The Recce Sqn/Tp

[Fishbone Jones]

It's still a bag of worms. Mother Hen still won't let us do any of it ourselves. We could ramp up and get lot's of MCpl's qual'd DP3 CC, if they'd let the Units run it. Then they could go and do their DP3 Ptl Cmdr (Sgt qual) nationally. Still might happen. Even DAT and CTC don't seem to really know what to do. If they do, they're not telling us.

 

[Recce41]

If we put the Tp Wo with the Tp Ldr and the Ptl gets it. You have lost, BOTH snr leadership C/S. The Tp WO is not just a Ptl commander, he is the SNR Ptl Commander. He must also be the route tracker, the leader in the rear ( in Tp level tactics),etc. He does not have to be there to baby sit the Tpl Ldr. If the Tp Leader is screwed, the WO will tell him he is and help correct him. Before they cross the LD. If the WO doesn't, well. The WO is at fault. The WO is the one that will/may recce a tp hide. You cannot have him out there doing Counter Recce. He is the SQ, Maint Sgt, SSM (for the TP), the teacher, the father, and most of all the A55 kicker. All rolled into one. For he has 30 soldiers in the troop, and a yng officer to mold. In a Tank Tp it is only 14.

The TP ldr is not a Ptl commander in the sameway as a WO, SGT. His Ptl is there with the UAV and the Anti Armour. Being with the Tp ldr is a TANK/Inf thing! His Ptl will be there out in front of the CPs. With hands off NBC kits, NBC info will be sent to the rear. No more will the Tpie drive up to you OP. You will send it to the Tp Ldr, via TCCCS. If the Tp ldr wishes more. He could send forward the UAV.
If patroling forward, the UAV can scout ahead, just as the old Kiowas. For you now don't have time to recce every lil hill, defile, lateral,etc. For warfare is faster.

And Recce does not let the enemy recce pass. That is what the Arty support is for. But what is more important, BRDMs or T80s? Why waste time on the lil crap.

George, the UAV could pickup any info. It could land in and take out any info. It was one thing that was brought up.


Well that my 2 cents. :evil: :tank:

 

[George Wallace]

Recce 41

Sounds good on paper,,,,,,,but in real life, people in the OPs need to be replenished and pass info by hand and the Tp Ldr will be the guy.  Although you say the Tp WO is the TP SQ, that doesn't work when he is in an OP with his patrol.

As for the UAV picking up info from the OPs by landing and taking off.......is someone on drugs?  A UAV is not going to land anywhere near the majority of OPs that I, and even you, have been in.  If you are suggesting that another task for us in the OP is to clear a landing strip for UAVs then someone is definitely on drugs.

GW

 

[Infanteer]

I think some smaller UAV's could do that (I seen a picture of the USMC launching one), or am I missing the gist of the conversation?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Recce41,

Thanks for the feedback (I was worried that you hadn't read this one).  In my vision of having the Tp WO in the HQ Ptl I am not suggesting that he move with the Tp Ldr (complete with 100 ft bungee cord).  He would not necessarily move with the Tp Ldr unless the Tp was out of contact.  I see him in the HQ Ptl precisely because of the other roles and tasks that you mention.  Is the 8th callsign going to be an antiarmour callsign?  What weapon will it have?  I suggest that having one anti-armour vehicle in the Tp is a mistake.  Put in a pair of TOW or MGS if we want dedicated anti-armour (anti-recce) capabilities.  I'd rather not see a UAV at Tp level (having seen what they entail).  If the Tp Ldr does become a casualty then in the current configuration the Tp WO is now both a Ptl Comd and the Tp Ldr.  If he is in the HQ Ptl he is free from the Ptl commanding part in that case (not saying that he is not capable).

If the Tp is covering the advance of a moving force (zone/area recce) then I would see the Tp Ldr moving with the lead Ptl and the Tp WO hanging back slightly.  In a route recce the Tp WO could still track the route with the rear Patrol and the Tp Ldr would move with the middle Patrol.  In compartmentalized terrain the Tp WO could take one Ptl down one corridor while the Tp Ldr moves with the other two Ptls down another.

