Assault troop

[Matt_Fisher]

Putting more than two in the back of a Coyote (sans Surv Kit) would be a rather tight fit.

We do it with 4 scouts in the back of the LAV-25 and it works quite well.   You've got two standing in the troop hatches and it leaves plenty of room on the bench seat for the other two to sprawl out.   You just have to be more judicious in lashing your rucks to the exterior of the vehicle rather than stowing them internally in order to make up for more room.

To actually bring in Engineers and/or Infanteers to fill the role of Assault Troopers would be a waste of resources to the Engineers and Infantry, and really wouldn't be that great a benefit.   They would not be used to Armd practices, nor would they be interchangeable with other Armd Crew positions.

Not necessarily.   There's no reason why you couldn't do a D&M course inhouse to bring your infanteers and sappers posted to your unit up to speed on operating a LAV or that they wouldn't rapidly learn Armoured SOPs once in the unit.   The key is to have them posted there, rather than attached ad hoc so that they can be brought up to speed.  EMEs, Jimmy's and Medics seem to do fine posted to armoured units, why wouldn't infanteers and sappers as part of an assault troop?

 

[George Wallace]

crap George, you were in the PEIR?
Have we ever met? I was in the PEIR from 93 or so to 97.
DG

No.

I was long before you.  1974 - 1977 and again in 79.

 

[George Wallace]

We do it with 4 scouts in the back of the LAV-25 and it works quite well.   You've got two standing in the troop hatches and it leaves plenty of room on the bench seat for the other two to sprawl out.   You just have to be more judicious in lashing your rucks to the exterior of the vehicle rather than stowing them internally in order to make up for more room.

Not necessarily.   There's no reason why you couldn't do a D&M course inhouse to bring your infanteers and sappers posted to your unit up to speed on operating a LAV or that they wouldn't rapidly learn Armoured SOPs once in the unit.   The key is to have them posted there, rather than attached ad hoc so that they can be brought up to speed.   EMEs, Jimmy's and Medics seem to do fine posted to armoured units, why wouldn't infanteers and sappers as part of an assault troop?

With the amount of kit that we, as you well know, carry in our "gypsy caravans", I mean AFVs, there would be little room.   You know that we Canadians have almost everything, including the kitchen sink, on board.   Four would be a rather tight fit for us.   I know, my GIB was the safest person on board, because he was buried in kit and couldn't move. (Think winter and hatches down.)  

Your second point, sort of backs up my statement that they would be wasted from the Engr Regt and Inf Bn.  Medics and Sigs do their jobs as Medics and Sigs in the Recce Sqn.  Maintainers maintain.  Engineers and Infanteers would be filling a Crewman role, and have to be trained to do a Crewman's job - they might as well OT.  As I said, they would be able to fill a slot in another Coyote or tank, where the Sigs and Medics would only do their trade specialty.  Assault Troop also carries the 60mm mortars, so that would add more to the cross training required of an Infanteer or Engineer coming into an Assault Troop.  The training to bring them up to speed on Armour and Recce Tactics would also be time consuming. 

Although there are similarities in what they do, there are also a great number of differences.  Both the Armour Corps and Infantry Corps were raped when they lost their Assault Troops and Pioneers.  Change in this instance was not for the better.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

With the amount of kit that we, as you well know, carry in our "gypsy caravans", I mean AFVs, there would be little room.   You know that we Canadians have almost everything, including the kitchen sink, on board.   Four would be a rather tight fit for us.   I know, my GIB was the safest person on board, because he was buried in kit and couldn't move. (Think winter and hatches down.)  

Go less on personal comfort items.   I've done it in the desert and I've done it in the winter with 4 man sled groups strapped to the side and bustle rack of the LAV.  

Your second point, sort of backs up my statement that they would be wasted from the Engr Regt and Inf Bn.   Medics and Sigs do their jobs as Medics and Sigs in the Recce Sqn.   Maintainers maintain.   Engineers and Infanteers would be filling a Crewman role, and have to be trained to do a Crewman's job - they might as well OT.   As I said, they would be able to fill a slot in another Coyote or tank, where the Sigs and Medics would only do their trade specialty.    

I'd thought that the majority of guys in assault troop were acting in a dismounted pseudo infantry/engineer role, not acting as crewmen?   If the need is there to operate the vehicle either have a crewman drive/command/gun or do as the infantry and engineers do with their own LAVs...let them crew it.   They seem to be capable enough in their own units, why would they be less so in an armoured unit?

