The Light Battalions.

[Marauder]

As has been highlighted, R031 is pretty much the red-headed stepchild of the crossed-rifles. I would like to think that as has been mentioned we manage to maintain a rather acceptable  level of core infantry skills. The problem as it is now is that while we can give a good fight once we hit the battlefield, we have no means of forced, effective entry on to it as a unit/sub-unit. While the enemy may die laughing at the site of a fleet of MLs, LSs, and MILCOTs (and a few HLs if we are lucky) flooding toward the FEBA, the more sober-minded of the bastards would decimate us while we gained a foot on the ground. As was mentioned, we are not Light Fighters in the sense of the old 7th ID(L) or the 75th Ranger Regt, because we do not have the collective time, resources, or real warfighting equipment to give everyone the needed training. The QOR is the only unit with a dedicated jump sub-unit. Airmobile training is an annual loading/unloading drill followed by a five minute joyride on the Griffs, nothing at all like what the 101st did in GW1. The only amphib I have done is assault boats with Eng support. So we may be somewhat light, but we are not Light.
With the complexity and maint schedules of the LAVs, no way will the Res ever be proficient at Mech. Not gonna happen.
But why not consider the Dismount role? In 31, the EK/Windsors and RCR/1H colocations could be used to make an innovative combat arms team. Give some of the black hats the training to drive and shoot the LAVs, and give the infantry side of the house LAV familiarizations, and then let both sides of the house train together for every ex and gel as a combat team. Keep the armoured guys as a seperate troop from the DFS/recce troops for admin purposes, but have both regiments take ownership of the vehs and the tasking of using them effectively. Even the Svc Bns get in on the game as they get a few Cl B EME posn's attached into the Inf regiment to keep the boats serviced and running on ex.
Anyway, that makes sense to me. I'm sure it's been proposed, and I'm sure it's been henpecked to death a million times over by those who have a vested interest in the status quo, but let's hear why I'm wrong so I can see how fucked up I am.

 

[pbi]

Marauder: I, for one, am with you. I have some thoughts on this, which I allude to in the opening of my letter in the recent Army Journal:

http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/adtb/vol_7/CAJ_vol7.1_e.pdf

If the Editors of the AJ are so kind, I will have a further exposition of the concept of a single Combat Branch in the next issue. Now, if you think people will get PO'd at you, just wait till you see what they say about me!

For my money, the demise of the tank and the M109 in our Army, and of the "mass and shock action" concept they represented, was the writing on the wall for the Armour and the Arty as separate branches. Mortars in the Arty and MGS and Coyote in the Armour are just job protection, not reasons to keep separate branches.  Separate MOCs, maybe, but not separate branches and units, etc.

Cheers.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

As I mentioned elsewhere on this site, I believe that the Canadian Army has spent too much time and effort studying the New Zealand model, that is the amalgamation of the Armour and Infantry.  New Zealand Officers have been gathering all sorts of air miles travelling to Ottawa, and several Canadian Officers have been doing the same, travelling to NZ.

While there has been many hiccups with this concept in New Zealand, it is slowly solving all of them.  For example, the vehicle crews were Armoured, the dismounts, Infantry.  Which makes sense.  The Armour could, if required, carry out a secondary tasking, such as creating a blocking position after the Infanteers dismount.  However, in reality, the Infantry Officers all wanted heads up, (who can blame them?), and when they dismounted, that left the vehicle short a crewman.  The Armour Officers also wanted heads up, of course.  And who commanded when mounted?  Infantry or Armour OC?

Just as Canada followed the New Zealand example on the GST, I think we will follow the New Zealand lead again.  Dammit.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

pbi (I haven't read your article yet but) do you believe that if the cmbt arms becomes one cohesive unit it will be a model to combine the rest of the forces under a Marine type concept?

 

[pbi]

CFL: That is an excellent question, and one which I will have to answer carefully.

