• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The CCV and the Infantry

Haligonian said:
Off topic: What do the M3's bring to the table in the US Cavalry Regiments? Why not just have the tanks?  Is it for the scouts they carry? Make the formation cheaper by being lighter but still survivable?  I don't think they carry a mast or anything specialized like the coyote does.

The M3s are the recce vehicles. A heavy Troop has two tank platoons and two scout platoons. Each M3 has two scouts, and with a pair of vehicles you have a self-contained dismounted patrol that can check defiles, crests etc. There were several options on my Cavalry Leader's Course, but generally when conducting a zone recce or advance to contact you led with your scout platoons and followed up with your tank platoons. In a screen/guard you had your scouts forward in OPs finding the lead enemy elements and the tanks were held back and dispatched to whack the advancing enemy.

A scout platoon with six  M3s can cover more ground in a dispered manner than a tank platoon due to the dismounts.
 
Just hearsay on my part.  I would argue it though.  You need tanks in the prairies.
 
GnyHwy said:
Just hearsay on my part.  I would argue it though.  You need tanks in the prairies.

As opposed to someplace else? Are we planning to fight in the prairies?

There will be a tank squadron out East.
 
GnyHwy said:
  I would argue it though.  You need tanks in the prairies.

I'll echo T2B - we don't position our Reg Force units in Canada on where they are likely to fight.

As for tanks, here you go:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/102346/post-1072643.html#new
 
Tango2Bravo said:
The M3s are the recce vehicles. A heavy Troop has two tank platoons and two scout platoons. Each M3 has two scouts, and with a pair of vehicles you have a self-contained dismounted patrol that can check defiles, crests etc. There were several options on my Cavalry Leader's Course, but generally when conducting a zone recce or advance to contact you led with your scout platoons and followed up with your tank platoons. In a screen/guard you had your scouts forward in OPs finding the lead enemy elements and the tanks were held back and dispatched to whack the advancing enemy.

A scout platoon with six  M3s can cover more ground in a dispered manner than a tank platoon due to the dismounts.

Thanks alot Tango2Bravo.  The American ACR is becoming alot more clear to me now... it's a recce organization as I thought.
 
GnyHwy said "The CCV/LAV is like a Stryker."

This is not quite the case.  The Stryker carries half again as many dismounts, two thirds the crew, and a much less capable weapon system.  The difference in organizations of Bradley and Stryker units in the US Army reflect this difference.  I'm pretty sure that the Canadian Army has nothing like the Stryker in the infantry.
 
I have my way of looking at US units

Armoured Cav Regt... Poke around for enemy, find them and start a fight, maybe finish it if its not too big of an enemy.

Stryker BCT...Loads of infantry with fast wheels and some fire power, need bayonets that move fast, call these guys.

Heavy BCT...Loads of fire power, loads. moderate amount of dismounts. When they come, its the heavyweight slug fest!

Infantry BCT...Light and easy to move around by chopper. Very limited on fire power but handy for mountains and jungles.
 
Throwing it out there, a CCV equipped formation is similar in nature to the heavy infantry of ancient times. Rather than shields and breastplates, they use a heavily armoured vehicle for protection, and thus can assault prepared positions or manoeuvre under fire. A secondary role would be like the Hammipoi, specially trained Infantry who gripped the manes of Cavalry mounts and jogged alongside to provide close protection to the Cavalry; in modern terms the CCV equipped units are able to keep up with the tanks and accompany them in close and complex terrain.

The role of the Infantry does not change, just the way they commute to work!
 
Thucydides said:
A secondary role would be like the Hammipoi, specially trained Infantry who gripped the manes of Cavalry mounts and jogged alongside to provide close protection to the Cavalry;

well, if they have to hold on to manes, then I suppose giving the CCV to PPCLI battalions only makes sense, so they can grip the hair of those Strats ;D
 
From what i've seen it should be the other way around. Although feathers are hard to hold on to.  >:D
 
Don't give anybody in Ottawa a cost saving bright idea like this! Next thing you know, PT is fall in beside the Strats riding troop and double march...
 
Kirkhill said:
“close and destroy” ......

Apparently that is also the role of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps and, as McG notes, used to be the role of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.

