Saber Squadron Size

[TangoTwoBravo]

Turning back to Sqn organization for a moment, I would rather press for an integral A1 echelon on operations as opposed to a fourth tank troop. 

 

[George Wallace]

Turning back to Sqn organization for a moment, I would rather press for an integral A1 echelon on operations as opposed to a fourth tank troop. 

I don't understand your point.  There is an Admin Troop that is integral to a Tank Sqn and acts as A1 and A2 echelon for the four Sabre Troops and SHQ (3 tanks).   Just because it is not talked about, in the dicusion of the Sabre Troops/Sqns doesn't mean it is not there.  That would be like talking about the Armour Regt and then forgetting about the HQ Sqn.  When we have been talking about the Sabre Sqns, we have not been talking about the HQ Sqn. 

An A1 and A2 Ech have to be Armour Echelons, as no one had the knowledge, skills, and equipment to supply Armour Vehicles.  Everytime that the Armour Troops have relied on other Arms for resupply, it has been a disaster and they have been left wanting in both fuel, POL, water and ammo; not to mention the Maintainers.


[4 X Gun Tanks per Troop X 4 per Sqn with 2 X Comd Tks & 1 Dozer Tk in SHQ]

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

George:

Red_Five's alluding to the fact that, in Afghanistan, the tank squadron is operating without a dedicated echelon of any sort.  All CSS, including first line, have been "brigaded" within the NSE and parcelled out on an "as required" basis.

TR

 

[George Wallace]

George:

Red_Five's alluding to the fact that, in Afghanistan, the tank squadron is operating without a dedicated echelon of any sort.  All CSS, including first line, have been "brigaded" within the NSE and parcelled out on an "as required" basis.

TR

Then we are confusing the 'Organization of a Tank Sqn/Regt' with the flexibility to 'Deploy' portions of it; and the policies and 'Organizations' dictated to the Corps by Ottawa when deploying.  I am arguing the Sqn/Regt, not the adhoc organization deployed. 

I must agree, that an Armoured A1 Ech is going to have to be an integral part of the 'Deployed' Armd troops.  Infantry Units and NSE have never been able to effectively provide the support necessary for Armour Troops.  It has constantly been proven in the past, and sure to be proven yet again.  Armour requires it's echelon of 'trained support troops'.  There is no comparison/equal in the Army for an Armour A1/A2 Echelon.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then we are confusing the 'Organization of a Tank Sqn/Regt' with the flexibility to 'Deploy' portions of it; and the policies and 'Organizations' dictated to the Corps by Ottawa when deploying.   I am arguing the Sqn/Regt, not the adhoc organization deployed. 

I must agree, that an Armoured A1 Ech is going to have to be an integral part of the 'Deployed' Armd troops.  Infantry Units and NSE have never been able to effectively provide the support necessary for Armour Troops.  It has constantly been proven in the past, and sure to be proven yet again.  Armour requires it's echelon of 'trained support troops'.  There is no comparison/equal in the Army for an Armour A1/A2 Echelon.

And surely that brings all the way back to the crux of the matter - the deployability of heavy armour.  It is NOT just X number of tanks (organized however with whatever guns and with or without dozers).  It is also about bowsers, transporters, AEVs, ARVs, AVLBs, Ammo transporters, track-bogie-engine transporters, HMRTs etc plus the troops to man all of those (potentially two or more crews per vehicle on the 24 hour battlefield) plus the vehicles and personnel to support the support vehicles and personnel.

As always, I am not arguing against deploying Tanks, nor am I arguing against Tanks in general.  I am merely pointing out the obvious: that when comparing the deployability of a LAV to a Tank it is not the vehicle but the echelon that is the principal impediment to deployment.

 

[George Wallace]

As always, I am not arguing against deploying Tanks, nor am I arguing against Tanks in general.  I am merely pointing out the obvious: that when comparing the deployability of a LAV to a Tank it is not the vehicle but the echelon that is the principal impediment to deployment.

Echelons for any Armour Unit, be it Tracked or Wheeled is usually composed of the same components.  LAV's require just as much of an Echelon as do tanks.  The problem lies with numbers crunchers who do not understand how Echelons work and figure that a Service Bn outfit/NSE can perform the same support as efficiently.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK George, just to be clear -

According to a (no doubt) long out of print pam (B-GL-323-003)  a 19 tank MBT Squadron consisted of:


SHQ

2 MBTs (OC and BC)
1 MBT-Dozer
1 Lynx (Liaison Offr)

F Echelon Tps

4x4 MBTs

A1 Echelon

1 M113 (SSM)
2 M113 (Amb)
2 M113 (Maint and Fitters)
1 M113 (Rad Tech)
1 M548 (Ammo)
1 M548 (POL)
1 ARV
1 LUVW with trailer (OC Rover)

A2 Echelon

1 M113 (2ic)
1 M113 (Maint WO)
1 M548 (Ammo)
1 M548 (POL)
1 M548 (Spare Parts)
1 MLVW with trailer (Kitchen)
1 MLVW with trailer for water (Stores)
1 MLVW with trailer (Baggage)
1 LSVW with trailer (SQMS)

39 vehicles all told and that is just for the Squadron.  It doesn’t include regimental and brigade echelons.  It doesn’t include transporters and it doesn’t include an Armd Engr Troop with all its necessary support.

