Mech infantry or all light infantry with some Armd APC units?

[vonGarvin]

"Could other reservists function as LAV crews? Hell, yeah! While maintaining their core skill sets? Hell, no! If 2RCR can't maintain LAV and bayonet skills in the same soldier, what chance do the 48th have??"

Actually, 2 RCR had kick-ass LAV skills AND bayonet skills at one time.  I don't know about now, but I imagine that they still do.

You "red-headed step children" (that's a good one: can I use it sometime? ) do indeed need a niche, and the LUVW with MG atop is a sad attempt, IMHO.  You deserve better.  But that is probably for someone else to posit ideas.  I would argue, however, that for anyone to be "good" at mech, then no matter who crews the LAVs, they better be fully posted to the mech unit, for although the crews need to train "all the time" with the veh's, so too do the dismounts, for once you get out the back, it's not exactly the same as what the light fighters do.

 

[Kirkhill]

So now you are heading towards 4 Corps?

Armoured handling tanks and lt armd surveillance.
Mech Infantry handling the Dragoon role
Light Infantry handling "traditional" dismounted infantry skills
Commandos handling raids?

Doesn't that just increase cost and complexity and increase the number of exploitable seams that need to be papered over? If you create 4 Corps with 4 separate missions each Corps seems likely to write its own doctrine that favours its own perception of who best it can be utilized.  That seldom seems conducive to jointness. Based on the current discussion ( and the previous ones about lt vs SF or Inf vs Armd or Army vs Navy vs Air Force) it seems  more likely to just create more divisions as people debate how best to crack a nut - hammer, chisel, screwdriver or nutcracker supplied by the lowest bidder.

I thought the tendency was to integrate capabilities at increasingly lower command levels not to give Staff more bureaucracies to play with.

 

[tank recce]

Actually, 2 RCR had kick-*** LAV skills AND bayonet skills at one time.  I don't know about now, but I imagine that they still do.

I don't doubt the Bns as whole units maintain a good selection of skills; my concern (purely from reading anecdotes on this very thread; my last experience with Reg Inf was my ISCC back in '88) is that of the individual, and even the small group. There was a memorable anecdote here recently by... CSA-105? (brain gone blank) describing the sight of two different platoons. One did very well mounted, but poorly once the ramp dropped. The other was a gong show until they dismounted, at which point they showed just how sharp their foot skills actually were. I may have mis-remembered, and await correction by the individual who posted the war story! 

I'd be less concerned about getting "good" at mech, so much as developing a basic level of competence in mech ops so that we wouldn't actually be a detriment to the hosting org, while at the same time developing my armd skills (and my crew's) to the best I can within our time constraints.

Red-headed step-children - If we wouldn't be mistaken for MPs, I'd consider a red flash behind the capbadge...  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

So now you are heading towards 4 Corps?
Armoured handling tanks and lt armd surveillance.
Mech Infantry handling the Dragoon role
Light Infantry handling "traditional" dismounted infantry skills
Commandos handling raids?

I wouldn't go that far.  In fact, I would argue for less change, more "status quo", but really walking the walk in terms of what we do now (or are supposed to do)
Armd = tanks and armd recce surveillance
Infantry = mech and light infantry (battalion dependant: the focus of this thread)
"Commandoes" = ?

Anyway, about mech inf, the veh is more than a ride, it is just another weapon (albeit a big one) in the toolbox.  It means a different style of fighting, and ergo thinking.  But just wishing away the crews to the armoured corps is not the way to go.

 

[TCBF]

I appear to have started a tempest in a teapot.



"...rather than slowly decompose into the Second Best Armoured Corps in Canada as is now happening..."

- I still think the solution lies in simplifying our administration rather than simplifying our professions.  The Brits will re-role Chally 2 regiments into Recce and back every few years, I don't see why our Infantry cannot transition from PCF to PCF.  Turrets are like bicycles: once you learn to ride them, you don't forget (but you WILL skill fade!).

- Those who disagree with my way of thinking will want to reform the First Canadian APC Regiment, or independant squadrons thereof.
But: can an army this small afford over-specialization? 

 

[ArmyRick]

Good point. I went 6 years without touching a 81mm mortar, then I got a good refresher and within 2 weeks, I was back on track with my skills learned previously.

