"Trading Saber for Stealth" or "Are We a One Trick Pony?"

[a_majoor]

DG-41 has posted an excellent AAR of a Janus exercise here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36019/post-301799.html#msg301799

Even allowing for the distortions that a CAX can induce, there are valuable lessons to learn here, as well as support for some of the propositions that Major Taylor makes with his paper. DG-41 and his fellow soldiers worked out a set of TTPs for the simulated environment which involved combining the mobility of the G-wagon, the protection and firepower of the Coyote and the flexibility of dismounted patrolmen. Many G-wagons got brewed up while working this out (electronicly, of course). The touted ability of "mud recce" to move stealthily did not seem to be in evidence in this scenario; the bad guys could clearly see them coming and often reacted in ways designed to frustrate the Canadians and exploit weakness in the ROEs. In almost every case, engagements were started by the enemy at the time and place of his choosing, to the detriment of the G-wagon troop (even when they were prepared).

G wagons were brewed up because they had little protection, and were unable to deliver enough firepower to suppress enemies who decided to initiate an engagement. Coyotes fared better, but dismounted patrolmen gave the commander many more options, as well as the ability to uncover other enemies who had not yet revealed themselves. Enemies were dispatched through either artillery fire, 25mm fire or potentially by dismounted troops performing a section attack.

Overall, this seems to support my contention that the "ideal" recce vehicle needs to be both armoured and carry a few dismountable patrolmen as part of the basic loadout. Various ideas can be explored here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35535.0.html, although there is nothing in the current CF fleet which is 100% suitable, the Coyote platform without the surveillance kit could carry two patrolmen in the back (similar to the USMC LAV-25) with protection from small arms and a 25mm turret to provide that all important supression when needed.

 

[DG-41]

The touted ability of "mud recce" to move stealthily did not seem to be in evidence in this scenario; the bad guys could clearly see them coming and often reacted in ways designed to frustrate the Canadians and exploit weakness in the ROEs. In almost every case, engagements were started by the enemy at the time and place of his choosing, to the detriment of the G-wagon troop (even when they were prepared).

Ah, well, I wouldn't oversell this - JANUS has limitations when it comes to simulating troops moving stealthily. There's no way to maneuver your virtual GWagons from turret-down to turret-down in the JANUS enviromment - you can only move from positions that have LOS to a given point (or not)

My virtual GWagons were basically bumbling along fat dumb and happy, tracks up to the world, at all times. That's not a scenario that encourages surviveability.

And even then, GWagons proved tough to spot. At one point I had overwatch over a bridge, and an entire GWagon troop moved through my LOS and I only spotted 2 of them. It's not clear to me if OPFOR spotted us right away and held fire for a little while, or if they fired as soon as they spotted and IDed us. If the latter, then typically we spotted OPFOR LONG before he spotted us.

G wagons were brewed up because they had little protection, and were unable to deliver enough firepower to suppress enemies who decided to initiate an engagement.

...and because troop leaders attempted to use them as tanks, counting on supressive fire from the C6s to act as a type of armour. This didn't work. Once said troop leaders stopped doing that, surviveability shot to 100%.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*"....

Coyotes fared better,

No Coyote was harmed during the conduct of this exercise.

But seriously, in the context of this particular JANUS ex (with all the assumptions and limitations that implies and imposes) Coyotes ruled the battlefield. That implies that anything with Coyote levels of protection may be "good enough" in this sort of scenario.

but dismounted patrolmen gave the commander many more options, as well as the ability to uncover other enemies who had not yet revealed themselves.

This is certainly true. I'm coming over to the side of "dismounts good" - within limits. I figure a 4-man crew for a GWagon may be about right, assuming all the kit can be stowed. If a future recce vehicle could carry driver, commander, and 2 X dismounts, that would be good. In the case of Coyote or a Coyote-like vehicle with a 2-man turret, I'm not sure I would want to try and shoehorn another person into the crew (driver, commander, gunner, 2 X dismount) because of the increased storage and logistical demands each crewman brings along with him.

Enemies were dispatched through either artillery fire, 25mm fire or potentially by dismounted troops performing a section attack.

