Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[CBH99]

Also, sorry this should have been in the original post, I’m fundamentally against the “oh we can just implement X Y Z weapon.” It is a scar we have from exercises where we don’t have actual support weapon ammunition. Kirkill posted an article a while ago about how effective e strikers with Javelins were in JRTC, well I guarantee they weren’t carrying spare dummy missiles every time they took a position. Similarly having been in a “tow capable section” where we were expected to carry a tow inside the LAV, there isn’t the space for the rounds, and no one really tried to figure out how we’d do that. We need to have the logistics and the support figured out when shit gets hot.

If I recall correctly, they unleashed an unGodly amount of mayhem with like 50 imaginary Javelin missiles or something. (Or was it more than 100?)

 

[KevinB]

Also, sorry this should have been in the original post, I’m fundamentally against the “oh we can just implement X Y Z weapon.” It is a scar we have from exercises where we don’t have actual support weapon ammunition. Kirkill posted an article a while ago about how effective e strikers with Javelins were in JRTC, well I guarantee they weren’t carrying spare dummy missiles every time they took a position. Similarly having been in a “tow capable section” where we were expected to carry a tow inside the LAV, there isn’t the space for the rounds, and no one really tried to figure out how we’d do that. We need to have the logistics and the support figured out when shit gets hot.

IMHO there is room in the LAV for TOW missiles - but not with a bunch of GIB's.
As far as a TOW in the LAV - ideally the Bradley turret would have been used on the LAV 6.0


Any new system needs to be properly itegrated - not just into user training, but in collective training, and planning, and logistic support of the systems.
Very often several (or all) of those steps get missed - and there is not support, and no employment plan.

 

[markppcli]

IMHO there is room in the LAV for TOW missiles - but not with a bunch of GIB's.
As far as a TOW in the LAV - ideally the Bradley turret would have been used on the LAV 6.0


Any new system needs to be properly itegrated - not just into user training, but in collective training, and planning, and logistic support of the systems.
Very often several (or all) of those steps get missed - and there is not support, and no employment plan.

Well I’ve done it and it was in two modes:

1. Everything in the jump boxes and you can fit two people in. Missiles …… good luck.

2. Everything out of the jump boxes and maybe 4 people but less if you want missiles. We broke the control hands doing that.

The response I got was “use the side bins” and when I asked if we could have rounds for a trial run, to be rechecked by ammo techs to ensure this was a viable plan I was met with stern looks and silence.

This is of course before we consider a) the tactical ramifications of having a functionally immobile atgm, and b) how we plan on resupplying said atgm.

 

[KevinB]

Well I’ve done it and it was in two modes:

1. Everything in the jump boxes and you can fit two people in. Missiles …… good luck.

2. Everything out of the jump boxes and maybe 4 people but less if you want missiles. We broke the control hands doing that.

The response I got was “use the side bins” and when I asked if we could have rounds for a trial run, to be rechecked by ammo techs to ensure this was a viable plan I was met with stern looks and silence.

This is of course before we consider a) the tactical ramifications of having a functionally immobile atgm, and b) how we plan on resupplying said atgm.

Yeah - I am honestly at a loss for that.
If you want an ATGM with a LAV - it really needs to be to the turret and controlled in the turret - or (which is a terribly bad idea) it can get ghettorigged on the rear deck and controlled by some poor sod who sits in an air sentry hatch and it exposed to everything bad outside.

Frankly without a Bradley type turret - they should have made a LAV 6.0 TUA - that way the LAV formation could have had an integral Armor Defense Asset - as opposed to the colossal disaster you talk about.

 

[FJAG]

I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.

It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.

Funny that you should mention that. A few days ago I was grousing on other means with Petard about how much time is wasted on Army courses. I'm pretty much convinced we could achieve a much better throughput on our courses if we made much better use of the time available and cut out all the "could know" and "stuff we really don't need to know" crap out of our syllabi. Add to that not teaching to the lowest common denominator. Sometimes you just don't want the guys who can't pick things up quickly.

 

[KevinB]

Funny that you should mention that. A few days ago I was grousing on other means with Petard about how much time is wasted on Army courses. I'm pretty much convinced we could achieve a much better throughput on our courses if we made much better use of the time available and cut out all the "could know" and "stuff we really don't need to know" crap out of our syllabi. Add to that not teaching to the lowest common denominator. Sometimes you just don't want the guys who can't pick things up quickly.

My theory is most Military Courses are structures so they can be taught to the absolutely lowest common denominator so that in time of conscription when you don't have your pick - you can train a new solider to a task that doesn't always have the prerequisites for (be that intelligence or courses).

My theory is also the Military never likes to get rid of something from a course or general tradition - despite being utterly useless and the same skill be taught in a more Military relevant method - that actually applies to a trade.

