Stop the Army’s Dangerous Game

[jollyjacktar]

T-Lav Stab B POMLT, PRTC from CNS hit by an IED while doing a roadsweep Dand District road to Nokonay, summer 2009.
The turret detached from the hull and the gunner road it up and to it`s landing. Gunner / Commander seriously injured and evacuated. I beleive the air sentry also took some injuries but didn`t leave mission and the driver came out okay.
I won`t go into the explanation the major gave as to the belly armour design that made the IED hit less serious. The T-Lav was a great vehicle and if I beleive the explanation. One of the safest in mission.

That must have happened after I left DDC.  Glad to hear that everyone made it from the hit.  They're tough vehicles and tougher guys.

 

[MilEME09]

Also can someone define for all of us here what a light, a medium and a heavy formation are.  What are the key components (Coles notes) in each.  I think that we might find that each of our definitions differ on certain points, but at least then we could have a baseline from which to debate.

Light to me would be a Motorized unit, infantry transported by soft skinned vehicles or airmobile. a Medium force would have light armour mixed in while a heavy force to me would be a slow moving(in comparison) block of armour including self propelled guns, GBAD and heavy IFV's.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Light to me would be a Motorized unit, infantry transported by soft skinned vehicles or airmobile. a Medium force would have light armour mixed in while a heavy force to me would be a slow moving(in comparison) block of armour including self propelled guns, GBAD and heavy IFV's.

'Heavy' would likely include all those things....which are capabilities that every meaningful, first world armed force should have in some way, shape of form.

However, I am dissatisfied with this terminology.

'Light, medium and heavy' are terms derived by accountants to sneak through projects for ambitious/conscientious (pick one) Generals in the face of cost shy politicians in a peacetime context, as opposed to terms that accurately describe a true war fighting and winning capability.

I hear my clients use the terms 'Volkswagen, Chevvy, and Rolls Royce' frequently for the same purposes. When applied to problems they are trying to resolve the terminology is equally ridiculous and powerless.

We need to find a new lexicon to deal with this all important issue. The alternative, adversely influenced by this unintended constraint, could result in lots of dead Canadians and allies and a failed foreign policy with all the perils that entails.

 

[tomahawk6]

In US parlance anyway light forces are airmobile,airborne or truck mounted infantry.Medium would be like the stryker and heavy would be like the Abrams MBT and Bradley.

 

[Underway]

'Light, medium and heavy' are terms derived by accountants to sneak through projects for ambitious/conscientious (pick one) Generals in the face of cost shy politicians in a peacetime context, as opposed to terms that accurately describe a true war fighting and winning capability.

I partially agree.  Where adjectival labels can become a cage and be used to obfuscate and confuse, with an appropriate understanding of what they mean they can also be an effective shorthand for planners and tacticians.