The Recce Sqn/Tp

[George Wallace]

a_majoor

Tactics don't change radically from foot to mech.  One always keeps 'one foot on the ground'.  Where this three cars came from doesn't make any sense.  Tactics on mounted vehicles are only an extension of those used on foot.  Do you now practice dismounted/foot patrols to work in threes?

GW

 

[a_majoor]

At some points in a dismounted patrol, the 2I/C mans the ORV; a fire team covers the patrol group from the release point, and the patrol commander and his scout(s) circle or cloverleaf the objective during patrol action.

The three car patrol is not an exact analogy to this division of duties, but as I said, the reasoning given to me was the extra car gives the patrol more flexibility when casualties are taken. A three car patrol is intuitive to the infantry mind; you can advance "two up", and bring the third member to reinforce the threatened member. (Remember, I am not Armoured Recce, so I am looking at this through a different lens).

For discussion!

 

[Infanteer]

Tactics don't change radically from foot to mech.   One always keeps 'one foot on the ground'.   Where this three cars came from doesn't make any sense.   Tactics on mounted vehicles are only an extension of those used on foot.   Do you now practice dismounted/foot patrols to work in threes?

Interestingly enough, we've had a huge discussion on the feasability of 3-man/3-team working groups. 

http://army.ca/forums/threads/23394.0.html

If well trained, the using three teams with "one foot on the ground" can lead to much more fluid and quicker tactical movement.  I've tried it with a section attack before....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Art,

Quick question. Are your sources the guys in London who haven't yet properly converted to Recce from Cougars?

 

[McG]

In a three car patrol, the third vehicle could provide some unique capability and follow in depth (while the other two vehicles are smaller and advance in front using the techniques of the traditional two car patrol).

The third vehicle could be an APC (for dismounts), it could be the same vehicle as the lead two but with greater firepower to support breaking contact, or it could be a larger fighting recce vehicle also able to support breaking contact.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does anyone feel like this is shadowing the old Light Armoured role we used to do?

 

[a_majoor]

In a three car patrol, the third vehicle could provide some unique capability and follow in depth (while the other two vehicles are smaller and advance in front using the techniques of the traditional two car patrol).

The third vehicle could be an APC (for dismounts), it could be the same vehicle as the lead two but with greater firepower to support breaking contact, or it could be a larger fighting recce vehicle also able to support breaking contact.

That is what I was trying to get at! I was guessing a surveillance suite vehicle to mark targets for investigation by the scout vehicle(s) and possibly "paint" targets for prosecution by outside assets. Given the relatively small size of the G-Wagon or VBL type recce vehicles, I didn't think it would be possible to combine a heavy weapon with the surveillance suite, but it may be doable in something like a Fennick.

 

[Recce41]

Dave
Ye it seems that way. I know the old Ferret way was 3 then 2 then 3 then 2. This summer all those Cougar types should be Recce guys. :'(
I'm most likely one of the troop WOs, for the DP3 or DP 1 AO. It look like it will be a mixed course. Looking forward to it. >.

All
In todays battle field, time is not on our side. Recce has to be fast. Some things will have to be forgotten. If you have a drill, but feel good about not doing it. Fine. For the Bge will be on our A55. Recce is to find and report. The concern is NAIs and TAIs. Screw the lil trail, if you don't see trace of any enemy.
Remember more cars, more difficult it is to do a drill or move.
Fire power is not required for recce. You secure by observation, support by observation. For once you start firing, someone will want to fire back. :blotto:
The Coyote is a Surv veh NOT a Recce veh. It will be upto the G wagon fellas to recce forward. The Coyote will follow to confirm and observe. The Surv gear will be able to see upto 40 Ks soon. and the UAV 100Ks. So that will be a big foot print to cover.
Well thats just my 2 cents.
Kirkhill
  No problem. :evil: :tank:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That about puts it in a nutshell. There was a reason we used small, fast vehicles. This seems to have been forgotten somewhat. As mentioned, when the Brigade is moving up behind you, you don't have much time. Less so now that everything is wheeled. The Tp WO is also qualified to Troop lead, allowing the Troop to be split. We can add or remove patrols as needed, so I don't feel the orbat as far as three patrols or four is that big a deal. We're often split off into patrol tasks anyway. The less there is to move around, the faster you can get things done. If you have open contact, you weren't doing your job properly to begin with. Most suprise contacts we'll have will be meeting engagements, and the first thing you want to do is get out of there fast, if your not already dead. Recce is inherently dangerous and most times we have to trade time for space and it's easier with two vehs than three. The three car situation does have merit, but will take much more work to develop than here on the board. I would be more interested in getting the heavy units totally converted before we toss something like this into the works part way through. The addition of a third car would not pose that big a problem, once you know the basics. The big problem is "where do we get them"? We're not receiving enough G Wagons to replace the Iltis as is. I think that hurdle should be addressed before we start TTP's for something we don't have.

