Reserve Armoured Units Role?

[Brock]

I am not exactly sure what the role of the reserve armoured units is--not that the army reserves has a clearly defined role either--? I know that at least in the recent past some reserve armoured units used the Cougar AVGP equipped with the 76mm Scorpioin turret. I also know that many reserve units have and now use the Iltis as a light armoured recce vehicle with C-6/C-9 machine guns bungeed to the vehicles. From what I understand, the SMP variant of the Iltis replacement is going to have an armour package and ring mount for C-6/C-9 and maybe a .50 Cal. Will this be issued to reserve armoured units and if so, will it replace both the Iltis and Cougar in Army Reserve units?

 

[Sharpey]

Being ex Armoured and now Armoured Recce, I will give my 2 cents. The Cougar is a training vehicle only. (Then why is it overseas?????) It allows Armoured Reserve Units to be quickly augmented with the Regular Units. The training is the same just in a different lower cost vehicle.
As for the Iltis replacement (LUVW), the same goes for it. Basic training is the same, just a lower budget vehicle. But with the Coyotes in use now, this vehicle does not cover all aspects of modern Canadian Armoured Recce, due to the survailance package and type of vehicle used in the Regs. So, Coyote training should be a must in the Reserves.
A similar question is...why do the Regualr Armoured units train in Leopards and go over seas in Cougars?? OK, give us your tanks then if you don‘t want them LOL.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Reserve armoured (tank) regiments will continue to use the Cougar (tank trainer?) for the immediate future. The Reserve armoured recce units are the only ones slated to receive the SMP Command & Recce variant iltis replacement, everyone else is supposed to receive the COTS LUVW replacement for iltis. Now, that‘s the plan as it stands right now. We‘ve had some success integrating the iltis mud recce role into the Coyote Surveillance troops and it seems to work, with minor glitches. People are starting to recognise the Coyote is not a sneak and peek recce vehicle, it‘s a surveillance vehicle. It‘s fantastic for screen, overwatch and rear area security tasks, but unless you go back to a variant of the old Light Armoured role or Reconnaissance in Force model, fighting for info, it‘s not good for recce. The new recce doctrine is still in the paperwork stage. There‘s a possibility, with the Coyote going to five car troops that each one will have a patrol of SMP CRV mud recce with them, either as part of the troop orbat or as a standalone troop of mud recce with individual patrols attached out as needed. That said, they will have to be with them all the time, so I can see the reg armoured regts also recieving the SMP CRV. The powers to be will also probably see fit to deploy it oversees as the iltis replacement for the so called Light Patrol Vehicle infantry CRIC(there‘s a well thought out concept), which just happens to be deploying about the same time the SMP CRV is supposed to enter service (coincidence? Me thinks not!). So there will probably not be any for the reserves. Hardly what we were promised, but then all Bisons were bought by and supposed to be for the Reserves, till we dropped the ramp, the regs got a look inside and total force reared it‘s ugly head. So the Reserves will probably have to pay for them but will only see them, locked in a compound somewhere, when we visit a base, in our battered COTS LUVW‘s.

 

[Recce41]

well
The Role of Res Recce is to provide a Regimental recce troop to the Regs. For you to say the Res need to be trained the Coyote is crap. Most Res donot require it and even regs after a month or two forget the skills of the surv.
A Reg force troop is only 5 C/Ss now but would be 7 Coyotes and 2 Lav III TOW. Most Res regts could not field it. I‘ve been on tours with a Res crewmember and most are not ready. So the Res should keep to a Light Mud Recce role.
Sgt J. CD,CDS com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Granted,
And all we‘ve been asking for (same as the regs) is for the Corps and higher to define our role, confirm the doctrine and let us get on with it. Personally, I think the regs can do what they‘re doing and the reserves can do the mud recce role to augument the surveillance guys. We‘ve proven it works, we just have to have the mandate and equip to provide the support. A radar system similar to the old AN/PPS 15 is all we req for local protection. If the inf can pull 150 guys together for the CRIC, I‘m confident we could provide a complete Reserve armoured recce troop (or two) from Area to support the RCD. It‘s workable, equitable and cost effective, although those three items don‘t ever seem to get into the mix.

 

[Yard Ape]

Originally posted by Brock:
[qb] I know that at least in the recent past some reserve armoured units used the Cougar AVGP equipped with the 76mm Scorpioin turret. [/qb]

I would still like to see the Cougar upgraded to the LAV 25 turret system. At least that way, they could recieve usefull and transferable gunnery trainning. It would also make the vehicle slighlty better than useless (as it is now).

