I accept and understand that but im of the opinion we should still have mortars internal to the squadron. It could be a long fight and any counter battery on the arty and im now SOL on the screen/delay/whatever while they relocate. Thats not a shot at the arty, but I think some fires should be available as a tool for the OC's plan.
I don't consider it a shot at all. I'm a firm believer in an infantry battalion having its own indirect fire resources. How those are allocated (battalion, company, a mix) and what weapon systems they are (mortars, calibre, loitering, a mix) is up to the infantry based on sound wargaming and experience.
You know mortars take counter fire and move as well right?
81mm or 120mm or both?
I know just mean to say I'd rather have some mortars colocated
I'll get back to you by PM on this.
I don't whole heartedly agree. I certainly agree that each unit needs an FSCC and a set of observers who have the ability to call in all manners of fires. Under our current construct that means a BC, FOOs and JTACs. IMHO, while we might leave a BC and FOOs with a battery administratively, in battle they should be decoupled so that the BC and FOOs stay permanently with their supported unit while the battery itself is assigned/reassigned as necessary.
That means that the firing component of a CS battery can be reallocated (for example "at priority call") from unengaged units when necessary. We already do that. I'm a bit open on far we should go on this because we are seeing a shift in the way that firing units are being allocated, deployed and employed. Technology and threat makes it more desirable to disperse guns in small two gun troops or even singly. That makes "batteries" more administrative in nature looking after resupply and other battlefield management tasks. I can see a future where the screen may be allocated four troops or seven guns from different batteries. Some of this will depend on what our next generation of gear is.
Organizationally I do see four "batteries" in a brigade - three "gun" batteries and one "launcher" battery. They basically do similar jobs administratively but the gun batteries retain the ability to provide all weather neutralization and non lethal effects (smoke, illumination etc) while the launcher batteries provide precision guided strikes by way of loitering munitions or FPVs further out. My gut tells me three and one is a good mix but I concede that 2 and 2 might be needed .
I think much of our way of assigning guns in the past had more to do with the state of the communications systems and the limited range of the guns. It's not that I'm advocating for a change, but I think that both technology and threats will make change possible and maybe require that change happen. I think that the simple complexity and physical aspects of sustaining a fire unit in the field will dictate the continued need for "batteries," I think that how fire support is technically provided may change quite a bit.
I do not disagree - I just don't know enough about the trends at that level to provide meaningful debate. I do think that the improvement of weapon systems over the last two decades makes the "recce" force a force that can do meaningful combat in its own right. Whether it will ever be up to graduating to being a guard needs to be carefully war gamed. What it needs to work on the continuum from screen to guard will, I think, be up for debate for a long time amongst the black hatters. I tend to agree though, from a fire support point of view, that they will need to be able to access the full range of what the brigade (and div) have to offer through a dedicated fire support team.
I'll get back to you by PM on this.
I don't whole heartedly agree. I certainly agree that each unit needs an FSCC and a set of observers who have the ability to call in all manners of fires. Under our current construct that means a BC, FOOs and JTACs. IMHO, while we might leave a BC and FOOs with a battery administratively, in battle they should be decoupled so that the BC and FOOs stay permanently with their supported unit while the battery itself is assigned/reassigned as necessary.
That means that the firing component of a CS battery can be reallocated (for example "at priority call") from unengaged units when necessary. We already do that. I'm a bit open on far we should go on this because we are seeing a shift in the way that firing units are being allocated, deployed and employed. Technology and threat makes it more desirable to disperse guns in small two gun troops or even singly. That makes "batteries" more administrative in nature looking after resupply and other battlefield management tasks. I can see a future where the screen may be allocated four troops or seven guns from different batteries. Some of this will depend on what our next generation of gear is.
Organizationally I do see four "batteries" in a brigade - three "gun" batteries and one "launcher" battery. They basically do similar jobs administratively but the gun batteries retain the ability to provide all weather neutralization and non lethal effects (smoke, illumination etc) while the launcher batteries provide precision guided strikes by way of loitering munitions or FPVs further out. My gut tells me three and one is a good mix but I concede that 2 and 2 might be needed .
I think much of our way of assigning guns in the past had more to do with the state of the communications systems and the limited range of the guns. It's not that I'm advocating for a change, but I think that both technology and threats will make change possible and maybe require that change happen. I think that the simple complexity and physical aspects of sustaining a fire unit in the field will dictate the continued need for "batteries," I think that how fire support is technically provided may change quite a bit.
I do not disagree - I just don't know enough about the trends at that level to provide meaningful debate. I do think that the improvement of weapon systems over the last two decades makes the "recce" force a force that can do meaningful combat in its own right. Whether it will ever be up to graduating to being a guard needs to be carefully war gamed. What it needs to work on the continuum from screen to guard will, I think, be up for debate for a long time amongst the black hatters. I tend to agree though, from a fire support point of view, that they will need to be able to access the full range of what the brigade (and div) have to offer through a dedicated fire support team.
blog.polymernanocentrum.cz
www.twz.com
Or 60 mm.
I assume that depends what the Indirect Fires Modernization RFI turns up. If I had to bet it would be 120mm only. Second bet would be a mix.
So as a Navy guy working with Army all day I get to ask "dumb" questions. And what I've learned is that platoon, company and battalion org charts are great until they just move stuff around. I assume it's the same for brigades and divisions.
Sometimes you are so far off the mark . . .
Don't get wrapped around the axle by one org chart from long ago. I expect the fact that cavalry regiments during the Cold War were distributed over a wide front with their squadron's widely disbursed and supported by guns that barely covered 14 kilometres has a lot more to do with it than what you are spinning.
Honestly, I would hope for a mix do to the range v man pack dichotomy that underlie the 120 v 80. I think the SBCT concept of giving each mortar det one of each in a weapon locker concept is exactly the right way to go. Unfortunately our army is obsessed with divesting a capability in order to buy another in order to simplify life cycle management and ammunition supply matters (see the 40 GMG v the 60mm issue) My guess - and that's all it is is a guess - is that we'll end up with one calibre and that being 120mm.
You should be but . . . I think that the issue is on the one hand having a clear and relatively fixed TO&E and doctrine to work off of that everyone follows vs, on the other hand, a Canadian penchant for ad hocing organizations that we deploy. Larger armies, like the Americans have very fixed establishments and doctrines that everyone follows while smaller ones like ours tend to be more "personalized" where adjustment frequently takes place.
) when it comes to the cavalry concept. In my day the distinction between screen and guard was quite clear and their fire support requirements quite distinct. From what I see of the developing cavalry concepts I see a continuum that operates from light to heavy. I'm not sure how they are currently interpreting their roles across that spectrum nor what they see as their various fires support needs. A lot of that also depends on what we do with fires modernization and the degree with which we integrate FPVs and loitering munitions into fires. I have ideas but they are strictly my own and not developing doctrine.
I think in the ideal orbat a Cav entity would also have mortars organically.
