8 Car RECCE Troop

[Fishbone Jones]

Many times we're split down to patrol taskings with two cars, it's not a big deal. Being built on twos, we can add or subtract as the situation dictates. That's the crux for optimum orbat, what is the task. There's no need to get locked in to 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 car troops. The doctrinal number is purely a matter of battlefield logistics and garrison administration. Bottom line is the patrol is two cars which can be added to, by twos, depending on availability and the commander's wishes for the task. There's no sense debating it, because you seldom have what you need. When you do, you can always use more. As long as the cardinal rule of mutual support is not broken, the number becomes just part of the equation, and more often than not, wishful thinking. Debating the size of the troop is just an exercise for the empire builders that keep rewriting doctrine. It seldom, if ever, works out in the real world.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

What I am suggesting is the the Tp Ldr act as a Ptl Commander.  Six cars, three patrols.  Give each Ptl Comd a 117 radio.

As for Sqn size, have a look at what is deployed these days.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sure why not, he deserves mutual support as much as the next guy. We are still talking about working in multiples of two though. 2+, 2-, machs nix, you go with what you got.

However, what is deploying today as a Sqn is a joke. To send an armoured recce troop or Sqn out, short it's echelon and SHQ, to increase boots on the ground is a ludicrous idea that has to be addressed at the highest levels. When you have a full self sustained Sqn, you have an asset worth 10 times it's weight in gold to the Commander. Strip it because someone doesn't understand what they've really got, or how arm'd recce operates or what we do, and you end up deploying a Troop+. A troop + that is underemployed, and not able to provide the firepower, intelligence, quick reaction and shock that only a complete (incl SHQ and ech) Arm'd Recce Sqn can provide. No other self sustained group of men that size can provide that, and our resources are being wasted with the overseas orbats that are being used.

 

[Love793]

Sure why not, he deserves mutual support as much as the next guy. We are still talking about working in multiples of two though. 2+, 2-, machs nix, you go with what you got.

However, what is deploying today as a Sqn is a joke. To send an armoured recce troop or Sqn out, short it's echelon and SHQ, to increase boots on the ground is a ludicrous idea that has to be addressed at the highest levels. When you have a full self sustained Sqn, you have an asset worth 10 times it's weight in gold to the Commander. Strip it because someone doesn't understand what they've really got, or how arm'd recce operates or what we do, and you end up deploying a Troop+. A troop + that is underemployed, and not able to provide the firepower, intelligence, quick reaction and shock that only a complete (incl SHQ and ech) Arm'd Recce Sqn can provide. No other self sustained group of men that size can provide that, and our resources are being wasted with the overseas orbats that are being used.

Hear Hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recceguy for CFCWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Which I suppose is my point.  For a 50% increase in resources (four more cars) you get 100% more patrols for tasks with two six car Troops versus one eight car Tp.  Add an SHQ and echelon (the ech issue is not unique to the Armd on deployments these days) as the basis on to which attachments can be made (take your pick).  We could probably sustain something like this with two lines of operations (unlike Sqns of three Tps with eight cars each and all the bells and whistles that we like).

Bear in mind we may still see Ptls attached to platoons etc.  The nature of today's operations means we often have great dispersion.  Not always ideal but there it is.

2B

 

[George Wallace]

Before we go too much further, what are we going to discuss here?  Are we going to discuss the org of the Recce Troop in a 'Standard' Recce Sqn or are we going to discuss an ad hoc Recce Troop thrown together for a task by some wiener in NDHQ who wants Coyotes deployed on a NATO Task in Afghanistan or Dufar or Timbuktu?  A person with no idea of what the specific qualifications and roles of the troops he is playing with in his 'Plug 'n Play' fantasies. 

If we are going to discuss whether we should be leaning towards an eight car Recce Troop, let's stick to that.