Is it your contention that a LAV unit requires the same tail?  Because if that is so then the infantry has always been seriously "under-resourced" in support no matter whether or not we are talking about M113s, AVGPs or LAVs  -  something I wouldn't be at all surprised at.  But then that brings this thread into contact with the thread on organizing the infantry and skills dilution. 

Not looking for a fight here.  I am looking to be educated. 

Cheers, Chris

 

[George Wallace]

OK George, just to be clear -

According to a (no doubt) long out of print pam (B-GL-323-003)  a 19 tank MBT Squadron consisted of:


SHQ

2 MBTs (OC and BC)
1 MBT-Dozer
1 Lynx (Liaison Offr)

In a Coyote Sqn, you'll have a similar set up with two Command Coyotes/Bisons, a LO Vehicle or a Rover.

F Echelon Tps

4x4 MBTs

We'll just leave that as is for an org for Inf Platoons, but Recce Troops would be 5 to 7 vehs per Troop X 4 Tps ( or 3 X Recce Tp & 1 X Assault Tp of 4 Engr Variant Vehs)

A1 Echelon

1 M113 (SSM)
2 M113 (Amb)
2 M113 (Maint and Fitters)
1 M113 (Rad Tech)
1 M548 (Ammo)
1 M548 (POL)
1 ARV
1 LUVW with trailer (OC Rover)

Org would probably remain the same, no matter what the vehicles in all Armour Units.

A2 Echelon

1 M113 (2ic)
1 M113 (Maint WO)
1 M548 (Ammo)
1 M548 (POL)
1 M548 (Spare Parts)
1 MLVW with trailer (Kitchen)
1 MLVW with trailer for water (Stores)
1 MLVW with trailer (Baggage)
1 LSVW with trailer (SQMS)

This is a War time establishment, where the three M548's would be one for one exchanges with the A1 and B1 Echelons

39 vehicles all told and that is just for the Squadron.  It doesn't include regimental and brigade echelons.  It doesn’t include transporters and it doesn’t include an Armd Engr Troop with all its necessary support.

Usually, there is no other concerns such as your reference to Armd Engr Troop and it's necessary support.

Any Engr, Infantry, Arty attachments to the Sqn are supported by the Sqn, and seldom bring their own support.  An Armour Echelon is very capable as it carries larger amounts of POL, Ammo, Rations, etc. than the smaller echelons of other arms.  Engineers, by the nature of their Trade, have large quantities of 'Building' and 'Demolition' stores and equipment, supplied by a fairly large echelon also, but still not the same.  Engrs supporting an Armour Sqn, come with their vehicles and supplies, but seldom an echelon.  FOO's/FAC's come with their Vehs only.  Infantry come with their smaller Echelon.  However, it is usually the Armour Sqn that will provide overall support.

Infantry, do not carry the amount of Fuel, Rations, Ammo and Maintainers to support tanks.  The NSE is not knowledgeable, nor in close enough support to effectively support tanks.

Is it your contention that a LAV unit requires the same tail?  Because if that is so then the infantry has always been seriously "under-resourced" in support no matter whether or not we are talking about M113s, AVGPs or LAVs  -  something I wouldn't be at all surprised at.  But then that brings this thread into contact with the thread on organizing the infantry and skills dilution. 

As a matter of fact.....Yes.  LAV's are not M113's or Grizzlies.  We now have a fairly large, sophisticated piece of kit with a large gun (Cannon).  We have now got a lot more electronics, etc.  Armour Echelons bring their Techs.  Infantry Echelons, typically did not bring as many.  We now need the Gun Plumbers, the FCS Techs, the Wpns Techs, the Rad Techs, etc. more than we did with M113's.  They also need more Fuel and Ammo (Larger Calibre ammo taking up more room) Carriers.  More POL products for the Wpns as well as the Vehs.  Yes, Infantry Echelons are going to have to look to the Armour Corps for some Org ideas and philosophy. 