 

[Recce41]

Dave
Remember Recce is NOT veh dependent. So TTPs are just a guide. We have done Recce in the LEO, Cougars, Coyotes, Lynx, Ferret and Iltis. Now G Ws. Drills never changed. Don't forget, it is always Warning, Security, Recce, Plan! The first one remains the same, CONTACT! Second ether looking through a set of binos or a barrel of a gun. Third, well you ether get your a55 off the veh or make it on the fly. The last well we all know the plan changes after it's made.
But a drill is a drill is a drill. I have old 1940,50,60 RCAC and Unit SOPs and TTPs and they are 80-90% the same. Damn we were going through old 8CH SOPs at the school, dated 68. And they are the same we are still using.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill
  No problem.

I feel a sudden urge to get down and start doing large numbers of push-ups Warrant.

Glad I am out of range.

Sorry for the disruption of the discussion.

Cheers again.

 

[Recce41]

Kirk
Disruption is good. It keeps people on their toes. HAHAHA ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :evil: :tank:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Excellent feedback and discusion so far and thanks to all for taking this thread along.  I've been doing some reading and apparently the Australian Cav units equipped with LAVs use a three vehicle patrol (2 x recce and 1 x APC with scouts).  I think that the mixed Patrol deserves some study and perhaps trialing.

My feeling is that "stealth recce" is a euphimism for "recce by death."  This was acceptable in the days of preparing for the Armageddon of WW III but not so much for our limited conflicts of today.  Small vehicles can hide more easily than larger vehicles, but this is primarily when they are static.  Once vehicles start moving they tend to get seen.  If we are covering the advance of a fast moving formation then G-wagons or other light vehicles will not cut it as they will get destroyed too easily.  At least Coyotes have some protection and can use turret mounted optics to detect enemy positions at some stand-off range.

As for UAVs at the Tp level I think that we may have underestimated what it takes to operate them.  I think that these belong in dedicated units but future developments may prove me wrong.

Going back to the Troop, I'd like the thoughts of the board on who the eigth callsign should be.  I think that the School solution is to add a MCpl or Sgt, but what about making it the Tp WO?  The Tp would have three Patrols each commanded by a Sgt with a HQ Patrol consisting of the Tp Ldr and Tp WO.  The Tp WO could act as the rear-link and also allow for concurrent battleprocedure during ongoing ops.  If the Tp Ldr is taken out then the Tp WO can assume command without distrupting a Patrol (ie his own in the current set-up).  During stability operations where the majority of tasks are Patrol sized this would allow the Tp WO to better be able to do his Tp WO role in camp etc.

My feeling is that most Tp WOs would not be happy with this but I'd be interested in the opinion of the board members. I think that we added the extra vehicle to give the Tp Ldr a "bodyguard", but I'd just as soon see the Tp Ldr move with a Patrol if that was the reason.  Going to a six vehicle Troop with the Tp Ldr as a Patrol Commander would be more effecient (and the US Army M3 Scout Platoon model).

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I'm preparing to don my PPE in exepection of getting shot up over this one!  >

 

[12alfa]

Not that I know anything about recce......................

Having the Tp Ldr as a ptl cmdr is fool hardy. He is there to LEAD not act as a ptl cmdr, and if he is doing both jobs one will suffer.
We have had 7 and 5 cars form the beginning or at least the 70's, why now change what has worked so well?

Some have posted that we need the extra car to use if we have a car that is broken, seems to me that this is a veh problem not a org problem. Others have said that there will be rotations of troops from said troop while on deployment, this is a pers problem that has nothing to do with tactics or the tp org.Solve the problem with extra pers when giving leave, simple.

I have seen tp lds over worked/tasked while on ptls, now with the tccs and the added comm's he has to maintain and listen to makes his job much more demanding, placing him at the ptl command task also is going to weaken the troop for leadership in a critical moment and troops will get hurt. He is there to pass on info from and to the troop, can one do this while commanding a ptl during a route recce? Will the troop suffer from him doing a OP (because we are short) help the troop?

We are re-inventing the wheel here again, give it a break, its round already.

