The DFS Regt & other Future Armoured Regiment ideas

[AmmoTech90]

Bit late to jump in but I just noticed this thread.
I complete agree with Lance Wiebe's first comment about the echelon being a bit light.  There is not enough lift planned to even carry one reload for each vehicle.  Keep in mind that each MMEV (ADATS) would need a single HLVW just to carry the ammo for 1 reload without getting really top heavy.  An HL can carry 6-8 pallets of 105 tank, so that would be enough for a squadron (maybe).  There's your squadron's 1 Transport HL taken without having any additional lift for the TUA/MGS/LAVs.
While reality may differ from the paper ORBATS, at least the old ones showed you what you needed in a real fight, even if you never got it (may FMSU rest in peace).  I hope this is a joke or a quick slap up job put together with no real expectation of it becoming reality.  If it isn't then there are planners who don't realize what is required to do the job.

 

[Mountie]

Rather than two reconnaissance regiments (RCD & 12th RBC) and one MGS-equipped regiment (LdSH) what about composite regiments.  These regiments would also include the anti-armour assets from the infantry battalions.  This proposal is based on my larger proposal of medium brigades with all three infantry battalions in each brigade being converted to medium infantry with the LAV-III Stryker (with Canadian PWS) rather than the current 25mm turret-equipped LAV-IIIs.

3 Armoured Squadrons (one in support of each medium infantry battalion) - less than 100 troops
- Squadron HQ - 2 LAV-III Command Vehicles (25mm turret equipped)
- Administrative Troop
- 3 Fire Support Troops (each supporting a medium infantry company) - 20 troops
  - Troop HQ - 2 LAV-III DFSV (25mm)
  - MGS Section - 2 LAV-III MGS (105mm)
  - Anti-Armour Section - 2 LAV-III TUA
1 or 2 Reconnaissance & Surveillance Squadrons
- Squadron HQ - 2 Coyotes
- Admininstrative Troop
- 3 Recce Troops - 6 Coyotes

This would even distribute the MGSs among the brigades and concentrate all fire support assets within the armoured squadrons.  However, the other option is giving the MGSs to the infantry battalions and permanently assign the fire support platoons to each medium infantry company similar to what the US Army did in their Stryker Infantry Battalions. 

The number of reconnaissance squadrons is another arguement.  Some say that two squadrons are not needed.  However, the recce squadrons have been deploying on a lot of peace support missions.  The Coyotes have seemed to be in high demand by our Allies.  So an extra squadron per regiment would help maintain a deployed squadron on subsequent rotations.  If it were not for regimental tradition I would say put the MGS in the infantry.  Either way for my proposal to work the infantry will have to give up the TUAs or the armour will have to give up the MGS.

 

[McG]

Mountie,
Is this structure proposed for force generation or force employment?

 

[a_majoor]

While this may be disturbing to the Black hat crowd, much of the discussion of MGS, MMEV and Future combat teams on the other forums seem to discount the need for a dedicated armoured force at all, but integrates the DF assets into the Battalion/Company level (depending on who is posting).

This is the way the Americans have gone with the USMC LAV coys, and the Army's SBCTs, with platoon (troop) sized assets integral with the Infantry company. Same cap badges, same unit quiffs, everything.

If there is a need for a separate Armoured Corps, then perhaps the idea of an Armoured Recce Regiment should be persued: HQ Sqn, Surveillance Sqn (Coyote or equivalent vehicle), 2 X Mounted Recce Sqn (MOWAG Eagle, Fennick, VBL or similar type vehicle) and maybe a UAV Sqn (or UAV troop in HQ). You still do the traditional Cavalry roles of patrolling, screening and securing the rear area, while the Infantry Manoeuvre Battalions move in for the direct battle.