Yard Ape

 

[John Nayduk]

As far the reserve RECCE role goes, in the Land Force Reserve Restructure process they are looking at different roles, missions and tasks for the reserve. One of these is Long Range Reconnaissance. The person that is currently conducting the feasibility is a reserve force senior recce officer and the reviewers of the study, as far as I know, are reserve force recce guys as well. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that there may be a new or enhanced recce role for the reserve as a result of this study.

 

[Yard Ape]

I hope they are looking at equipment as well as roles.  We need a modern Ferret like the VBL.

 

[12alfa]

Originally posted by Brock:
[qb] I know that at least in the recent past some reserve armoured units used the Cougar AVGP equipped with the 76mm Scorpioin turret.  [/qb]

I would still like to see the Cougar upgraded to the LAV 25 turret system.  At least that way, they could recieve usefull and transferable gunnery trainning.  It would also make the vehicle slighlty better than useless (as it is now).

    Yard Ape

slighlty better than useless (as it is now)., ya ok.

Tell me if you would, how a veh that has been deployed more than our tanks, has been in use by both reg and res units, has trained a whole generation of young officers as well as c/c, has more miles than any avgp in service,been shot at, fire back, i could go on but i think you can see my point.
We seem to bad mouth the Cougar, why, it has served us well both as a trainer,operational veh, and is still in use as fresh as ever.

We can still use this veh for recce as in the role it served in our overseas deployments. It has been given a new lease on life with the refits and they are working very well now ,they have been given back to the reserv's and not being used by both forces.

As for the lav turret, it's not going to happen, it would make to much sence, were stuck with the 76mm. And when you need a round out at 3000m for a large point that you want the enemy to see a 25mm ain't gonna do it, a 76mm hesh will though.As well it has where the 25mm does not, a indirect fire roll, a role we have to fulfill helping our grunt friends when they need it, now more so than ever with them loosing their motars.We do need better sights .

Lets stop bad mouthing the cougar, its served us well.

On the roll of recce, well I was recce trained from 1971 till 82, so I can tell ya all that it has not change much (more spin I think though). With our re-roll to recce again the info we have had so far is all the same as I was given and used all those years ago, some names have changes but the basic stuff is still there. The difference is now we have survallance and recce, some are confusing them i think.

The comment on the res crew commander unable to use or train on the coyote serv equip is I think BS. How would you explain when a reserv that as you say cant, on joining the regs now can operate said equipment. Most res troops are as able to learn the same skill as any reg troops. Say such a statement is I think a bit of a bias towards the reserv's (not that there is anything new here). Given proper training and time the reserv's can do any task the regs can, unless you can give us data to the contary.

But I could be out to lunch on all of this, heheheh


12Alfa
Lost but making good time

 

[bgreen]

A short note on the mud recce role and our new SMP veh the Mercedes-Benz(MB).  I was a hold out for the Hummv to replace the Iltis believing the Hummer was a more robust veh.  But having driven the Dutch MB in Bosnia I have changed my opinion.  This is a great veh.  It comes with add on armour to protect against landmines and small arms.  It has lots of power and a great tranny and electrical generating capacity..  As I understand it we will be double banking the comms in them and adding variants for anti-armour missiles, grenade launchers as well as recce crew served MG wpns.  A drawback is the silhouette is high and the top requires a major amount of time to remove making it impractical to get as low as the Ileitis.  Still it is stealthy and runs on diesel.  The Dutch have added a troop leaders computer package with GPS that allows the Tp leader to know where all his callsigns are on a computer sized map screen 1:50000.  He can also draw and send traces, mark contacts and instantly relay the info up to higher and to all his other call signs.  There is also a tie in for air photos from drones and the like. So all in all a pretty decent piece of kit.

I think each reserve armour unit is getting a minimum of 16 if the purchase goes through before a new gov't takes the reins.  And yes there is a place for mud recce and mud recce crewman skills.

 

[Yard Ape]

12Alfa,
The M4 Sherman also served well (with the same gun) for many years.  Should we put & keep it in service now because of how it performed then?  The Cougar lacks a stabilised gun, the cross country mobility of even a Bison, the survivability of even LAV III, etc.

 

[12alfa]

It takes a mine blast better than a Iltis, it has more firepower than a Iltis/g-wagon. neither of them have a stab system, so by your logic we get rid of them also?

They are costing us very little now, the Iltis is now with out parts very costly to maintain, and the G-wagon will keep racking up the $ till we get it on line and fully kitted.

Gettin rid of the Cougar does not make any sence in these tight times.Would you rather do recce in a Cougar or a Iltis/G-wagon...I personaly would like some armour, even though its small( but better than a Iltis/Gw), and I certinal would like a bigger gun than the other guy, which when i last looked the Cougar has.

