Role of Armour on the new front

[ArmyRick]

I don't know if this one is been covered yet or not. So give me a double tap if it has been and I will withdrawal, post haste.
It's interesting to note that alot of other NATO nations armor corps are changing as well.
In US, only in the stryker brigades, the armor cavalry is taking on a ISTAR role (although yanks still maintain M1s in heavy Divs).
The Brits have reduced their armour to one regiment and changed the Royal Tank Regt into an NBC unit (again they still have Challenger 2 MBT)..
The netherlands have reduced their Leo 2 fleet.
The aussies are replacing 90 some odd leo 1 with about 40 some odd Abrams. Not too mention thier whole cavalry Regt confuses me ??
The New Zealand army is re-roling their armor to work along side with infantry crewing NZLAV (their was mention of amalgamation of inf/crewman trades, I think that didn't fall through).
Of course their is our own armour structure in the CF (wich in the future their role will confuse the smartest of our enemy). Anybody thoughts on how our armour corps is changing compared to these other nations?

 

[Tanner]

There was an interesting account on the Battle for Bagdad which described the use of M1's to hold ground. In the account the M'1s were deployed to hold the vital ground well forward of the FEBA in the heart of Bagdad.  The basic premise was "I'm in an M1A2, try to move me!!" This tactic was never tested or proven by the American Army prior to Iraq.

The battle for Bagdad lasted for 4 days or so (As I recall??). The unit was under pressure for most of that time. The members were sleeping and living inside the veh, only able to exit the veh for brief periods. They were essentially a mobile pillbox.

The Iraqi resistance eventually crumbled after repeatedly trying to dislodge the tank forces. They had no wpn system able to defeat the M1A2.

The Battle for Bagdad PROVED what the Isrealis have known for a long time. An MBT is excellent for OBUA/ MOUT operations. Moreover, it demonstrates a versatile new role for Armour. I suspect that many Armoured Comds are scratching their heads having given up Armour in the face of deployments to Iraq, and other urban terrain. I also suspect that the returns from the battle front refresh attitudes on Armour.

Cheers,

 

[Recce41]

Damn
Another school troll, Maybe we should have a School get together, after leave?
  I agree with C SqnT. Wait and see. We are not the only ones going through crap. The Inf may go light complete Tow over to us?, Engs ?, Arty (well I would like to fire a ADATs) Bird Gunner Blk hats?, etc etc. We are in change. We must not give in to fast though, but help improve our roles. We did need something light. But the Lav? Maybe it should have been tracked. Another forum. Should the Bird Gunners change NO, Should we crew the LAV IIIs maybe. That would help on Inf Coy's manning. We are the mount SMEs, Inf dismounted SMEs.
Remember the Corp is growing, the Inf is growing, Engs, Arty. Insead of complaining about the veh, maybe we should complain about MORE!
Well thats just me, BUZZ do I really scare you. Lance where has the lil guy been? Have you seen him?  HAHAHA :evil: :tank:

 

[Zipper]

So what do you think?

Will the Corp survive as something other then a library for history in all this talk of "light" forces, Regimental reformation, all arms units, etc?

We have no tanks. We have recce, and something called DFS. But what does that mean?

We have the LAV. Whether or not it will be apart of our formations or the Infantry is still up for grabs.

Proposals have the Infantry going "light" which takes out the mounted option.

Other proposals have us as Cavalry with intigrated infantry. Does this mean we lose the black beret? Or that the attached infantry wear it?

So what, if any, is the future role of the Corp in this "transformed" military that is being spoken of?

 

[Infanteer]

Considering that the "Armoured Corps" occupys merely a fraction of the history of mounted warfare (and only about 1/3 of Canadian Military History), there is no real worry if it goes or not because eventually, everything will change.  Change is good.

However, don't doubt that the traditional spirit and roles of mounted warfare aren't alive and well - 14 pages of Armoured Cav talk should be evidence that it is strong.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

While there are people way above my pay grade that make these calls I see several options for the Armoured Corps and its Regiments:

  a.  focus on mounted reconnaissance (both Coyote and some form of "light")

  b.  direct fire squadrons (not my preference)

  c.  assume all mounted forces (including the guys in the back of the LAV IIIs)

The first option is relativley non-controversial.  It does involve some turf-war and lawn-mowing issuing between branches but I believe that calmer heads can prevail and work through it.  The second option sees the Corps taking on MGS and all direct fire missiles (TOW, ADATS).  I don't really favour this one since being Armoured to me involves manouevre and not just direct fire.  The third option requires a fairly major upheaval in our Army landscape.  I would see it as a Cavalry force and forming roughly one half of the army.  The other half would be the Light Forces.  A variation would be to have the Armoured Corps as the crews for the LAVs and have the infantry provide the guys in the back.  This makes some sense from a training perspective and I've seen it at work with at least one NATO army (they use CV9030s).