Looking at counter-recce, we have tended to assume away that whole aspect.  I learned that this was one of the big things that the US Army emphasizes (at least in 1998).  A US Army "screen" is responsible not only for reporting movement but also for the destruction of enemy recon assets.  They usually get some additional direct fire assets and do not assume that artillery will kill all of the enemy recon.  Divisions have their Cav Sqns for this and Task Forces will make a team based on their Scout Platoon and an M1/M3 Company team.  In the unlikely situation that we are facing the advance of some motor rifle regiment I would want our recce screen to destroy the enemy recon and not the T-80s.  Kill the little stuff and let the big stuff blunder into our kill zones (if we ever do that again).  Based on their NTC experiences my instructors said that "he who wins the counter-recon battle wins the battle."  Bear in mind that this type of conventional fight seems to be becoming less and less probable but you never know!

I am fairly sure that we will keep the Tp WO in the A Ptl for the reasons that you mention. The strongest argument for keeping the Tp WO in his current patrol and just giving a bodyguard to the Tp Ldr is that it does keep the leadership dispersed.  I then go back to the option of simply making the Tp Ldr a Ptl Comd.  Same effect for less vehicles and resources and if we get all these ATS systems then the Tp Ldr will not have to leave the screen for orders etc  >. 

I still wonder if these other options were even considered and I'd like to at least try them out.

Cheers and thanks again,

2B

 

[a_majoor]

Recce 41

Sounds good on paper,,,,,,,but in real life, people in the OPs need to be replenished and pass info by hand and the Tp Ldr will be the guy. Although you say the Tp WO is the TP SQ, that doesn't work when he is in an OP with his patrol.

As for the UAV picking up info from the OPs by landing and taking off.......is someone on drugs? A UAV is not going to land anywhere near the majority of OPs that I, and even you, have been in. If you are suggesting that another task for us in the OP is to clear a landing strip for UAVs then someone is definitely on drugs.

GW

There are some UAV prototypes which are VTOL, although using them to deliver supplies to an OP seems a bit far fetched, not to mention a misuse of a valuable asset.

From the technology end of things, could a vehicle with the surveillance mast deployed be considered an OP? With the 96 hours worth of supplies on board it would be quite self contained, and except for transmissions to the TL, there would be little or no movement.

For Cavalry/PSO operations, would it be better to have  a Stryker style vehicle (no turret) with a "periscope" type surveillance unit (think of the Fennick) and a dismounted patrol in the back rather than a Coyote?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Do you mean a single vehicle being considered an OP?  I guess that it could but it would not be able maintain observation and local security for long.  We have being using two vehicles for a variety of reasons even though only one mast or remote (or hole in the ground) is actually being employed.  Manpower is a big factor (eight people gives you good endurance) and mutual security and protection when moving to and from the OP are also factors.  Our practice has been to leave the choice of OP up to the Patrol Commander (mast, remote, mounted or "mud").  Give the NAI and let the Ptl Comd decide how to meet the aim.  He will make this call based on the task, the ground, visibility, the nature of the target and the threat (other board members can help me out here).  As each Patrol should have both a mast and remote system this gives the guy on the ground some flexibility.  I have seen suggestions to put a non-surveillance equipped vehicle with a Coyote to spread our assets out, but I like the flexibility and redundancy of our current configuration.

One thing that is changing is the notion of a screen-line.  In stability operations there is very little linearity.  We had times when the whole Sqn was deployed in OPs (we were actually quite small) but there was no "screen line" per se.  Patrols were self-sufficient for 72 hours and the vehs carried a row of external jerry cans in addition to cramming the vehicle full of water.

The Fennik does look quite cool, but for stability operations I like the flexibility of the Coyote.  Its capabilities as an AFV can be handy on these missions.  Having dismounted scouts in the back of the recce veh is something that I like, but the surv gear in the Coyote brings an excellent capability.  I will admit, however, that the surv gear is not quite as omnisicient as some people seem to think.  One thing that I am not a big fan of the the growing split between "surveillance" and "reconnaissance" within Armoured Recce.  I prefer a more broad and unified purpose but I sense that I am somewhat alone! :-\

2B

 

[a_majoor]

As each Patrol should have both a mast and remote system this gives the guy on the ground some flexibility. I have seen suggestions to put a non-surveillance equipped vehicle with a Coyote to spread our assets out, but I like the flexibility and redundancy of our current configuration.

One thing that is changing is the notion of a screen-line. In stability operations there is very little linearity. We had times when the whole Sqn was deployed in OPs (we were actually quite small) but there was no "screen line" per se. Patrols were self-sufficient for 72 hours and the vehs carried a row of external jerry cans in addition to cramming the vehicle full of water.