If the powers to be spent the same amount of their time and money on what needs to be fixed rather what has not been a problem for many years, we would be better off.
By god not much was said or done to keep the armour, but I read and see many wanting to change the org of the basic recce org and tactics. I can see some minor changes to tactics due to advances in comms and optics, but to change how and what the tp ldr does within the troop is a sad waste of time.

I would think people who want this change are bucking for a promotion or to move further up the food chain, heck what the Helllll do I know anyway. Just when I think I have heard all and seen it all, I get another shock to head to waken me out of that dream I call the Army.

We are short of people and short of veh's, and some want to add another car, and to make the tp ldr the prl cmdr....ya ok.
And we will get them from..........................................

But yes we will do it, yes sir right away, dam it a fine idea why didn't I think of that!
Then a few years down the road we will change it again, and in a few more will be right back to the same thing thing we been doin for years.
Many of us here have seen this all to often, it never ends, new people in, new way of doing things, then back to what we know what works.

I would think that we are rapped around the cold war recce thing as I read the above posts. We are currently not doing hard reccec drills on deployments if I read the AAR's correctly.

Screens? route recce for the Brigade? Coyote obs the mud recce out front? Where are we doing this?
In Fact just what army is doing such operations now?
What I see is MOUT operations and supporting such operations with armour, maybe I'm tuning in to a different Channel..........

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

12A,

What are your thoughts on the Tp WO being in the HQ Ptl?  I would suggest that your arguments about not putting the Tp Ldr in a Ptl would equally apply to the Tp WO.  It is with stability operations in mind that I have suggested putting the Tp WO in the HQ Ptl.  These operations are Ptl Comd shows (see my reply in the Urban Recce Thread).  I am aware of the MOUT aspect of today's security environment (and lived in it for a little while) but I still think that we need to be ready to transition to more "traditional" roles if required.

If you are concerned about the numbers of vehicles and soldiers available to the army then perhaps the six vehicle model would actually be the best (with the Tp Ldr and Tp WO both as Ptl Comds).  This gives you the same number of Patrols as the eight or seven car model but with less people and vehicles.  My point was that it was more efficient (note that I did not say more effective).  I think that the five car model we have been using recently is not the way to go.  The eight car model appears to be coming on line but I do not know if we have done some hard thinking on how to organize it.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Tp would have three Patrols each commanded by a Sgt with a HQ Patrol consisting of the Tp Ldr and Tp WO.

Don't want to get too far off topic here, BUT. With the cumbersome, antiquated system, mother hen approach to qualifying Reserve Senior NCO's in the Corps, where are we to get three Sgts per troop to man these patrols? We're also looking at all these wonderful ORBATS, TO&E, etc that without serious commitment by the Gov't, DND and the Corps, are nothing but pie in the sky exercises in futility for the Arm'd Recce Reserves. Thus relegating us to an even lower, second cousin status.

I like the ideas and discussion so far, just thought we should ground it a little bit.

 

[George Wallace]

For 12alpha, who may have missed it:

We are teaching no resupply in the screen. A troop is to take 96 hrs of required fuel,food,water. Yes 96 hrs. Only resupply will be IF required. This is due thw Tp Ldr will have the UAV. And will be in the rearward part of the screen. No more will the Trpy sleep his days away . His jr will have the Anti Armour role. We don't know if he will get the snr MCpl or Jr Sgt with him. He will also have 4 pers. The jr maybe a LAVIII or Styker type C/S.
But as you brought up. 3 C/Ss would use more resourses. And Kirkhill what do you mean my that?

As we see more resources fall on the Recce Troop, we will have to look at changes to our ORBATS.

I still think that the Tp Ldr will require a second veh, whether or not he gets tasked with a UAV.  He will have to resupply and visit his OPs in the Screen to pick up tapes, resupply, etc.  A UAV will not pick up tapes.  We still do not have the capabilities with TCCS to digitally transmit them.

With the inclusion of UAVs, more support vehs will be required.

Don't get to wrapped around the axles with any Reserve GWagen tactics.

GW

 

[bgreen]

One thing that always didn't sit right with me was that in any phase of war whether the advance, the screen, withdrawal or RAS; we assumed that enemy would be bypassed or allowed to  pass through us in order to maintain contact with the main body.  We insist that our C/S always move tactically and in mutual support (observation) within their patrol yet we allow the tp ldr to move by himself.  That is why I think that an 8 car tp broken into 4 patrols perhaps with three across the front and one in reserve makes a lot of sense.  Also that tp ldr patrol could reinforce where the major contacts were.