I would favour the third option but I believe that it would founder on the shoals of branch parochialism.  Therefore, in the short term I recommend the first option but combine it with a shared Coyote/LAV Cavalry doctrine.

In summary, I do not foresee the death of the Armoured Corps.  It will be different than the days of the tank but it does hold promise!

Cheers,

2B

 

[Zipper]

Thanks guys. I hope there will be more input on what role if any the Corp will fulfill.

As for the two opinions. One is exactly what I would have assumed from someone who is/was not apart and thus not attached in some way, and the other comes up with alternatives.

I agree 2B. The 2nd option is not my preference either for the same reasons.

However, our symbol is the fist and arrows. Since we seem to have lost the fist (or should it be an open hand?), does it also mean we should lose the arrows?

Your first one is alright if we do not wish to change the landscape to much. But as Inf said, change is good. Do you see, or agree with some of the Cavalry ideas that have been presented already? Like the Aussie alternative? I chose this one, because it specifically does not focus on recce. A role I think we should not get "niched" into. The whole idea being to try and keep some kind of fist, albeit a smaller fist.

The third is the way I would like to see things as well. Although does it mean the death of the Corp to do it, since we would be taking on a partial infantry role? Or would it just mean that we would need to change the ideal of the Corp to include the original version of Dragoon?

Also following Inf's argument with Kirk on the other thread over generalist and specialized, would this 3rd force be considered to generalist with the combined Inf/Cav tasks? And would it be able to be trained properly and able to be deployed?

With this in mind, I would like to know how the Fin's, Swed's and other like formed forces are able to do it?

It would be great to hear from others on this as well. GW where are you?

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/newgear.html

Here, for reference sake only, is a pictorial presentation of the Aussie Cavalry Regiment in question - and a full description of the LAV variants in service - including a LAV-Combat Support.

Cheers all.

 

[Infanteer]

I like the ASLAV CS - good idea to give your CS troops the ability to keep up with you (we insist on sticking them in a truck).

It seems that the Aussies are prepared to take the LAV CAV a step further then us.

 

[ArmyRick]

The armoured corps in Canada has not really been about Tanks for quite awhile anyways.
When was the last time the GGHG, ONT R, The QY RANG or the FGH use tanks ?(I mean MBTs not wheeled Scorpions ala Cougar)
I mean we have had 4 MBT squadrons spread across the country for the last thriteen years and then before that the majority of the MBT fleet was in Germany.

Zipper, lets face it. The armoured corps in Canada has been doing the armoured recce thing for awhile. Now with the cougar retired, that means all armoured reserves are going recce.

At least you will be getting the g wagaons soon. The iltus with a C6 sliding across the front hood looked ridicolous to me.

 

[Zipper]

Fully agree there. Thanks Kirk. Maybe 2B and MCG and others who are writing Cav proposals can take more ideas from the Aussies. It applies much closer to our needs, budget and ideas then any of the US models.

AR - I agree with you for the most part. But as it was understood when I was in, the Cougar was a "trainer" only and if called upon we would then convert to MBT's. But then the whole idea of us "preparing" for another war has fallen by the wayside too, and now we train to fill in the gaps of the deployed reg force. To bad our politicians/planners cannot see beyond the end of their last election.

As for the all the militia regiments converting to recce. If some of the proposed ideas of Cavalry actually go father then just a piece of paper, then they may actually convert some of them back to the Cav role. In other words keeping the fist. Keeping my fingers crossed on that one. :

 

[Infanteer]

Fully agree there. Thanks Kirk. Maybe 2B and MCG and others who are writing Cav proposals can take more ideas from the Aussies. It applies much closer to our needs, budget and ideas then any of the US models.

I think I will agree with that as well.   The only problem I can see is that, as the LtCol Noble article states, is that the Cav Troop/Squadron does best when put with an M113 Infantry Company and a Tank Troop.   Obviously, this is "Combat Team" and we can't do this.   We'll have to find our own Canadian way of utilizing LAV CAV.

Again, for the sake of getting the good word out, here is the ASLAV CAV article:

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_W/AAJ_w_2004_05.pdf

and a link to a larger collection of Aussie Army Professional Writing:

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/AbstractsOnline/default.asp

 

[Zipper]

Agreed once again Inf.

We need to "look" at and adapt those Aussie ideas to our own. And maybe we can wish that we may add further capabilities in the future that actually follow Noble's ideas? Ok, maybe I'm dreaming again.

