own security?   The answer is he can't, not for any length of time.

The counter-argument to much of this is that the friendly side of the screen is just that, friendly.   And we don't have to worry about the TL wandering around on his own.   Right.

Yes I was thinking of a nornal recce, not our 3 block mission that we now find ourselves in.

My post was unclear (I think). In the old recce missions we had a front line , now we don't, and I can see the value in another car and crew for some taskings. We should not disreguard the 7 and 5 car troop org though, flexablity is a tool we can still use on some 3 block missions.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Tell me if you would, how much time in a 7 car and 5 car troop doing standard recce drills do you have? And in what positions.

Do the rest of us here think that the Tp Ldr is less secure in a non ptl setup ?

PS: Thought the Tp Wo did resupply in troop doing standard recce drills
???

Well, lets see,
RV 87 I was in 60, but that was a 9 car troop
87-91... Germany didn't get the chance to go to Recce there.
91-93 was 7 car and 5 Car (Lynx and M113) position... Driver and Observer
94- I was training and competeing in Boeselager... Oops that was a 4 car troop based on the German Regimental Recce
Back to Recce Sqn from 95-98 Bosnia... Position, Gunner and Commander (Coyote) as well as Assault Troop (Grizzly and M113)
98... Training the Boeselager team, but I guess that's not being in a recce Troop
99 - 00... Kosovo, Commander in Assault Troop and Recce Troop
00 - 02... Assault Troop (Grizzly)... position... Commander and Troop Sgt

So roughly 11 years... What's your point? Let's hear your credentials... not that I really care, since the consensus here is that I am in fact correct, but since you see fit to call me on my experience I think the least you can do is belly up to the bar.

How do you possibly think that the TL by himself could be as secure as a Ptl in a Zone or Area Recce or in an OP Mission without that other foot on the ground? The fact that C/S are in front of him does not guarantee security.

Of course as I pointed out in my first(?) post on this the flexibility added by adding that 8th car is an asset to the entire troop structure. It gives the troop the ability to go down to a 7 car organization without loosing a patrol.

This isn't mothering or babysitting of the TL it is an asset that can be used to fulfill the mission in any phase of the 3 block war.

The 3 block war is "Normal" now. If the reserves (or in your case the 8CH) are still fighting the cold war and dreaming of advancing out of the Fulda gap then they had better take their heads out of their a$$es and join the 21st Century.

BTW The TP WO picks up the rations and adreps during DP with the SSM but if you are in a screen then he is in an OP with his Patrol and the TL does all the running around.

BTW the length of an OP is up to 72 or 96 hours.

 

[12alfa]

Well, lets see,So roughly 11 years... What's your point?

No Point, just asking, you seem bitter, hard day at the office?
Let's hear your credentials...

71-74 recce tp dr/obsr
74 germany 6 mths flyover
74-82 recce tp jr c/s
82-86 recce to sgt/Wo
86-00 Cougar tp Wo
00-04 Tp Wp(trans state) recce/cougar
04-05 SQMS

but since you see fit to call me on my experience I think the least you can do is belly up to the bar.

When does asking (and including a PLEASE,would you) deemed to be "see fit to call me"? again you seem angry, why?

How do you possibly think that the TL by himself could be as secure as a Ptl in a Zone or Area Recce or in an OP Mission without that other foot on the ground? The fact that C/S are in front of him does not guarantee security.

True, however using your logic of another car with the Tp Ldr (The fact that C/S are in front of him does not guarantee security), having another car with him would fall under your"does not guarantee security", would it not?

Of course as I pointed out in my first(?) post on this the flexibility added by adding that 8th car is an asset to the entire troop structure. It gives the troop the ability to go down to a 7 car organization without loosing a patrol.

Again ture, losing a car in a 7 car troop has the same effect (still 3 ptls) as the Tp Ldr takes a ptl, is this not flexability?

This isn't mothering or babysitting of the TL it is an asset that can be used to fulfill the mission in any phase of the 3 block war.

My post was in a non-3 block missions, I thought.

The 3 block war is "Normal" now. If the reserves (or in your case the 8CH) are still fighting the cold war and dreaming of advancing out of the Fulda gap then they had better take their heads out of their a$$es and join the 21st Century.

We have been doing recce (in cougars) from 2000 while mantaing our cougar role, as well as doing y2k missions whick were in large part recce tasks, I take this as being in the 21 century, would it not?

BTW The TP WO picks up the rations and adreps during DP with the SSM but if you are in a screen then he is in an OP with his Patrol and the TL does all the running around.

What do you all think would be his chances of "running around" and not being wacked in this operation? (post without a attuitude PLEASE)

BTW the length of an OP is up to 72 or 96 hours.

Allways, never less?