Infantry Vehicles

[TangoTwoBravo]

Point of order. The Assault Troop in a Recce Squadron was not a mechanized infantry platoon by another name. They had mobility/counter-mobility tasks, so they were closer to assault pioneers. They could also be used to secure Sqn HQ or the echelon (so similar again to assault pioneers from time to time). They could also conduct dismounted OPs in close country or conduct patrols. Tank hunting as part of a screen was also a possible task. Clearing defiles would be a possible task, but executing an attack as part of a squadron operation, though, would be highly unusual. All that to say, while we could certainly make a Venn Diagram that would show that Assault Troops had some things in common with a Mechanized Infantry Platoon, they were not interchangeable.

 

[KevinB]

@TangoTwoBravo ack on the Assault Troop, but all the tasks of an Assault Troop are already Infantry PCF functions. So I dislike reinventing the wheel. It’s much easier to have an Infantry platoon with those skills than retrain crewmen to dismounted tasks.


It’s also why I like the idea of Combined Arms units - and while it can be a problem for certain things - having a Mortar Platoon, Recce platoon, Pioneer Platoon or subsections of them in an Armored unit can help.

Of course that also opens up the who should drive/CC and Gun non tank AFV’s — which is an internal conflict I still have with myself

 

[PrairieFella]

@TangoTwoBravo ack on the Assault Troop, but all the tasks of an Assault Troop are already Infantry PCF functions. So I dislike reinventing the wheel. It’s much easier to have an Infantry platoon with those skills than retrain crewmen to dismounted tasks.


It’s also why I like the idea of Combined Arms units - and while it can be a problem for certain things - having a Mortar Platoon, Recce platoon, Pioneer Platoon or subsections of them in an Armored unit can help.

Of course that also opens up the who should drive/CC and Gun non tank AFV’s — which is an internal conflict I still have with myself

One of the key benefits of assault troop, which is supposed to be drawn from more experienced soldiers is they understand the doctrine, drills and habits of the Armoured Squadron. Heck, a year or two earlier they were in the AFVs they're more conducting mobility tasks for.

It's kind of potato/potato in terms of the of the economy of effort for training. We learn land nav and recce patrols on RQ Tpr/DP1 and previously in BMQL/SQ. Sure we would need to learn more infantry-centric stuff to field the assault troop but on the flip side the infantry will need to learn (and do) armoured centric stuff like held-up drills, armoured gunnery if required to be a replacement in an AFV crew, RR sentry and guard, etc etc etc. Kind of a wash if you ask me.

All that said, I agree squadrons should be more combined arms, with mortars being the most obvious lacking piece of the non-tank armoured squadron.

 

[KevinB]

One of the key benefits of assault troop, which is supposed to be drawn from more experienced soldiers is they understand the doctrine, drills and habits of the Armoured Squadron. Heck, a year or two earlier they were in the AFVs they're more conducting mobility tasks for.

It's kind of potato/potato in terms of the of the economy of effort for training. We learn land nav and recce patrols on RQ Tpr/DP1 and previously in BMQL/SQ.

Having taught on those, there is a significant difference between being taught/shown the basis of something, and constantly doing it.

Years ago the Assault Squadrons tried to get Sniper slots — but kept failing the Infantry Recce pre-req.

Sure we would need to learn more infantry-centric stuff to field the assault troop but on the flip side the infantry will need to learn (and do) armoured centric stuff like held-up drills, armoured gunnery if required to be a replacement in an AFV crew, RR sentry and guard, etc etc etc. Kind of a wash if you ask me.

The only unique thing would be AFV gunner - and I’d suggest it’s a non issue, as you don’t expect to put your Sigs or Medics running a tank gun, so don’t make your Infantry

All that said, I agree squadrons should be more combined arms, with mortars being the most obvious lacking piece of the non-tank armoured squadron.

Well don’t feel too bad a lot of CA Infantry units don’t have mortars either

 

[Kirkhill]

Thinking a bit more about the "weight" of vehicles and their corresponding utility to the supported force -

I made this comment:

Light tanks were welcomed by US Marines, Commonwealth and Japanese troops fighting in the jungles - even though the Brits were using bolt action rifles and relied on bayonets, fighting knives, kukris and entrenching tools for back up weapons.

You can call them tanks or not, as you like, or you can call them Direct Fire Support Vehicles, ultimately they are self-propelled guns. They are artillery pieces for infantry support.

The closer you wish to close with the enemy then the more steel you need and the heavier the vehicle. Conversely, if you can't afford to bring steel plate to the battle then you are going to have to stand-off and fight from a distance.

Direct Fire Support systems are generally Line Of Sight systems that puts them into a slugging match with the opposition. They really can't avoid the need for armour plate with the amount being set by the size of gun the opposition has. To my mind that works against the Medium force. The Medium vehicle can carry a big gun but can't carry a lot of plate.

On the other hand

Mortars

The Scorpion ISV gives the very light infantry covering fire from 81 and 120 mm mortars.
The appropriate comparable for the Medium Force would be something like the NEMO or Patria turrets. They can fire a long distance from behind cover. They can fire exotics. And, in extremis, they can fire low angle LOS shots on the move.

Company requirement - 4x 35mm/70mm AD/C-UAS vehicles and 2x 120mm mortar vehicles.

By the way, anybody else noticing the rise of the dual function ADATs or MMEV?

 

[markppcli]

One of the key benefits of assault troop, which is supposed to be drawn from more experienced soldiers is they understand the doctrine, drills and habits of the Armoured Squadron. Heck, a year or two earlier they were in the AFVs they're more conducting mobility tasks for.