Infantry, do not carry the amount of Fuel, Rations, Ammo and Maintainers to support tanks.  The NSE is not knowledgeable, nor in close enough support to effectively support tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK George, you have sold me.

The Armoured Corps needs to take over the LAVs and supply formed Squadrons to transport the Infantry.  Perhaps to make the fit easier we should follow an earlier suggestion of Infidel-6 and reduce the size of the Infantry section to 6 so that is inter-operable with all platforms.

It is a bit of a red herring for the light fighters to argue that they need bigger sections in any case.  Bigger sections mean they get given more work to do.  Smaller sections mean they can't do as much.  Kind of like big splittable Squadrons being split because they can be split.  ;D

Cheers.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Hmm.

I tend to worry about what actually deploys as opposed to what is on the books.  Sub-unit echelons disappeared a couple of years ago, although some organizations for some tours were able to keep them.  I venture that I would sooner see an integral A1 echelon (an ARV, an Amb, a Maint Sgt, an FCS/Wpns MRT, an SSM and two armoured supply vehicles) before fighting for the fourth Troop of tanks back.  Heck, I might even go with two tank Troops if it meant I could keep the echelon and SHQ.  Sounds crazy, but then I popped those darned mefloquine pills like candy on the slow days...

I would like to see all sub-units that go out the wire to have integral echelons based on AFVs, and have written to that effect.  I would also like to see a C/S 8 HQ at BG level, although I would surrender the actual sub-sub-units from HQ Sqn to satisfy the realities of manning. 

Cheers,

2B/R5

 

[George Wallace]

Hmm.

I tend to worry about what actually deploys as opposed to what is on the books.  Sub-unit echelons disappeared a couple of years ago, although some organizations for some tours were able to keep them.  I venture that I would sooner see an integral A1 echelon (an ARV, an Amb, a Maint Sgt, an FCS/Wpns MRT, an SSM and two armoured supply vehicles) before fighting for the fourth Troop of tanks back.  Heck, I might even go with two tank Troops if it meant I could keep the echelon and SHQ.  Sounds crazy, but then I popped those darned mefloquine pills like candy on the slow days...

I would like to see all sub-units that go out the wire to have integral echelons based on AFVs, and have written to that effect.  I would also like to see a C/S 8 HQ at BG level, although I would surrender the actual sub-sub-units from HQ Sqn to satisfy the realities of manning. 
R5

Now that would be a Sqn broken down into the Half-Sqn formation, with a beefed up SHQ.  This is where an A1 and A2 would become split into two A1 Echs.  C/S 8 could survive as a Standalone CP to ensure the administration is up to date and the Requests are being filled, leaving all the rest to the NSE in this case.

This may be a good idea when it comes to Rotations.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I would also suggest that I would rather have a Recce Sqn SHQ (OC, BC, SSM, Ops WO) and two five car troops than a single eight-car troop or even a single ten-car troop.  Add an echelon and I'm delighted.  Its top-heavy, but that SHQ gives you capabilities.  In addition, my experience is that a big troop gets chopped up.  A five-car troop can lose a vehicle to HLTA and then function as a four-vehicle Patrol.  This is a little off-topic, but there it is.

 

[George Wallace]

I am sure we are pretty much on the same Net.  We know what works and what doesn't and are hamstrung every deployment by powers who don't.  We do the Recce, and decide what we need, only to have the 'Number Crunchers' in Disneyland say "Sorry, but we are cutting that back."

Decisions made to cut back on capabilities by higher offices hamper us all.  The centralizing of all support into NSE gives no one any benefits.  We land up with an organization that has created it's own little Empire, is often uncooperative, not knowledgeable or your requirements, often ineffective and inefficient in filling those requirements, and not necessarily timely.  This whole thing is adhoc from the top down.  The F Echelons are 'bare bones', the A and B Echelons have been stripped from the equation completely.  The Rear is now overloaded, filling all Echelon tasks as well as their own, and not knowledgeable or skilled to do all that the F Echelons require.  HQ's are undermanned, and with the advent of ISTAR are incroaching into eachother's 'domains'. 

Information overload is a problem, but that problem should not be at a Bn or Sqn Level.  The ASIC and other higher Cells should be doing the collating, analysing and dissemination of all info.  We have seen, and continue to see, little Empires being created and cooperation breaks down, and valuable info is lost.  But I digressed right off topic......I blame the adhoc positions we find ourselves in, not on the Corps, but on the "Money and Number Crunchers" up top who, without any knowledge of what Armour is and how it operates, make these decisions.  I do blame many in the Corps for not having the 'Balls' to stand up and say it like it is, or at least defend their beliefs and pride in the Corps.  Hopefully the Army has not keep many of the Generation who created many of the 'systemic' problems we had in the Mid '90's and saw the disbandment of Units, organizations, and philosophies.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I believe that the NSE construct we saw for ATHENA and then the recent operations in Kandahar was driven by the need to satisfy extensive requirements with the limited available resources (people and equipment).  The bottom line is often people.  The NSE folks at all levels work very hard and have actually pulled off some pretty amazing logisitcal feats.  Still, I'd like to have sub-unit echelons based on AFVs.  All other support elements could still belong to the NSE, as long as there was a C/S 8 CP at the BG for planning and coord.