I have only done a brief intro to LAV III turret so I don't know if a damn good refresher would work. More opinions?

 

[vonGarvin]

(not Surveillance, Capt Sensible, that is just an element of recce)

Noted and known.  I didn't put my sarcasm smiley on for that.  I'm just lamenting that although we have a great surveillance vehicle, we don't really have a good recce vehicle...as it were....

back to the thread

 

[Infanteer]

Anyway, forget for a moment that LAV 3s and Coyotes aren't employed the same way.  Just for a moment.  Okay, that moment is gone, because although the turrets are virtually identical (differences are so minor they aren't worth mentioning here), the SYSTEM that is the LAV 3 APC is employed in a manner wildly different from the Coyote.  Yes, both have eight wheels, a GM Delco turret, but the game ends there.  One is a surveillance vehicle crewed by specialists in mounted surveillance.  The other is a Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) (perhaps debatable, but I'll use this term for now).  The MICV is designed, or rather employed, to fight as part of a four vehicle platoon, which in turn is part of a 15 vehicle company, or even larger combat team.  The Surveillance vehicle is employed to fight as part of a two-vehicle patrol, which in turn is part of an eight vehicle troop.  The MICV is employed to support dismounted troops around it.  The surveillance vehicle is employed to fight in self defence only.  So, although it's been pointed out the comparing M113/AVGP to LAV 3 is like comparing CDs to Mustangs (or something like that), comparing the LAV 3 to the Coyote is a similar fallacy.

I don't think anyone is disputing this fact.  However, is it unreasonable to expect that a well-trained soldier could understand and transition accordingly, especially when given the proper workup time to deal with skill fade (the bike analogy mentioned by Kat and Rick seems apt).  The infantry accomadates for the difference with its recconaissance and offensive/defensive roles (ie: there is a difference between recce platoon and a rifle platoon) but 031 soldiers are capable of transitioning between the two.

Infanteer

 

[McG]

.. there is a difference between recce platoon and a rifle platoon but 031 soldiers are capable of transitioning between the two.

Same with AAP.  Same with Mortar Pl.  So, it should be possible with LAVs.  Maybe each company should group them into a LAV Platoon while in garrison.

 

[KevinB]

Infanteer -- I will argue that people in TOW, and Mortars did suffer significant skill fade in the bayonet skills.

  I do think that if the Armoured are not to crew the LAV fleet that the 031 trade needs to add a 032 subset as LAV crewman.  You cannot do both jobs to a standard that the CF prides itself on maintaining.


Secondly WRT Iraq -- the US Mil (and NG) has cooks and bottlewashers driving Hummer convoys playing IED hunter -- you can jam a square into a round hole IF you use enough force -- but its not a good idea.

 

[tomahawk6]

Mechanized/motorized units and light infantry units are two seperate beasts. I dont feel that they can be mixed. This is one reason that the US Army has seperate formations for heavy forces, medium forces and light. In a small Army with 9 infantry battalions I think it would be possible to dedicate 3 battalions to mechanized warfare and mount them in Bradley/Warrior IFV. Three battalions could be in LAV's and 3 battalions in the light infantry role with only trucks for transport. Ideally the light infantry battalions would be ferried around the battlefield in helicopters. It works great for us. But the CF has one key factor that dictates the nature of its forces and that is money. If I was a Canadian planner I would probably forget the pure LI role in favor of 6 LAV battalions and 3 Warrior/Bradley battalions. I would have LI battalions in the Pres because they would be unlikely to deploy outside of Canada and would be used in emergencies inside Canada and as filler for the regular battalions. A LI soldier is well grounded in his role as a rifleman and can exit a LAV or IFV as well as an infantryman who does it all the time. For the most part whether you are transported to the battle in a LAV or an IFV in most cases you exit the vehicle to fight and the vehicle supports you in that role.