If we are going to discuss ad hoc Troops thrown together at the whims of some "Naval or Air Force" officer in NDHQ to fill out a Brick to send off on Tour, then let's discuss that and the billions of orgs that we can dream up for billions of different situations.  Let's create another thread for that and discuss the old maxim "Max Flex" to cover all the new 'animals' that we can create and call Recce.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I guess I'm suggesting that we "Train as we fight."  What happens in theatre is the reality, not what happens on exercise in Canada.  What you are getting right now is a single eight-car Tp that does not really operate as such.  Two six car Tps allows for some Ptls to get chopped out to companies while saving others for other tasks and still employ the SHQ.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Which I suppose is my point.  For a 50% increase in resources (four more cars) you get 100% more patrols for tasks with two six car Troops versus one eight car Tp.  Add an SHQ and echelon (the ech issue is not unique to the Armd on deployments these days) as the basis on to which attachments can be made (take your pick).  We could probably sustain something like this with two lines of operations (unlike Sqns of three Tps with eight cars each and all the bells and whistles that we like).

Bear in mind we may still see Ptls attached to platoons etc.  The nature of today's operations means we often have great dispersion.  Not always ideal but there it is.
2B

Which brings us full circle to the patrol that we can attach/ detach at will. Given this scenario, the only hinderance would be the availability of the patrol. And that, nowdays, is more a matter of who controls the orbat for the Task Force and their knowledge of armoured recce, not doctrine. Perhaps it's time someone said "If you want the asset, you take the whole package".  It's like being given a train, without the engine or caboose. You have all those wonderful coaches, but lack the capability to take them anywhere, or keep them organized and supplied. If you do get an engine and caboose, it's underpowered and being driven by someone else, that doesn't understand the nuances of the cars and a coboose full of guys more interested in throwing switches, rather than taking care of the coaches. You end up spending all your time trying to stop the coaches from going off the rails, rather than supplying the ticket holder with the high level of service you should be.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

George, I really don't see what the discussion on the standard orbat is. As long as it's built on twos it really doesn't matter much does it?

 

[George Wallace]

Interesting allege.  It is so true though.

If we wanted to talk about the Patrol we would have created a Topic called the "Two or Three Car Patrol" not the "8 Car Recce Troop".   ;D

 

[DG-41]

Yeah, I think it does matter.

Firstly, I totally agree with you about the multiples-of-two thing, and the ability to detach patrols to sub-tasks. That is, in fact, the core reason why the troop needs to be larger rather than smaller.

If you have a 5-car troop, detach one patrol and now the troop is no longer able to to do troop-sized tasks. With 6 cars, you can detach a patrol and have a 4-car troop left which can still do some troop tasks. With 8 cars, you can detach a patrol and the remaining troop is pretty much fully capable - or you can detach 2 patrols, and still have something workable left over.

It's all about maintaining a reserve so that there's somebody there who can deal with the unexpected.

Consider the classic route recce up two axis. With a 5-car troop, as soon as you make contact on one axis, you pretty much have to stop the advance until the contact can be handed off - the patrol not in contact can't keep going, because that will open up a gap that might get slipped through. You *could* use the TL as the piquet while the contact troop bypassed and kept going (if you really had to) but then you leave the troop leadership behind,which is never good. The only real way to keep things moving is for the TL to take over the patrol in contact, and drop off somebody to act as a piquet.

With 6 cars, you have HQ Ptl as a reserve. The patrol in contact can maintain the piquet, while HQ Ptl bypasses and takes over the axis. This is better, but it still commits the TL after only one contact.

With 8 cars, you get *two* contacts where you leave a Patrol behind to piquet before you run out of manpower - and if you're lucky, and the contacts are separated well enough in time, you might get the rearmost piquet freed up just as the next one is established, and the freed patrol can move forward so there's no net loss of manpower at all.

The more cars you have in the troop, the more flexibility you have, because you can detach patrols without overly impacting the capability of the remaining troop. The smaller you go, the less you can do this.

The WW2 Recce Troop was *11* light tanks (Stuarts/Honeys) and towards the end of the war (when the enemy air threat was gone), the regimental AA troop (which had tracked vehicles with light AA guns on them) was commonly folded into the recce troop to make it even larger. (ref: The South Albertas)

Recce is really, really useful, and the more patrols you have, the more useful it gets. As you make the troop larger though, you also spread the troop leader thinner, as he will spend more and more of his time running around to keep in contact with his detached patrols. I can't imagine what running a 16 car recce troop would be like....

