- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
"The questions are endless, as are the possibilities"
Not to mention the consequences if they get this really wrong.
Not to mention the consequences if they get this really wrong.
Role of Armour on the new front
- Thread starter Recce41
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
As an Outsider (though a similar thing is happening with the Guns) - here is my concern. I may be mistaken.
In the past, changes have taken place, even with resistance, with a new vision in mind. Progress with a purpose. This is (or will be) our Doctrine of the future, based on our role. Our role is based on the role of our Military. This is what we need for equipment. If we can‘t afford "a". Then here is "b" and how many of them we need, to accomplish our mission. If we can‘t do "b" then we need "c".
Now, my impression is. "Throw the Army a bone, to placate the voters, and butter up some ridings. Here‘s what you‘re getting, figure out what to do with them". Oh - your overall purpose - we‘re not sure....
Am I way off base here?
In the past, changes have taken place, even with resistance, with a new vision in mind. Progress with a purpose. This is (or will be) our Doctrine of the future, based on our role. Our role is based on the role of our Military. This is what we need for equipment. If we can‘t afford "a". Then here is "b" and how many of them we need, to accomplish our mission. If we can‘t do "b" then we need "c".
Now, my impression is. "Throw the Army a bone, to placate the voters, and butter up some ridings. Here‘s what you‘re getting, figure out what to do with them". Oh - your overall purpose - we‘re not sure....
Am I way off base here?
- Reaction score
- 8,339
- Points
- 1,160
Are you way off base there Muskrat? Probably not.
If its any consolation it seems that we may be in decent company.
The yanks seem to be in the process of destroying their perfectly good armoured army because they need more infanteers now. Rather than adding more infanteers to the existing armoured structure so that they can fight in place as well as on the move.
The Brits, sending troops all over the place at the same time they are restricting recruiting, forcing re-ups out, cutting special duty pays (like operational bonuses, flight and jump pay) and getting rid of carriers, close support aircraft and armoured landrovers and Mambas.
Almost makes you think someone wants to wreck these armies.
But I am a cynical, suspicious b****r.
If its any consolation it seems that we may be in decent company.
The yanks seem to be in the process of destroying their perfectly good armoured army because they need more infanteers now. Rather than adding more infanteers to the existing armoured structure so that they can fight in place as well as on the move.
The Brits, sending troops all over the place at the same time they are restricting recruiting, forcing re-ups out, cutting special duty pays (like operational bonuses, flight and jump pay) and getting rid of carriers, close support aircraft and armoured landrovers and Mambas.
Almost makes you think someone wants to wreck these armies.
But I am a cynical, suspicious b****r.
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,260
Probably pretty close when you talk of our overall purpose, but as to the equipment itself, it isn‘t politicians that decide on the type of kit (except maybe EH 101 and LSVWs...oh never mind) - rather it is the military itself, based on an balancing our tasks with our resources.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 710
Slim....you went and blew all next year‘s budget.
Gw
Gw
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 230
Well, here we go with my very first post. Some here may know me, I hope that the rest will get to know me.
George, first of all, Hello, long time no see. Secondly, yours is the very first post I read on this forum, I was told about this site yesterday by another member. Secondly, excellent post.
To keep matters up front and open, I am no longer serving. I spent 27 years in the Corps, and I "retired" in 2001. I presently work as a contractor, repairing simulators in Gagetown.
With that out of the way, I would like to respond to the original post.
Not so long ago, there was a visit to Canada by delegates from New Zealand and Australia, the aim of the visit was to brief the Canadian bosses on the experiments done by both countries to integrate the Infantry and Armour Corps. As we all know by now, New Zealand has totally integrated the two, with the resulting disappearance of the Armour, the Australians have split the Armour, with "heavy" armour crewing the M1's, and the "light" armour crewing infantry vehicles, and acting as recce to Infantry Battalions.
I'm of a mind that the Corps is not so much slowly becoming irrelevant, it is being pushed to extinction by the powers in the Ivory Towers. You will note that after a full ten years, the Recce Doctrine is still sitting in Kingston. No guidance, no new manuals, nothing. No leadership, in other words. The Leopards, after an upgrade that cost 140 million bucks, are being sent out west to rust. And it's not as if we can't use them. The Regular Force Units have far more crews than vehicles, and that will get much, much worse once Wainwright opens up. All of our courses are in a state of total confusion, we know longer have the old "tank crew commander" qualification for Sgt, instead we have a "crew commander" course that can be taken by a Corporal.