Assault Troop also carries the 60mm mortars, so that would add more to the cross training required of an Infanteer or Engineer coming into an Assault Troop.  

60mm mortars are not part of the infantry TOE at platoon/company level anymore?   I don't think that crosstraining an engineer on a 60mm would be that difficult.   From what I remember, the 60mm mortar was not taught on the armoured crewman's course, but would be taught through OJT or an assault pioneer course within the regiment.   How would that be different from training up an engineer who, like a crewman, had never worked with the 60mm before he was posted to assault troop.  

The training to bring them up to speed on Armour and Recce Tactics would also be time consuming.  

What training isn't time consuming?

Although there are similarities in what they do, there are also a great number of differences.   Both the Armour Corps and Infantry Corps were raped when they lost their Assault Troops and Pioneers.   Change in this instance was not for the better.

I agree with you in that the PYs for the positions should never have been eliminated, whether they be armour, infantry or engineer soldiers filling the billet.   Again, this brings us back to the robbing Peter to pay Paul discussion.   I'm not disagreeing that a dedicated assault troop or pioneer platoon in the armoured or infantry units isn't a bad thing, rather than an ad hoc attached engineer or infantry element.   What I am advocating is it doesn't really matter what cap badge the guy who's doing the job is wearing as long as the job gets done and done well.    
Perhaps looking at filling these roles from a trade that is more versed in that role (infantry and engineers) rather than a trade where the skillset of a pioneer/assault trooper are not organic (armoured) might be worthwhile?

 

[Reccesoldier]

So much to comment on.

George, reference your idea of placing an Assault section with each troop this has been done by some OC's I've had and in some instances it did help speed the advance but the tasks that a single section can perform are limited.  Remember not all the Assault sections are equally equipped, there was usually only one 60mm for every two C/S and the heavy A-A weapons differed too, one would carry a Carl-G and the other an Eryx.  A section by itself could assault a single trench, make a minor obstacle such as an abatis but not something more substantial like a log crib. Also once the myriad of tasks start to flow (patrols, LRRPS, creation of obst, laying of mines, construction of booby traps) that section would soon be below useable strength and unavailable (Murphy's law says it will happen just when you really need a section complete to accomplish a task ;D).

I have always preferred that Assault troop be kept as a formed sub-unit at the OC's beck and call.  This allows him to divert his resources to accomplish his aim with a minimum of movement, there is no need to consolidate the troop for orders or to drag them from one axis of the Sqn's advance to accomplish a mission on another.

As far as having the Eng and Inf resources attached to take the role of Assault Troop that would require almost a Pl. of each because while an infantry platoon can assault a section on the ground or carry out an ambush they would be out of their element constructing an obstacle like a log crib with it's accompanying minefield and booby-traps. Lets also remember that while most infanteers can and do patrol these are mostly of the standing and fighting variety, the recce patrolmans course is reserved for the more experienced infanteer and is taught as a separate course. To cover off the recce squadrons Assault troop would lead to a loss of experience in the Inf Btn itself.

The comment that assault troops operate as infantry/engineers is a valid point but the operational effectiveness of our scout troops can be extended by the attachment of an assault troop, for example the Coyote troop in the screen is effective for 72 hours without resupply, but the troops can be come burnt out by an OP of extended duration especially if they are mounting listening posts as well. Assault Troopers comming from the Armoured environment can fill in where required in the OP as they often have the skill sets to sit in the operators hole and know OP routine inside and out.

Could infanteers or even engineers be trained to fill the role of Assault Troopers, of course they could, but then all you are really doing is training Assault Troopers anyway.  You would have to go right down to the bare bones of the Recce Squadron in battle to do it so what kind of sense does that make? Answer = None

 

[Slim]

Keep the Assault Troop almost like a ready reserve to shore up an area if required, or to ambush advancing en forces to give our guys time to redeploy in a screen...

I like it.

 

[McG]

To actually bring in Engineers and/or Infanteers to fill the role of Assault Troopers would be a waste of resources to the Engineers and Infantry, and really wouldn't be that great a benefit.

