The Manouvre Officer: Combining MOCs 21 and 23

[McG]

I seem to recall this argument was played out in one of the Infantry threads as well, with various arguments for separating "light" from "mech" infantry (and devolving into the sub sub genres of mech infantry; should they be dragoons tied to the vehicles, Panzergrenadiers, or even Hamippos?)

Yep.  We did that here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33866.0.html
Personally, I do not think our Army is large enough that we can afford to divide our infantry as light vs mech, or as LAV vs track IFV.  If we firmly compartmentalize around such constructs, then we loose the (painful to exercise) flexibility that we currently have to "mech-up" lighter forces or lighten mech forces.  Sure, it is a little painful to exercise this flexibility (longer road to war including last second PCF cycles), and the force going out the door may not be as slick as if it had always been operating with the sae vehicles & eqpt.  However, without this non-compartmentalized occupational structure, we would a third of our fighting element sitting out each new theatre while the other two thirds burns-out even quicker.

In any case ....

In 1948, the role of both the infantry and the armoured was "to close with & destroy the enemy."  Sometime later, someone felt the need to differentiate the armoured more and so went into "the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility" (but couldn't the same be said of mechanized or airmobile infantry?).  I don't think 'how' belongs in a role. As soon as 'how' is included, it reduces a branches flexibility to evolve.  If we ignore the "how" then we really have two branches with a role to close with and destroy the enemy.  Sure, the infantry can do it from a lot closer, but we had it right in 1948.  Infantry & armour are two complementary functions working toward in the same role.  (We've previously had this discussion here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69610.0.html)

In this environment where the actual roles (as opposed to the doctrinally stated role) are complimentary but overlapping, there are a lot of jobs/functions which could be described as "Maneuver Arm Any" that have generated discussion on "who should be responsible."  In addition to the LAV crew debate, we've also asked that question about Anti-Armour (specifically TUA) here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25780.0.html

Even if no occupations are merged, what would be the merits & detractions of a consolidated maneuver branch?