- Reaction score
So I would argue for their organic inclusion for a few reasons:
Firstly I don't think you gain anything from creating a "carrier squadron" beyond confused chains of command and confusion. I base this off my time in New Zealand and watching two Lts (the LAV Tp Ld and the Infantry Pl Cmd) argue over who was in charge of the mission, the dismount, and the vehicles. Leaving them internal mitigates this. Of course this is just an example, there were other examples of just not understanding each others jobs and the inefficiencies of that, the advantage being they were much better crewmen than I'll ever be but I digress.Secondly is the mobility; even if we were to dismount further out the ability to gather mass and then disperse to platoon hides after if greater if you have mobility beyond your feet.Third organic at the platoon and section level allows us to have crew redundancy without having to hold them in a CQ or where ever else. We all have an extra driver and gunner and can keep the biggest gun in the fight.The Bradely Cav variant is actually gone, has been for a while now. The new orbat has 4-5 dismounts per Bradley in the Armoured Bde Cav Sqn. And while yes, all vehicles are of course vulnerable to ATGMs and tanks, they are protection against all manner of small arms and indirect fires when you do need to assault that dug in position. I'll take the risk of an ATGM strike over the option of foot slogging to the objective under mortar and MG fire. Similarly just because you're moving to an objective doesn't mean the LAV is expected to engage tanks, ideally your tanks and engaging their tanks.
PS Bradely's armour is much less than some newer vehicles., Puma jumps to mind.
Just curious though. How is this problem managed when the battalion is carried operationally by RCAF rotary and fixed wing assets, or RCN boats or even Service Battalion trucks? And is there an agreed standard within the battalions on the roles of the LAV Captains and Sgts once the Rifles have dismounted?