Perhapse you are stuck thinking inside the box.  A couple LAV mounted Engr Recce dets with extra GIBs would be capalble of providing the small scale engineer tasks.  They would also be able to vastly increase the engr technical data developed by recce.  It is not wasted resources, but increased capacity to take advantage of.  60 mm mortar & Eryx are infantry wpns, and they could fight these for the armd.

Lets also remember that while most infanteers can and do patrol these are mostly of the standing and fighting variety, the recce patrolmans course is reserved for the more experienced infanteer and is taught as a separate course. To cover off the recce squadrons Assault troop would lead to a loss of experience in the Inf Btn itself.

When you consider it was also the more experienced infantry that went into the AAP and Pnr Pl of each Bn, these pools would now be available to be trained & posted into one new Recce Pl in each Bde.

 

[Slim]

Perhapse you are stuck thinking inside the box.   A couple LAV mounted Engr Recce dets with extra GIBs would be capalble of providing the small scale engineer tasks.   They would also be able to vastly increase the engr technical data developed by recce.   It is not wasted resources, but increased capacity to take advantage of.   60 mm mortar & Eryx are infantry wpns, and they could fight these for the armd.

You'd still be trying to moosh two groups, that belong to two different chains of command, together. It may work on paper, or even on ex, but what about when you need the cohesion of a group thats worked together before? Also, Eng types are not used to the way that the Corps does things (and visa-versa) and the curve would be made steeper for them just by that.

The idea, at the oputset has mettitts but i would be very cautios tryig to implement it. An armoured assault troop is capable of all of these tasks. Why not just bring them back?

 

[George Wallace]

I'd thought that the majority of guys in assault troop were acting in a dismounted pseudo infantry/engineer role, not acting as crewmen?   If the need is there to operate the vehicle either have a crewman drive/command/gun or do as the infantry and engineers do with their own LAVs...let them crew it.   They seem to be capable enough in their own units, why would they be less so in an armoured unit?

Remember here, we are talking about people's careers, not just an exercise.   These guys will progress through the ranks and get posted to other positions in the Regiment during their careers.   Perhaps, on a deployment they will have to take over for a superior in case of an injury or fatality.   They may have to fill a role in another vehicle or Troop in a similar instance.  

Perhapse you are stuck thinking inside the box.  A couple LAV mounted Engr Recce dets with extra GIBs would be capalble of providing the small scale engineer tasks.  They would also be able to vastly increase the engr technical data developed by recce.  It is not wasted resources, but increased capacity to take advantage of.  60 mm mortar & Eryx are infantry wpns, and they could fight these for the armd.

Perhaps, you are looking at a smaller box than I am.  Don't forget that there is usually an Engr Troop attached to a Sqn to do those "hard" Engr tasks.  To further fill slots in an Armd organization, such as Assault Troop, with Engineers is IMHO a waste of resources.  As for your comment on the experienced Infanteers from Pioneer Platoons, don't you think that the Inf Bn would still be hard pressed to keep them and employ them themselves, as opposed to farming them out to another Unit.  Thinking long term; will they spend the rest of their careers as Assault Troopers in an Armour Regiment?

I don't believe throwing a bunch of Engineers or Infanteers into the back of an Armoured vehicle to work for an Armour Troop for one Exercise or Deployment is an effective way to run an Army.  It takes time to build Unit cohesion, even if it is down to a Unit as small as a Troop or even a Vehicle.  "Plug 'N Play" at this level truly sucks, unless it is for a long period of time, ie. a Posting, and then they might as well OT.

 

[McG]

I don't believe throwing a bunch of Engineers or Infanteers into the back of an Armoured vehicle to work for an Armour Troop for one Exercise or Deployment is an effective way to run an Army.   It takes time to build Unit cohesion, even if it is down to a Unit as small as a Troop or even a Vehicle.

That's great.  If you look back to the recommendation, it was not to do it for exercises or tours but to make it a permanent part of the establishment.  The guys would be there for the duration of a posting and likely return in additional postings in years to come.

Perhaps, you are looking at a smaller box than I am.  

I'm proposing new capacity (capable Engr Recce as a part of Recce Sqn) while you are arguing for the same structure that fought the cold war just because it may take a while to inculcate guys to the way Recce Sqn does business.

It is being done on tour & for exercise (our recce spent as much time with Recce Pl & Surv Tp as it did with us through BTE), so we may as well find a way to make it work.  And, while we are at it, lets through a few extra sappers in the back so that the same vehicles can provide the pioneer capability that used to rest in Assault Tp.