Let me take a step back and compare the USMC to our Unified Forces (BTW, some defenders of Unification try to say it was "modelled on the Marines...". Well, IMHO something slipped somewhere. )

The USMC is not part of the US Navy. It is part of the Naval Service, which consists of both the USN and the USMC as separate but equal elements. The USMC is commanded by the Commandant, not by the Chief of Naval Operations, and has its own seat at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The USMC is supported by the Navy in many ways, and obviously works closely with them, but it stands alone. Therefore the Marines don't provide a true model for combining our Navy and Army into a single force.

The USMC does, however, have its own air elements, both rotary wing and fixed wing. These air elements are capable of operating off carriers and landing support vessels, or in an expeditionary mode from forward land bases built by the Marines. Therefore the Marines do provide us with a useful model for combining Army and (some) air assets.

The real difference, and the thing that helped to turn Unification into the schmozzle it was/is, is that the Marines (as Matt Fisher has so ably pointed out) started out as a bunch of riflemen. The separate MOCs in the USMC, including the air MOCs, grew out of that origin, but the origin was never forgotten. There was only one heritage, one culture, one way of looking at military life: the Marine way. Unification, on the other hand, took three totally separate services, each with its own uniqiue and radically different heritage, culture and outlook, and smushed them together. Big Mistake Number One.

Then Unification IMHO focused largely on administrative convenience and "efficiency" as opposed to true "Jointness" (despite the second favourite bleat of its defenders that Unification made us "more joint"-IMHO BS). With this focus Unification betrayed its true penny-pinching roots. Big Mistake Number Two.

So, do I think that we should unify all of the forces into a single Corps? No, I don't. Not any more than policemen and firfighters should be one service (another 1950's idea that has been tried and shelved...) even though they both wear uniforms and protect the public. What I do think we should consider is merging our present four Combat Arms (Inf, Cav, Arty, Sappers) into a single branch with several MOCs, much as the EME Branch has several MOCs in it. The basis would remain a solid grounding in Infantry training. I don't think (at this point anyway) that I would merge the CS and CSS in there, but I would certainly work toward "soldier first, tradesman second".

How's that for an answer? Cheers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Very good.  And what about air assests?

 

[pbi]

Another good question. You're on a roll.

Air assets as we know them today consist IMHO of three types: rotary wing, fixed wing, and UAV. I would definitely put RW back under the Army (which, by the way, is how the helicopter entered our service in the 1950's: via the Army Service Corps as a transportation system, not via the Air Force...). I would keep UAV under the Army, because that is a whole new horizon that we can exploit. As these things rapidly get smaller and cheaper we will see them deployed at unit and then sub-unit level, and then we will arm them, and then look out!

As for fixed wing, I don't know. I haven't thought that through. What do you think? Cheers.

 

[Jungle]

I think there are justifications for RW and UAVs in each element. For example: TAC HEL should be transferred to the Army, Naval helos to the Navy, while SAR is fine with the Air Force.
UAVs used for recce at tactical level should be left to the Army, but the strategic level (ie: coastal surveillance) should belong to the Air Force.
Now where does that fit into the topic of this thread ?? Hmm... The proposed (on this site  )Light Brigade should have it's own Aviation assets, that it commands and controls. Something like a TAC HEL Battalion consisting of 2 x transport coys and 1 x attack coy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Just to stir the spot...which element gets control of the UAVs that might go on the next generation of surface combatants and OPVs?

 

[pbi]

I suggest that immediate tactical control (assignment of missions, pri of tgts for atk UAvs, etc) would be in the hands of the owning commander. The level that comd is at would depend on the size and nature of the mission. This is not an attempt to weasel-it is a suggestion to avoid rigidity that might reduce the potential of the system. I suggest that UAV operation should be regarded as a skill set, instead of something one branch or another "owns", although we would have to have SME and trg responsibilities residing somewhere.

Deconfliction with other AC and fires would, IMHO, occur at the same level that is providing airspace control-this IMHO should be a joint function (as should any force much bigger than a Btl Gp be, also IMHO). Cheers.