The Fennik does look quite cool, but for stability operations I like the flexibility of the Coyote. Its capabilities as an AFV can be handy on these missions. Having dismounted scouts in the back of the recce veh is something that I like, but the surv gear in the Coyote brings an excellent capability. I will admit, however, that the surv gear is not quite as omnisicient as some people seem to think. One thing that I am not a big fan of the the growing split between "surveillance" and "reconnaissance" within Armoured Recce. I prefer a more broad and unified purpose but I sense that I am somewhat alone!

I guess what I am getting at is an inexpensive sort of LAV recce vehicle, capable of some hull down surveillance (Fennick type mast), linited self protection with the OWS, and with room for a four man dismounted patrol in the back. With the patrol on board, there would be some difficulty in putting 72-96 hr worth of supplies on board, so perhaps that needs to be looked at. (Where do you put 96 hr of supplies in an Illtis or G-Wagon anyway?  )

Surveillance vehicles like the Coyote have a place, but it is not "recce". They can assist recce by directing  patrols to investigate contacts, as well as being a conduit for fire support should things go south for the patrol on the ground. UAVs fall into this category as well. If we go for a Recce Sqn, a surveillance troop would be nice, while a Recce or Cavalry Regiment should have the services of a squadrons worth of surveillance assets (maybe a UAV troop, EW troop and two Coyote troops feeding the ISTAR CC?)

 

[George Wallace]

a_majoor

We will probably land up with our "Bare Ass" Coyotes doing what you suggest.  Their Thermal and II Sights are very effective in all good weather conditions.  I say good weather conditions because all surveillance equipment has its limitations, be it mast mounted, ground mounted or turret mounted.  Fog, Snow, Rain, etc. degrades the effectiveness of all systems. 

GW

 

[Recce41]

A-Maj
I have done OPs for up to 7 days. And only resupplied once and that was in a Lynx. On a veh gonig into a OP, you would make room. In a G Wagon that would only require 36 rats. No real fuel amount, water well. Who shaves every day in an OP. We are thinking Peacetime/ tours, etc when a Tp Ldr can driveup and chat.
We teach, here at the School. NO one comes to your OP. And If they do, their walk to it will be long and suck. In a real war, I wouldn't care if it was the CDS, he would not come to my OP. Ye, Ye. talk big. But would the CDS or the OC have time to come and visit poor lil 43Es OP. I think not.
Also as for resupply, UAVs would not drop of water, rats etc. They would be there as a part of the double back comms system. It would be if you have info and could not send that info. It is the third part of the Veh, man pack, UAV, and pers pickup comm system.
The new radar system we are getting will be even better. New CDAR, display, dish, etc. In 2003 I sent some recommended updates for the Coyote to PMO LAV. And a self contained System was one. No more taking 20 mins to setup, the mast.

As for the Sqn makup. I was down to Kingston. And the EW troop would love to come to a Recce Sqn. With their 6-8 vehs, they would be a great asset.

2 Bravo
I would enjoy a good talk, indepth. I'm most likely going back next yr. As a Recce DS at the School, I feel I the others, can bring a new look to a Recce Troop. One of the Capts here was doing a paper for the CI. It also cover the tasks for the old Jump Troop. Which oneday could come back. With the possible light BG.
:evil: :tank:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Recce41

I guess the posting plot should be out soon!  Having movement between the School and the Regiments works well for both organizations and even the people involved.  As a Regt we are having some good discussions and PD sessions on Recce and I'd like to have you there for those.

Self-sufficient OPs are definately the way to go.  Water and fuel were our two big limiters on this.  Most of our OPs were overt which made resupply less of an issue, but the less traffic the better.  I know that visiters are a big pain (having been one from time to time).  On stability operations OPs often become the focus for a lot of high ranking personnel.  Even if the OPs are overt there should be a definate reason (such as resupply of a long-standing OP). 

A quicker set-up and tear down for the surv gear would be a huge improvement.  When I hear senior people tell the Coyote Sqn to leapfrog mast OPs during mobile ops I groan.  The only Coyote qual that I have is Surv Op (took it when I was a 2Lt on OJT) and I wish that more doctrine people had the course to appreciate the realities.