 

[Infanteer]

I agree with MCG's arguement - put engineer's in hard positions in the maneuver battalions (inf and arm).  This would have two benefits:

1)  It replaces the integral capabilities that the maneuver unit had and subsequently lost with the removal of Pioneer and Assault Squadron.

2)  A troop of Pioneers (or Armoured Assaulters) in a maneuver battalion can be merged with a two troop Squadron of Engineer attached from a CER to give the battalion/battlegroup/taskforce more engineering capability while deployed.

Complex warfighting demands the skills of the engineer; many AAR's and articles in the Marine Corps Gazette that deal with things like Fallujah, IED's and Engineers within the force structure scream for more Sappers and for them to be at lower levels.  We can meet both these demands by doing something like MCG proposes.

 

[George Wallace]

I'll play along....Let's put Engineers into the Recce Troops full time.  Add in the Infantry guys too.  What do we now have in the way of vehicles per Troop?  

Let's say one Infanteer and one Engineer (perhaps two of each) in the back of the.........wait a minute....the only Coyote with room to carry extra supplies or Troops would be the Troop Leader.  No.  You're right, we do have the two other LAV/Coyotes from 'Assault Troop' and they can carry them.  The Troop is now nine or so C/S in strength.  

Nope.  I don't see the benefit of putting Engineers or Infantry into Assault Troop.  The only reason I can see that happening, is because the Engineers are too anal to train Infantry or Armour in the skills they require to be Pioneers and Assault Troopers.  They want to create an 'Empire' and make themselves 'feel good'.  

Does the fact that Armour Recce does Route Recces that include Bridge Classifications, and that Armour had Assault Troops qualified in demolitions and use of SEV equipment really threaten the Engineer 'Gods' that much?  

I can see the benefit of Crewmen having Engineer Crses and qualifications to do the job of Assault Troopers.  I can not see the justification of Engineers being posted into an Assault Troop and not being able to benefit from Crses in their Trade for advancement due to their being ERE and controlled by an outside agency like an Armour Regiment.  I can not see any long term benefits for anyone in this situation.  

This is why I believe that Pioneers should be Infantry first and trained in Engineer Qualifications so that they can perform their specialized jobs in an Infantry Bn.  This is why I believe that Assault Troopers should be Armour Crewmen, who have also had Engineer Crses and Infantry Crses in order to perform their duties in an Armour Assault Troop.

The problems I have witnessed in the last ten or so years, is that the Engineers don't have the resources to train Pioneers and Assault Troopers properly.  Ask many, why they couldn't complete their full courses because the Engineers refused or didn't have the resources to do the Demolitions Portions of the Crse.  One excuse was that they were rewriting the TP.  If the Engineers can't find the resources to do this, how can we expect them to find the resources to fill Assault Troops?

F it..... RANT OFF!

With the New Army, we will see the death of Regiments and the creation of what Infanteer and MCG are advocating and what we are already seeing happen.  The LdSH (RC) are currently using the "Plug 'N Play" scenario with the TOW from the PPCLI and the ADATS from the Artillery.  It is a new world out there.  Some feel that all change is Good. 






As you have noticed.......I don't look at 'All' change as being Good and for the best.

I also find the 'cold war' and 'dinosaur' defence of new ideas very illuminating in a persons limited knowledge or imagination.  It is an insult to use those terms as your defence against contrary view.

 

[Infanteer]

I'll play along....Let's put Engineers into the Recce Troops full time.  Add in the Infantry guys too.  What do we now have in the way of vehicles per Troop?

Actually, I was just thinking of having a Engineer troop hardwired into the battalion/regiment organization.  We are seeing similar moves in the state with "Modular UA" - the general idea seems to have root in the works of MacGregor.  Once hardwired, the CO can do what he pleases with it.  

Nope.  I don't see the benefit of putting Engineers or Infantry into Assault Troop.  The only reason I can see that happening, is because the Engineers are too anal to train Infantry or Armour in the skills they require to be Pioneers and Assault Troopers.  They want to create an 'Empire' and make themselves 'feel good'.

Does the fact that Armour Recce does Route Recces that include Bridge Classifications, and that Armour had Assault Troops qualified in demolitions and use of SEV equipment really threaten the Engineer 'Gods' that much?