 

[TCBF]

Once "The White Paper Turned Brown" and we saw the writing on the wall and began packing our 'Redball' and 'Greenballs' to leave Germany, the big debate was on re-forming the Army after losing the forward deployed Brigade (4CMBG).  Logistic logic suggested a - wait for it - light, medium and heavy brigade army.  Trouble was: everyone (but us) was screwing their collective heads further and further into their butts looking for a way to cash in on our already spent "Peace Dividend."  Hence, even Corporals doing the most rudimentary threat matrix in their heads on a 10 km run realized that a heavy (Leo/M113) brigade would be a target rich environment for those wanting to cut the army and dispose of our Cold War doctrinal baggage at the same time.

Thus, the second best solution (logistically, even though our top-rung RCEME types told Gen Gervais - the CDS - that is was 'supportable') was politically the best solution, as spreading the tanks among the brigades ensured equal access for professional all-arms development among them and made it harder to disband our tracked capability in one fell swoop. Especially since three balanced brigades would cost the same, whearas a heavy one with all of the ADATS, Leopards, etc. would stand out fiscally like a turd in a punch bowl.

Although those political conditions do not exist AT THE MOMENT, things can change quickly at that level.

Also:  tour rotation requires re-rolling non-standard units.  Remember the Cdn AB Regt almost going to Morocco?  When that was canned, they were promised the next mission.  What came up next?  Somalia - a wheeled AFV/heavy SUV/light track task if ever there was one.  Credit where credit is due:  they did a far better job there than this country will ever give them credit for, but the point is that well balanced general purpose forces across the board are our best bet for roto main force units, other wise you get a real training crunch transitioning to your new "TO & E"

Do we need light and SF?  Desperately so, but not as part of a brigade where they will stay constantly under equiped and mal-trained for the conventionaly mounted tours they will deploy on.  Strap them on to conventional Battle Groups by all means, don't build a BG around them.

 

[HatMan]

I was wondering if anyone had opportunity to see what british Rm are doing with their structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_21

ommando 21 organised each RM Commando unit into six sub-units, styled companies. Each company was subdivided into troops; note that a “troop” is the RM nomenclature for a platoon rather than for an individual soldier. The new structure was presented as giving the RM more firepower, more mobility, more information, more flexibility and more fighting power. According to open-sources each Stand Off Combat Company was to have a field strength of five officers and 78 other ranks, and each Close Combat Company was to have five officers and 98 other ranks. Under the Commando 21 re-organisation the overall strength of each of the three units was originally stated to be 692 all ranks.[2]
The companies are:
Command Company
Main HQ
Tactical HQ
Reconnaissance Troop (includes a sniper section)
Mortar Troop (9 Barrels of 81 mm) (Includes 4 MFC pairs)
Anti-Tank (AT) Troop (Milan—to be replaced by Javelin ATGW)
Medium Machine Gun Troop
One Logistic Company
A Echelon 1 (A Ech1)
A Echelon 2 (A Ech2)
FRT
RAP
B Echelon (B Ech)
Two Close Combat Companies
Company Headquarters (Coy HQ)
Three Close Combat Troops (Troop HQ, 3 Rifle Sections, Manoeuvre Support Section)
Two Stand Off Companies
Company Headquarters (Coy HQ)
Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) Troop (0.5" heavy machine guns)
AT Troop
Close Combat Troop
[edit]Command Company
The Command Company is responsible for command, control, communications, computation, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (C4ISR). It also was organised to include a machine gun troop, the unit’s mortar and anti-tank troops, together with the reconnaissance troop.
[edit]Logistics Support Company
The Logistic Support Company manages administrative and logistic activity.
[edit]Close Combat Companies
Each of the two Close Combat Company is similar to the previous RM rifle company, having 3 platoon sized troops, but each troop, in addition to three rifle sections, has a manoeuvre support section of five men equipped with General Purpose Machine Gun, Long Range Rifle and 51 mm Mortar.
[edit]Stand-Off Combat Companies
Each of the two Stand Off Combat Company has a Close Combat Troop identical to those in the Close Combat Companies. It also was organised to have an Anti-Tank Troop with 6 MILAN anti-tank weapons and a Heavy Machine Gun troop with 6 0.5in Heavy Machine Guns.

Let me know of what you thinks and if it possible for CF to try replicate or modify to your own needs. Thanks

 

[ArmyRick]

Your several years out of date on this one. There is a post dealing with RM CDO 21 and ideas/concepts. Give me some time and I will see if I can find it and put a link here.