Assault Pioneers & Assault Troopers (engineer light of the Inf & Armd)

[patt]

The Spartan Bear 1 obstacles you mean? The ones we cleared in about 1 minute with an ELAV? Sorry but those weren't abatis. They were speed bumps. But I liked the melmac plate 'AT mines'. Train to excite and all that!! :

i don't think we are talking about the same one.

 

[McG]

The Support Trooper course has similarities to the Recce Patrolman course, but there are differences as well.

I did not suggest combining that training.  What I suggested was a common course followed by an Armd specific course.  If my nomenclature was unclear, perhaps this is better:

• Cbt Arms Pnr Qual + Armd Sp Tpr Crse = Sp Tpr Qual

Support/Assault Troop has a different role than Assault Pioneers or Engineers.

And a MBT driver has a different role than an Armd Engr Op, but both start with the same D&M because of the substantial overlap in knowledge, skills and tasks.

As you note the basic demolitions package exists. We plug that into our course but do not let that drive how the course is delivered. I mentioned earlier that we had very successful and useful Assault Troops that did not have demolitions.

Your arguments only seem to accept demolitions as an area of common overlap.  Again, the overlap in knowledge, skills and tasks is much greater, extending to targetry fabrication, limited mine warfare, obstacle construction, breaching, and on.

Right now, there is no approved QS or TP for Asslt Tpr or Sp Tpr (same for Asslt Pnr as well).  In the current climate of restraint, it seems more likely that new QSs will be approved if they show economies and efficiencies.  A common course does that.  A common crse also increases the gene-pool to support self-sustainability of the qualification across a bde.  This does seem to be the right answer:

I don't really know where the beef is here... Get the basic pioneer and assault trooper CTPs, identify all common POs to the two, find instructors and book a bus to Wainwright for a couple weeks.  RTU to fill in the empty spots in-house.  Economy of effort and all that rot.

We have already seen what the Infantry Corps hopes to have packaged in a 20 to 25 day course here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1909/post-1162087.html#msg1162087

Remove the small boats and some urban fortifications, and you are still left with a full course.  What remaining from that list would you suggest Asslt Tprs should not be capable of doing?

Engineers only and demolitions are empire building. 

Not sure where this comes from.  I don't think you will find an Engineer who believes only Engineers should use explosives within a Reg F context.  I have seen plenty of BDC and BCIC offered up to various combat arms, but receiving units then allow this capability to go unsustained and to wither away.

 

[dogger1936]

When I read stuff like this it reminds me of getting rid of those bearded guys not so long ago. And when we got rid Armd assult troop and 60. The Airborne...and then got rid of the tanks.

Then 10 years later we are looking at ways to implement them into our "new" plan.

CSOR is online, Infantry and Armd want their stuff back, tanks are coming back online

How about someone say hey we are just going back to the way we did stuff 20 years ago....cause well...that worked and we are going full circle again.

 

[George Wallace]

How about someone say hey we are just going back to the way we did stuff 20 years ago....cause well...that worked and we are going full circle again.

If we did that, CSOR and JTF2 would be gone.  Can't have our Regular Army Units doing those things again.  What would the public and Empire Builders say?  Why; having our Infantry "door kicking" and rappelling out of helicopters......that would be too aggressive.    We will also have to do away with CADPAT.......  It makes the young soldier too aggressive looking.

 

[dogger1936]

If we did that, CSOR and JTF2 would be gone.  Can't have our Regular Army Units doing those things again.  What would the public and Empire Builders say?  Why; having our Infantry "door kicking" and rappelling out of helicopters......that would be too aggressive.    We will also have to do away with CADPAT.......  It makes the young soldier too aggressive looking.

:nod:

How long before we see 548's and ducks back on the field when they realize a armd unit requires it's own echelon.

Someone should draft a memo saying things are not better than before let's default back to the old plan.

 

[daftandbarmy]

When I read stuff like this it reminds me of getting rid of those bearded guys not so long ago. And when we got rid Armd assult troop and 60. The Airborne...and then got rid of the tanks.

Then 10 years later we are looking at ways to implement them into our "new" plan.

CSOR is online, Infantry and Armd want their stuff back, tanks are coming back online

How about someone say hey we are just going back to the way we did stuff 20 years ago....cause well...that worked and we are going full circle again.

