G Wagon C&R
- Thread starter ackland
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
So.....If I decide to ride into the Valley of Death and go out in a blaze of glory.....so will you?
GW
GW
V
veiled scout
Guest
Hello
As I'm new here, I will add my two cents worth. you all have valid points, that being said there are a few details that you should be aware of:
1. The concept of the light skinned veh does and will work within the recce context, it will have an up armour package for it (op level only)
2. Yes, the CC will be in the turret, as he needs command and control of the veh and crew.
3. the new doctrine will have 1x patrol of the G-wagon as part of of the new 8 car troop, the g-wagon will also have the compliment of the new ALAWS (Advanced Lightweight Anti-armour System) as well the CASW (Company Area Suppression Weapons) (the role of the g-wagon will be filled by the reserves as stated by the LFRR, again this will be suited in an Op theatre). Now the role of each patrol within the troop will be slightly different then what you would normally see, the coyote will be employed in a strict "screen ops" the g-wagon will be for close spt. If you look at the modern battlefield, there a significant changes to what the role will be and the avail spt and resources from the Bde and div levels,this is why the TTP is not a finished product and remains liquid. Also lets not forget where recce fits into the asymmetrical battlefield, I have seen too often the ignorance of experienced recce soldiers not knowing where recce fits into the puzzle and more so the tools we do not train with. With the combination of ISTAR and proper planning at the bde level, recce can be and is very lethal. Assets avail to a good recce soldier (and they are) can quickly neutralize any threat. As I stated the problem is that recce is now a very complex and diverse task, it be hoofs recce soldiers (at all levels) to now start reading, researching and employing the new skill sets. Modern digitization, proper battle procedure,assets and execution will keystone for recce to work. The implementation of the new OPFOR into the system was not injected as a filler because the old GENFORCE was outdated. Be it that it is new, it was meant to be used as a tool to employ all the points I outlined already. Now you can see why the whole recce transition will take a very long time to implement, more so for the soldier to catch up to the current training tempo.
4. the good news is that reserve units will do more trg with the reg force.
5. As for the comment about OJT, all armoured soldiers from the basic crew commander on up are receiving the new recce courses. In light of that, the courses give them the building blocks to develop their skills. There are very few true recce soldiers that know and can employ all phases of recce, it takes years of experience and training to master these skills. The fault does not lay solely with the soldiers but more of a systemic entity within the armoured corp.
6. There is also a reason why the infantry were stripped of their Coyotes and the collapse of the tanks within the corp. the whole doctrine of the combat team is dead, this will soon be replaced with the CA (Combined Arms). I won't insult anyones intel with this, simply put the transition will now be focused on the CA as a BG entity and Recce as a Bde,Div, Corp asset. Like it or not they are trimming the fat and making the army more roboust for deployments (as we will never fight as a formed army within our selves anymore).
Well I actually wanted to keep this short and I could expand on this a lot more, I hope this adds some insight to the discussion and paints a better picture of why certain equip is being employed and more so where we are going with the recce role.
TANKS
As I'm new here, I will add my two cents worth. you all have valid points, that being said there are a few details that you should be aware of:
1. The concept of the light skinned veh does and will work within the recce context, it will have an up armour package for it (op level only)
2. Yes, the CC will be in the turret, as he needs command and control of the veh and crew.
3. the new doctrine will have 1x patrol of the G-wagon as part of of the new 8 car troop, the g-wagon will also have the compliment of the new ALAWS (Advanced Lightweight Anti-armour System) as well the CASW (Company Area Suppression Weapons) (the role of the g-wagon will be filled by the reserves as stated by the LFRR, again this will be suited in an Op theatre). Now the role of each patrol within the troop will be slightly different then what you would normally see, the coyote will be employed in a strict "screen ops" the g-wagon will be for close spt. If you look at the modern battlefield, there a significant changes to what the role will be and the avail spt and resources from the Bde and div levels,this is why the TTP is not a finished product and remains liquid. Also lets not forget where recce fits into the asymmetrical battlefield, I have seen too often the ignorance of experienced recce soldiers not knowing where recce fits into the puzzle and more so the tools we do not train with. With the combination of ISTAR and proper planning at the bde level, recce can be and is very lethal. Assets avail to a good recce soldier (and they are) can quickly neutralize any threat. As I stated the problem is that recce is now a very complex and diverse task, it be hoofs recce soldiers (at all levels) to now start reading, researching and employing the new skill sets. Modern digitization, proper battle procedure,assets and execution will keystone for recce to work. The implementation of the new OPFOR into the system was not injected as a filler because the old GENFORCE was outdated. Be it that it is new, it was meant to be used as a tool to employ all the points I outlined already. Now you can see why the whole recce transition will take a very long time to implement, more so for the soldier to catch up to the current training tempo.
4. the good news is that reserve units will do more trg with the reg force.
5. As for the comment about OJT, all armoured soldiers from the basic crew commander on up are receiving the new recce courses. In light of that, the courses give them the building blocks to develop their skills. There are very few true recce soldiers that know and can employ all phases of recce, it takes years of experience and training to master these skills. The fault does not lay solely with the soldiers but more of a systemic entity within the armoured corp.
