Assault troop

[DG-41]

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.

My understanding is that similar things are now going on in the US Army, where previously, this was NOT the case The "American way" used to be hyper-specialization to the exclusion of all else. I have personal experience with this based on some contact I had with American mechanics, who had 5 times the number of people on the ground to do the same job that me and my MRT did, because each was a speciallist and expressly forbidden from crossing over into somebody else's domain.

The key words here are USED TO. The Americans seem to have realized the error of their ways, and are moving towards a more "Canadian" system. Once-valid generalizations about hyper-specialized-to-the-point-of-ridiicule Yanks are increasingly less accurate.

The irony, of course, is that we seem to be moving in the other direction. The Yanks are getting smarter - are we getting dumber?

DG

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that a lot of us are victims of the US Army "as it was" vs the US Army "as it is" and the US Army "as it is becoming".

The US Army "as it was" was that large industrialized conscript organization that fought in World War 1, won World War 2 on its own (with some help from A Company KOSBs and Gunner Spike Milligan and a few other dogsbodies), that helped Elvis Presley hold the Fulda Gap, fought in Korea and Vietnam and died in the 70's. 

That army was one of specialists, many bodies, most of whom were narrowly trained to do a few things well.  With lots of manpower and lots of money it was an efficient way to get bodies into the field fast.  Coupled with the way that Americans like to play sports - Coach plans everything down the minutest detail a year in advance, trains everyone to that plan and then directs the play on the field to adhere to that plan - it all worked for them.

But that army died in the late 70's with the volunteer army.  After about a decade of casting around for a new game plan they came up with the Airland Battle in the 80's which essentially took the same specialist notions, applied them to all the new gee-whiz technology (Bradleys, Abrams, Apaches, Warthogs, MLRS) and created an army to man equipment that was all designed to fight the plan for one battle.  The battle planned never happened where it was intended but Saddam offered an opportunity to use the game plan on a different court. 

That army, I have characterized it as an artillery army - it mans the equipment, it doesn't equip the man, and its focused on the destruction of standing armies - is the legacy army they keep talking about.

The army it is becoming, pace Kaplan's Imperial Grunts, is a traditional infantry army, or at least a soldier-centric army.  With no easily identifiable targets its hard to create a game plan a decade in advance and then train to the plan.  Everything is so murky and undefined the only guarantor of success is well trained soldiers that are capable of making good decisions under stress.  This is where they are heading and are a long way along that trail - Iraq and Afghanistan plus a hundred other places that don't make the news have guaranteed that.

In the meantime, the army "as it is", is that "transformational" one of Shinseki, Rumsfeld and Schoomaker et al.

The Yanks aren't that dumb most of the time - even they are learning how to brew the occasional bottle of good beer.

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

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).

I guess the other part deals with manning - I believe that was a central reason to get rid of it.  Remember how Engineers were given the task, but not the PY's?  I think that we ultimately need the capability at both sub-unit and unit level, probably with a mixture of MOSIDs to achieve this.  I'm coming from the fact that we should take some capabilty instead of no capability at all at the unit level.  Let the sub-units make room for adhoc engineers.

The irony, of course, is that we seem to be moving in the other direction. The Yanks are getting smarter - are we getting dumber?

Look at the Layout of the UA; this is not what is happening.  The US Battalions will have a Company of 21-series Engineers to help the armoured and mechanized forces move along.  The Americans in general (both USMC and US Army) do not have the regimental system dragging them down to the deep and do not hesitate to put different MOS codes down to low levels (permanently).  For example, a company level TO&E may be entitled to a variety of different MOS to ensure it can perform its tasks.

 

[McG]

Armour and Infantry as the Cbt Arms have their role.

Engineers & Artillery are also Cbt Arms.

Infantry and Arty pers are being farmed out to Armour units (LdSH (RC) example).

Is it a bad thing if a unit is not branch pure?

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.