It seems the same everywhere throughout the Corps. Kingston is not providing any doctrine or manuals, and the Generals, of which the Corps has quite a few, are not providing guidance or leadership. It appears to me that the Corps is being allowed to whither away, until someday, just a couple of years (at most) from now, there will be a great announcement about the formation of new "light brigades" capable of "rapid deployment on short notice". Mind you, these light brigades will most likely resemble an overly large Infantry Battalion, complete with "armour" anti-tank sub-units, and "artillery" indirect fire sub-units with mortars.
I really hope I'm wrong. But I don't think so.
That's enough for a first post, don't ya think?
George, first of all, Hello, long time no see. Secondly, yours is the very first post I read on this forum, I was told about this site yesterday by another member. Secondly, excellent post.
To keep matters up front and open, I am no longer serving. I spent 27 years in the Corps, and I "retired" in 2001. I presently work as a contractor, repairing simulators in Gagetown.
With that out of the way, I would like to respond to the original post.
Not so long ago, there was a visit to Canada by delegates from New Zealand and Australia, the aim of the visit was to brief the Canadian bosses on the experiments done by both countries to integrate the Infantry and Armour Corps. As we all know by now, New Zealand has totally integrated the two, with the resulting disappearance of the Armour, the Australians have split the Armour, with "heavy" armour crewing the M1's, and the "light" armour crewing infantry vehicles, and acting as recce to Infantry Battalions.
I'm of a mind that the Corps is not so much slowly becoming irrelevant, it is being pushed to extinction by the powers in the Ivory Towers. You will note that after a full ten years, the Recce Doctrine is still sitting in Kingston. No guidance, no new manuals, nothing. No leadership, in other words. The Leopards, after an upgrade that cost 140 million bucks, are being sent out west to rust. And it's not as if we can't use them. The Regular Force Units have far more crews than vehicles, and that will get much, much worse once Wainwright opens up. All of our courses are in a state of total confusion, we know longer have the old "tank crew commander" qualification for Sgt, instead we have a "crew commander" course that can be taken by a Corporal.
It seems the same everywhere throughout the Corps. Kingston is not providing any doctrine or manuals, and the Generals, of which the Corps has quite a few, are not providing guidance or leadership. It appears to me that the Corps is being allowed to whither away, until someday, just a couple of years (at most) from now, there will be a great announcement about the formation of new "light brigades" capable of "rapid deployment on short notice". Mind you, these light brigades will most likely resemble an overly large Infantry Battalion, complete with "armour" anti-tank sub-units, and "artillery" indirect fire sub-units with mortars.
I really hope I'm wrong. But I don't think so.
That's enough for a first post, don't ya think?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 710
Welcome Lance
It is always nice to welcome new blood, especially one who has so much experience. Perhaps that will bring this thread back to life with some new/old observations as to where the RCAC may be headed and what affects it may have on the Army as a whole.
GW
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 230
Thanks Buzz and George.
I've been reading a few more posts, all under the Armour thread.
I now know three people, all identified from their posts, George (duh), Buzz and Recce41.
You guys all know that any armour soldier that volunteers to jump from an airplane without a tank is missing a few marbles, right?
I've been reading a few more posts, all under the Armour thread.
I now know three people, all identified from their posts, George (duh), Buzz and Recce41.
You guys all know that any armour soldier that volunteers to jump from an airplane without a tank is missing a few marbles, right?
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Is the RCAC dead? I don't think so, but maybe it is time for a name change:
Royal Canadian Cavalry Corps
This name better reflects the role that reserve "armoured" recce units have been playing for years, but it does not diminish the role of the tank. This name is also more reflective of the text-book role: To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.
And, with this name change, I think the recce needs to be emphasised. True armoured recce where possible. Keep the Coyote in surveillance squadrons, but get an ALUVW for patrolling & "mud recce." Follow the example of US Cavalry and mount TOW on some of these, pair them up with GPMG armed ALUVWs and create tank killing teams. Arm some with HMG or AGL and provide light direct fire cavalry to light infantry. This same Cavalry structure would be a vital asset to both light & mechanized forces.
. . . but, if it is possible, keep the tanks too!
Royal Canadian Cavalry Corps
This name better reflects the role that reserve "armoured" recce units have been playing for years, but it does not diminish the role of the tank. This name is also more reflective of the text-book role: To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.