Yeah, 20 years ago it was all so much better  :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

 

[George Wallace]

Yeah, 20 years ago it was all so much better  :

So?  Were you first in line for the iPhone 5? 

Not all that is "new" is better, the same as not all that was "old" is better.  There are good points to be found through all our history.  The smart people take what is the best and work with it (if possible).

 

[FEEOP042]

About Assault Pnr and Auuault Tpr

To have all the support for the Inf and the Armd, the Engineers would be the largest branch in the CF but that is not going to happen so. I think it would be better in are current make up that we go back to the Assault Pnr and the Assault Tpr.

As for the training of said crses yes you will need to have the SME re-start the crses? But to continue the follow on training of these crses you can have it this way for the best use of resources.
1. Have a CBT Arms Inf / Armd Assaulters combined crse so that you can have feed back of experiance from all three instructor cadre( ENGR, PNR, TPR)
2. This will not take all your individual units to use up all there time and resourses to teach said crse. It is better to combine training and to see how the other Cbt Arms work we are one team remember that.

IMO

I think the reason for the lost of the Pnr and Assaulters was the good old $, The savings with the pers you will not have to teach and use in all the units ever year I think that was the biggest factor.

 

[BDTyre]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but Pioneer is on the way back in. We have currently filled numerous slots over three or four Basic Pioneer courses (runs approx. 6 weeks) running out of Gagetown. I believe the courses will all be wrapped up by mid-July and at stand-to those trained will form the beginnings of our Pioneer platoon.

After that, the plan is to run an in-house course on Wednesday nights and weekends to train the troops and form a full Pioneer platoon. I'm not able to attend any of the full time courses, but I will be among the first to put my hand up for the in-house training.

And yes, reports from the first serial have confirmed beards are allowed, possibly even expected (under the condition that the RSM approves an individual's beard). 3VP were given two weeks time to grow theirs before reporting for course apparently.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The whole beard thing is going to get annoying very fast.

 

[Teager]

The whole beard thing is going to get annoying very fast.

I don't get the whole pioneer thing. Aren't Combat Engineers technically pioneers just without the beards?

 

[OldSolduer]

The whole beard thing is going to get annoying very fast.

Mostly to those who aren’t Assault Pioneers

 

[Breacher]

I don't get the whole pioneer thing. Aren't Combat Engineers technically pioneers just without the beards?

Ok. I'm just going to pretend that I didn't read that.  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

Ok. I'm just going to pretend that I didn't read that.  ;D

Same here. The role of the  Infantry Assault Pioneer platoon is to provide minor field engineering tasks including mobility/counter mobility, explosive stuff, minefield advice etc etc.

The Assault Pioneer Platoon was also Niner's personal tactical reserve. At least that's what I remember.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Same here. The role of the  Infantry Assault Pioneer platoon is to provide minor field engineering tasks including mobility/counter mobility, explosive stuff, minefield advice etc etc.

The Assault Pioneer Platoon was also Niner's personal tactical reserve. At least that's what I remember.

And, like the mortar platoon - artillery relationship, they 'fill the gaps' that the Engineers can't for the CO.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I don't get the whole pioneer thing. Aren't Combat Engineers technically pioneers just without the beards?

Having been a Pioneer, I always remind Sappers that they are just Pioneer wannabees....

 

[Breacher]

Having been a Pioneer, I always remind Sappers that they are just Pioneer wannabees....

I served in the 3 PPCLI BG in Bosnia in 2000. I don't recall you reminding us of that. 

 

[garb811]

The whole beard thing is going to get annoying very fast.

I dunno, they got along quite well for years and years...although I remember this picture making the international news blew a few minds in Ottawa at the time.

The good news is, if Infantry folks want a beard they now have a legitimate way to get one instead of gaming the medical system to give them a chit.

 

[OldSolduer]

I seem to recall Pioneers used to have a CBRN task as well, just can’t recall what it was.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I seem to recall Pioneers used to have a CBRN task as well, just can’t recall what it was.

Asslt Pnts can augment Engr resources for a variety of tasks, like CBRN.

In Northern Ireland we re-roled our Asslt Pnrs  (or Assault Engineers - as they are called with the Royal Marines) into search teams prior to the tours, and they would be allocated out to the rifle companies. They were not as specialized as the Engineers, but could do much higher risk occupied building searches that the regular rifle company troops could not handle.