As Technoviking points out, and as I noted at the beginning, there are no qualifiers to that statement when it comes to the infantry.  The application is therefore unlimited.  The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the Queen’s enemies: regardless of time of day; regardless of season or weather; regardless of terrain.  And by inference, from an old and not nearly well enough thumbed copy of CLO, regardless of vehicle and regardless of weapon.

My inference from CFP 165 is that all can be ignored or abandoned if it furthers the effort to destroy the enemy.  If the infanteer’s vehicle, if the infanteer’s rifle, hinders his ability to “close with and destroy” the enemy then the infanteer is expected to discard them and take on the competition in “hand to hand combat”.

That is an extraordinary undertaking.
We had a fairly lengthy discussion in another thread, and seemed to come to the conclusion that an arm's role should not have such limitations/constraints, and it should also be free of caveats such as "how."

Infanteer said:
So it's settled then - an ideal "role" does not need to include a "how".
 
Role of the Artillery
To destroy or neutralize the enemy with indirect fire as part of the all arms battle.

Role of Armour
To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.

Role of the Infantry
To close with and destroy the enemy.

MCG - If you delete the "how" reference from the role statements of the above three branches you end up with essentially the same role: to destroy/defeat/neutralize the enemy.

At that point it is hard for this voice in the cheapseats to understand how the three branches are differentiated.  I know that you said earlier that you didn't want to re-open the all-arms manoeuvre branch debate but it seems to me that this discussion has ended back at that point.

If all the arms exist to eliminate the enemy,  and there is to be no allowable distinction on the basis of how that goal is accomplished then why is there any distinction at all amongst them?

My efforts above were predicated on the notion that branches were differentiated and that while there were logical reasons for the differentiation, equally, around the edges where things get fuzzy, there will always be a degree of abitrariness.

I can understand the formation of a single manouever branch of 6 regular cap-badges, with Gunners and Engineers enroled within those regiments.  I don't think regimental politics would ever permit it but I can understand it.

Equally I can understand retention or modification of the status quo.

But to argue that the branches should remain differentiated by their roles should be undifferentiated - I'm afraid I'm clearly not following the discussion.

The existance of the branches is predicated on the "How" - their technologies, training and procedures are what define them.  The Ordnance would not exist were it not for gunpowder and the guns.  The Cavalry would not have existed were it not for their horses.  The Tanks are their technology incarnate.

How do you separate the Branches from the "How"?

Or is this just another armless suggestion? ;D




As an aside: apparently the Arty, perhaps because of their gentlemanly upbringing, are much nicer than the Infantry and can accept merely neutralizing the enemy as an alternative to destroying them; the Armour will apparently accept the enemy's surrender - it being enough that they are defeated; only the Infantry is mean, nasty and brutish enough to demand the utter destruction of the enemy.
 
Kirkhill said:
MCG - If you delete the "how" reference from the role statements of the above three branches you end up with essentially the same role: to destroy/defeat/neutralize the enemy.

At that point it is hard for this voice in the cheapseats to understand how the three branches are differentiated. 
If you go back to the source thread of the role discussion, then you will note that the published role of artillery discusses assisting in or contributing to the defeat/destruction of the enemy.  As such, the Artillery is a supporting killer and the role is distinct from the Armoured and Infantry.

Therefore, if you remove the "how," only the manoeuvre arms (or basic arms if you want to take a historical label) have that common role of the intimate destruction of the enemy.


 
MCG said:
If you go back to the source thread of the role discussion, then you will note that the published role of artillery discusses assisting in or contributing to the defeat/destruction of the enemy.  As such, the Artillery is a supporting killer and the role is distinct from the Armoured and Infantry.

Therefore, if you remove the "how," only the manoeuvre arms (or basic arms if you want to take a historical label) have that common role of the intimate destruction of the enemy.

Seen and thanks.

So the discussion revolves solely around the 6 capbadges of the Regular Force Infantry and Armour Branches/Corps/Arms.


ARTILLERY•FIELD ARTILLERY - Role. Field artillery contributes to the defeat of the enemy by indirect fire
•AIR DEFENCE ARTILLERY - Role. Air defence artillery prevents enemy aircraft from interfering with land operations.