Nobody on my trace used artillery - we tried, but our fire missions always got scrubbed. We did, however, have a series of successful engagements with the C6 on the GWagon.

The C6 was effective at killing troops and trucks. It wasn't, however, SO effective that it could be counted on to supress troops with impunity and allow GWagons to manouver as if they had actual armour.

And again, JANUS ex, limitiations of simulation, yadda yadda yadda.

DG

 

[KevinB]

You people are freaking me out that you take ANYTHING tactical out of JANUS  -- it is a C&C "game".

 

 

[DG-41]

Within its limits, JANUS is accurate - which is to say, within the set of rules and parameters that define the JANUS simulation, anything you pull out of it is valid in the JANUS context.

The danger lies in extrapolating JANUS - or any simulation package - to the real world. Anywhere that the rules that define JANUS's world conflict with or otherwise misrepresent the "rules" that define the real world can lead to mistaken conclusions.

But nobody here is doing that - everybody is being carefult to apply lots of caveats to JANUS-derived conclusions. JANUS ain't the real world. It can be used as a learning and research tool that might suggest certain things (that would have to be subsequently be proven out in reality) but nobody is making any claims that JANUS == reality.

DG

 

[KevinB]

The problem with "supression" or "kills" or anything else - is it is a computer model.

  When they modeled the AFV's to get a kill you originally had to have a weapon that would crush the system -- any idea on how much force is required to crush a AFV (not nec breach it - BUT CRUSH it).
  It is a model - a simulation - allowing commanders to practise formations and reactions.

Some weapons are still modeled very "oddly"


That said some of your AAR relfect what the USA and USMC is noticing in Iraq.


Art

LAVIII - add a 'yote surviellance suite and 4 patrolmen - 4 is the LI building block.  2 men are not enough to do much than draw fire.

 

[a_majoor]

Art

LAVIII - add a 'yote surviellance suite and 4 patrolmen - 4 is the LI building block.  2 men are not enough to do much than draw fire.

I was thinking two to maximize interior space (72 hr consumables, ammunition etc), but the number of dismounts can be debated. As for the surveillance system, I think it is a compliment to Armoured Recce (or Infantry Recce, for that matter). The American LRSS system seems to be a good system to have at this level, the crew can make visual identification of targets at pretty crazy ranges without the large and elaborate "mast", and it can be used with minimum set up or take down (think of a commander's periscope). On American Stryker recce vehicles, the LRSS is mounted in place of the weapon on the OWS.

If we take Kevin's reccomendation, then why not the Stryker but modify the OWS to carry a suitable weapon (AGL or .50) as well as the LRSS and have room for four dismounts? This would make a very big recce vehicle, but has protection, firepower and dismounts. A Coyote based vehicle will be somewhat smaller, and a rebuilt AVGP (see  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35535.0.html) smaller yet, although not as small as a mud recce "Ferret" or "Lynx" analogue. The trade off is the smaller vehicles carry less and are less flexible individually.

Major Taylor indicated speed is the key for modern recce in the high end of full spectrum ops, so suggestions to carry snipers etc. are kind of beside the point in the Armoured recce environment. Having room for dismounts does allow for interesting cross fertilization in medium or low intensity environments. Snipers or other specialists can be moved rapidly around the AOR by the recce guys, dropped off at unexpected places and then use their own skill sets to stealthily infiltrate the area in question.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'll thrown in my usual 2 cents and advocate a Coyote Patrol with two "scouts" in each veh in addition to a smaller surveillance suite.  This gives four dismounted scouts for the Patrol, backed up by two fully crewed AFVs (or two AFVs backed up by four scouts).  Cram in an interpreter somewhere and you can also gather some information from the locals or at least talk to them and be friendly.

The Coyote is far from invincible, but it is a different proposition for the insurgent to tackle than a jeep/SUV etc.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. Yes, I am shamefully stealing the ideas of some of our closest allies who use very similar equipment!

 

[TCBF]

"Coyote platform without the surveillance kit could carry two patrolmen in the back (similar to the USMC LAV-25) with protection from small arms and a 25mm turret to provide that all important supression when needed."

