Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun

[Kirkhill]

.....
As for dismounting the 25MM, best suggestion ever.

Shoot, and here was me working on a ground mount for a 120 mm.

 

[vonGarvin]

Yup, probably nothing cushier than being OMLT and PRT.  Are you for real?  Let's just go with you're wrong.

Last I saw was LAV III APCs in both OMLT and KPRT (among other vehicles).  And please note that my point was (mostly) sarcastic.  The point I wished to make was:
a) our army is small and
b) as a result, this requires that all nine battalions be mechanised for the very reason I raised: they would not have been fully employable in our current mission in Afghanistan.

Let's just go with "you missed my point."

 

[KevinB]

My argument would be there is more than enough work in Afghan for 3Bn's of LI if the CF would do it.

 

[SeanNewman]

3RCR may have won in the fall '09, but 1RCR crushed the 3rd Bn in 2008.

You mean when 3 RCR was either just about to or already deployed to Afghanistan in 2008?  The competition you faced was made up largely of those who couldn't make the cut.

And I state here, emphatically, that the myth of the "fat-in-the-track" mech battalions is just that: a myth.  I saw it first hand when this "mech warrior" showed up to 3 RCR, all afraid that they were a collection of leg-shaving professional runners.  After our first run, looking back to see 3/4 of the battalion BEHIND me, it was a bit satisfying.

Completely anecdotal since you're a good runner; akin to me saying that since I can out-bench press 3/4 of 1 RCR they're all weak. 

Taken statistically en masse, it is essentially impossible for a mech unit to physically out-perform a light unit since they have other things to focus on.  And that's just looking at it from a time perspective that one only has so much time and if you spend some of that time on vehicles you aren't spending it on foot.  It does not speak to personalities that would generally be posted to either one.

 

[vonGarvin]

Taken statistically en masse, it is essentially impossible for a mech unit to physically out-perform a light unit since they have other things to focus on. 
And that's just looking at it from a time perspective that one only has so much time and if you spend some of that time on vehicles you aren't spending it on foot. 
It does not speak to personalities that would generally be posted to either one.

BS.  Pure and utter BS.


(Tried unsuccessfully to quote Infidel-6's quote)

My argument would be there is more than enough work in Afghan for 3Bn's of LI if the CF would do it.

Agreed; however, once they get a LAV III APC, then they need all that training, individual and collective, to be able to fight with those things.

 

[KevinB]

I'm suggest a REAL LI role -- as in walking over the hill and through the dale...

LAV's cannot climb trees  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm suggest a REAL LI role -- as in walking over the hill and through the dale...

LAV's cannot climb trees  ;D

:-X  Don't give DLR any ideas!

(PS: I agree, from a force employment model; however, we would have 3 x Li and 6 x Mech Bns, and from a force generation point of view, it's nearly not manageable.  That's the problem of a small army)

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Taken statistically en masse, it is essentially impossible for a mech unit to physically out-perform a light unit since they have other things to focus on.  And that's just looking at it from a time perspective that one only has so much time and if you spend some of that time on vehicles you aren't spending it on foot.  It does not speak to personalities that would generally be posted to either one.

How many years have you served in a Mech Bn?

 

[vonGarvin]

You mean when 3 RCR was either just about to or already deployed to Afghanistan in 2008?  The competition you faced was made up largely of those who couldn't make the cut.

And in 09 where was 1 RCR?  Oh, right, work up training for 1-10.  But then again, 3 RCR won the ironman in 08 with the main body deployed, so...

Anyway, back on topic.

Yeah, the C6. 

 

[KevinB]

While I wait on the Merx soliciation for LAV Tree Climber...

I appreciate the Force Generation concerns - however Canada does not have enough LAVIII's to equip 6 Bn's with LAV's let alone 9 and operationally delpoyed vehicles.
  Secondly with 3 armored units and 3 Arty units - why is the 3 BN's an issue with LI?

 

[vonGarvin]

I appreciate the Force Generation concerns - however Canada does not have enough LAVIII's to equip 6 Bn's with LAV's let alone 9 and operationally delpoyed vehicles.
  Secondly with 3 armored units and 3 Arty units - why is the 3 BN's an issue with LI?

Another point with which I agree.  In order to train as we fight, I argue that our companies all have in training what they would use in theatre. 

As for the 3:1 ratio of armour and Arty (and Engr), the main reason is that infantry deploy in battalion sizes, while those other folks deploy in sqn/bty sizes

(Or so the theory goes)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with going with 6 mech and 3 light units of infantry.  I would argue that those mech units be put into two brigades, and the light units put into a light brigade to allow for higher than unit level training.  A good model would be the Dutch army, which has two mech and one airmob brigade.  Remember, the Dutch Army at one time had an entire corps of regular troops during the cold war, and have since gone down to three brigades.

The mech brigades could house all the heavy units, and the light brigade could house the light/airmob/jump/whatever units.  Send all the Tac Hel airlift stuff to that brigade, and put all the tanks into the mech brigades.

That's force generation.

