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

[TCBF]

Oh, hey, no apols needed.  I could say all that stuff at work and get an argument.  My opinion is just that - my opinion.  Ask GA!

;D

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

If a recce patrol is setting up a VCP, the implication (at least) is they are in a low to medium area of Full Spectrum Operations. When a technical or "lone gunman" opens up on them, it is high intensity for those guys right then and there, even though overall, it is still a low or medium intensity operation.

As the overall mission moves into higher levels of intensity, the Recce organization (however construed) will begin to tighten up and operate in what we think of as traditional fashion, although in the rear area they may still be doing a combination of security tasks and stabilization tasks. A heavy metal scenario like OIF would fit that bill.

WRT the logistics tail, there are no easy answers that I can think of. If we want or need these capabilities, then we have to configure the organization to support them. I would hope advances in automotive and electronic technology will make equipment simpler and more reliable (and generally speaking, it has, just not to the extent we would like), or we could rethink everything from a very basic level and create "fire and forget" type equipment which is designed to work for a certain amount of time and then discarded (think of the iPod). Organizationally, we could have a slim "combat tail" and accept going to the rear for higher level support at an NSE location.  Lots of other potential options exist between these two poles.

 

[George Wallace]

I am getting the impression that you guys are of the opinion that Recce works well within our own Lines.  That they don't venture forward to do their job.  With the additions of Mortars and LAVs full of Infantry, you are no longer talking Recce.  This Tail that I was referring to, not the Administrative Tail, but the extras that you guys are throwing about in your discussion.  It is like something out of "Kelly's Heroes"....... and the next thing we know we will have the Band up there, with a Recce Patrol, behind the Enemy FLET setting up a bridge.  I think we are starting to go overboard a bit here.

 

[a_majoor]

What's wrong with a band? ;D ;D ;D

I am not big on the idea of an actual Infantry platoon/company attached to the Recce except under very exceptional circumstances.

When I am talking about dismounts, I am referring to the idea that each C/S should have some patrolmen who can get out in complex terrain. I consider the idea of a fire support troop to be worth considering, and believe that the increasing importance of surveillance and digital communications to pass on voice, data and graphics will require something more robust than an RRB van and the BC in the CP LSVW. I am not entirely sure where the idea of attaching engineer/pioneer assets came from, when I was talking about mobility I thought I was clear the recce vehicle had to be mobile under trying circumstances.

This would result in a modest increase in the size of the Recce squadron, not a morphing into the 2Bravo Cavalry Team.

The Cavalry team idea has merit on its own (we could always revive that thread), and I think it is correct to observe in a coalition force, this might be the best sort of contribution we could make. Even so, a Cavalry Team might consist of several recce squadrons with a combat team or Infantry element to provide security at FOBs, an Artillery element with enough range to reach out and touch people over the AOR  and a robust CSS element to support far ranging operations.

 

[TCBF]

"If a recce patrol is setting up a VCP, the implication (at least) is they are in a low to medium area of Full Spectrum Operations. When a technical or "lone gunman" opens up on them, it is high intensity for those guys right then and there, even though overall, it is still a low or medium intensity operation."

- A Coyote Recce Patrol should NEVER do a VCP.  A waste of assets.  Besides, they do not have enough people if something goes wrong - no 'staying power'.

"I am getting the impression that you guys are of the opinion that Recce works well within our own Lines.  That they don't venture forward to do their job.  With the additions of Mortars and LAVs full of Infantry, you are no longer talking Recce.  This Tail that I was referring to, not the Administrative Tail, but the extras that you guys are throwing about in your discussion.  It is like something out of "Kelly's Heroes"....... and the next thing we know we will have the Band up there, with a Recce Patrol, behind the Enemy FLET setting up a bridge.  I think we are starting to go overboard a bit here."

- George, in days of your, a Recce Sqn could do a screen, and, if re-inforced, a guard.  On one guard, our Troop consited of seven Lynx, a Troop of tanks, a platoon of Infantry and a TOW det.