Now You can operate in whatever, makes no difference to me, I have use all but the GW, seen them, and still want a Cougar till a better veh comes along.

 

[Recce41]

The Cougar was in Somalia,Bosnia used as Recce. You don't require a BIG gun for recce. If you have to fight, your not doing you job. At the Armd School The RAOTP is using the Cougar and Ilitis. Many many yrs of Recce (Reg Force).

:evil: :tank:

 

[12alfa]

The Cougar was in Somalia,Bosnia used as Recce. You don't require a BIG gun for recce. If you have to fight, your not doing you job. At the Armd School The RAOTP is using the Cougar and Ilitis. Many many yrs of Recce (Reg Force).

:evil: :tank:

l

This is what we are taught true . But the enemy are not told this and will bring whatever wpns they have to destroy any veh they deem a threat. The "we are not doing our job" will not cut it in a firefight when a crew is trying to back off from fire and must fire back in some sort of self-protection I would think. Having a big gun will help in your chance to get back with that info that higher needs/requested.
Rember the ememy is not playing by our rules :gunner:, unlike what the school/units tell us.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

12A, I must admit I am surprised at your response. 

"The enemy does not play by our rules, despite what the School/Unit tells us"?

Could you elaborate on that for us?

The School is running a course right now, using both the Cougar and the Iltis.  There will be a very steep learning curve for the old Cougar Units as they convert from "tank" to recce, using the same vehicle.

In many countries, including most NATO counries, recce is done normally by our equivelant of a patrol, but are supported or "overwatched" by a vehicle with some kind of observation/firepower capability.  It would seem to me that the Cougar, with upgraded M36E4 sights, would be an excellent vehicle to act as a DFSV for close in recce, done with jeep or on foot.  In this concept, we would have three vehicles in a recce patrol.  I doubt that this concept will ever see the light of day, but, believe it or not, it is something we practiced as far back as the early 70's. 

Every time I see a LAV, either 6 or 8 wheeled, trying to do a area recce, I almost have to laugh.  Coyotes are NOT a recce vehicle!  They are a superb surveillance vehicle, but they are not a recce vehicle.

Now a near perfect recce patrol would have, say, two weasels. with 20mm and maybe tow, plus one DFSV .

At least, in my not so humble opinion.

 

[12alfa]

12A, I must admit I am surprised at your response.  

"The enemy does not play by our rules, despite what the School/Unit tells us"?

Could you elaborate on that for us?

Sure!

It was a general statement but here goes.

In the matter of the enemy we are taught that the "OPFOR" is configed to the old WARSAW pack formations, with regt recce, adv guard, etc.

We have not fought this type of eenemy and to the best of my knowledge in general no one has. The latest operation in which large mech formations, and to a certain degree the last GW, the enemy was not as we would have seen   to be deployed in the Warsaw type formations. Granted the defencive battle did somewhat use the old Russian defence.
When the meeting engagements took place we saw none of the formations we have been taught for armour against armour.

Why do we still teach troops the Opfor OOB? Would it not be better to not waste time on those classes, rather on what we have seen on our latest deployments, a force with a loose tatices and no hard formation?

My point is to teach troops that when they see a BMP plt that this will indicate a.... is not going to help when they are deployed. Would it not be better to leave the formations and there meaning to when they deploy, then give them the OOB's for the deployment country. I think this is what happends now, we are just filling the troops with OOB's that they don't need to know, as they will change in country.

And to say that you are not doing you job if you are engaging the enemy, is for me a real problem. As a general rule this is true. But to say this evertime we talk about firepower in recce, gives the impression that if you fire your in the wrong. This is not allways the case, ROE's would dictate somewhat, but the c/c on the spot I would think can't be thinking that everytime he is about to give a fire command he is doing something wrong, this could lead to hesitations that could be fatal.

I can and have followed the SOP's for years, but sometimes when I see what is REALLY going on, I can't help but to wonder why we do thing in a out dated way.

I don't agree with you on the steep learning curve also. I was recce from 71 till 82, then Cougar, now back to recce. Having been both I can't see a great change, we move the same way (generally), use the same drills (generally), use the same battle procdure, comms, wpns, cam, etc. I think that a unit with troops that can handle tank tatics can switch to recce quit smoothly, end of Aug I report back on my view, but for me and those who have made the change before, its not all that different.My unit has done recce in Cougars before, not that hard to switch back and forth. Now the army and it's wisdom have changed some names and added some (as usuall). But I think they do this to keep everyone on there toes with the new mil-talk from the last course, heheheh.