An EW Tp with the Sqn would certainly be a good fit.  In addition to the mutual support of the sensors there is the possibility of having Coyotes provide mutual protection to the EW.  I had my eyes opened on operations (we had the EW Tp in ISTAR Coy) to the capabilities and possibilities here.

Finally, I believe that you are right about the greaater possibilities of having Armoured Recce work with light forces.  I think that as a Corps we need to keep some expertise outside of the Coyote (although I am a Coyote advocate).  We are in danger of losing this training and experience in the Reg Force.  Personally I think that we should focus on having all mounted recce and not worry about the DFS piece.   

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

If the idea of us becoming an Niche Army, then there will be no requirement for a Jump Troop.  Nor will there be a requirement to have Jump Coys, as with the philosophy of not needing tanks as we will tag on to larger formations from other nations, so will there be no requirement for the added expense of training Infantry to jump out of aircraft, when other nations will be doing that.  

This niche idea is going to destroy the CF.  It is destroying the Armd Corp.  Our expertise will be lost in all Combat Trades.  We had better sort out our Recce quickly before all the walls come tumbling down and we have no one to defend us.

GW

 

[Recce41]

Bravo
The 12RBC and RCD will be the SMEs, and the Strats I believe will be the DFS SMEs. We are going that way now. There is two CC courses, and 2 AO courses. As for the posting, cannot wait to get some new blood here. We are very short of DS. And with a course of 48 for the DP3 ARCC. It has gotten worst.
Then in the summer when we take over all training, both  Res NCO and Officer.
:evil: :tank:
George

There is an Idea of the light BG. Based on the Para concept. A Airborne Battle group is the cheapest, and easiest to deply. No heavy lift, no boats, time. Yes aircraft, but you can deploy very quick force. To be quick is the word. Look at the what is going on now, about the DART team. An Airmoble force requires it to land, so an airstrip. An Airborne force, just an area to drop into.

 

[George Wallace]

Recce 41

If we truly do go down the road of becoming a "Niche Army" then I can forsee the loss of any Airborne capabilities, as it like the Tank will be an operation carried out by our Allies.   The same arguement for the loss of Armour capabilities in the CF can just as easily be used on any Airborne capabilities.   When did we deploy troops in an Airborne role in the last forty years?   On the other hand we have deployed tanks to Bosnia and Kosovo.  

It is a small expense to pay approximately 1000 troops an extra bonus monthly in the form of Jump Pay, but a larger expense to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move them.   The numbers crunchers will look at this and decide that with the 101st and 82nd Airborne and 10 Mtn Div just to our south, there is no requirement for us to keep up any form of Airborne capabilities, after all we have been sending every thing by ship and Commercial Air for our Peacekeeping roles around the world.

I forsee this new "Niche Army" as the complete destruction of the CF.   Within ten to fifteen years we will be reduced to a paramilitary force, incapable of mobilizing for any future major world conflict.   If we train for niche roles, we may not fit in, as we will not have trained as a complete Armed Force.   We will no longer be "all around" good soldiers, but technicians, who may become more of a liability than a benifit to any Allied Force, as we may not know how to fully integrate into their "system" of running a Combat Unit.   Todays Canadian Forces personnel have fairly good all around soldier skills that hold them in good stead with those of other nations.   When we concentrate solely on niche skills we will loose all those other skills.   The same can be said about our Recce skills.  

GW

 

[Maclimius]

After reading this entire thread, I felt I had to add a new perspective in to it.

As an NCM with 6 years in the reserves, I may not have the full expertise on everything, but I can at least add the common soldier's perspective to it. It was mentioned the need for armoured vehicles (LAV III, Bison, Coyote), but we have to keep in mind that the modern battlefield is not on wide open plains like it used to be. If we are ever deployed on any major operation, we will be deployed in mostly built up areas. Then there's the mountainous areas that we are already deployed to (Afghanistan). A larger, more armoured vehicle is nice when it comes to anti-recce and suvivability roles, but have you tried to do a turnaround drill in a Coyote on a one-way street or a logging road on the side of a mountain. Having done it in just a MILCOTS, it's extremely hard, and usually time consuming, something we generally don't have.

I still agree on the Coyote as an overwatch vehicle though, it definately fits.

