Armoured Officer vs Air Combat (Pilot)

[Good2Golf]

airdelta2, within the pilot classification there is an incredible variety of types of operations; fighter, transport, search and rescue, training, maritime patrol and the at times orphan air force helicopter 'spawn'  - maritime, tactical and special operations aviation.  All are (or can be) exciting.  The first group of types I listed are generally considered "real" air force, while the last three are considered by many to be more closely aligned in thought and interaction to their respective supported elements.  This is IMO a fairly accurate characterization, and not necessarily unexpected nor inappropriate.  So in the big picture, there is the idea that you can go "mainstream" air force or head off down a different path that while not as "air forcey" as the main pack, can be very interesting and incredibly rewarding.  I can only vouch for the last two, but if I were starting over a few decades earlier, I wouldn't change a single thing.

Regards
G2G

p.s. Don't put too much weight on previous flying experience helping, I saw it help and also hinder - the individual's dedication and motivation was just as important as aptitude.

 

[airdelta2]

Of course dedication is key but it also intimidates me a bit that so many people fail out right off the bat @ simulation training in Trenton. Such a high failure rate means that I cannot 100% count on pilot as a career path. That does not mean I won't give it my all at Trenton...it just means that I should have other backup options that I can also see myself choosing for a career.

Do some people with previous flight simulation (similar to the one in Trenton) training tend to have a better chance over people with flying experience/no experience at all? All of the choices you put down sound exciting to me. Although fighter jet is the coolest...if I did not get that - other options would make me glad to do the job too. I won't lie, AirForce is my top pick right now (so one of the many pilot options or ACSO) but I will also have 3rd-4th choices just in case. I can't predict the future or if I will be chosen for Pilot/ACSO but I am confident that once I receive an offer for a trade I do like - I am good to go (I know that I will put all of my efforts into learning as much as possible at trade-specific training/building up my skill-sets for that job).

Right now for DEO officer positions I like it's: Pilot, ACSO, Armour/MARS (tied - need to do more research), Public Affairs.

 

[airdelta2]

This!  :nod:

All classifications are challenging in their own right.  Multitasking is a pretty common theme throughout.    It's important to ensure that you are motivated and interested in whatever direction you decide to pursue.

Regards
G2G

For sure. I have to be very interested in the career path in order to excel at it/put all of my effort into it. So far I know 100% I like Pilot, ACSO seems interesting (I have a decent amount of knowledge *for a civilian* on what they do and the tactical missions/objectives they have), Armour - I like so far/I need to research MARS a bit more/Public Affairs is a potential that I believe that I have the skills to excel at...but as of right now it's not at the top of my list (PAO).

 

[dangles]

An armoured officer needs to be able to employ small arms and be able to work outside his vehicle, but it is not "fighting as infantry."

To get back to the armour aspect of this thread, what personal weapons does an Armour Officer/Crewman carry into their AFV's?

 

[MikeL]

To get back to the armour aspect of this thread, what personal weapons does an Armour Officer/Crewman carry into their AFV's?

From what I've seen Leopard crews have C8s, and I think the Commander had a pistol(in addition to their C8).  Coyote Crews have a mix of C8 and C7 and seen one guy with a M203.

 

[George Wallace]

To get back to the armour aspect of this thread, what personal weapons does an Armour Officer/Crewman carry into their AFV's?

That depends on a few different factors:  how many of what type of wpn the Regt has allocated to it, the Regt and how they want to allocate their stock of wpns, type of veh that the member is employed on, etc. 

One Regt may allocate two pistols and two C-8's per Tank crew.  Another may allocate pistols to all the crew, or C-8's for all the crew.  On an operation, such as Afghanistan, they may issue pistols to all the crew and then two C-8s, or whatever the Comd deems necessary. 

In Recce, most will be issued C-8s.  If you are in HQ or RHQ, you may be issued a C-7, a C-8, or perhaps a pistol, depending on your employment.  Usually those on B Vehs will have a C-7.  C-8's are most common on AFVs.  You may find pistols on pers manning CPs, but often they will have C-7's.

As a person changes Sqn and employment, they may also change wpns, so what you are issued in one Sqn will not necessarily be what you are issued in another if you are moved.  You will not have one wpn from the start of your career through to the end.