Nice boogieman scenario, but wholly irrelevant (and partially contradictory of your earlier arguments).   Nobody has suggested that basic soldier skills become specialist skills.   Nobody has suggested that a armd recce crew should not have the skill sets for hasty bridge classifications or route recces (they should infact have those skills).   However, you are being self-contradictory.   If being a "Jack of all Trades" is good for the Armd, why do you argue so against cross trg of infantry and engineer:

They [Infantry & Engineers] would not be used to Armd practices, nor would they be interchangeable with other Armd Crew positions.

.. 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.

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.

Pushing change for the sake of change is stupid, just as opposing all change as bad is stupid.   However, regardless of one's position on any given change, there comes a point where you have to accept that it has happened and determine how best to carry on.   Allowing things to not work and waiting for faceless incompetents to retire is not an acceptable COA.

... 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?

So much condescension toward the engineers.   Why are you turning this into a cap badge issue?   As I've already stated, Armd Recce should be able to do bridge classifications, rte recce, etc.   However, on the notion of accepting the change that the Army (not the Engineers) chose to make (and has followed through with):   assault troopers are gone (therefore, while you should still be able to do bridge classifications, rte recce, etc, you need something to do the demolitions, MCM, mobility, etc) .   For me, this is not about what is on someone's beret.   If the Pioneers were still around, I could have comfortably suggested infantry pioneer sections be used to replace assault troopers in the recce establishment.  

The empire building concept is interesting though.   I've never seen that accusation thrown at someone that has just suggested cutting away a part of his "empire" to make it a part of another unit.   I guess the TUA Coy in the LdSH must be infantry empire building.

 

[DG-41]

Is it a bad thing if a unit is not branch pure?

Well, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

From a pure paper perspective, no, there's no reason why the troopers in Assault Troop couldn't be infantry or even engineers (although staffing AT with engineers seems VERY wasteful of super-trained, super-specialized personell) The drivers and crew comanders would probably need to stay Armoured (AT is a reserve recce troop and can be called upon to do route recces etc) but the dismounts could all be Infantry, no problem.

And it certainly doesn't offend any sense of "capbadge racial purity" or whatever that I might have. They are bodies who can do the job, case closed.

But integration - especially with career progression - is another kettle of fish. I can't see the dismounts being permenantly posted to AT, because the highest up the pole that an infanteer in AT could aspire to is section commander.

OK, so make it some sort of attached posting then. Well, what does that do for unit cohesion? Who will look after their career progression, what courses they need to go on, etc. Will they integrate smoothly into the unit, or will they always be the bastard red-headed stepchildren?

I don't think it is impossible, but it would require some thought and planning. It's not unusual in a service support role (the SSM owns maintainers and medics) but in a combat arms role, I think it's a new and uncomfortable idea.

DG

 

[McG]

But integration - especially with career progression - is another kettle of fish. I can't see the dismounts being permenantly posted to AT, because the highest up the pole that an infanteer in AT could aspire to is section commander.

OK, so make it some sort of attached posting then. Well, what does that do for unit cohesion? Who will look after their career progression, what courses they need to go on, etc. Will they integrate smoothly into the unit, or will they always be the ******* red-headed stepchildren?

No.   It would be a complete posting.   Just as is currently done with sigs, wpns techs, FCS techs, etc (and as is done with infantry into TUA Coy).  At the end of a tour, the infantry & engr could be posted back to their own kind.   Section commanders and section 2ic would have done previous postings to the assault troop.

 

[George Wallace]

No.   It would be a complete posting.   Just as is currently done with sigs, wpns techs, FCS techs, etc.   At the end of a tour, the infantry & engr could be posted back to their own kind.   Section commanders and section 2ic would have done previous postings to the assault troop.

I hope you are not thinking of them in the same way as Sigs, Maintainers, and Techs?   I am not.   Sigs, Maintainers and Techs are not in the Troops.   The Infanteers and Engineers would be, and DG's concerns are what I have also been worried about.  