I did not want to imply that the school was teaching/telling us untruths, far from it, just some minor points that bother me and a few other troops I have talked to.
However, I would like a enemy on FTX's to be someone else that the XXXMMR...or the 3rd Tank Guards from .......

Clear as mud?

PS: I too like the Weisel for recce.

 

[Spr.Earl]

The Cougar was in Somalia,Bosnia used as Recce. You don't require a BIG gun for recce. If you have to fight, your not doing you job. At the Armd School The RAOTP is using the Cougar and Ilitis. Many many yrs of Recce (Reg Force).

:evil: :tank:

Recce41 I think a lot of people here are losing track of the true roll of Armoured Recce.

The role of the armoured reconnaissance squadron is to collect accurate tactical information about the enemy and the ground in all phases of war and to pass this information quickly to formation HQ.

Reconnaissance Fundamentals
Observe without being detected: If you can't be seen, you can't be shot at.

Avoid engagement: Whenever possible, information is obtained by stealth. Engagements should be avoided except for self-defence when evading the enemy.

Confirm enemy disposition: When contact is made with the enemy or an obstacle is encountered, the situation must be developed quickly. The enemy disposition, i.e. strength, location, and composition, can only be determined by a special effort to determine the flanks of his position.

Report accurately: High level decisions may be based on information reported by individual patrols. To be of value, this information must be received in time to be used and it must be accurate.

Make and maintain contact: It is the general rule that once contact is made with the enemy it is maintained and not broken without authority from higher HQ.

In WW2 we had Armoured Reg's. that were dedicated solely to Recce.

 

[Yard Ape]

The comment on the res crew commander unable to use or train on the coyote serv equip is I think BS. How would you explain when a reserv that as you say cant, on joining the regs now can operate said equipment. Most res troops are as able to learn the same skill as any reg troops. Say such a statement is I think a bit of a bias towards the reserv's (not that there is anything new here). Given proper training and time the reserv's can do any task the regs can, unless you can give us data to the contrary.

They also need the equipment to train.  Reserves do not have Coyote for turret or surveillance training.  You could send a few on Reg Force courses, but then the skills will stagnate & fade.

This is what we are taught true.  But the enemy are not told this and will bring whatever wpns they have to destroy any veh they deem a threat. The "we are not doing our job" will not cut it in a firefight when a crew is trying to back off from fire and must fire back in some sort of self-protection I would think. Having a big gun will help in your chance to get back with that info that higher needs/requested.

It takes a mine blast better than a Iltis, it has more firepower than a Iltis/g-wagon. neither of them have a stab system, so by your logic we get rid of them also?

In recce, if you are compromised, you will have to do your shooting while moving to break contact.  S.A. and MG can fire from a moving Iltis/G-Wagon.  A Cougar would have to park itself to fire and this will provide a numerically superior enemy the time to manoeuvre and trap/destroy the Cougar.  The Iltis & G-Wagon both come up short on the side of armour, but we should be looking at something like the VBL or Weisel.

In the matter of the enemy we are taught that the "OPFOR" is configured to the old WARSAW pack formations, with regt recce, adv guard, etc.

Good news.  The GenForce model has been changed.  It is now more flexible and can be used to simulate traditional, non-traditional, and asymmetric threats through the full spectrum of military operations.

8) Yard Ape

 

[12alfa]

If we were to train with Coyote's/LavIII's we would in the case of the Cougar have gunnery sims I would think. In this case the unit can keep up there gunnery/turret skills as we do now with the sims we have at out unit. Short answer is nothing would change for a unit to have the Coyote's. The problem is the army will not give them to the reserv's.

The Cougar can fire on the move, it's not going to be as acurate as when stopped, but the C-6 has a high rate of fire and would in my view keep the enemy's head down long enough to pull back. I would think it would be who see's who 1st as in any engagement..

I've seen the Gen force, still not impressed, why bother to train on it when in country it will change.

 

[12alfa]

In recce, if you are compromised, you will have to do your shooting while moving to break contact

 A Cougar would have to park itself to fire
numerically superior enemy
the time to manoeuvre and trap/destroy the Cougar.  


I think you are asuming too much with the above statements, yes sometimes this may happen, but as allways not all the time. There could as well be "no moving to break contact", "a smaller enemy", "a inferior enemy", "unable to manover" and "uncapable/unwilling to destroy the cougar" .

To assume the above is dangrous, best I would think is ,to not try to second guess your options before hand. If I were to think of all the bad things that "could" happen , I may never show up  :-\ heheheh.