ARMOUR•TANKS - Role. The tank defeats the enemy by the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.
•ARMOURED RECONNAISSANCE - Role. Armoured reconnaissance obtains and relays timely information about the enemy and the ground, and contributes to battlefield security.
•TANK DESTROYERS - Role. Tank destroyers (TDs) destroy enemy armour.

INFANTRY•INFANTRY - Role. Infantry closes with and destroys the enemy.
•LONG RANGE ANTI-ARMOUR WEAPONS - Role. The long range anti-armour weapon (LRAAW) destroys enemy armour.

ENGINEERS•ENGINEERS - Role. Engineers assist the land force to live, move and fight on the battlefield and work to deny the same to the enemy. Engineers may also be employed as infantry when required.


But if you take a look at that list it seems to me to be curiously imbalanced.

Why are Long Range Anti Armour and Tank Destroyers listed separately and why they both not in the Artillery?  Given that we no longer have TDs in any case and the Tanks do their own destruction of the enemy armour.....But don't Tanks benefit from being accompanied by LRAAW's as much as the Infantry?  Or are LRAAWs carriage mounted or man-packed?  Did that have an influence on why they were assigned to the Infantry?

Why does only the Armour Branch/Corps/Arm list the Recce as a separate clearly defined element?  Isn't there an Infantry Recce element as well?  Should it be equally categorized with the Armoured Recce?  How about Aerial Recce (Heli, Fixed, Unmanned - Large, Medium, Small, Petite)?


From here that list looks like many of those lists derived from self-actualization that I have been forced to sit through over the years where employees are encouraged to describe their jobs, how they fit in the company and what their vision is for the company.

In most of those companies, however, someone comes along and massages the list so that overlaps and redundancies are eliminated and clarity prevails.....

And things aren't helped by Wavell's comment (Thanks D&B):

....the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire (edit: and define) than that of any other arm...

If you can't clearly define the role of the key piece of the puzzle in your programme how can you determine how the rest of the pieces will fit?

Otherwise you end up with the roles being:

Infantry - does everything

Other Arms - do part of everything else. ;)
 
Kirkhill said:
Why are Long Range Anti Armour and Tank Destroyers listed separately and why they both not in the Artillery?  Given that we no longer have TDs in any case and the Tanks do their own destruction of the enemy armour.....But don't Tanks benefit from being accompanied by LRAAW's as much as the Infantry?  Or are LRAAWs carriage mounted or man-packed?  Did that have an influence on why they were assigned to the Infantry?

Why does only the Armour Branch/Corps/Arm list the Recce as a separate clearly defined element?  Isn't there an Infantry Recce element as well?  Should it be equally categorized with the Armoured Recce?  How about Aerial Recce (Heli, Fixed, Unmanned - Large, Medium, Small, Petite)?

Tanks can hit as far if not further than most anti armour these days. Anti armour is to fill in the gaps when the tanks are spread thin.

As for Armour Recce; it's a Brigade asset, not combat team or Battle Group. It can do the job of Infantry Recce (short to medium scope) but concentrates it's efforts in supporting the Brigade in the mounted role (medium to long) for extended periods of time without resupply.

Regards
 
Excerpts from a 1999 book on Infantry by Daniel Bolger. 
To further the discussion.

The author:
LTG Daniel P. Bolger
DCOS G3/5/7 US Army
Commands:
Joint Readiness Training Center, Ft. Polk
1 Cavalry Div (Unit of Action Generator – Cavalry Model)
2 Brigade 2nd Infantry Div  (Stryker Brigade Combat Team)
1-327th Infanty Battalion, 101st Airborne Div (Air Assault)
Platoon Leader & Rifle Coy Commander 24th Infantry Div (Bradley)

“Death Ground: Today’s American Infantry in Battle”: Presidio Press, 1999 – written while in the rank of Colonel.

Chapter 3: Hell on Wheels

“Only a neophyte would mistake an M-113 for a genuine tank.  Not so the Bradley; it features an impressive turret complete with a 25mm Bushmaster autocannon, TOW anti-tank missile launchers, a coaxial light machine gun, and a wonderful thermal imaging sight – all served by a three-man crew as is the light tank it resembled.  True the Bradley had room in the back for seven dismounts, but the more you considered this wonderful weapon, the more the 11M10s seemed like afterthoughts compared to those powerful turret weapons.  After all, dropping the rear ramp slab just slowed down the whole operation.....”