[Edit to add:  -Skeletor- gives a good example of how the arming of the crews will vary between different Armour units. ]

 

[airdelta2]

I am pretty interested in ARMOUR (deo). Is it as dangerous as a job as Infantry Officer? Are ARMOUR vehicles usually in the direct line of fire? Are the vehicles pretty much weapon resistant? I know these are somewhat arbitrary questions but I want to get an idea of the potential dangers the job may entail.

 

[MikeL]

I am pretty interested in ARMOUR (deo). Is it as dangerous as a job as Infantry Officer? Are ARMOUR vehicles usually in the direct line of fire? Are the vehicles pretty much weapon resistant? I know these are somewhat arbitrary questions but I want to get an idea of the potential dangers the job may entail.

Tanks are not invincible, neither are the crews when they dismount. Being in a war is dangerous regardless of trade.  Yes tanks and coyotes can be and have been involved in TICs and been fired at from small arms, RPGs, etc as well as IEDs.

 

[airdelta2]

Tanks are not invincible, neither are the crews when/if they dismount, being in a war is dangerous regardless of trade.  Yes tanks and coyotes can be and have been involved in TICs and been fired at from small arms, RPGs, etc as well as IEDs.

Yeah I've heard about that but usually the tank wins VS those things and there is new technology being built to counter-measure those attacks. Would you say it's just as dangerous for an ACSO as it is for an Armoured Officer since both can be/are involved in war? I mean technically everything 'can' be dangerous...even MARS have to fire from their ship if there is an enemy approaching/if they are at war.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

airdelta2-

You are asking unanswerable questions.  There are just too many variables to know for sure how dangerous a particular occupation is.  Even within an occupation, no two people follow precisely the same career path.

Your vehicle could hit an IED.  Or be destroyed by a missile.  Or roll over on a training exercise.

Your aircraft could hit a bird and crash.  It could be shot down.

You could also get hit by a bus crossing the street.

There are no guarantees in life.

 

[airdelta2]

True that. Armour seems like an awesome career to me especially the reconnaissance aspect of it. However, you cannot compare the risks of crossing the street to those involved in being in a war abroad. Huge difference of risk levels. The plane/combat vehicle example is more comparable.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

However, you cannot compare the risks of crossing the street to those involved in being in a war abroad. Huge difference of risk levels. The plane/combat vehicle example is more comparable.

You are missing my point- there are no garauntees in life.  No one here can tell you how "dangerous" your particular career choice is going to be, because none of us can predict the future. Who here in 2000 would have said that we would  spend most of the next decade fighting in Afghanistan?  Maybe, next decade, the Air Force carries the Combat Load for the CF.  Or the Navy?  Who knows?

If the danger aspect of the CF really bothers you, I suggest that you take up accounting.

 

[airdelta2]

The reason I didn't post this question before was exactly for that reason...someone was going to say 'go do some boring civilian 'safe' job'. I am sure you want to be safe doing your job because a career in any CF field isn't about being completely daring/not concerned for safety. My question was regarding the overall safety of armoured vehicles (what they can withstand) and people's experiences with them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The reason I didn't post this question before was exactly for that reason...someone was going to say 'go do some boring civilian 'safe' job'. I am sure you want to be safe doing your job because a career in any CF field isn't about being completely daring/not concerned for safety. My question was regarding the overall safety of armoured vehicles (what they can withstand) and people's experiences with them.

No one here is going to comment, specifically on the safety of Armoured Vehicles, becaue it begins to touch on Operational Security issues.  It is safe to say that our fleet of armoured vehicles are safer and more survivable then they were a decade ago, but so what?  A countermeasure to that could appear tomorrow.

I wasn't berating you.  But, if it makes you feel better, here:

"Airdelta2- you will never come to harm while serving with the CF.  I promise."

There- feel better?

 

[Rogo]

AirDelta 2 he had answered your question by saying that one cannot compare the two yet you still want to compare them. He can't say that on a scale of 1-10 Pilot ranks 7 and armour 8 on a danger scale.  You are trying to compare two totally different things.

 

[airdelta2]

I appreciate the answer. I guess I can't calculate 'which profession' is safer and I gotta just go with what I like.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I appreciate the answer. I guess I can't calculate 'which profession' is safer and I gotta just go with what I like.

Yes.  Absolutely.  Precisely.