 

[Mountie]

My proposal was for employment.  The regimental headquarters would basically support the two recce & surveillance squadrons while the three armoured squadrons operated detached as part of the infantry battle groups.  Why not organize units the way they will be deployed.  Further to that, I would rather see the MGS go to the infantry and form a fire support platoon permanently attached to each company forming three combined arms infantry companies in each battalion.  Its time to organize for operations whether it offends certain corps or not.  Too bad for the black berets but I think the MGS should go to the infantry as a fire support platform similar to the old 106mm recoilless rifles.  The MGS is not a Leopard replacement, so let's not pretend it is.  The MGS is just that, a mobile gun system, designed for supporting infantry by providing direct fire support against enemy vehicles, bunkers and fortications.  Lets give the armour one task, deep reconnaissance/surveillance.  I wouldn't mind seeing a TUAV troop and an NBC recce troop assigned to the regiment either.  Like the US SBCT's reconnaissance unit has.

I don't know if this is the post for it or not to discuss it, but I think all like-tasked systems should be grouped together. The infantry battalions will  basically be combat manoeuvre battalions with all the infantry and direct fire support assets.  The armoured regiments will become armoured reconnaissance units with two squadrons of Coyotes.  The close reconnaissance (dismounted) assets would be in the infantry battalion recce platoons.  I would equip these recce platoons with eight of the new British Panther Command & Liaision Vehicle which is basically and armoured car (similar to the MOWAG/GM Eagle IV) and equipped with a PWS.  (I would call it a Light Armoured Support Vehicle).  Then all indirect fire support assets should be grouped in the artillery regiment.  I propose three mortar batteries of 6-8 LAV-III 120mm Armoured Mortar Systems, one artillery battery of 6 LAV-III 105mm Denel SPHs and an air defence battery of 24 Light MMEV (the new version of the Starstreak air defence missile which is dual purpose like the ADATS mounted in a 6 round pedestal mount on the back of a modified Panther LASV).  All the mobility support and counter-mobility assets within a large combat engineer squadron with all the heavy engineer support assets held in the Role 3 Area Support Group, which I would rename a General Support Group.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

a_majoor, you've hit the nail on the head.

The Armour Corps is only worthwhile if it to employ unique skill sets.  Operating a MBT requires a separate skill set from Infantry and Artillery.  Operating a direct fire defensive platform does not.  Infantry and Artillery in the past have operated direct fire defensive weapons against tanks quite successfully.

Recce is already conducted by the Infantry and Engineers.

Sad to say, having spent most of my life in the Armour, but without tanks, the Corps might as well be absorbed in to some other organization, most likely Infantry.

On the plus side, Units with"Dragoon, Hussar, and Horse" could most likely be kept in the order of battle.  But Units with "Tank, or Blinde" would have to go............

 

[McG]

My proposal was for employment.

At what scale (BG, Bde, or other)?   Why not plug recce/surveillance companies directly into the manoeuvre battalions?

I don't know if this is the post for it or not to discuss it, but

Probably not.   You've already described you envisioned brigade structure in several threads that look at an all arms force structure.   This can only lead us to repeating the arguments already made.   (http://army.ca/forums/threads/22828.0.html)  Lets try to stay focused on the location of "Armd" within the force structure.

 

[a_majoor]

At what scale (BG, Bde, or other)?  Why not plug recce/surveillance companies directly into the manoeuvre battalions?

My opinion is deep recce assets like the surveillance squadron and mounted recce troops should be separate from the manoeuvre battalons to allow the higher headquarters to shape the battle. Each manoeuvre battalion would have its own troop/platoon of integral recce, and when things get really tight (complex terrain, operating in a high density electronic environment that degrades data links), the combat teams can go "one up" with an infantry platoon to test the ground ahead.

 

[Recce41]

Lance
Armour has always been the mounted SMEs. We are getting all rapped up in the word "Tank". Remember when the Germans used cardboard cutouts. Damn we did Tank tactics in the Cougar. To keep the faith, we as a Corp. Must resist, and make do. Say it's not a tank, it cannot assault. But we could use it for Flank Sercurity, Convoy escort, Counter Recce, etc. We should have bought the LAV 120 though.