8 seems like a good size. You can do a single-axis recce and handle contacts/piquet/bypass pretty much continuously without having to stop. You can do 2 routes and handle 2 contacts easily. You can do three routes with only the troop leader in reserve, (but a 5/6 car troop is stretched this thin at 2 routes) and in a pinch, 4 routes. You can man 3 OPs with ease and still leave the TL uncommitted. You can do 2 half-troop tasks (convoy escorts, VCPs) or do one half-troop task and still have enough manpower left over to do a 1 route recce (comfortably) or a 2-route recce (stretched thin). You can detach a patrol to each company in an infantry battalion, and leave HQ patrol free to operate in order to liaise with the battalion commander or run forward to assist and apply leadership if one of your patrols gets into trouble. Etc etc etc.

And don't get me started on SQUADRON sizes... The Squadron should be FOUR troops, plus the A1 and A2 Ech, plus the B Ech. A 2X5 car troop squadron is smaller than a WW2 recce troop with more of a leadership tail. It has one fourth of the capability it should have.

DG

 

[reccecrewman]

And to what end though? It'll be you older guys who'll have to clarify this to me............... I'm missing something here. What is the problem with NDHQ following through on your proposals? I have read and re-read George, Recceguy & RecceDG's posts over and over and over again. Your experience and points brought forth make sense, why is the Corps getting f*@!ed at the drive through? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is our recce capability not the main reason we get deployed in the first place? Is NATO jumping up and down and screaming for more Force Protection, Engineer, Artillery or logistical assets from Canada? No, they want our Surv Squadrons. So what is up with us sending 2000+ troops, but only an 8 car Troop without armoured SHQ and ech support? As I said, I'm missing something here. Why are we not sending a full Squadron with the support a Suadron needs to sustain itself?  Awaiting the old guards response on this.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

Usually the Problem does not lie with the Recce Org that is tasked.  They will send over a Recce Party to recommend what assets are required in Theatre.  In most cases it will be a minimum of two full Troops, Adm Tp and SHQ.  What happens after that is the 'Powers that Be' in Ottawa will take all the info from all the Recce Parties and Advisers and draw up the Brick.  As these Missions are usually Infantry heavy, they will get the most attention.  Then comes the HQ/Command Cells.  Next the Log/Support.  Last will be the Recce, Engineers and Arty support.  If you were around long enough, you would have seen Recce slots cut so that the Bde Comd and RSM could get over.  Are there valid reasons to replace 'guns' with 'Brass'?  Good question and one that someone in NDHQ should clearly address.  The Troops see it, and question it. 

I have to truly agree with the statements that a 'Full' two Troops and their supporting HQ and Adm would be a heck of a lot more beneficial than this stripped down 'Plug 'n Play' fiasco that has been going on.  Too many people making decisions, without the experience to make them.  ....but who am I  :

 

[Fishbone Jones]

With 8 cars, you get *two* contacts where you leave a Patrol behind to piquet before you run out of manpower - and if you're lucky, and the contacts are separated well enough in time, you might get the rearmost piquet freed up just as the next one is established, and the freed patrol can move forward so there's no net loss of manpower at all.

...and with 10 cars, you get *three* contacts, and with 12 cars.................... Your playing to our old NATO, fight the Soviets stuff. Nothing wrong with it mind, but you'll seldom have your full troop, whatever number it may be, to work with nowdays.

Which brings me to the second point:

Recce is really, really useful, and the more patrols you have, the more useful it gets. As you make the troop larger though, you also spread the troop leader thinner, as he will spend more and more of his time running around to keep in contact with his detached patrols. I can't imagine what running a 16 car recce troop would be like....

Which is why, as most of you young Troopies keep forgetting (rather conveniently, and to your detriment I might add), that your Tp WO is also qualified Troop Leader with the same courses as you. If you choose to overwork yourself, drive yourself nuts, and cover more miles than all three of your patrols combined, that's your prerogative. Just remember, your Tp Ldr qual'd Tp WO will be more than happy to take over when you thunder in and eat dirt........after he sends you off to convalesce. ;D

 

[DG-41]

Which is why, as most of you young Troopies keep forgetting (rather conveniently, and to your detriment I might add), that your Tp WO is also qualified Troop Leader with the same courses as you.