The hard question is that if TO&E is a "zero-sum" game, what would I be willing to give up to get the twenty or so soldiers and leaders to make each sub-unit echelon?  It works out to at least a sub-unit itself.  Some of the techs and medics could come from the NSE and HSS, although they have been manned at a given level to maximize efficiency and it may not be a simple matter.  Would an infantry company give up a line platoon to gain an A1 echelon (manned primarily by infantrymen)?  There are some tough choices, and making those decisions will never please everyone.

 

[George Wallace]

I can fully agree with you.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the planning, "We are going to send a BG of 700 pers." they always start at the bottom and work their way up.  "We need X number of Cooks, X number of Supply Techs, X number of SPSS, X number of yada, yada, yada," and then we get to look at the Cbt Arms troops left to fill up to 700.  No increasing that 700 number to make it a full Coy or Sqn formation to deploy.  The cuts come at the expense of the bayonets, not the support.  Luxuries, such as the echelons, are cut to keep the few bayonets that are left.

I can agree with you that some 'creativity' can be employed to 'create' the echelons from existing NSE assets, but that would only be workable for short periods, as the NSE would falter with the loss of those pers for any length of time.

 

[ArmyRick]

I was thinking on the 19 MBT or 14 MBT squadron.  It seems most people would settle for 14 if the government would actually buy us the gucci tanks.

As far as cost, money and manpower issues, that is a reality.  If it were left up to any battle group commander, they will ask for 4 x maneuver units, engineer squadron, artillery battery, re-enforced CSS Coy, etc, etc.  I beleive it is the DUTY of every commander to get as much as possible for his troops. HOWEVER, then we would have unsustainable task forces.

Numbers are picked out (yes money and manpower) because we must be able to sustain a mission and we are still accountable to the tax payer at the end of the day.

So like it or not, there has to be a compromise.

If it were up to me, I would purchase new hercs, C-17s, Leo II or Abrams, Bradleys, Apaches, LVTP7s, Black Hawks, etc, etc. But again reality says the tax payer would be little lessed enthusiastic about purchasing too much all at once.

As our army grows in numbers (hopefully the majority of the new recruits go to combat arms positions) than we can look at doing larger BG for continious rotations.

 

[George Wallace]

I was thinking on the 19 MBT or 14 MBT squadron.  It seems most people would settle for 14 if the government would actually buy us the gucci tanks.

I wonder if you would also agree that 'most' people would settle for a 2 Section Platoon, split into three LAV III's per Platoon?

 

[Infanteer]

I wonder if you would also agree that 'most' people would settle for a 2 Section Platoon, split into three LAV III's per Platoon?

If it meant having 2 Sections of Infantry and 3 LAV's instead of nothing at all; sure. 

 

[George Wallace]

If it meant having 2 Sections of Infantry and 3 LAV's instead of nothing at all; sure. 

Ah!  See that is where I see a difference.  I would prefer not to go down without a fight.  This government hacking of the CF and the Army's structures and abilities has got to stop.  Back to the analogy of the Fire Department, just because we haven't had a fire in the town since WW II and Korea, does it make sense to sell off the town's Fire Trucks?  That is what the government has done to the Military.  We have kept a few old Fire Trucks in the Fire Hall, and sold off the other 75% and laid off 85% of the Firefighters, leaving us undermanned and ill equiped.  Meanwhile the mayor and council, although not driving around in limos, do live in the best part of town and vacation down South for six months of the year.

If we lay on our backs and let them cut and then design our capabilities on what we have left, we are lost.  It is 'bass ackwards'.

 

[Infanteer]

If we lay on our backs and let them cut and then design our capabilities on what we have left, we are lost.  It is 'bass ackwards'.

I can also see the advantage of "learning when to pick your battles" and "having a backup plan".  The infantry has been living without it's fourth rifle company for a long time and we've made it work.  The fact that 14-tank squadrons have worked in combat means, to me, that it is a viable option.  There are other alternatives, I'm just trying to figure out which ones are junk and which ones aren't.

Forget about it; let's just buy 66 Leopard 2's and give them to the Infantry Corps; we'll figure out how to use them.... :dontpanic: