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

[McG]

. . . and other changes proposed here:   http://army.ca/forums/threads/24461.0.html

I think TUA could be an "any manouvre arm" job, and if the MMEV makes gunners proficient in the DF tank killing role, then they could get the job too.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The whole reason as I understand to TOW coy is that it is to allow the amoured to catch up.  However if a new system is going into place in the near future then why not leave the TOW elements were they are and stand them back up.

 

[ArmyRick]

As a TOW Gunner, I agree.
I think it is silly of the CF to concentrate all its DFS assetts into one REGT. Personally I think each armoured REGT should be some what identical. Why not divide the MGS and ADATS between the RCD, LdSH and 12RBC?

TUA should stay with the Infantry in my opinion and I would also bin the Anti-armour platoon and have the TUA permamently assigned to the companies.

 

[MG34]

AAP needs to be a seperate entity,the TUAs were/are not a unit resource but a Brigade one having them in Rifle Coys can't happen as the Coy is not equipped to support the TUA in any way,not too mention resupply. We train (ed) with our BNs because that's all we had,the AAP could at any time be called away from the unit for tasks at brigade level,that means it's entire support network has to go with it,not an option in a Rifle Coy. You are a TOW Gunner you should know better than that. ;D

 

[McG]

I would not get too caught up in who owns what.  If the Comd wants, he can pull a rifle Coy from a Bn to go do a Bde task.  He can pull a half dozen C6 teams to do a bde task.  He is the Comd, and technically it is all his.  There are certain groupings that he is more likely to call on units to detach, but he is not restricted to those.  However, leaving assets the provide greater capabilities in the hands of lower commanders allows for greater application of the manoueverist approach to war and for quicker reaction to enemy threats.

CFL,
Part of the "new" system is TUA.  The old vehicles will go of to some workshop and have the turrets transfered to LAV III.  These new TUA will then be sent to the LdSH as a third of the "new" system that includes ADATS and 105 mm cannon.

I agree with ArmyRick: at the very least, every brigade should have its own. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I understand that but it is my impression that the military is looking towards a new missle (new system) which would make the TUA a non-issue and therefore negate the need for the Infantry as everyone would be starting off fresh with a new turret and missle system.

 

[Badanai]

Since no one has posted on this issue in a while
I'm an ex TOW GOD so yes TOW or anti tank should stay with the infantry  Hunting TANKS with tow is differnent that hunting tanks with tanks. SPEED, moblility, use of the ground the ability to get out of YOUR Vehicle is also a key when  deploying TOW. In ten years in the RCR I haven't seen a TANKER get out of his tank or off of it YET!! LOL except those armoured recce guys

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Cutter...I agree...Just like an ADATS will always be an ADATS or ATADS, not a tank. Use of the ground and sighting conditions are very important.  Moving across country at a whooping 58 Km hr (more like 15-20 km), halting, then acquiring and shooting the tgt is at least a one to two minute process.  Trying to fight it like a tank is suicide.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but it has been confirmed that the Patrica's will be black hatted with VP cap badge once this thing is stood up.

 

[30 for 30]

Interesting. Not sure why they don't just give the whole unit the Strathcona capbadge, and properly unify it as a DFS regiment. It seems to me capbadge affiliation is being taken a little too far, but I suppose a black hat on all heads is a step in the right direction, for what it's worth.

 

[McG]

Interesting. Not sure why they don't just give the whole unit the Strathcona capbadge, and properly unify it as a DFS regiment.

Because the Patricias in the TUA platoons will eventually be posted back to Patricia battalions.

 

[BGM-71F]

Interesting. Not sure why they don't just give the whole unit the Strathcona capbadge, and properly unify it as a DFS regiment. It seems to me capbadge affiliation is being taken a little too far, but I suppose a black hat on all heads is a step in the right direction, for what it's worth.

KP...I assume you have no regimental affiliation, otherwise being forced to rebadge would make your blood boil. Volintarily switching to another trade is one thing, but to take your affiliation (capbadge) away because your equipment now belongs to the tankers? Approach any former member of the Airborne regiment, see what capbadge they wear on the inside of thier beret..

I'm an ex TOW GOD so yes TOW or anti tank should stay with the infantry  Hunting TANKS with tow is differnent that hunting tanks with tanks. SPEED, moblility, use of the ground the ability to get out of YOUR Vehicle is also a key when  deploying TOW. In ten years in the RCR I haven't seen a TANKER get out of his tank or off of it YET!! LOL except those armoured recce guys

Yeah, tankers..... combat uniforms seem to be a wate on them since all they wear is rubber gumbies and cioveralls. Cutter...what battalion were you a TOW dog with? Maybe our paths have crossed....1 RCR AAP...93-98..

As a TOW Gunner, I agree.
I think it is silly of the CF to concentrate all its DFS assetts into one REGT. Personally I think each armoured REGT should be some what identical. Why not divide the MGS and ADATS between the RCD, LdSH and 12RBC?

TUA should stay with the Infantry in my opinion and I would also bin the Anti-armour platoon and have the TUA permamently assigned to the companies.

ArmyRick....same q as i asked Cuttere, when n where you a TOW diog. TUA's assigned to the companies, training would take a hard nose dive.

 

[ArmyRick]

I was TOW dog for a while in the mid ninties and I must confess that I have not touched a TOW or TUA since 1996. I am a little rusty. I understand that TOW (in our old doctrine) as a platoon was a brigade assett (In theory if I remember correctly the 2-3 AAP in a brigade could be concentrated to form a TOW Coy). Great for the old cold war doctrine.

The reason I beleive that TOW should be attached to the companies directly is that we don't really do OPS as a battalion, there better off being permanently attached to the largest unit that fights a battle as a unit (the company). I also beleive in attaching mortars permamently tot he coy as well (Yes I am a mortar dog as well). The american Stryker Infantry coy has TOW, 120mm mortars and 3 rifle platoons permamently built into it and they seem to be having success. Keep in mind of course the stryker TOW variant is in lieu of the MGS (wich has a million hick ups in development it seems).

 

[3rd Horseman]

Dont forget the Artillery gave up Anti Armour first to the Armour long before the AInf got the role. Back to Armour now is it, with that thought process then I guess guns will get it back in time. :blotto:

 

[McG]

I know it's an old thread, but I thought it a good place to debate this question:

I will argue that people in TOW ... did suffer significant skill fade in the bayonet skills.

Did manning the AAPs have a negative impact on the dismounted fightinig skills of the battalions?

If the AAPs are brought back (this would mean buying more LAV III TUA than is currently funded), should Armd Crews be posted into the battalions to fight the vehicles?

 

[AVIDARMY]

I think that I will finish this thread once and for all.  Tow in the infantry is dead.  The LAV TUA now belongs to the LdSH.  Trust me I was a former member of E-Coy.  The TUA's are now covered with gravy!