Could we not reverse the "Empire" arguement by stating that the Armoured Corps wants to do every task itself?   A xenophobic attitude within maneuver battalions isn't conducive to combined arms integration at the lowest levels.

I think the logic of the arguement is to let the Armoured types do what they should be doing - "crewing" (or "scouting" in a Cav function).   If every branch is trying to shore up it's own Corps for the sake of turf, we end up with the logical absurdities that we see today, where the Infantry Corps is more heavier armed and armoured than the Armoured Corps....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't know what the problem is here. The original Assault Troop orbat worked just fine. There was no need to change it, and I defy anyone including the CDS to justify the action. This includes the Pioneers. The orbat produced highly skilled and cross trained soldiers in almost all combat arms units. This was something the CF always prided itself on. Jack of all trades, master of none, yada yada. Both the Infantry and the Armoured have proven for years we are more than capable of maintaining the skills required without employing specialists. Leave it be. The Corps can't, at the moment, mount all it's troops into recce/ surveillance vehicles. Why not reform Assault troop with the remainder. Give back the call signs with the SEV kits, etc and get on with it. BTW, this argument is not new. It goes back to the Engineers demanding exclusive use of the AVBL and the RCEME totally crewing the ARV, both including the crewman driver positions. Our Recce works approx 30- 50 km ahead of the FEBA, that is a job for well rounded, cross trained recce soldiers, armoured or infantry, people with ancillary skills, not specialists with unique skills.

Quit trying to justify the stupid descision to disband these elements with academic rhetoric. We know it was a mistake and so do the higher ups. We just have to wait for the dinosaurs to leave. Then someone will propose a change back to the original concept, be vaunted as a far seeing thinker, promoted and placed in charge of the change back to where we were originally. Wait for it.

 

[DG-41]

To further fill slots in an Armd organization, such as Assault Troop, with Engineers is IMHO a waste of resources.

I totally agree. The engineering/pioneering tasks done by recce troops and particularly Assault Troop are "engineering lite" - hasty bridge classifications, the identification of possible ford points, route reports, creation/removal of hasty roadblocks, and the like. That's similar to, but a far cry from being, the hard-core engineer tasks.

Full-bore engineers are so rare and so precious that it would be a complete waste to try and embed them in recce organizaions.

I also find the 'cold war' and 'dinosaur' defence of new ideas very illuminating in a persons limited knowledge or imagination.  It is an insult to use those terms as your defence against contrary view.

I also agree with this too. All this three-block war stuff isn't new (in fact, the stuff I've been reading/hearing about Afganistan really reminds me of the stories a friend of mine used to tell about Northern Ireland) - what is new is that we're finally developing doctrine to deal with the asyemmetric stuf instead of dealing with these sorts of missions ad hoc, case-by-case as we have in the past. All the old-school Soviet Army stuff is still completely valid (and is based on a wealth of operational experience) Shifting our centre of effort from bears to snakes doesn't invalidate a single comma of the previous doctrine.

Furthermore, our long-standing recce doctrine is already much closer to what is required in a "snake scenario" than many other of our doctrines. All that sneaking and peaking fits just as well into a case where the target is a small force commanded by a local warlord as when it was the main body of a Soviet MRR. If there is any arm that would do well to listen to old dinosaurs, it is recce.

DG

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And what I said above about the traditional Recce role also applies to asymetrical warfare, because that's where recce excels, adapting immediately to the changing situation without depending on outside resources, as much as other elements.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know what the problem is here. The original Assault Troop orbat worked just fine. There was no need to change it, and I defy anyone including the CDS to justify the action. This includes the Pioneers.

I can't speak for Armoured, but I'm pretty sure that Infantry Battalions with 2 companies was the reason they were done in with in the Battalions.

Quit trying to justify the stupid descision to disband these elements with academic rhetoric.

I'm not trying to justify a stupid decision with academic rhetoric, I'm supporting MCG's arguement that since there is no pioneering capability within the maneuver battalions that it might be feasible to hardwire a troop of engineers at the unit level.  MCG has said that the only thing holding back Engineer numbers is that they are restrained from filling their ranks.  Perhaps this would be a way to allow for engineer expansion (we could always use more, as DG said, they are a rare asset).  A hardwired engineer organization within a maneuver battalion (as MacGregor proposed, as the American's are doing with UA) would give the battalion commander real capability.  As well, if organizations wanted to put demo/assault flavoured troops (pioneers) at the lower levels such as the coy/sqdn (as discussed here) they would have direct interface with SME's within their unit to help keep up on skill sets.