There is nothing new under the sun.  The only new changes to this is the  slight mod of a Recce Sqn to  take advantage of the ISTAR process.  Note that ISTAR is a process - not a Sqn.  So, Recce Sqns will still be Recce Sqns - we didn't rename them "Sh_thole Digging Squadrons" when  we dug sh_tholes, and we won't rename them ISTAR Sqns when we add a dash or two of ISTAR to them.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

"If a recce patrol is setting up a VCP, the implication (at least) is they are in a low to medium area of Full Spectrum Operations. When a technical or "lone gunman" opens up on them, it is high intensity for those guys right then and there, even though overall, it is still a low or medium intensity operation."

- A Coyote Recce Patrol should NEVER do a VCP.  A waste of assets.  Besides, they do not have enough people if something goes wrong - no 'staying power'.

Not a permanent VCP, but sending a patrol (or series of patrols) to perform a "snap VCP" in a certain area provides the up close and personal sort of information Major Taylor says is necessary to counteract "blobology". Surveillance systems can paint a picture, but using high mobility assets like Armoured recce to actually interact with people all over the AOR (anything from trading shots and taking prisoners to pulling to the side of the road and chatting with the local farmer) provides insight into enemy, friendly and neutral intent that passive surveillance cannot do.

If by staying power you mean "combat power", it depends on what you are expecting. A pair of Coyotes with extra dismounted patrolmen (as 2Bravo has suggested for a Coyote upgrade) will have turret mounted weapons and enough dismounted patrolmen to detect and deal with the "technical" threat. If there is a heavy metal enemy then no one would be setting up a VCP, the squadron would be doing heavy metal recce. Circling back to Major Taylors observations about "light" recce, a G-wagon or HMMVW troop could set up snap VCPs, but be seriously disadvantaged should the enemy choose to engage them. As well, a G-wagon or HMMVW recce troop would not be able to transition to heavy metal type operations without putting the troops in serious danger.

- George, in days of your, a Recce Sqn could do a screen, and, if re-inforced, a guard.  On one guard, our Troop consited of seven Lynx, a Troop of tanks, a platoon of Infantry and a TOW det.

There is nothing new under the sun.  The only new changes to this is the  slight mod of a Recce Sqn to  take advantage of the ISTAR process.  Note that ISTAR is a process - not a Sqn.  So, Recce Sqns will still be Recce Sqns - we didn't rename them "Sh_thole Digging Squadrons" when  we dug sh_tholes, and we won't rename them ISTAR Sqns when we add a dash or two of ISTAR to them.

Said much better than I could. A "guard" is a term for a specific mission, but a smaller version of your guard permanently made up of some more varied assets is approaching what I am trying to visualize.

 

[TCBF]

The probs with Coyote VCPs is that a Coyote Ptl does not have the pers to crew the veh wpns and comms and still do the dsmtd VCP.  They have to be re-inforced to do this.

By 'staying power', I mean the ability of an org to take cas/losses and still do their primary mission.  This is ever more so critical in a Tank or Coyote where our Air Force trg system has inflicted "Train to Need" on the Army and we have few if any Dual/Triple Qual Crewmen (who can drive/gun/surv) in a Coyote Patrol.

So, if they get into a scuffle, and Tpr Bloggins breaks his wrist, and no one else in the crew can drive...

It's like sending plumbers to do an electricians job - VCPs should not be done by Coyote crews, in my opinion.

Use the Coyotes to support the VCP other guys are doing - that works fine.

Tom

 

[KevinB]

Tom,  However these days due to the "need" to "protect" jobs for Recce you do see Coyote Patrols attempting to do VCP's... - Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghan...

  Secondly due to the complex terrain of Afghan (as you know) and the type of operations we are in - the recce screen of old is not employable, also the fact we dont delpoy CMBG's to screen anyway...

 

[George Wallace]

Tom,  However these days due to the "need" to "protect" jobs for Recce you do see Coyote Patrols attempting to do VCP's... - Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghan...

   Secondly due to the complex terrain of Afghan (as you know) and the type of operations we are in - the recce screen of old is not employable, also the fact we dont delpoy CMBG's to screen anyway...

