Should Armour crew the TUA? Which type of unit should it be in?

[Scoobie Newbie]

well no its not but hell I've been to the range once a year.

 

[George Wallace]

When it comes down to it, I think the Armour Corps should bring back its' Support Sqn and include TUA as well as 120 mm Mortars in its' inventory.   To change the subject a bit, the variants of ammo now available for the 120 mm Mortars provides a lot of flexibility in their employment, from Anti-Armour to Indirect Fire Support to Illumination, etc.

I personally disagree with the removing of the Pioneers, TOW and Mortars from Inf Bns.   The on again, off again policies of having an Assault Troop, Jump Troops, etc are distroying morale and capabilities within the various Corps.  

I am not being a dinasaur in my beliefs, but a little more realistic than the twits making these changes.

GW

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I agree with just about everything you say except I'm a little perplexed as to why armour would need mortars.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>so we will not have the option of returning the capability in the event of a high intensity war.

Sure we do.  Buy vehicles and ammo, recruit and train soldiers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Takes time to build veh and train people.  I'm not talking WW2 here but something like Iraq type conflict.

 

[McG]

>so we will not have the option of returning the capability in the event of a high intensity war.

Sure we do.  Buy vehicles and ammo, recruit and train soldiers.

That is not compatable with a "come as you are" war.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What do we have that can go as it is (<6 months)?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well thats kinda the point.  Why weaken us any further when we can't even meet that goal.

 

[McG]

What do we have that can go as it is (<6 months)?

ATOF should have at least one untasked BG in high readiness all the time.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Who would fill that bill right now.  2VP is in transition, 1 and 3 VP are sending guys to Afghanistan and would both be undermanned if called upon.

 

[McG]

1 CMBG is not the high readiness brigade yet.  It is still 5.

However, recent deployments have broken from the ATOF cycle and it is possible that we do not have anyone at the rediness level required.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My point is: if we can't deploy a brigade (three TUA platoons for the three infantry battalions plus three more for a brigade anti-armour squadron) and in fact can only deploy a battalion or two, we only need a TUA platoon or two "ready".

 

[George Wallace]

In WW II the Recce Reg'ts had M3 Halftracks in their Support Sqn mounting howitzers.  If we are stepping backwards with the acquisition of MGS, then go all the way and give the Armd Regts Mortars and TUA.

GW

 

[Yard Ape]

as long as combat support platoons continue to be attached under full command of infantry battalions and recce squadrons when necessary, it is almost irrelevant that they are not part of the permanent unit establishment. 

3 x AAP for 12 x manoeuvre units.  That means we have a single AAP for every 4 BG we claim we are able to form.

My point is: if we can't deploy a brigade (three TUA platoons for the three infantry battalions plus three more for a brigade anti-armour squadron) and in fact can only deploy a battalion or two, we only need a TUA platoon or two "ready".

Brigade Anti-Armour Sqns have not been part of doctrine for a few years now (because anti-armour sub-units do not do very well on their own & must be part of an all arms grouping).   However, ATOF is based on 4 manoeuvre units being available to go out the door over the course of a year (or up to to BG deployed concurently and rotated indefinitely.   A single TUA Sqn will not have the man power to support this Op temp for all the Canadian Land Forces.

If MMEV can live up to its potential, it may be a suitable system around which to build the anti-amour squadron of a brigade (but only because NLOS missiles would provide a capability never imagined with past anti-armour sub-units).  TUA should remain in the mech battalions, but it would be acceptable to use Armd Crewmen to man & fight these vehicles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>because anti-armour sub-units do not do very well on their own & must be part of an all arms grouping

A curious excuse, if true.

 

[Yard Ape]

tasking the TUA out to the armoured is one of the worst possible things they could have done.

No.  Reducing the number of TUA vehicles is worse (and "they" are doing that too).

When it comes down to it, I think the Armour Corps should bring back its' Support Sqn and include TUA as well as 120 mm Mortars in its' inventory. 

I think Armd Regts should have a Cbt Sp Sqn that is identical to the Cbt Sp Coy in a Mech Bn.  The Army wants to say that each brigade has four manoeuvre units on which to base BGs.  If this is to be the case, then each manoeuvre unit better be able to provide the full spectrum of combat support if it does form the base of a BG for an Op.

>anti-armour sub-units do not do very well on their own & must be part of an all arms grouping

A curious excuse, if true.

Armour is typically more mobile, it has a faster rate of fire, and better protection than anti-armour.  Historically anti-armour had greater range,  but modern tanks are typically on par with modern anti-armour.  As we are talking of TOW my arguments focus on line of sight systems (and non-line of sight has not yet been fielded anywhere).  So, how does anti-armour defend without infantry to hold ground & provide close protection, and/or without armour to provide counter manoeuvre?

Anti-armour is a supporting capability.  It does not fight alone & win.

 

[McG]

If they are insistant on moving the TUA to the armoured corps I think it would make more sense to spread them out. ...

This would evenly distribute ... the LAV-TUAs throughout all three brigades. 

Mountie,
In your proposal to put an equal number of LAV TUA in each Armd Regt, would you see the vehicles being crewed by armd soldiers or infantry (as is the plan for the LdSH's TUA).

In the end, rather than send infantry soldiers to crew TUA in an armd regiment, would we have been better off to send armd to crew TUA in infantry battalions?

 

[Mountie]

I would have all the direct fire support assets crewed by armoured soldiers.  This would be the LAV-III DFSV (25mm), LAV-III MGS and LAV-III TUA.  This would be the same as how the artillery soldiers are now crewing the mortars.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Its has been my experience that these forums tend to be armoured centric, but sorry to burst your bubble.  Although the TUA and ADATS are scheduled to become part of the LDSH (RC), which is currently an armoured Regiment, I would not stock the kit shop with black berets for all the new members. The DFS Regiment will prove to be the testing ground for the Regimental system as we know it in the CF.  Regiment pride and history in our small organization complicates things to much.  I can't wait to see the new cap badge! I agree that it should not matter what trade mans the equipment, just as long as they do an outstanding job when called upon.

 

[Infanteer]

Its has been my experience that these forums tend to be armoured centric, but sorry to burst your bubble. Although the TUA and ADATS are scheduled to become part of the LDSH (RC), which is currently an armoured Regiment, I would not stock the kit shop with black berets for all the new members. The DFS Regiment will prove to be the testing ground for the Regimental system as we know it in the CF. Regiment pride and history in our small organization complicates things to much. I can't wait to see the new cap badge! I agree that it should not matter what trade mans the equipment, just as long as they do an outstanding job when called upon.

Which is why I've proposed change here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/24924.15.html