6. There is also a reason why the infantry were stripped of their Coyotes and the collapse of the tanks within the corp. the whole doctrine of the combat team is dead, this will soon be replaced with the CA (Combined Arms). I won't insult anyones intel with this, simply put the transition will now be focused on the CA as a BG entity and Recce as a Bde,Div, Corp asset. Like it or not they are trimming the fat and making the army more roboust for deployments (as we will never fight as a formed army within our selves anymore).
Well I actually wanted to keep this short and I could expand on this a lot more, I hope this adds some insight to the discussion and paints a better picture of why certain equip is being employed and more so where we are going with the recce role.
TANKS
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Making the army more robust for deployments?
By reducing the firepower and protection available?
Instead of "robust", maybe we should say that we are optimising our forces for UN roles, and denying the Canadian people with a properly equipped military. The route we are now going, if we ever do have to deploy to a light or medium scale conflict, we would have to second our forces to under command of someone with a real army, and conduct rear area security and convoy escort and the like.
And heaven forbid that we ever have to deploy to a high intensity conflict.
By reducing the firepower and protection available?
Instead of "robust", maybe we should say that we are optimising our forces for UN roles, and denying the Canadian people with a properly equipped military. The route we are now going, if we ever do have to deploy to a light or medium scale conflict, we would have to second our forces to under command of someone with a real army, and conduct rear area security and convoy escort and the like.
And heaven forbid that we ever have to deploy to a high intensity conflict.
V
veiled scout
Guest
Lance
you are correct when you said:
The route we are now going, if we ever do have to deploy to a light or medium scale conflict, we would have to second our forces to under command of someone with a real army, and conduct rear area security and convoy escort and the like.
That is exactly what will and is happening, look at ISAF, it's a joke and all the pers serving there know it, all operations will be conducted with some entity or another, after all we teach future leaders at the staff level to utilize resources and equip we will never possess and that is the formula for the future. Canada's contribution will in most parts be a monetary one, with the odd commitment to an Op.
you are correct when you said:
The route we are now going, if we ever do have to deploy to a light or medium scale conflict, we would have to second our forces to under command of someone with a real army, and conduct rear area security and convoy escort and the like.
That is exactly what will and is happening, look at ISAF, it's a joke and all the pers serving there know it, all operations will be conducted with some entity or another, after all we teach future leaders at the staff level to utilize resources and equip we will never possess and that is the formula for the future. Canada's contribution will in most parts be a monetary one, with the odd commitment to an Op.
- Reaction score
- 4,958
- Points
- 1,060
veiled scout,
Some good points. However, are we to believe them? Your profile is empty, we don't know if your on the writing board or a bored trooper offering conjecture. You offer no proof to your statements. I agree with some of what your saying, but have some doubt with other points. Such as:
3. the new doctrine will have 1x patrol of the G-wagon as part of of the new 8 car troop
This may be so, but where is your authority to say "it will be so". Also, where does this G Wagon patrol come from? The Reserve or the Regs. Last time I looked at the TO&E and the distribution list, G Wagon PMO LUVW, the Reg Armd Recce weren't slated for this vehicle in the numbers to provide what you state. Are you telling the Reserves they're buying into another Bison fiasco? Everything you state sounds somewhat plausible, your just not offering concrete sources or stature of proffession to back it up. If for some reason, why I don't know, you wish to remain anonymous, you can PM me and I'll provide you with an email you can respond to from your DND email, or please provide the source of your documentation. My big concern, and I might be reading you wrong, is that the Reserves are about to take it up the ass again.
Some good points. However, are we to believe them? Your profile is empty, we don't know if your on the writing board or a bored trooper offering conjecture. You offer no proof to your statements. I agree with some of what your saying, but have some doubt with other points. Such as:
3. the new doctrine will have 1x patrol of the G-wagon as part of of the new 8 car troop
This may be so, but where is your authority to say "it will be so". Also, where does this G Wagon patrol come from? The Reserve or the Regs. Last time I looked at the TO&E and the distribution list, G Wagon PMO LUVW, the Reg Armd Recce weren't slated for this vehicle in the numbers to provide what you state. Are you telling the Reserves they're buying into another Bison fiasco? Everything you state sounds somewhat plausible, your just not offering concrete sources or stature of proffession to back it up. If for some reason, why I don't know, you wish to remain anonymous, you can PM me and I'll provide you with an email you can respond to from your DND email, or please provide the source of your documentation. My big concern, and I might be reading you wrong, is that the Reserves are about to take it up the ass again.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Some comments:
The battalion of Green Howards who are in ISAF right now are using an open Land Rover (looks like longer wheelbase...) for their QRF, and I believe also for their recce as well. These vehs have roll cages but are not normally fitted with anti-grenade cages. They do patrols using a combination of foot, LR and "Saxon" WAPC.
Please explain what you mean by this claim. Where did you get this?
As COS of a Res CBG I am very happy to hear this, as I am sure our Horsemen will be. Can you expand on this?