 

[a_majoor]

LAV-120?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

If the Canadian Armour Corps is going to be equipped with the exact same weapon system (25mm);equipment (LAV 25); and similar role already being conducted in the Infantry (recce); just what exactly is the argument for keeping the Corps?

The Armour Corps exists, and existed, because of tanks.  Tanks require a completely different skill set than the Infantry use, in terms of equipment, operation, tactics and mindset.  To try and say we do recce better is BS, give the Infantry the 2,000 soldiers the Armour has, split among the nine battalions, and the Infantry could have an Recce Company per Battalion easily, plus a 60.  Plus we could lose a bunch of senior officers.

There is, quite simply, no reason to retain an Armour Corps, with all of the expense of having separate Units, Schools and so on without a MBT.  And the LAV MGS is not a MBT.......

It seems to me that some are fighting to keep the Corps alive (which is to be expected) by sending the soon to be acquired LAV TUA and the M113 based ADATS to the LdSH, but what will keep the 12 RBC, and especially, the RCD alive?

 

[Recce41]

There is a LAV 120 with a turret.
As for 25 MM the same as the Inf. They really have no clue about a turret. The Inf Recce will us the LUVW, they believe in foot recce. Ever since WW2 the Armour side has done mounted. The Recce Corp was ex Armour pers. from Armour Recce Regts. The Inf will not have the Surv kit. We have to remember that if we give in, that mind set will be gone. And if it's ever needed, well it gone.
The US has Armour Scouts crewing the Bradleys, The Aussie, the same, etc. The Kangroos were manned by Armour.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Put it this way.

The Archer was a direct fire platform, mounting a 17 pounder main gun, the same as the Sherman Firefly that we used.  The difference was that the Archer was a defensive weapon, not meant for offensive ops.  So the LAV MGS is the modern day equivelent of the Archer.  Who owned the Archer, and manned it?  The Artillery.......

And the Coyote is not a recce vehicle.  It is a surveillance vehicle.  Anybody can be taught how to operate the GIB stuff.  And just how many squadrons of mast and remote Coyote do we have?  Is it worthwhile building a Corps out of 100 Coyote, with its separate School and all the other add-ons? 

New Zealnad has recently summed up its Armour Corps.  There have been a large number of visits between NZ and Canada lately, by senior officers......You see, NZ said that they will never need tanks again either, the US will always have enough.....

 

[DOOG]

Hey Lance..
They should change the name to "Cavalry Corps" then we could start over again, rewrite our Corps doctrine and get another 60 or so years out of it before someone decided to scrap it again..

 

[Kirkhill]

For what its worth I find myself agreeing with both Lance and Recce41.  There is no justification for a separate Corps with out a distinct role, and for that matter distinct kit, that requires distinct training.  However it seems to me that mounted operations are just that.  They are distinct from the foot borne focus of the Infantry.  

Just watching both sides of this debate I get the strong impression that the Infanteers don't want to give up their vehicles because it might leave them out of some operations and leave them playing second fiddle on a high intensity mobile battlefield but at the same time they essentially just see the vehicle as a glorified truck to get them where they need to be so they can get out and do some real soldiering.  If the vehicle can carry a radio, some additional fire support, extra ammo and their sleeping bags brilliant.

On the other side the Armoured guys see themselves as mounted warriors.  Getting out and walking is a distraction from their real purpose in life.  The GIB is a distinctly lower class citizen whose job can be done by anybody.  They want to be trained and equipped for the high intensity mobile battle but recognize that the vast majority of missions dont require those skills and kit.  Thus if they focus on the high-instensity battle they lose out on the more frequent deployments, the command positions and ultimately are less defensible when budgets are considered.

Can't both sides here put a little water in their wine and accept that for the foreseeable future there are going to be jobs enough for everyone?  I haven't heard many complain yet that they aren't getting enough time away from their families.

I know that in days gone by the "armoured" types have driven jeeps, Ferrets, Cougars, Coyotes and now the G-Wagens as well as Lynxes, M113s, Centurions and Leos.  A number of the posters on this board have done all of these and often rotated in and out of vehicles depending on unit taskings.  There must have been a considerable amount of commonality of training to allow that to happen.  Is it so unreasonable to have "Armour" focus on all mobility operations?