And, with this name change, I think the recce needs to be emphasised. True armoured recce where possible. Keep the Coyote in surveillance squadrons, but get an ALUVW for patrolling & "mud recce." Follow the example of US Cavalry and mount TOW on some of these, pair them up with GPMG armed ALUVWs and create tank killing teams. Arm some with HMG or AGL and provide light direct fire cavalry to light infantry. This same Cavalry structure would be a vital asset to both light & mechanized forces.
. . . but, if it is possible, keep the tanks too!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It may read Royal Canadian Recce Corp. Remember from 42-44, there was a Recce Corp ( 1st Airborne Recce Sqn/Regt). It served from Italy, to D Day, Arnheim + . I'm the only Canadian Recce Corp Re-enactor as I know. The rest are in the UK and US. I am also the only Canadian serving member of the Recce Corp Asso. There are retired Canadians as members though. The requirments are high, 1. Must have been a Recce crewman, 2. the best one must have served with a Operational jump postion. The only pers I know were us fella from 8CH/RCD 1st Troop Recce (Para).
The Corp colours are Green/Gold.
A links www.airbornerecce.com/oca/, .http://www.airbornerecce.com/dtroop/
The Corp colours are Green/Gold.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
recceguy said:George your right, the Coyote is not a good Recce veh, but better for surveillance. Recce is not dead in the Corps if you take into account all the Reserve Armour Regiments. We have had "Mud Recce" as a role for some time, and the Cougar units are converting to the same. Now, I know you'll probably pull the "Reserves can't deploy en masse when needed" gambit. I'm just saying it still exists as a role in the Corps. With the proper equipment, a defined doctrine (which is being worked on), integration into the surv troops on ex, etc, it's a step. And with ALL Reserve armour doing recce, I'm sure we could give you a combined troop per Sqn for deployment. It's a good role for us, reasonably cheap, easy to learn and we can train in our home locations for the most part. Although, I think when the Regs see our LUVW Command & Recce variant, we'll probably lose those like we did the Bison and all the other high speed kit that was slated for Reserve use. Total Force will rear it's ugly head and we'll be doing recce in pickups
Doctrine is finished, see Recce Ops by Maj Barr, DAD (Director Army Doctrine), the TTP's are being revised by the Armour School. As for the LUVW C&R, the reg force was always supposed to receive them, the only reserve units that are getting it are the ones that were using Iltis for a recce vehicle, the rest are getting the Silverado for ADM tasks. What is "Mud Recce"? Recce is recce, the only difference in the reg force is the vehicle and an enhanced capability for surveillance, platform really doesn't matter as far as the job is concerned, let's just get on with it. In regards to integration good idea but the pers sent will have to be dedicated like we used to be in the 70's (yes I was a reservist) and not treat the reserve unit like a drinking club (like most, not all reserve Snr NCO's I've met), and alot of training to get up to parwith the regs.
Matt_Fisher
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
I would agree with Yard Ape on this one.
Since tanks per se are taking a less prominent role in doctrine and employment of Canadian Armoured units, I think that the change to a cavalry corps is very fitting. In addition to the name change, I also think that more emphasis should be put into incorporating dismounted scouts into the role of armoured recce. in Canada.
Since tanks per se are taking a less prominent role in doctrine and employment of Canadian Armoured units, I think that the change to a cavalry corps is very fitting. In addition to the name change, I also think that more emphasis should be put into incorporating dismounted scouts into the role of armoured recce. in Canada.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 230
It is unfortunate, but it appears that the Recce Ops as published by DAT is not meeting the needs of the Armour Corps. What is required is a uniquely Canadian book, talking about Canadian equipment, along the lines of the old Recce in Battle Books. Recce Ops appears to be a compilation of German, American and Canadian doctrine.
I'm disappointed. I thought that after such a long wait, we would be seeing something a little better than that.
Before everone starts bashing me, take a moment and recall the "Recce Troop in Battle". Unit and School SOP's were based on the guidance this book gave. The new publication is just not that detailed.
Oh well, we only waited what? ten years?
I'm disappointed. I thought that after such a long wait, we would be seeing something a little better than that.
Before everone starts bashing me, take a moment and recall the "Recce Troop in Battle". Unit and School SOP's were based on the guidance this book gave. The new publication is just not that detailed.
Oh well, we only waited what? ten years?
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
It may not be bad that doctrine does not match our current equipment, but only if we commit to getting the equipment to bridge the capability gap.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Great discussion guys.....