OK, now.....you've lost me. What exactly is the difference between "Combined Arms" (a concept of doctrine) and "Combat Team" (a tactical grouping used to put the CA doctrine into effect)....? Also, what is this talk of emphasis on ops at higher formation level? as far as I know, we are turning our backs on Corps/Div and are seriously questioning Bde level ops. What is your source, or is this just your own opinion?
The battalion of Green Howards who are in ISAF right now are using an open Land Rover (looks like longer wheelbase...) for their QRF, and I believe also for their recce as well. These vehs have roll cages but are not normally fitted with anti-grenade cages. They do patrols using a combination of foot, LR and "Saxon" WAPC.
Please explain what you mean by this claim. Where did you get this?
As COS of a Res CBG I am very happy to hear this, as I am sure our Horsemen will be. Can you expand on this?
OK, now.....you've lost me. What exactly is the difference between "Combined Arms" (a concept of doctrine) and "Combat Team" (a tactical grouping used to put the CA doctrine into effect)....? Also, what is this talk of emphasis on ops at higher formation level? as far as I know, we are turning our backs on Corps/Div and are seriously questioning Bde level ops. What is your source, or is this just your own opinion?
No. You've confused me. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 4,958
- Points
- 1,060
Veiled scout,
Thanks for filling in your profile. My concern with the TO&E stills stands though.
Thanks for filling in your profile. My concern with the TO&E stills stands though.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What I think he is saying, and far to clearly unfortunately is that we will be concentrating on higher level formation ops in the form of supporting those levels with recce and other tasks.
In other words, we are being systematically gutted as a military and turned into task specific units to support the Americans (or whoever is bigger then us, which is everybody now) in their formations. Whether that is recce, base protection, rear area patrol, etc...
I doubt we will ever field a brigade group. And if anything, we may put a battle group together to help out like we did in Afghanistan. But thats as large as we'll get. So thus the combat team is dead, because "combat" will not be seen again except by smaller (coy sized and under) formations.
At least that is how I understood it with his comments and "other" things I've been hearing.
If he's right, then I want to slap (or worse) our powers that be.
I pray that he's wrong.
In other words, we are being systematically gutted as a military and turned into task specific units to support the Americans (or whoever is bigger then us, which is everybody now) in their formations. Whether that is recce, base protection, rear area patrol, etc...
I doubt we will ever field a brigade group. And if anything, we may put a battle group together to help out like we did in Afghanistan. But thats as large as we'll get. So thus the combat team is dead, because "combat" will not be seen again except by smaller (coy sized and under) formations.
At least that is how I understood it with his comments and "other" things I've been hearing.
If he's right, then I want to slap (or worse) our powers that be.
I pray that he's wrong.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The CC in the hatch in my opinion would be best in a recce role.
The RadOp would be too much of a hassle in the hatch.
When exiting the vehicle at every obstical and lateral and then climbing back into the hatch, back and forth with the radio equipment, etc etc... Its too much of a pain in the ass.
What happens when you leave your RadOp at an intersection to clear a lateral before moving on to the axis of advance? You're left with noone on the gun?
The RadOp would be too much of a hassle in the hatch.
When exiting the vehicle at every obstical and lateral and then climbing back into the hatch, back and forth with the radio equipment, etc etc... Its too much of a pain in the ass.
What happens when you leave your RadOp at an intersection to clear a lateral before moving on to the axis of advance? You're left with noone on the gun?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
On a slightly off topic point on the C&R Variant.
Last week 2 normal GWagons were brought to Fort York for us to check out. At the end of the meeting when our CO was talkint to us about up coming trg someone asked what the difference was between the version we had just seen, and the C&R. Along with the Turret hatch it was mentioned by an offcier answering the question, that the cage wall in the back is replaced with a solid wall with racks for some M72's.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Last week 2 normal GWagons were brought to Fort York for us to check out. At the end of the meeting when our CO was talkint to us about up coming trg someone asked what the difference was between the version we had just seen, and the C&R. Along with the Turret hatch it was mentioned by an offcier answering the question, that the cage wall in the back is replaced with a solid wall with racks for some M72's.
Does anyone know if this is true?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The only time I ever touched an M72 was during NIAC....
They would have to train us on the weapon before they start putting them in our vehicles...
They would have to train us on the weapon before they start putting them in our vehicles...
- Reaction score
- 4,958
- Points
- 1,060
I could be wrong, but IIRC, I thought the M72 was going out of service.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I heard the Carl G was going out of service too....if the M72 and Carl G are being phased out, any idea what they're being replaced by, or is this just another capability going belly up without being replaced?
- Reaction score
- 4,958
- Points
- 1,060
Kinda what we were looking for in the first place for Armoured Recce. Don't quite know how we ended up with the soccer mom model. :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well when you pay for a soccer mom kind of army..... :dontpanic:
Lost Warrior. We carried M-72's in our Bisons in Kabul so if you are deploying you will get some refreshers.
Seriously though. Those German Machines in the pics look formidable. Think we could hope that they came with the grenade launcher as a standard feature?
Lost Warrior. We carried M-72's in our Bisons in Kabul so if you are deploying you will get some refreshers.
Seriously though. Those German Machines in the pics look formidable. Think we could hope that they came with the grenade launcher as a standard feature?
Similar threads