As for the Infantry.  Individual infanteers have been deployed from trucks, buses, helicopters, planes, wheeled and tracked APCs and IFVs as well as from jeeps and snowmobiles. Again it suggests a great degree of commonality of training and taskings for these role rotations to occur fairly seamlessly.  Is it unreasonable to consider that the Infantry Corps concentrate on the dismounted battle?

Cross postings between Infantry and Armour, in the same sense that the Arty and Engineers are cross-attached  should be workable.  Black hats attach a Mobile Patrols Squadron and a LAV Crew Squadron to an Infantry Close Combat Battlegroup while Infanteers contribute a Company of lowly GIBs to an Armoured Mobile Battlegroup.

The requirement from the Government would be the need to supply more than one type of vehicle per crew - actually we already have that given the amount of kit that has been bought and upgraded - the Armoured troops would have to get comfortable operating the full range vehicles in the Canadian inventory.

If Infanteers wanted to drive vehicles they would have to take the armoured courses and be prepared to wear a black hat.  If Armoured types wanted to get out and walk for a while they would have to take infantry courses and swap their black hat for a green or red one.

At bottom I think the biggest problem here is the association of the Infantry and Armoured Regiments with particular Corps.  

Could it work if the Infantry and Armoured Corps raised numbered Squadrons and Companies that were Attached, permanently or otherwise to Regimental Battle Groups that in turn formed Brigade Groups?  

I know that some have argued against the Battle Group focus, McG does a persuasive job, but isn't that just an extension of the debate on whether the 60mm mortar should be assigned as one per platoon weapons det or grouped into a permanent section at the company level.  Or likewise whether it is better to group all TOWs, MGs and Mors in a separate Support Company or do as the CAR did and permanently task them out to the Commandos, regrouping them if the CAR fought as an entity?

Armour has a traditional set of skills in mobility ops.  Infantry focuses on the dismounted, close-combat roles.  Just as Arty focuses on Fire Support and Engineers focus on construction and mobility tasks.

The real issue is the problem of the Cap Badge and its Corps affiliation.

I believe that maintaining the Regiments and the Cap Badges is crucial.  I don't think that the hard association of Cap Badge and Corps is as crucial.

Cheers.

Hey Doog, I would hope it wouldn't take another 60 years for doctrine to change again.  That could be part of the problem - an institutional unwillingness to adjust doctrine to meet the realities on the ground.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I served 27 years in the Armour Corps (Reg Foce) plus 4 yrs Armour Corps (Reserves).

I did my job in jeeps, Ferrets, Lynx, the old 3/4 (with a log tied on to it to make it a DFSV), M113, (with a stovepipe to make it a DFSV), Centurions and Leopards.

However, in all that time, we (the armour) were the recce SME's, as well as being the tank guys.  We gave away our recce role to nurture the surveillance role, we gave it to the reserves.  Now, we're losing the Armour role. 

Now, I would dearly love to see the Corps survive.  But letting emotions get in the way isn't helping.  Logically, with no armour doctrine, keeping armour doesn't make a lot of sense.  In New Zealand, the Corps sort of survives, because right now, the LAV's are crewed by the "Armour", while the true Infanteers lay around in the back in comfort, and dismount when required.  This allows the Infantry to concentrate on their dismounted role.  The one bonus of this system is that the LAV can still be used as a fighting vehicle to set up a blocking force or whatever.  If the enemy obliges by having vehicles the 25mm popgun can destroy, that is.  But the Armour Units in New Zealand will disappear, as all "armour" soldiers are posted to Infantry Battalions.  They still do wear their distnctive headress, as far as I am aware, but that's about it.

Maybe, modifying Doog's suggestion a bit, we can become the "Royal Canadian Surveillance Corps, formerly known as Royal Canadian Armour Corps"  Or RCSCFKARCAC.  That way we can learn how to fly the little UAV's and such.