-Well, speaking as a guy who once stuffed four men into a Lynx (long storey), I see no tech probs with that WITH the surv gear. In fact it would not happen without the Surv gear.

Then we get into the cap badge wars filling the REMAR with dismounts and everything runs flat.  Our limits are imposed by TB saying "This will be a 800 person mission - fight it out" rather than the govt saying "Snowball Kampfgruppe Cade" where whether 647 or 903 soldiers get on the C-5Bs is irrelevent.

So, if you want scouts in a Coyote:
1.  The whole Army has to agree (can't leave 32 bin rats out of the gong show for the sake of a few dismounts).
2.   The Surv gear stays.
3.    The dismounts have to be able to rotate through crew posns on the Coyote (Dvr/Gnr/Surv) which increases flexibility and staying power.

But, that is just one focus.  We still need grunts - a lot of them - sneeking and peeking both overtly ("Haji, howyadoin' today?") and covertly (You hit'im Fred, I'll pull the sack over his head.").

As far as JCATS/JANUS goes - it is a command trainer not a tactical one. Having said that, the tactical advantage goes to the element that has the greatest ratio of players and pucksters to vehicles.

One player with one veh and one puckster can wipe the board against a Cbt Tm of vehs with only one player and puckster.  

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

Snipers are interesting, and definately have their place in a "fighting reconaissance" unit, but the discussion needs to focus on the central fact that high-tempo is an "asymmetric" advantage for Western forces.  This gives us minimal time to deploy most "stealthy" things or to employ sensors which can be easily tricked.  Maj. Taylor has stated that we will be advancing at a rate which will, at most times, force us to essentially "troll" for contact.  Prerequisites of "trolling" are what we are looking for.

 

[TCBF]

"... force us to essentially "troll" for contact.  Prerequisites of "trolling" are what we are looking for."

- I would suggest 'trolling' only where you are willing to sacrifice the 'trollers' at point of first contact.  Letting the opposition initiate contact at a time and place of their choosing is fraught with risks.

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps the intent behind the trolling comment was not so much intending to go in blind but rather the recognition that no matter how much intelligence you have, no matter how many eyeballs have reviewed the scene (naked, optically or electronically enhanced) you can still end up being surprised.  Something about the enemy getting a vote too...

Or as my hero Rumsfeld put it "We know what we know.  We know what we don't know.  Those things we can plan for.  The problems come from the unknowables, the things we don't know that we don't know". Or words to that effect - the paraphrase is horribly garbled (sorry Donny ;D).  Regardless the thought is right.  ISTAR should always be as good as it can be.  It will never be good enough. Regardless of how much study is put into analysing and planning,  at the end of the day someone has to go through that door and at that point the situation instantly changes. With a changed Situation the rest of SMESC goes right out the window (sticking with the room metaphor I guess).

 

[Infanteer]

I would suggest 'trolling' only where you are willing to sacrifice the 'trollers' at point of first contact.   Letting the opposition initiate contact at a time and place of their choosing is fraught with risks.

Well, as the article suggests, we don't really have the option of doing so.  Op tempo was continually pushing the advance forward.  Add to the fact that we in the West are usually invader and occupier (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq), that point about the other guy always having "information dominance" seems to come to mind.

You don't want to sacrifice guys (hence why the Light Cav was pulled off the line), so you button up and troll in something that is capable of doing so.

 

[KevinB]

Lets re insert ATC for Trolling...

 

[George Wallace]

I'll thrown in my usual 2 cents and advocate a Coyote Patrol with two "scouts" in each veh in addition to a smaller surveillance suite.  This gives four dismounted scouts for the Patrol, backed up by two fully crewed AFVs (or two AFVs backed up by four scouts).  Cram in an interpreter somewhere and you can also gather some information from the locals or at least talk to them and be friendly.

I can't see this happening, unless we go to a Coyote II.  Upgrade the Coyote to LAV III chassis for commonality of the fleet and then there may be room in back for the GIB, 2 Dismounts and an Interpreter.  As we sit now, there is no way that you will fit a GIB, and 2 X Dismounts in back of a Coyote, even if the Surv Station was shrunk down.  Fully kitted out the GIB can not move around as is.  Two more bodies back there would only happen if they lay on top of kit and at the turret floor, making them totally ineffective. 