As for the situation with having a large amount of Sgts in a troop, yes, it looks good on paper, but then you look at the reality of the state of the reserve force right now. My unit is just finishing up a house run DP2 recce creman course next week for CPL and below. The initial load was somewhere around 40, but due to the reality of the reserves, people could not commit to every weekend, every parade night, for several months due to real life situations (work, family). As a result, we'll be lucky if 20 pass the full course. Having just seen the LFWA course brick for this summer, there is only 48 spots open for the DP2 recce course. With 6 armoured Recce Regiments in the west, that's only another 8 potential qualified soldiers per unit. By that math, there will be 28 fully qualified NCMs in my unit alone. I know that right now is a transition point, but the situation is dire. Of those 28 we'll be lucky if 5 make it to a CC level in the next 2 years. I'm sure the situation is much the same at most of the recce regiments in the midst of the transition. The recce regiments that were already recce regiments probably aren't as bad off, but the situation still exits.

 

[big bad john]

What about in areas such as Iraq and Somalia...wide open for the most part.

 

[Maclimius]

Very true, but what happens once you get in to the city. To use the European model when the CF was in Germany, if there was convoy movement and a vehicle broke down, the only place to pull off was in to someone's yard. Then the CIMIC teams (or whatever they were called back then) would come up and determine how much to pay the person for the damage to the grass, the "prize" winning roses in the garden, and the broken fence. I realize that in wartime this doesn't make a difference, but our current government wants us to limit collateral damage. In a desert environment, a smaller vehicle can still hide a lot better. Think about the sound, especially at night. Sound travels. The British Desert Rats did a superb job in Africa during WWII using jeeps picking away at supply convoys. Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, but I'm just trying to show a perspective that hasn't been discussed yet.

 

[big bad john]

Please take a look at some of the photos I have uploaded of Patrol Troop Royal Marines and their vehicles.  I have spoken to some of my friends still with 45 Cdo RM who were in Kabul and Bagram.  They loved the reccee's that the Coyotes would do.  Very thorough.  They also pack a sizeable punch if thinks get a little nerve racking.

 

[George Wallace]

Very true, but what happens once you get in to the city. To use the European model when the CF was in Germany, if there was convoy movement and a vehicle broke down, the only place to pull off was in to someone's yard. Then the CIMIC teams (or whatever they were called back then) would come up and determine how much to pay the person for the damage to the grass, the "prize" winning roses in the garden, and the broken fence. I realize that in wartime this doesn't make a difference, but our current government wants us to limit collateral damage. In a desert environment, a smaller vehicle can still hide a lot better. Think about the sound, especially at night. Sound travels. The British Desert Rats did a superb job in Africa during WWII using jeeps picking away at supply convoys. Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, but I'm just trying to show a perspective that hasn't been discussed yet.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in OOTW we may be in built up areas doing recce, but in war we are most likely to go around built up areas.  As for breaking down and parking in someones driveway in Germany; again I have broken down in Germany.  Another tank hit mine and broke my track.  I was in the middle of nowhere and couldn't even see the lights of any inhabited buildings.  Breaking down in front of a Gausthaus was always a nice plan, but Murphy also had plans.

Urban warfare is not a good place to find yourself, and should be avoided at all costs.  In Iraq, the 'terrorists' have taken to the city and must be 'dug out', but this is not the case with the majority of fighting around the globe. 

GW

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Maclimius,

It always pains me to hear that a unit has people that need a course, are available for it but we cannot train them.  My experience from serving at an Area Training Centre is that a shortage of instructors is the usual culprit.  My observation is that as an Army we focus on the first summer for reserve soldiers and then stop paying attention to them until they become PLQ qualified.  We loose people in the middle and as a result we are always chasing our tail.  Guess this is a tangent!

Looking at kit again, I will grant that smaller is better as long as certain capabilities are maintained.  Chief among them is protection, optics, crew endurance and the ability to fight out a problem (but not necessarily look for a fight).  I still see the Coyote as a recce vehicle although I grant that there are plenty of other options out there. 

Recce in urban areas is a challenge for everybody if the enemy is fighting block by block.  In a Kabul setting, however, the Coyote is a pretty good fit.  I would also wager that it would do well in Iraq, although perhaps not in a Fallujah-style battle.

Big Bad John,

Our Troops/ Patrols did a number of ops with Britfor and the relationship was very good.  An outstanding contingent who had a firm yet friendly grip on their AOO.  I really admired their lean yet effective force structure.

Cheers,

2B