As far as having a tp WO back with the echelon I think you would then have the SSM the maint WO and three or four TP WO/ SGTs.  This seems to me to be a bit of overkill at the snr NCO level in the echelon. 

I would love to see all the anti-armour, UAVs and coyote overwatch veh you think we are going to get.  I'll believe it when we see it but agree the discussion is good.  Also don't ever give up on an Assault Tp.

BG

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I've been off these means for a while, but I'm back now!

After reading through all of this thread, I have a simple question.  Just what is it we want recce to do?  By that, I mean beyond the pat "be the eyes and ears of the BG commander".  The larger question is what is the role of the BG, or even better, what tasks are foreseen to be undertaken by BG size forces?  We have stripped the BG of direct fire capability, and a large amount of indirect and anti-armour capability.  Is the future role of the BG to act as flank/rear area security for a coalition partner?

It is certainly not going to be the role of any future BG to mount an offensive operation against any type of enemy.  We simply do not have the equipment to conduct that type of operation. 

I ask this, because many of the posts seem to point to the same old way of doing things.  In other words, we will conduct offensive reconnaissance patrols to locate the enemy.  I honestly do not think so.  I think that we will be conducting surveillance operations, and some local patrolling to ensure that supply routes and such stay open.  I also think that the future of recce will be in a large part what they are doing right now overseas.  Operating surveillance in the Coyote, as well as patrolling.

If that is indeed going to be the case, then we should have vehicles with some firepower capability attached to a surveillance vehicle.  Perhaps several.  Maybe even a troop of direct fire capable vehicles working with each surveillance Coyote.

What do several posters keep saying?  Think outside the box? 

Time to give up the old ways of conducting recce, like I did in the last three decades.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Lance,

I started this thread after my Canadian Armoured Cavalry thread in an attempt to try to refine the Recce Sqn and Tp.  I do not envision that Canadian mechanized BGs or Bdes will be able to fight the close battle anymore.  If we do deploy a "BG" I believe that it should be a Recce or Cav BG that supports a higher coalition formation.  While we have not conducted traditional "war-fighting" recce the possibility does exist of a Canadian Recce Sqn moving forward of a coalition allie's Bde or Div.  I see our task as obtaining information for the supported commander, and I'd like to also have the capability to impair the same ability of the enemy.

I see our most likely deployments being variations on the one that we have done.  These missions are not peacekeeping but rather stability operations (a form of "low-level" combat).  Our Coyotes are well suited to these missions as they can perform surveillance tasks one day and then "security" tasks the next.  On ATHENA Roto 0 our Coyotes were in constant demand from all contingents due to both their surveillance capabilities and their tactical self-sufficiency (protection, sensors (turret and surv suite) firepower, comms, mobility and endurance).  I think that the Coyote has enough firepower for these types of missions, although TOW would be useful at the Sqn level for certain Ops.  The versatility of the Coyote on these operations is one its main strengths.  The Coyote also conducted urban patrolling (usually with a specific purpose in mind) despite its size.  The armour protection of the Coyote and its wheeled mobility were assets in these situations.  I guess what I am saying is that I believe that we have the right vehicle for the job right now.  We may find, however, that the Tp and Sqn will begin to lose their tactical signifigance with the main emphasis placed on the Patrol.  Subsequent Rotos may have had (and will have) difference experiences so perhaps I am out in left field (or just plain out to lunch)!

BGreen,

Good points.  One thing that I noticed when I was on course with the US Army was that they do not assume away the "Recce Battle" the way that we have tended to do.  They do not simply let the enemy recce pass through but take steps to destroy it (not that the Scouts are the ones engaging).  At an NTC engagement roughly one third of the Blue Force will be committed to the counter-reconnaissance fight.  I'm not saying that they are better than us, just that they have placed a particular emphasis on something that we have not (in my observation).

I am not suggesting that the Tp WO be back with the echelon, but rather that he be in a HQ Ptl with the Tp Ldr.  Depending on the Op he could move back to the echelon during certain phases but I would see him being forward with the Tp.  On stability operations where most tasks tend to be at Ptl level the Tp WO and Tp Ldr would have "camp" responsibilities as well as having the capacity to act as LOs with foreign battle groups for which our Ptls are providing support.

Recce Guy,

Putting the WO in the Tp HQ Ptl does create an additional Sgt's position in the Tp.  I see this as a good thing, but I do recognize the difficulties getting people trained and promoted in the Reserves.  I served in 1H from 1989 to 1996 and I saw how hard it was to get people through the training system.  How is the new DP system working for the Reserves?

Cheers,

2B