Only other option is to include a Bare *** Comd variant, as a third C/S in the patrol.  Or cut down on the number of Surv Suites per Patrol, keeping it two cars, and cut down on their effectiveness.  Which would you give up; the mast or the ground mount?  What flexibility will you have lost?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the Aussies have decided to go with 3 recce troops to a Squadron with each troop having 4 ASLAV-25s (similar to the Coyote without the surveillance gear) and 2 ASLAV-PCs (similar to the Bison). Each "Bison" carries 4 dismounts and the "Coyote" carries none.  The extra space is presumably filled with supplies to extend their range.  The radars are mounted on separate "surveillance" vehicles and are held either at Squadron or Regiment - can't remember which.

Infanteer or 2B posted an interesting article on the Aussie recon regiment 2 Cav.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I can't see this happening, unless we go to a Coyote II.   Upgrade the Coyote to LAV III chassis for commonality of the fleet and then there may be room in back for the GIB, 2 Dismounts and an Interpreter.   As we sit now, there is no way that you will fit a GIB, and 2 X Dismounts in back of a Coyote, even if the Surv Station was shrunk down.   Fully kitted out the GIB can not move around as is.   Two more bodies back there would only happen if they lay on top of kit and at the turret floor, making them totally ineffective.  

Only other option is to include a Bare *** Comd variant, as a third C/S in the patrol.   Or cut down on the number of Surv Suites per Patrol, keeping it two cars, and cut down on their effectiveness.   Which would you give up; the mast or the ground mount?   What flexibility will you have lost?

I don't see how you guys can claim that there is no room in the back of a LAV-25/Coyote that you cannot put any people back there.  We've ran 6 guys in the back of our 25s and it's not fun, but it can be done.  4 guys in the back is a very workable solution.  You've just got to get out of the mindset that everything needs to be stored internally, and ditch some of the comfort items.

I'd say that with surv. station equipment, you could put 2 guys in the back (operator and dismount) and have the other veh. in that patrol as a 'bare-ass' model with no surv. station and 4 dismounts in the back.

 

[George Wallace]

Matt

The Coyote and the LAV 25 are two different vehicles, although they may look similar on the outside.  The Surv Suite in the back takes up all the room from the Turret back leaving very little room for one other, besides the GIB, to sit back there, when there is no kit mounted.  Not too ergonomic for Dismounts for a long period.  The GIB has a big honking Captains chair.....great place to do a watch.  ;D

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I played around with the Coyote (they were sitting across the compound in a hangar and still had that 'new car smell' about them... ;D) when I was posted to TSS at the School back in 96, so I do remember what you're talking about.  Simple fix...get rid of the captains chair and replace it with something that can fold up/take up less room.  Then put a fold up bench seat on the other side, similar to how the jump/bench seat was on the Cougar where the second dismount can sit.  Not comfortable, but it gets the job done and vastly increases the utility of a recce. patrol when doing things like VCPs, blind corner/defile drills, bridge recce's, not to mention the reduction in crew fatigue when doing dismounted OPs and local security.

 

[George Wallace]

I understand what you are saying, but I just don't really see it being a sustainable proposal except for short term Ops.   Any Ops over a long period would be too fatiguing for the crewmembers in back.   That is one of the reasons I say to upgrade to the LAV III.   Better ergonomics.

In TSS the guys may have gone out for a week.  At the Regt the guys may go on Ops for several weeks, and carry a lot more kit.  While down in Drum my GIB was buried under kit for the trip.  When we were operational down there he was able to move around.  Add another body and things get too tight.  We could always add a two seat extension... ;D

 

[KevinB]

I agree with George on this one -- the yote is FULL on operations --
additionally they had to bungee their lawnchairs to the hull (and you know they hate admitting to those so...) 

IMHO the Coyote's should have been retro fitted to be FO vehicles for the Arty and a LAVIII+ be fitted for the Recce/Surviellance Sqn's.

As much as a portion of the Armoured refuses to admit they need the extra dismounts they do -- and Matt's examples are proof of that requirment.