Young?  ;D

Ah, but Kemosabe, did I not say this earlier:

It strikes me that a 4-car, two-patrol "half troop" fills these two requirements very nicely. Put HQ and C in one, put A and E in the other, and now a troop can conduct two (small) convoy escorts or two vehicle checkpoints.

So I'm already with you here. Troop WO takes one half-troop, I take the other, and we can do two "medium" tasks.

you'll seldom have your full troop, whatever number it may be, to work with nowdays.

Agreed - patrols are going to be detached off all the time. But the more patrols we have integral to the troop, the more capable the part of the troop that is left behind is.

In a 5 car troop, detach one patrol, and you're left with a micro-managed patrol. 6 car troop, detach one patrol and you get a half-troop (still need a name for that element - maybe a "lance"?). 8 car troop, detach one patrol and you've still got a 6 car troop left - or you can detach TWO patrols and still have a half-troop left.

8 cars just seems to work so well. All 8 cars can do one big task, or break into two 4-car "lances" and do two medium tasks, or break into 2 patrols plus a lance to do two small tasks and a medium task, or break into 3 patrols plus an HQ to do 3 small tasks plus some co-ordination and an emergency reserve, or (in extremis) do four small tasks with poorer co-ordination and no reserve.

and with 10 cars, you get *three* contacts, and with 12 cars

...ad infinitum, yes - but at some point, you pass the span of control of the TL, you HAVE to effectively divide control between the TL and the Tp WO... and at that point, what you have is effectively two smaller troops, each with a different commander, but sharing the same name.

So there's a tradeoff between "flexibility" and "span of control".

My feel is that 8 is the optimum number... but Recce Troops historically HAVE gone as large as 11, and effectively, even larger (recce troop + AA troop... although I have to think that was subdivided into smaller units in practice.)

DG

 

[reccecrewman]

...ad infinitum, yes - but at some point, you pass the span of control of the TL, you HAVE to effectively divide control between the TL and the Tp WO... and at that point, what you have is effectively two smaller troops, each with a different commander, but sharing the same name.

I'd disagree to an extent on this. Look at the "standard" 5 car Troop the reg armoured units employ in Canada. There's Alpha Patrol commanded by a Warrant and Charlie Patrol commanded by a Sergeant.  There's usually a good chance that the Sergeant may be Warrant qualified. So even if you had the dream 8 car Troop, and control was divided between the Troop Leader and Warrant, that should pose no problems.

By my way of thinking, the problem here is the simple fact that for some twisted reason, things are organized the way George previously mentioned. Force Protection, Command, Logistics and as as afterthought - Recce.  This blows my mind - it should be the other way around. Build a fully manned Recce Squadron and it's attachments, THEN, think of what Logistical support that Squadron needs and apply it, THEN think of your Force Protection needs and lastly, the command element.  I mean, come ON! 2000+ troops overseas and only a 8 car troop.............  : Again, what is the problem with taking all the extra add ons that Ottawa insists on deploying ALONG with the full Recce Squadron? The more Coyotes we have, the more area we can cover at once, the more effective we are and again, is our Recce capability not the reason Canada is so attractive to our NATO allies?

Regards

 

[orange.paint]

It all comes down to other units having the idea that they can do our jobs just as well as we can.In theory any infanteer and a few lavs can do RAPZ. They realise though that we got camera with TI etc and want that on the ground.

Until we get MGS ,Leo2,or hover tanks we are nothing special.They arty go over with guns grunts doing grunt stuff,engineer's always doing mine tasks etc.

Fact of the matter is maybe if we had MGS (a whole different discussion) we would be bringing something to the battlefield.Right now any soldier with a 8mm camera with zoom and night vision can do our jobs in a OP and route, area,point, zone recces can be done by anyone.

Just remember 2 rcr had their coyotes in Africa,proving our jobs have been done prior.With the loss of the Leo we are becoming obsolete.Someone has to start fighting for the corp before it is rerolled into something else....and then we wont even have 5 car troops.

 

[TCBF]

"It all comes down to other units having the idea that they can do our jobs just as well as we can.In theory any infanteer and a few lavs can do RAPZ."

- There should be a lot of skill overlap in the Army anyway.  Read the Military Police  811 insert to the USOP:  Tfc Con, Recces, Bridge and Route class, etc. Including orders formats in their actual manual.  Not too badly written either.