Anyways, all this bickering about hatbadges is wearing me out and making LtCol Bank's notion of a single "Combat Arms" branch an appealing one.  The goal is to push combined arms functions down to the lowest level in a manner that doesn't involve us tearing whole units apart to produce that effect.

 

[George Wallace]

........   The goal is to push combined arms functions down to the lowest level in a manner that doesn't involve us tearing whole units apart to produce that effect.

That is exactly what we had with Assault Troops and Pioneers.    The new 'creation' is tearing whole units apart.  Engineers are being farmed out from their Regiments to fill slots in Infantry and Armour Units.   Infantry and Arty pers are being farmed out to Armour units (LdSH (RC) example).

Some uninformed inexperienced Senior Officer is reinventing the wheel in Disneyland on the Rideau and changing names and organizations to justify his existence.  Those with true experience, not a bunch of 'Ticket Punchers', in both the Infantry and Armour Corps realize this and it really gets their goat.  Engineers who expound the new ideas are not showing their knowledge and experience at the 'Game'.  They have their role on the Battlefield, Armour and Infantry as the Cbt Arms have their role.  Recce out 50 km in front of the FEOT need Recce Soldiers, not a bunch of passengers wearing beavers. 

As Recceguy and DG say, we, in the CF,  have been known for our "Jack of all Trades" abilities which have put us way ahead of American doctrine and practices in the Battlefield.  Our initiative and ability to do many tasks have set us above them.  What Infanteer and MCG propose is the "Americanization" of our organizations and the introduction of "Specialists" into our organizations.  We all know how that affects Cbt organizations and degrades their abilities in Battle.  (Simple Example:  C - 6 Gunnery.  In Canada we have all crew members trained on the C - 6, to fill any gun position.  If one is incapacitated, the gun is still functionable.  In the US and some other nations, each member of the crew is a 'specialist' and if one is incapacitated, the whole gun is out of action.  Expand this example to any crew or unit in the CF and look at the havoc it would cause to a small force like ours and how quickly we will be incapacitated.)

It is this 'CANDO' attitude and adaptability that I believe the Americans are emulating.  They are trying to become what we are.  For us to look at them and not realize this, and try to become what they used to be, is foolishness.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

In the US and some other nations, each member of the crew is a 'specialist' and if one is incapacitated, the whole gun is out of action.   Expand this example to any crew or unit in the CF and look at the havoc it would cause to a small force like ours and how quickly we will be incapacitated.)

You're wrong about this.  While I cannot speak for the US Army or other branches, I can confidently say that in the US Marines, EVERY Marine is crosstrained to do the other's job.  Right after basic all non-infantry Marines are sent through 3 weeks of Marine Combat Training, which trains them on the M-249 (C-9), M-240 (C-6), Mk-19 and M-2 .50 cal.  I don't remember there being a similar program in the CFs.  In my LAR unit, EVERYBODY that rides on the LAV is trained as an emergency driver and ALL crewmen are trained on D&M as well as gunnery when they take their initial crewman's course (whereas in Canada, they're run as separate courses, so in fact you very well could have a driver on a Coyote who isn't trained on gunnery).

I don't mean to start a pissing match here between who does it better, the US or Canada, but when you make make statements like this, please have some evidence to back them up other than the all too common "Americans are dumb, Canadians are smart, if we didn't have a small population and beer and hockey were never invented to distract us, we'd rule the world..." 

 

[George Wallace]

Sorry Matt

I have a tendency to totally forget about the USMC when making those comments about the US Army.  I look at the CF and USMC as being relatively the same in philosophy and training as opposed to the US Army.  Unfortunately, we are starting to try to emulate the US Army more than we should. 

Yes I did have Coyote Drivers who could not drive anything else, nor could they gun, but they do get some rudimentary Gunnery info as part of their D&M training, as Gunners have some rudimentary D&M info in their Gunnery Crses.  Due to Budget Cuts, the whole CF has suffered and the Armour Corps is having to take longer to get its pers "Dual Qualified" on its' AFVs. (A Bad Thing.)  It is even more of a problem, in that now we need to also qualify Surv Ops.