 

[markppcli]

My theory is most Military Courses are structures so they can be taught to the absolutely lowest common denominator so that in time of conscription when you don't have your pick - you can train a new solider to a task that doesn't always have the prerequisites for (be that intelligence or courses).

My theory is also the Military never likes to get rid of something from a course or general tradition - despite being utterly useless and the same skill be taught in a more Military relevant method - that actually applies to a trade.

A favourite example being a Brit exchange officer getting up in the middle of the LAV 6 crew commander course to vent his frustrations at Being taught a class he was, in total fairness to him, just taught on Turret Op. Why? Because those periods were meant as refreshers when they weren’t directly attached to each other. God forbid anyone cut a day or two off the course to eliminate redundancy.

 

[markppcli]

Yeah - I am honestly at a loss for that.
If you want an ATGM with a LAV - it really needs to be to the turret and controlled in the turret - or (which is a terribly bad idea) it can get ghettorigged on the rear deck and controlled by some poor sod who sits in an air sentry hatch and it exposed to everything bad outside.

Frankly without a Bradley type turret - they should have made a LAV 6.0 TUA - that way the LAV formation could have had an integral Armor Defense Asset - as opposed to the colossal disaster you talk about.

My preference is mount it on the G rides for now. Not ideal but we’re divesting most of them anyways so local modifications should be less of a hassle. Throw an 84 and c6 in each car as a weapons locker, and use the now freed up weapons det PYs to man the ATGM platoon. Pl WO gets an LS to haul missiles, each truck has a trailer to haul their full missile load and dismounted kit.

 

[Ostrozac]

My preference is mount it on the G rides for now. Not ideal but we’re divesting most of them anyways so local modifications should be less of a hassle. Throw an 84 and c6 in each car as a weapons locker, and use the now freed up weapons det PYs to man the ATGM platoon. Pl WO gets an LS to haul missiles, each truck has a trailer to haul their full missile load and dismounted kit.

Mounting the support weapons and their ammo on the vehicles that have to be left behind once the bullets and bombs start flying wouldn't be my first choice, If there’s a shortage of armoured vehicles, I’d prefer to mount the riflemen (with their e-tools!) in the trucks, and put the support weapons under armour.

 

[GR66]

If looking at Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian practice a couple of things seem to stand out

3 or 4 vehicles in a group with permanently mounted crews of 3. The vehicles are fought as a group.

There are empty seats in the back.

The basic block in the back is a group of four primarily organized around an AT Gunner (Carl Gustaf, Panzerfaust), the assistant and a pair of machine gunners with 2x C9. In the vehicle a C6 and a DMR. AT Gunner has his personal weapon.

That leaves 1 to 3 empty seats in each vehicle. Those are taken by Command elements, (Section Leaders, Section 2ics, Dismount Leaders) and various atts like medics and FCs.

No dismount signallers. I guess everybody is assumed to have his own PRR.

The Pl Ldr generally stays with the vehicles and fights the vehicles.

Typically there are 6 bodies in the back as a section. The Section Ldr, the 2ic, the AT gnr and assistant and the 2 MG gunners.

These teams are not designed for the bayonet charge. They are designed to destroy vehicles with the MGs protecting the AT gunners who are protecting their vehicles, or to breach and clear houses and bunkers used as fighting positions, or to establish a defensive firing line anchored by AT weapons, MGs and DMRs.

Here's what a Canadian Armoured Infantry Battalion could look like using the Swedish model.

With this set up our "Heavy" Brigade could have three identical Armoured Infantry Battalions and still have enough Leopards for a Reserve Tank Company/Squadron and a bunch of LAVs available for the Reserves.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Modern version of this is an option

 

[OldSolduer]

My theory is most Military Courses are structures so they can be taught to the absolutely lowest common denominator so that in time of conscription when you don't have your pick - you can train a new solider to a task that doesn't always have the prerequisites for (be that intelligence or courses).

My theory is also the Military never likes to get rid of something from a course or general tradition - despite being utterly useless and the same skill be taught in a more Military relevant method - that actually applies to a trade.

Because we've ALWAYS done it that way.

 

[KevinB]

Because we've ALWAYS done it that way.

Once I added up the time - simply on inspections for Kit and Quarters on a QL3 Infantryman course.
Then I added the time that the candidates spend doing chicken shit to get ready.

Think if instead of folding ones underwear and T Shirt etc that time was actually spent on Kim's Games and other Observation and Learning tasks?
The problem is a lot of teaching items are done by rote and the WHY is not even known to half the staff, let alone the students.
So the true reason is lost.

I mean let us be honest - 99% of foot drill should have been dropped from the syllabus years ago as one isn't forming square to repel calvary anymore.

Of course I'm the guy who always has to question everything.

 

[Good2Golf]

Because we've ALWAYS done it that way.

…and user feedback indicates that training is ever so exciting and very much looked forward to…otherwise the Army wouldn’t have been so big on “Train to ExciteTM!”