Anyone from one Trade, getting a PER from an organization that is another Trade, quite often gets the shaft.   I see problems with Career Progression in that respect.

As I have also said, I don't see them fully intergrating into an Armd Assault Troop, in that they are a different Trade, and will limit the flexibility and movement within the Armoured Regt that always happens.   One day you are in Assault Troop and the next you have to fill the slot as a Gunner or Comd in a Coyote.   This is where I see the Pioneers and Assault Troopers as being integral to a Bn or Armd Regt, not a bunch of 'Plug 'n Play' Infanteers, Gunners, or Engineers.

I see any Arty, Infantry and Engineer elements in an Armour Unit as being in the form of Small Unit Attachments.   Like the Arty FOO/FAC Det, the Engr Det, etc.  

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Hmm.

Sorry to barge in late.  I would be very interested in a Recce Sqn laid out with the following

  a.  two to three six car troops (Tp Ldr acting as a patrol comd)

  b.  an assault Tp

  c.  an anti-armour Tp

  d.  a CSS Tp

  e.  a mortar Tp

  f.  SHQ

Coming to the question at hand, I'm not terribly fussed about the MOCs or capbadges.  I am fussed about the capabilities brought to the table and I am very concerned about cohesion and teamwork. 

With this in mind I would be very happy to have Engineers as the Assault Tp, Infantry manning the anti-armour Tp, and Gunners manning the mortars as long as they were in the Sqn for the year.  I would address the training and morale/cohesion issues as follows.

  a.  each of the different MOCs would be doing things a little different in a Recce Sqn than in their parent unit.  The engineers will have additional tasks while the mortars and anti-armour guys might well be doing things a little differently than usual.  The engineers would have to draw on their secondary role alot (that of infantry).  This would require a "gear shift" but I'm sure that they would be up to the challenge.  Training together should sort this out.

    b.  they'd all come with their Pl/Tp Comds and WOs and the Armoured OC/SSM would be accountable for the career implications with the respective branch OPIs (just like for our CSS folks in an Armoured unit).

If the result is that we can field more Recce Tps and give our Armd Recce soldiers more high-speed patrolling training then I suppose that a multi-branch sub-unit could be a good thing.

Going back to the armoured guys for a minute, I like the idea of a smaller OCS allowing us to put 2 guys in the back.  It will be cramped but we add a huge capability (as well as having a pool of drivers and gunners for emergency replacements).

Heck, add in a LAV Platoon from the infantry and you have an "economy of force" Task Force for smaller missions.  Park it in a multi-national camp with a small NSE and NCE and you are away to the races.

Cheers,

2B

 

[orange.paint]

Just a question on aslt trp.I have heard that the since we lost assault troop a few years back that it had become a reserve recce task. No one I have asked from work could confirm this.Are the reserve units actually training as aslt trp?what units?Is it a regiment tasking or just a trp?Also are they actually getting the demo course? Any info would be appreciated.

And with having 1x dismounted sqn now and possibly the second soon is there talk of bringing it back reg?
cheers

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's news to me. I know we're not involved in it. It's been dropped from the Doctrine, so to speak. If someone is playing around at it, it's likely due to lack of equipment, funds, etc. and not being able to practice their actual role as mud recce. We still do dismounted stuff, ambushes and occasionaly get a slot on basic demo, etc, but no full blown Assault troop stuff. Not that it wouldn't be a bad idea to bring it back. I don't think it should have ever been taken away, same as the Pioneers. However, there is already existing threads on the loss of both Assault Trooper and Pioneer already running. You may want to add your $00.02 on the subject there.