But I'm not bitter.  I mean poorer countries than ours seem to be able to afford tanks.  Powerhouse countries such as the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Australia, but I'm not bitter....

OK, so I lie.  I am bitter.  We can afford tanks, we should have tanks, and we should keep an army capable of fighting in a mid-intensity conflict as an independant command.  But, what do I know?

 

[a_majoor]

This raises a curious question; how do other armies manage integrated formations? Our neighbours have three separate examples, the USMC, Armored Cavalry regiments and SBCT's. All manage fleets of different types of equipment to create reasonably balanced all arms formations without too much internal dissent.

The Marines are easy to figure out, they all start out on the same foot; "every man a rifleman"; then specialize in trades training, but it doesn't matter if you are advancing on foot or flying an AV-8B, you are still a Marine. The way I understand the US Army (and I could stand to be corrected here), trades and branches are essentially separate from unit or "Regimental" affiliation. An Armoured Cavalryman is an Armoured Cavalryman regardless of the unit he is posted in, and soldiers take equal pride in both their branch affiliations and their parent units. Since the "regimental" affiliation is so much larger (I'm an Armoured Cavalryman in 3 ID), there are fewer reasons to get into bunfights over who does what.

I am not sure I like the idea of an Armoured "taxi service" like the Australians use, in other forums it has been pointed out that mechanized Infantry need to be able to fight in conjunction with their vehicles for maximum effect. Integration of mounted, dismounted, DF and IF assets within one organization seems to be the best way to go in a mechanized environment (as per the three examples above). For the Armoured Corps to continue to exist as a separate entity, they will have to focus on other mounted warfare tasks, or develop a clever way to get back into the offensive battle without tanks. If it means the Armoured Corps begins operating Predator UAV's armed with Hellfire missiles, then go for it!

 

[Horse_Soldier]

I think we're getting ourselves tied into knots on the word "armour".  The RCAC originated as cavalry and has always retained that role in one form or another - the armour part came in 1940 and whether or not it stays is one thing.  Cavalry, on the other hand, in its purest form, isn't a tank, a LAV, a helicopter or a horse - it's a concept.  Cavalry has, since before the Napoleonic wars, had certain roles distinct from the infantry, and that won't change: mobile screens, flank guards, RAS, escorts, etc, etc.  Those roles will require specialised training and a mind-set different from the infantry - I've been in a Reg F recce platoon in my younger days, so I know pretty intimately what the differences are between Inf Recce and Cavalry.  Perhaps if the Corps started thinking "concept" instead of vehicles, it will find that its traditional niche in the all-arms team is still there.  Call it the RCAC (Cavalry) or something like that - and let's get on with the job of sweeping around the enemy flanks, spying on his movements and leading the infantry onto his weak spots.

 

[Recce41]

Horsesoldier
That is what, I mean. We armour are the mounted SMEs. We are also the Surv and NBC specs. I am/was the inter NBC SME at the school. I phoned Borden about some things. And they didn't have a clue. I was told you Armour guys are the NBC SMES for the GID, Radac and true combat NBC Recces.
The NBC Coy will not do a NBC Recce as we do. They are the after unit, as I was told. 
We were the first Pathfinders in the 1st Cdn Para. We can revert to our forfather, The Recce Corp. Formed in 1942 as a Corp. I am a member of the Recce Corp asso. We could do this so easy, there is a Cap Badge, and colours (Green/Gold). If you ask some old fellas, they were not Armour, they were Recce.
We are going the American way and they are going to ours. We have pride in our unit, more than most Americans. Only the Airborne units have what we have.
As long as I am around, I will always be Armour. Even though I hated those damn tanks.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

There is a LAV 120 with a turret.
As for 25 MM the same as the Inf. They really have no clue about a turret.

Are you talking about the Royal Ordnance/Delco turreted 120mm mortar?  If so, it's not a very capable round for long-range anti-tank/anti-armor type engagements.

Also, could you explain your comment about the infantry not having a clue about a turret in some more grounded detail?