 

[daftandbarmy]

Once I added up the time - simply on inspections for Kit and Quarters on a QL3 Infantryman course.
Then I added the time that the candidates spend doing chicken shit to get ready.

Think if instead of folding ones underwear and T Shirt etc that time was actually spent on Kim's Games and other Observation and Learning tasks?
The problem is a lot of teaching items are done by rote and the WHY is not even known to half the staff, let alone the students.
So the true reason is lost.

I mean let us be honest - 99% of foot drill should have been dropped from the syllabus years ago as one isn't forming square to repel calvary anymore.

Of course I'm the guy who always has to question everything.

Be careful.

These days the fact that you're using a reference to a Rudyard Kipling tale, an arch colonialist, might get you put on some kind of 'naughty list'

 

[FJAG]

I mean let us be honest - 99% of foot drill should have been dropped from the syllabus years ago as one isn't forming square to repel calvary anymore.

Of course I'm the guy who always has to question everything.

Things should be questioned - in a big way. Tell me, does anyone other than the guard on Parliament Hill actually need to know how to do the left form on the march ... or the left and right incline for that matter. I remember decades and decades ago standing on the parade square with my regiment and having to do a "move to the right in column of route" saying to myself - its a simple enough movement but if we adopted a different formation on parade right from the start where the officers stood on the right flank and the NCOs on the left then we could just do a simple right turn and already be in position to march off. And then there's the whole "officers promenading and getting on parade" routine. I haven't checked lately but in my day the manual on drill and ceremonial was thicker than the one on combat team tactics.

Here's what a Canadian Armoured Infantry Battalion could look like using the Swedish model.

With this set up our "Heavy" Brigade could have three identical Armoured Infantry Battalions and still have enough Leopards for a Reserve Tank Company/Squadron and a bunch of LAVs available for the Reserves.

I quite like this. The US combined arms battalion used to have a two tank/two rifle company organization but changed it to three companies. Two have two tank/one infantry and one has two infantry/one tank. The deducted tank company went to the cavalry squadron while the two deducted infantry companies just disappeared.

I know that changing the composition of a tank squadron from four troops to three just because we are limited on the number of tanks, isn't a good practice but it strikes me that pretty much everyone else has three troops in a squadron and I pretty much agree that changing to a three troop organization should be done unless someone can come up with a darned good reason for keeping four (other than more is always better).

The drop to three vehicles in a platoon is also worth looking at. The Russians have done it that way since day one.

I'm also quite a fan of dropping the support company in favour of placing the recce, mortar and AD or ATk elements directly under the Bn HQ Coy and creating a separate logistics company as they do. Again, the US has been doing this for years without ill effects. The support company does not fight as an entity and does not need an independent company command structure. If anything it creates an unnecessary step in the CoC. Their administrative needs can easily be met by the adm pl within the HQ Coy which also meets the needs of the Bn HQ's element itself.

IMHO, the way we use the term HQ Company right now muddles the function of being a Tactical HQ and providing logistics support to the Bn as a whole. In many ways this is merely a change in terminology but I would think a uniform standard of logistics or CSS companies across varying establishments (uniform structure but not uniform personnel or equipment which vary with the nature of the unit supported) all commanded by a logistician trained in combat service support at the unit level would standardize logistics functions across the brigade. (I know we trade in one combat arms major and one MWO PY for a logistician major and MWO PY but I'm pretty sure that the world wouldn't end)

I'd even go so far as advocating for a brigade support battalion (BSB - to replace the service battalion) which would include forward support companies (FSC) as logistics companies for each unit in the brigade (again tailored by unit function). This would create a more unified CSS structure within in the brigade and provide clear technical oversight from the BSB over the various unit FSCs.

The same could be done with unit medical platoons being attached forward elements from the brigade's field ambulance or for that matter, even battalion int cells being forward deployed elements of a brigade intelligence platoon (or better yet, a beefed up intelligence company).

 

[Kirkhill]

Modern version of this is an option

This is a Dutch Fennek recce vehicle in VSHORAD mode with 4x Stinger. They have a similar MRAT version. They use Spike, not Javelin. And definitely not TOW.

By the way the Dutch GBAD system progresses up from the Stinger-Fennek to the AMRAAM-ER/ESSM NASAMs to the Patriot with both the PAC-2 SAM and PAC-3 ABM missiles.

 

[FJAG]

Everything old is new again.

From the 1950s:

Inexpensive and small armoured vehicles to make up the backbone of an anti-armour defence (supplemented by tanks and dismounted anti-armour teams) make so much sense . Why we needed to muck around with ADATS in the anti armour role and Multi Effects Vehicles on expensive LAV chassis when the solution to much of what we needed sat on the other side of the Fulda Gap for decades is beyond me.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just check your left flank.

 

[FJAG]

Canada's looked like this:

On the other hand we had more then than we do now.