 

[George Wallace]

Way back when.....Most Reserve Recce Reg'ts had an "Assault Troop".  That was my first command in the Reserves.  They in no way resembled a Reg Force Recce Assault Troop.  What they were in fact, due to lack of jeeps and an abundance of personnel, were a 'Mech Infantry Section' that rode in 3/4 and later 5/4 ton cargo trucks and were called up to assist in clearing roadblocks or to set up ambushes.  They had no Demolition Trg, nor any Pioneer tools.  They were just 'more guys with guns', who were there for the Sqn/Regt Comd to employ as he needed.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Way back when.....Most Reserve Recce Reg'ts had an "Assault Troop".  That was my first command in the Reserves.  They in no way resembled a Reg Force Recce Assault Troop.  What they were in fact, due to lack of jeeps and an abundance of personnel, were a 'Mech Infantry Section' that rode in 3/4 and later 5/4 ton cargo trucks and were called up to assist in clearing roadblocks or to set up ambushes.  They had no Demolition Trg, nor any Pioneer tools.  They were just 'more guys with guns', who were there for the Sqn/Regt Comd to employ as he needed.

QYRang (3ARR) had implemented an Assault Tp. at Stalwart Guardian '05. It was an on the fly decision, as when we got there, came to the realization that we didn't have as many vehicles as we expected to have.

It was pretty much the same as you described, nothing special, just a bunch of guys in an ML. There wasn't any pre-training, in fact, most of the guys in it had no clue what an Assault Tp. was until the Exercise.

 

[reccecrewman]

As it stands now, 'B' Sqn. RCD has 4 Troops. 3 & 4 are both dismounted troops due to lack of Coyotes.  'D' Sqn. has no Coyote's at the moment as they're awaiting 'A' Sqn. to go out the door in August for Op Archer Roto 2 to get some vehicles.

 

[Reccesoldier]

As it stands now, 'B' Sqn. RCD has 4 Troops. 3 & 4 are both dismounted troops due to lack of Coyotes.  'D' Sqn. has no Coyote's at the moment as they're awaiting 'A' Sqn. to go out the door in August for Op Archer Roto 2 to get some vehicles.

3Tp is mounted now.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I spent about 12 years with D Sqn.  There was always good intent to "man and equip" 44 Tp BUT the reality was there just wasn't enough troops, vehicles and kit to outfit our 3 Recce Tp's let alone 44 Tp.  It existed on paper and in OC D's imagination and perhaps his dreams.  I knew a few Reg Frce guys that had served with the Support Tp in the RCDs and they actually trained and were tasked like a true Assault Tp.  I know in D Sqn we had a hard enough go trng and working on Recce Tp stuff; adding 44 Tp stuff into our Trng would never have worked cause of lack of time, money and kit.  No one was willing to resource the Sqn to be able to maintain 44 so like all things...it got rusty and was eventually turfed for good...

Question is...IF 44 Tp is brought back, even to the Reg Frce, will they do "44" tasks in places like Khandahar, or the next hotspot that blows up, or will good 'ol E22 be called up to deal with the threat or task for mine/IED/booby trap stuff, with the ground-pounders doing the other spectrum of the 44 Tp tasks?  I know when I did my Recce C Comdr's courses, we did our mine trng with 2 RCR Pioneer's and those guys had their sh-t wired tight.  So did the Sp Tp guys I had the chance to meet from Pet.

I haven't heard or seen anything on 44 Tp coming back, or Assault Tp as some call them, but the first question is...would anyone actually use them or are they a dead breed that exists only in the history books and the stories of the older guys sitting around the Mess?

 

[DG-41]

Hey Stan

In the Reserve world, the major obstacle to fielding 44 is lack of troops and equipment. It's hard enough scraping together enough warm bodies and enough running trucks to put a pair of Recce troops in the field.

But if there were bodies and trucks, 44 is a GREAT way to get fresh troopers and newly-minted 2Lts some experience without requiring all the extra skillset of a "proper" recce troop. Hand off a contact to 44, and then let them carry out a quick attack to flush out the enemy while the former piquet rejoins the rest of his troop forward.

I don't know of anything preventing this from happening, save a lack of pers.

DG.

 

[Franko]

Holy crap....Stan you're still in?

Thought you got out years ago. 