Of course we are not deploying our Coyote Patrols out into Bde Screens, but we are still deploying them out for long periods to do surveillance on targets of interest.  The basics behind these OPs will be no different from before.  Stealth and use of ground are still important.  Close protection and minimum movement/activity are still requirements in these Ops.  I know that many of my collegues have had to set up OPs to watch targets of interest for long periods while over there.  An OP is an OP, whether it is in a Screen or not.

I'll let Tom clear up any misconceptions, as he has a better knowledge of what his Unit did (not all Tours and Units are operating in the same areas and using the same principles, so there will be variances in what they are doing.)  Also, Franko may be a good source as to what his Unit is doing currently.  Driving up and down the road and hastyp VCPs are not the only thing that they are doing.

 

[KevinB]

: :

Of course I forgot their lawchairs...

I've been here before with the CF.-- I've look thru the screen of a crapdust filled night I know the LACK of capability of the Coyote in this environment...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

On ATHENA Roto 0 the Coyote Patrols were extremely busy and were certainly not looking for work.  On a given day the only Coyotes in camp were generally those belonging to the Patrol on HLTA.  Tasks were split between OPs and area/point recces with a few security tasks thrown in as well.

The Coyote was not a 24 km bubble of omniscience, but it did bring a tremendous capability to the table.  In addition to its surveillance equipment, it had a high degree of self-sufficiency.  Its capabilities as an AFV combined with the Patrol structure allowed it to go many places and remain "on station" for long periods.

I'd also like to point out that not all OPs relied on the surveillance equipment.

Cheers,

2B

 

[KevinB]

Dont get me wrong I feel there is a HUGE envelope for the 'yote and Armoured Recce in theatre -- however some of the uses (inc very recent ones) do not make proper use of the capabilties.

  *quite frankly I would replace ALL of ISAF's AFV's with a Recce Sqn and deploy them outside of Kabul and really have them work  ;D
All the locals here bitch about the Italians and German Armour making a fricken mess here in town...

  Due to terrain and the dustfilled nights I dont like the static postions for the Coyote - but a more agressive recce role.

Cheers

 

[TCBF]

"Of course I forgot their lawchairs..."

- And my wading pool at the SW OP at KAF.

;D

" I've been here before with the CF.-- I've look thru the screen of a crapdust filled night I know the LACK of capability of the Coyote in this environment..."

- You make one of our points for us - thanks.  A lot of people feel a Coyote Troop is a portable DEW Line. Just draw 24 km circles around the OP locs on the map, and everyone else can go to bed.

But you and we know this is not so.

We made it clear to the BG on Appollo that if/when the '100 days of wind' kicked in, we would be blind, and the BG would have to flush out the perimeter as if the Coyotes did not exist.

"Sure" they said "We know that."

Then the wind and sand socked us in, we told them what our vis was, and we waited for the troops who never came...

I guess we weren't the only ones with lawn chairs.

;D

Tom

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We were fortunate in that we were Brigade Troops.  We did not get locked into camp surveillance.  We did, of course, get multiple tasks that involved our provision of OPs to conduct "counter-surveillance" for friendly sites (ISAF or TA).

Going back to my proposal to put two scouts in the back of each Coyote, this would give the Patrol the ability to move to an area before putting four "boots on the ground" to make contact with the locals. 

 

[a_majoor]

Going back to my proposal to put two scouts in the back of each Coyote, this would give the Patrol the ability to move to an area before putting four "boots on the ground" to make contact with the locals. 

If/when the surveillance system is upgraded and the new, smaller observation station is installed, this would be an excellent way to get the expanded capabilities needed to answer the "Sabre's for Stealth" arguments Major Taylor raised in the first place.