“FM7-7J....”The Infantryman remains mounted unless the enemy must be cleared from restrictive terrain, or unless forced to dismount by enemy resistance.””

“.... In today’s Mech battalions.....Most Bradleys do not carry a full house (of dismounted infantry).  Bu design, the four Brads in a platoon have room for at least 28 foot troops.  Instead the Army chooses to authorize only 18 organized into two 9-man rifle squads.  That yields a maximum of only 54 riflemen per company; the other 58 men in the outfit run the Bradley’s....and...that was before deducting any combat casualties, sentries, truck guards, relief drivers, and command post augmentees, not to mention sick, lame, lazy or the like.”

“Battalions training at the Fort Irwin National Training Center routinely report plenty of Bradleys but low dismount strengths.”
Bolger’s note 62. “Interview with Lt. Col. John Antal, USA, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., 27 January 1998.  Antal noted that in the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) in 1992, battalions routinely borrowed dismounts from other mech battalions to fill their Bradleys when en route to a rotation at the National Training Centre (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California. The division commanding general put a stop to this practice, with the result that Bradleys averaged three or fewer riflemen on a 1992 NTC rotation.  (Kirkhill interpolation: a Cavalry Bradley M3A2 dismounts 2 “scouts” vice the 3 “riflemen” described here).  Current reports show that this has not improved.  Most Bradley rifle platoons bring 50 percent or less (Kirkhiill interpolation: 9 of 18  in 4 vehicles with 7 seats each = 3 in each section vehicle with the PL vehicle for him, his 2ic, radop, his MFC and his radop) ....”

“The Army’s tactical manning guidelines lead commanders this way, because doctrine rightly encourages them to assign their strongest weapons first. When commanders get only some of what they need, the Brads get first dibs.  Dismounts make do with the leftovers.

“To add to this trend the Infantry Center’s decision to separate the enlisted force into 11M mech infantry and 11B light infantry (including airborne, air assault and Ranger) has created an unfortunate side effect.  Until the mid-1980s, NCOs routinely transferred from mech to light.  The airborne guys brought in foot skills; the mounted folks taught combined-arms tank ops.  Pre-Bradley M-113 mechanized units knew how to fight on the ground.  In an under-gunned, thinly protected M-113, trying to do it any other way got very risky very fast.

“But those days are over.  The force has divided. The 11Bs have gone to Ranger school and out on patrols and night infiltration.  The 11Ms opt for master gunner courses and live-fire battle run ranges.  Although mech leaders acknowledge a need for dismounts with the “full skills and toughness of light infantry,” that’s one bunch of jobs too many for mechanized soldiers fully committed to learning the ins and outs of a complex, capable armoured fighting vehicle.  The 11M specialty naturally puts a premium on the highly challenging Bradley turret skills, running and gunning, not fighting on foot.  Rank as an 11M is made by learning the hull and engine, then the turret.....

“The 11B-11M enlisted separation and the latter’s emphasis on the fighting vehicle, not the fighting men, leads to disturbing consequences if not checked by a determined chain of command.  In some U.S. Army mech battalions, riflemen come from the newbies, the mechanically inept, and the unwanted. Thus the Bradley infantryman – already a minority in his own battalion – can become a disadvantaged minority at that.”

“Of course, it is one thing to authorize slots.  Its another to fill them.  In the Gulf War (1) ...(mech battalions) ....enjoyed their full complement of 11M10 riflemen..... To get.... riflemen required extraordinary measures across the force, including activation of the Individual Ready Reserve, stripping nondeploying mechanized battalions, and cannibalizing light infantry battalions too.”

Bolger note 61. “.....Light Infantry battalions from the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) and 25th Infantry Division (Light) sent a total of twenty-seven light infantry squads, a battalion equivalent. Nondeploying U.S. Army units in Europe shipped out twenty-seven Bradley platoon equivalents. Some of these filler dismounts proved unusual.  Dan Stempniak received a combat engineer as a rifleman......”
 
Thats the US. If you ever served in a battalion equipped with LAVs, we take a much different mind set than the yanks to training on LAVIII crews and career progression in and out of the LAV. We are too small an army to treat our grunts like nothing but armoured crewman.
 
Back
Top