There is no Assault troop in the Regiment anymore...nor will there, alas, be anytime soon. Deemed not ness. and as such struck.

Regards

 

[LIKELY]

G'day Lads

I unfortunately think the days of Support Troop are over.  When a recce Sqn gets tasked these days they are rarely alone. Dennis I have to disagree with you....maybe call the newbies 44 for trg purposes but never let them think they are actually a support troop.
This position was always reserved for the most switched on and senior members of the Sqn. Its too bad really, we had a great support troop in the PEIR in the mid 80's. Senior guys with the actual course.  Then we had a great one in the Strats too....we were outcasts and we loved it.  Sadly those days are over as we seem to be going to a more "american" type of tactic...oh well times are a'changin and get out of the way if you can't lend a hand!

Good to see ya both here.

Rob

 

[DG-41]

Wow, everybody is crawling out of the woodwork today.

This position was always reserved for the most switched on and senior members of the Sqn. Its too bad really, we had a great support troop in the PEIR in the mid 80's. Senior guys with the actual course.  Then we had a great one in the Strats too....we were outcasts and we loved it.

Yeah, but that was (correct me if I'm wrong) mostly due to all the *other* jobs Assault troop did; the Pioneer-esque tasks like abatis, mine clearing/mine laying, ford and bridge improvement, etc etc. Those are all special, "oddball" skills that need a lot of extra training to build up.

But in the world we have now, it takes long enough to train a "regular" Recce soldier. The guys coming out of Basic & CAP don't have any recce skills to speak of, and DP1 just gives them driving, radios, and some AFV. You don't have a real recce trooper until DP2, and realistically, it still takes some time in the troops to fill in the gaps and get enough practical experience to where you have a properly salted troop.

Similar deal with the officer side. A 2Lt has training on how to conduct dismounted recce patrols, how to conduct section attacks and section defenses, and depending on his course staff, he may have gotten his feet moist on platoon-level tactics. (My BOT/BOAT did section attacks for a week, and later in the week, guys who had done their section attacks were being tasked as platoon commanders and getting a low-key introduction to fighting a platoon as a platoon - flanking attacks and so on. This wasn't part of the course; I think it was more a way to alleviate some of the boredom of Yet Another Section Attack - but hey, it worked. Between that and the Great Invasion of the Madeline Islands, I actually had a bit of a schmick on how to conduct a platoon attack as a 2Lt)

If you have a BOT/BOAT or CAP-R or whatever the hell they call it these days qualified 2Lt, a switched-on WO or Sgt to help mentor him and keep things from running amok, a couple of master jacks, and maybe a couple of soon-to-go-on-PLQ Cpls, the wad of Privates, plus an ML or two, you have the makings of an effective Assault Troop that serves to provide decent, fun training for all involved (save maybe the poor WO who gets shafted as nanny)

Is that the equivalent of the Strats' Support Troop? Hell no. But it can play a useful part in the greater scheme of things, if there are enough people to man it.

Here in the Windsors, we just don't have the people. No available WO, no spare Sgts, no spare MCpls. Even if you gave me 20-odd Ptes right now as the core of 44, we'd be able to fill the troop leader spot and that's about it.

I'd like to see us do what we did in PEI, where 43 ran a Basic course, and then once the students graduated the course as a whole (students and instructors) stood up as a troop. That worked really, really well, as it eased everybody into the recce job gradually (the students did QL3 the same summer as the troop leader did Phase 3/Phase 4) and they'd had a year of working together to build unit cohesion. 43 PEIR in 1996 was a tight-kit group, used to working together, and we really pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps.

I'd love to see that happen with the Windsors, but there isn't a spare WO, Sgt, and a pair of Jacks to stand up even a 5-car troop.

If we had the extra leadership bodies, I'm certain that we could stand up Assault Troop too. But they just ain't there.

DG

 

[Gramps]

The Great Invasion of the Madeline Islands?

Oh yeah, I remember that, the beach, the sand and the beer in the back of Newt's truck.