For force employment, as Infidel-6 points out, the OMLT could EASILY become a Li-Inf task.  In fact, I would argue that it would be ideally Li-Inf.  And for all you armchair quarterbacks out there, Li-Inf does not mean "I walk, therefore I'm light", it means "Any mode of non-integral transport", so RG-31, CC-130, Helicopters, whatever.  LAV III APC?  No, because they are not integral to the task required of that unit-type. 

 

[KevinB]

I always forget the Engineers  ;D

Regimental affiliations and blind stupidity always get in the way of logical force organization...

 

[vonGarvin]

I always forget the Engineers  ;D

Regimental affiliations and blind stupidity always get in the way of logical force organization...

(I smell a thread split coming, but anyway...)
I agree to a point.  Perhaps not blind stupidity, but perhaps blind adherence to nice and neat looking ORBATs. 

But, suppose for argument's sake that 1 CMBG became 1 CLBG (Canadian Light Brigade Group).  All three bns could then have one jump coy/bn (given our reluctance to have a "parachute" battalion), though it would make better sense to have a parachute battalion.  For argument's sake, 2 PPCLI out there in Shilo.  That leaves 1 and 3 VP
in Edmonton to be "light".  I would stack those Chinooks up there in Edmonton for them.
The only part I am not sure how it could be done but it's the whole "DFS" element.  You know, mech brigades have tanks, light brigades have....?

 

[Illegio]

If you wanna make 2VP a jump battalion... Well, let's just say I won't argue. Might do something for the abysmal retention rate, too.

 

[KevinB]

I'd argue for the central area to go Light - the wide open prarie screams to the Tanker and LAV guy alike.

that and walking for miles in Sufield sucks ass.  Pet is a much nicer trg area to walk in, and the DZ's are not bad (not as nice as a whole plain though...)

Regimental Loyalty and elitism forces me to move the PPCLI central then, plus unless you renaming the Regiment to the PPCMI - it only makes sense to keep the Light role with what is on the hat badge...

 

[vonGarvin]

I'd argue for the central area to go Light - the wide open prarie screams to the Tanker and LAV guy alike.

that and walking for miles in Sufield sucks ass.  Pet is a much nicer trg area to walk in, and the DZ's are not bad (not as nice as a whole plain though...)

Regimental Loyalty and elitism forces me to move the PPCLI central then, plus unless you renaming the Regiment to the PPCMI - it only makes sense to keep the Light role with what is on the hat badge...

I used PPCLI for argument's sake only; however, 2 or 5 Bde's could ramp up to be light, leaving the ironically named PPCLI to be part of the mech.  But, no
matter who's mech, what of the bde-level DFS regiment?  106mm recoilless on jeeps?  ;D

 

[Old Sweat]

We are wandering a bit here. Geography sucks. If we lived in a country the size of the UK or the Netherlands, we could actually develop quite a nice and logical force structure for our three brigades. Here, with distance, climate and low population density, no matter what we adopt, it will founder on the three shoals of money, location and cap badges.

Let me, as a perplexed outsider, ask a question re light (and motorized) versus mechanized infantry. It seems to me that the Brits deployed considerable light and motorized infantry in both Iraq and Afghanistan, based on the prevailing thought of the anglosphere armies. The MOD was then criticized for deploying unprotected troops in areas with a high level of danger from IEDs without proper mobility and protection. Would we not face the same challenge with the same likely result? Remember the crap storm over the Iltis and the G Wagon.

A vehicle, armoured (preferably) or not, provides a means of closing with the enemy much quicker and with less tired troops at far end walking. The troops in the vehicles can also bring a lot more stuff to kill the bad guys with. What am I missing in this equation?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I always forget the Engineers  ;D

Regimental affiliations and blind stupidity always get in the way of logical force organization...

You won't when you need to cross a gap, clear a minefield or, clear a route for ya 

;D

 

[vonGarvin]

A vehicle, armoured (preferably) or not, provides a means of closing with the enemy much quicker and with less tired troops at far end walking. The troops in the vehicles can also bring a lot more stuff to kill the bad guys with. What am I missing in this equation?

You are missing nothing.  The thing that Infidel-6 is talking about, is the roles that Light Infantry could bring to the table.  They could conceivably be in armoured vehicles, but of course, if they are in APCs, then they are mech, and they have to learn to fight with them and not see them as battlefield transport.  But not being tied TO and E wise to any vehicle at all, they could on various missions use alternate means of transport, such as helicopters, or whatever, without having to leave stewards behind for their integral vehicles (read: APCs).
The other equation is the whole COIN fight, where we aren't really fighting massed defenders (all the time, anyway). 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Another point with which I agree.  In order to train as we fight, I argue that our companies all have in training what they would use in theatre. 

As for the 3:1 ratio of armour and Arty (and Engr), the main reason is that infantry deploy in battalion sizes, while those other folks deploy in sqn/bty sizes

(Or so the theory goes)

And smaller too Techo.... I think for EROC we deploy a Field Section (or is it a Troop  ???) only (EROC guys can correct me)