 

[TCBF]

But lets not try to get dentists to be plumbers.  Let the dismounted Inf and their Recce Pl do the stuff they do so well - the chats over the back fence and so on.  Leave the Coyote  Ptls in the classic RAS type tasks they are trained and equiped for: Convoy Escort, Surv (incl inner and outer cordon assists),  Mtd Recce ptls and so on.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

We all seem to be going at cross purposes here, so I will try to clarify (since I am probably muddying it up in the first place  )

The article which launched all this (Trading Sabre for Stealth), Major Taylor essentially said that relying on high tech surveillance systems and "stealth" recce was wrong. Technological surveillance alone could not reveal things in enough detail, particularly intagibles like "intent", while stealth recce was simply too vulnerable in the modern battlefield context (and indeed in the examples ranging from WW II and the 1991 Persian Gulf War) to be able to get timely and accurate information to the commander. In OIF, most of the scout platoons mounted on HMMVWs (somewhat more capable than a G-wagon) were withdrawn from the front despite packing excellent optical surveillance suites and other recce equipment, since the risk of having them up front was far too great.

My further observation was that in a full spectrum environment, we can change from the low end (chats over the back fence) to high end (Jihadi shoots at patrol with RPG and AK 47's) in a heart beat. Moving around the AOR will be a challenge because of this, AFVs are needed to provide mobility and to respond to threats. (If being able to shoot back wasn't important, then we could issue RG-31s to the Recce Squadron, but I doubt I wouldf have many takers). Since the security environment will be quite fluid, the one formation which can do this already is the Armoued Recce Squadron. Modifying the Observers station in a Coyote and adding two patrolmen in the back (a la 2Bravo) is something of an expedient solution, but it provides all the existing capabilities of the Coyote equipped squadron, plus some extra eyes and hands that can get out and look at things which the vehicle mounted systems cannot, as well as additional manpower to enhance the ability to do the things you already do.

Yes dismounted Infantry recce patrols can do some things better (since there are more patrolmen to do so), but the Western asymmetrical advantage of speed can be accomodated by protected mobility through the AOR, employ a wide variety of means to find information (everything from Surveillance suites to getting out and snatching a prisoner or talking to the local farmer), and a robust suite of means to disseminate the information (well, working on that part...) all in one unit package. The mounted patrolmen will enhance the capabilities of the mounted patrols.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Just to add a bit here and it may be the wrong place or time but when the commander of the army was asked about 031 Recce he mentioned that they (the army) are looking at a armoured wheeled recce vehcile but much smaller, kinda like a mini-coyote.  He mentioned that the 031 were getting "tied" to the coyote and they were losing their skills.

 

[a_majoor]

031 Recce is a compliment to Armoured recce, and has the ability to move in areas where Armour cannot; and can also blanket an area in a way armoured recce cannot. The addition of patrolmen in the back of a Coyote 2 or some presumptive future recce vehicle isn't to add Infantry muscle to the recce patrol, but to add more flexibility. There is no particular reason Infantry recce needs specialized vehicles, indeed they would probably be better off getting out and walking.

 

[TCBF]

The one extra guy in the Coyote will give it greater staying power in an OP, and allow two dsmnts for 'drills' during RAPZ Recce.  No one is going to insert two infantrymen from a Coyote so they can go gossip with the locals, especially when one of the two is a local interpreter.  Two guys gets you into trouble - twenty will get you out.

Use the Coyotes for Recce/Surv tasks in RAS, which is what the present sit most resembles.  Use the inf ptls to gossip with the locals, win the hearts and minds, and hoover up the HUMINT.  They are good at it, and they can talk or fight their way out of trouble.  Two guys from the back of a Coyote are hostages waiting to happen.


I think Major Taylor was only re-itterating what EXPERIENCED mtd recce soldiers have said all along.  You will note the 11 Panzer Aufklarungs Battaillons in the West German Army ALL had a Company of 'light' Recce Ptls (two Spz Luchs per ptl) and a Company of 'heavy' Recce Ptls (three Leopard 1A5, later 2A4 tanks per patrol).  Thats right - tanks in Recce: to FIGHT for information (good counter-recce, too.).

The only people who think our old orgs were too inflexible are the people who never had a chance to actually BE in them.

Every generation has to invent it's own terminology, but we don't have to flush our doctrine and ORBATs down the toilet every time some savage stops to change magazines.

Tom