Don't worry, your job is safe.

 

[George Wallace]

reccecrewman

You asked a question and got a few answers, but these answers in another Topic may add more light to the picture:

The "Managed Readiness Plan" never survived contact with reality.  It was devised by people fixated upon susstainability, and as such never reflected reality.  Really - who here can tell me that we can forecast an international requirement for generic Task Forces comprised of a LAV company and a Light (Patrol) Company from now until perpetuity?  I mean really.  Do the assigned mission and the theatre not determine what is required to do the job?  Apparently not....

In ignorant defiance of reality, we had a bunch of "bean counters" determining our force structure for the foreseeable future.  And then, during the first Strategic Recce of the current Afghan theatre it became  immediately apparent that the long-established "rule of three" still applies.  Yes, big surprise, a third rifle company is required for the current Afghan theatre.  Just as it was during Op APOLLO back in 2002.  We've apparently regressed, as the lessons learned during APOLLO have quite clearly been ignored.....   

The Managed Readiness Plan is in total disarray.  Is anybody at the "coal-face" the least bit surprised that the elaborate plan for sustainability has fallen to pieces prior to the Line of Departure?  No.  Everyone with a basic "shmeck" knew that the MRP was flawed from the outset.  It was clear to all concerned that the new "wonder plan" was untenable.  But the "grown-ups" apparently didn't get it.  I'm not sure whether the current situation is more pathic or scary.  Both in equal parts, I suppose.  Our Army's "Master Plan" was dead before it lived.  And the "grown-ups" didn't see it coming?  How sad/scary is that?

Time to take down your shiny "Managed Readiness Plan" posters - the plan was dead before the ink was dry.  TF 2-07 has been stood down.  The "Second Line of Operations" has now become the "strategic reserve" (formerly the third line).  The R22eR will hold the  bag in "high readiness" for a full year.  After which point, TF 4-07 (LdSH) will pick up the strat reserve task....Maybe....  Who knows? 

In the interim, 3 PPCLI, 39 CBG and the elements of 1 CMBG tasked as TF 2-07 are shut down as of last week.  As you can imagine, morale is NOT high.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that "the system" has just screwed 3 PPCLI royally, and the results (in terms of releases) will very soon manifest themselves. 

Thanks for coming out....

Now that Mark's unleashed the beast...

I have to agree with him 100%.  We took an American idea designed for a very large army and tried to implement it in an army with nine battalions and three armoured regiments.  We obviously didn't learn from the massive failure of ATOF, which collapsed (as Mark indicated) when we added the third rifle company to OP APOLLO.

Because MR is predicated on knowing well in advance the exact missions we're going into, it situates the estimate regarding force structure.  MR dictated - god help us - that every mission would consist of an LPV coy, a LAV coy, a Coyote troop (!) and other elements.  Worse, LS added a bizarre "capability release" aspect that dictates that any force the Army deploys under MR will be tied to a Fixed Operating Base, with limited ability to push out into the boonies.  This was a deliberate attempted to limit tactical mobility and was Kabul-centric from the outset.  We're now in the position where every time we deploy something that doesn't fit the template developed by the MR gurus, the plan goes out the window.  Adding a company for force protection?  The Army's strategic plan gets scrapped - across the board.  Want another troop of Coyotes?  It's likely to come from outside the mounting Area.  Want mortars AND guns?  Well, good luck to you...

To try to manage this nightmare, the beancounters have decided to pennypacket everything by company (or worse, by platoon!).  We are now in a situation where we never deploy a cohesive battle group; instead, companies and other sub-units are picked up from across the Army in a mad scramble to fill requirements.

The entire system is designed to add stability to a business that is inherently unstable and to predict the unpredictable.

 

[reccecrewman]

Thanks alot George, I appreciated that.  I ran a search of various different topics trying to find hits on the topic, found some, but it still doesn't clarify everything, but, c'est la vie.  Bottom line I guess is it all boils down to our political masters and their reasons why I'll never know.... (Money?  : ) Oh well, I'll carry on as usual and when it's time to deploy, I'll go. But when we come back and there's another massive wave of releases and OT's and the Army's trying to figure out why...........  :  Burnout anyone? 

Regards