Welcome Lance, long time no see.
Haven't seen you since Reso III Recce in 2000 with Tim.
When it comes right down to it....is the corps dead? We will be told to throw our panzers away, within the near future, to a few zipperheads tears I surmise. :crybaby:
In the meantime, what will happen to the corps?
Will we be absourbed into Inf Batt to crew LAVs or go into a purely Recce roll. With the ISTAR concept comming online in the brigades, is this a more feasible means of using Armour Recce to the full advantage?
Or will we be left like our tanks....rusting in Wainwright until a Whitepaper gets approved and newer panzers purchased? Is this even feasible to the powers that be in Ottawa?
Or with all this downsizing that has happened in the past 14 years...would it even be worth getting new tanks for a pea sized force that we now have? Seems to me that the Liberals have outlined their agenda pretty well, not so much through words, but through their policies.
Personally...I can't see our forces without tanks. These damn MGS POS are a stop gap measure that will be the death nell of the corps. The politicians will see these as tanks and nothing will change their minds...until crews start getting killed.
Then it will be too late.
Regards
Welcome Lance, long time no see.
Haven't seen you since Reso III Recce in 2000 with Tim.
When it comes right down to it....is the corps dead? We will be told to throw our panzers away, within the near future, to a few zipperheads tears I surmise. :crybaby:
In the meantime, what will happen to the corps?
Will we be absourbed into Inf Batt to crew LAVs or go into a purely Recce roll. With the ISTAR concept comming online in the brigades, is this a more feasible means of using Armour Recce to the full advantage?
Or will we be left like our tanks....rusting in Wainwright until a Whitepaper gets approved and newer panzers purchased? Is this even feasible to the powers that be in Ottawa?
Or with all this downsizing that has happened in the past 14 years...would it even be worth getting new tanks for a pea sized force that we now have? Seems to me that the Liberals have outlined their agenda pretty well, not so much through words, but through their policies.
Personally...I can't see our forces without tanks. These damn MGS POS are a stop gap measure that will be the death nell of the corps. The politicians will see these as tanks and nothing will change their minds...until crews start getting killed.
Then it will be too late.
Regards
S
Sgt Monty
Guest
:warstory:
Hi everyone. Hi GW, are you still in. It's been a while! How's life in Pet. I am with the SALH as RSS in Edmonton. We still have Cougars but after this Sep, the Sallys will be keeping their Cougars for as long as possible and transferring to a Recce roll with the Cougars. We are getting the MLCOTS soon but will try to keep the Cougars. I think everyone here in the Sallys are GTG with the transformation but a little confused with the future of the Corp.
Hi everyone. Hi GW, are you still in. It's been a while! How's life in Pet. I am with the SALH as RSS in Edmonton. We still have Cougars but after this Sep, the Sallys will be keeping their Cougars for as long as possible and transferring to a Recce roll with the Cougars. We are getting the MLCOTS soon but will try to keep the Cougars. I think everyone here in the Sallys are GTG with the transformation but a little confused with the future of the Corp.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hello to George, Lance and Dave up in Windsor as well as Dave Mason in Meford, plus a few others I may know as well. I am very new to the forum [today] as I just heard about it. I am looking forward to future posts.
The next few years will tell the tale with The Corps, all sorts of ideas and thoughts being put forth but I am with Lance on there not being any decisive direction given as of yet. Yes the MGS is coming on line, we will be down to 8 C2's here at the School come this Sep and they are not overly tasked, the AGIC and dog and pony's that will be about it. The remainder are on their way out West to the new Center which still has to be fully manned. We do not have a definite direction on exactly what things will look like in the Regiments yet but we will have to know very soon as it will impact on how trg will be delivered. That being said it is having an impact now.
Great thread topic George, hope every one has or had a good leave period.
The next few years will tell the tale with The Corps, all sorts of ideas and thoughts being put forth but I am with Lance on there not being any decisive direction given as of yet. Yes the MGS is coming on line, we will be down to 8 C2's here at the School come this Sep and they are not overly tasked, the AGIC and dog and pony's that will be about it. The remainder are on their way out West to the new Center which still has to be fully manned. We do not have a definite direction on exactly what things will look like in the Regiments yet but we will have to know very soon as it will impact on how trg will be delivered. That being said it is having an impact now.
Great thread topic George, hope every one has or had a good leave period.
Similar threads