Of course now that I think of it, the idea of operating with Mech Inf and tanks could mean with our better equipped allies? They have those abilities already in place. And we could use many of the ideals he presents when not in that role? Maybe?

 

[Kirkhill]

OK, I'll make this a love-in over here.

Agree that it would do better with an M113 company and a Tanks.  Would you settle for Infantry in Bisons and a LAV DFS capability?

 

[BradleyK]

I believe all armoured corps have converted to armoured recce back in November did they not?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I would favour the third option but I believe that it would founder on the shoals of branch parochialism.   Therefore, in the short term I recommend the first option but combine it with a shared Coyote/LAV Cavalry doctrine.

Although I am generally an optimist, and believe that branch parochialism is slowing dying out, I believe that you may be right - and that is very sad indeed.   We as an institution truly need to grow up, and stop sawing away at our own achilles heel (cohesion) if we are to get anywhere.

Have you considered writing up the thrid option for the Armoured Journal?   Or would it make you too much of a heretic?  

Dave

Edit - I just read the Armoured Cav thread and see that you writing it up.  Good on you.

 

[George Wallace]

BTT

 

[George Wallace]

Army Rick and a few others of this discussion are forgetting the history of the Armour Reserve Units in Canada.  Many, if not all, had Shermans way back in the 1950's.  I believe a couple units maintained Shermans into the early '70s.  Through the '70s and '80s and Reserve Armour Units were Recce.  Only when the Regs started getting rid of the Cougars in the 1990s, did they get cascaded down to the Reserves.  Now we have gone full circle again and all are Recce.  The Reserves are affected more by the whims of the Federal Governments policies and Budgets than the Reg Force.  Since first joining the Reserves in the early 1970s, and through my time as a Reservist and Reg, I have seen more changes than we can all remember.  Is 'Change really Good'?  Not necessarily, but we must live with it.  Remember that that everything is "Cyclic" and we may see the "Good Days" come back again before we are done.  This I mean to be that we will see a credible role for our Armour, both Reg and Reserve, and equipment to perform that role.  Until then we must use our imaginations to keep the Armour Spirit alive and current.  We must forsee what tasks we may have to fill in a major conflict, what training we will have to gear towards, what equipment can be developed to do those jobs and what tactics will be required to survive on the future battlefield.  Now is not a time to be pessimistic, but a time to be imaginative and optimistic.

We have discussed this over many beers and there is a future; if we make one.

GW

 

[ArmyRick]

GW, as far as the RCD and 12RBC now being true armoured Recce, I beleive your regiments are far from dead. Your unit will see lots of tours and action in the future.

With the CF putting a big emphasis on ISTAR, Coyote in all three variants will have a major role.

I wish Canada would consider purchasing some more coyotes (even if its the plain jane variety) for the reserves. It would give them a true armoured recce role and chance to develop the skills and tactics to splice themselves in for tours.

 

[George Wallace]

Army Rick, your thoughts are along the lines of many here.   With the loss of the Tanks, the Reg Force Regiments don't have enough Coyotes to fill their ranks.   That is probably why they are robbing the Infantry Recce Platoons (Peter) to fill up the Armour shortfalls (Paul).   I, too, would like to see more Coyotes, or even LAV III with Surv Suites produced, not only to bring the Armour and Inf Regs up to strength vehicle wise, but to provide enough platforms for the Reserves to train on also.   Perhaps there would only be enough for the Schools and MTCs, but it would provide for "even" training across the board (Reg and Res) so that there would be a larger pool of qualified pers to fill our tasks overseas.

That would however entail the restructuring of Reserve Courses to exactly match those of the Reg Force.   It would mean that unless a Reservist received a Regular Force Course, he/she would loose that qualification.   For instance, Cougar Commanders (Prior to 1 Apr 04) are being qualified DP 3 CC, while a CC of Tanks and Coyotes, for which this qualification is supposed to be for, are required to take a DP3 CC Crse if they are in the Regular Force.   Someone who has commanded a tank for over twenty years, is suddenly no qualified to do so, makes a lot of sense doesn't it?  

A Reg Force CC could not Command my Coyote unless they had a CC Crse, yet a Reserve MCpl and Sgt could be parachuted in, with no Coyote Crses at all, and be permitted to CC.

If the System is not Identical across the board, this nonsense will perpetuate ill feelings between the Regs and Reserves, and fester into larger problems.   Training will suffer.   Animosity will grow.   Deployments will suffer.  

Reservists will have to make sacrifices of their time to attend longer and more formal courses for this to work.   Therein, rests the major problem with this idea....The Canadian Government will have to legislate to protect Reservists Civilian jobs so that they will be able to do so.

GW