It's kind of potato/potato in terms of the of the economy of effort for training. We learn land nav and recce patrols on RQ Tpr/DP1 and previously in BMQL/SQ. Sure we would need to learn more infantry-centric stuff to field the assault troop but on the flip side the infantry will need to learn (and do) armoured centric stuff like held-up drills, armoured gunnery if required to be a replacement in an AFV crew, RR sentry and guard, etc etc etc. Kind of a wash if you ask me.

All that said, I agree squadrons should be more combined arms, with mortars being the most obvious lacking piece of the non-tank armoured squadron.

Ignoring that most infantry are qualified to crew AFVs already.

 

[PrairieFella]

Ignoring that most infantry are qualified to crew AFVs already.

Infantry AFV crew skills have always left a lot to be desired. The positions the commanders take can be astounding lol. This is fine because it's not their job, just like my defensive siting would probably equally questionable.

Also, in my perfect world there'd be no crossover. The LAV is not a good recce/cavalry vehicle, too damned big with Cav having ko need for a section compartment, undergunned and no anti-armour. That and we all know planning on actually doing anything with the TAPV is a pipedream.

 

[Kirkhill]

Infantry AFV crew skills have always left a lot to be desired. The positions the commanders take can be astounding lol. This is fine because it's not their job, just like my defensive siting would probably equally questionable.

Also, in my perfect world there'd be no crossover. The LAV is not a good recce/cavalry vehicle, too damned big with Cav having ko need for a section compartment, undergunned and no anti-armour. That and we all know planning on actually doing anything with the TAPV is a pipedream.

Saladin, Saracen and Stalwart - one vehicle, three forms.

 

[KevinB]

Infantry AFV crew skills have always left a lot to be desired. The positions the commanders take can be astounding lol. This is fine because it's not their job, just like my defensive siting would probably equally questionable.

One thing to note, having talked to a number of Bradley CC’s and seeing both LAV and Bradley’s movement versus tanks. A Bradley Platoon Sgt pointed out that Infantry fight the vehicle to assist their dismounts - which can often put them in positions that make Tankers cringe. It’s not a necessary right/wrong aspect — it’s just primarily a different focus.

The Infantry IFV commander may at times need to put his vehicle in a position of great risk to protect their dismounts— which is the main selling point to Infantry running their own carriers.

While I was technically a LAV CC, that’s solely because I took the course, and was never in the turret other than that - hence my curiosity talking to others.

Also some other Regiments have tried working with LAV’s using their local Armoured folks as the crew and it didn’t go so well.

Also, in my perfect world there'd be no crossover. The LAV is not a good recce/cavalry vehicle, too damned big with Cav having ko need for a section compartment, undergunned and no anti-armour. That and we all know planning on actually doing anything with the TAPV is a pipedream.

It all depends on how one views Cavalry - personally I see it closer to the Mechanized Infantry than a Tanker. The only 19D Cav Scouts that actually get out and about down here are primarily ones in an Inf BN as they know the Hummer and JLTV aren’t fighting vehicles.
I had heard that MOS may also be in jeopardy,

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

With the forum's forbearance I will continue the Assault Troop thread-jack a little.

I have no idea why an Assault Troop would try to get people qualified sniper. Like none. Assault Troop was a blend of skills found in Recce Platoon, Armed Recce Troops and Assault Pioneers. It was very much a bespoke capability, designed to do specific tasks for a Recce Squadron. Attaching an infantry platoon or recce platoon or engineer troop could certainly achieve certain things, but at other times it would be either inadequate or inefficient. Assault Troop did offer a bit of a manpower pool for the SSM to replace people in the Recce Tps or SHQ without affecting the echelon. That would not be possible with attachments for a number of reasons.

I commanded a recce squadron that was combined arms. There were certainly advantages to having armoured recce, infantry recce and snipers working together. I would have still appreciated having an assault troop, but barring that an engineer troop with that mix could have worked. I just doubt that the engineers would want their resources dedicated full-time. Hence Assault Troop.

The last Assault Troop that I am tracking on operations was Kosovo circa 2000. The RCD Assault Troop disappeared in early 2003 after the BTE as the Army went into its whirling game of musical chairs Advancing With Purpose. Some regiments reformed them ad-hoc after Afghanistan, and they are making a potential reappearance in doctrine. We'll see.

Back to infantry vehicles.

 

[KevinB]

So three trades:
Armoured Crew (Tank)
Calvary (Mixed Inf and Armour specialties: AFV [not tank] driver, gunner, CC, assault pioneers, mortars [mounted], as well as dismounted infantry Recce and Sniper, and Armoured Recce )
Light Infantry

Where do I pick up my consulting cheque?

 

[Kirkhill]

So three trades:
Armoured Crew (Tank)
Calvary (Mixed Inf and Armour specialties: AFV [not tank] driver, gunner, CC, assault pioneers, mortars [mounted], as well as dismounted infantry Recce and Sniper, and Armoured Recce )
Light Infantry

Where do I pick up my consulting cheque?

So you are saying that Canada has a Cavalry army?

 

[KevinB]

So you are saying that Canada has a Cavalry army?

I think the key is a cavalry, not sure if I’d stretch as far to say Army

I honestly don't know what to call the CA, you could form 1 Light Bde Group, the 6 LAV Battalions however are weird anomalies - as you have towed guns (ish) a Tank Battalion (ish) for them, and then have a bunch of reservists in TAPV's and LSVW's

With the risk of further derail: IF I was King, I would invest in another BN of Tanks, and 4 BN's of Tracked IFV (AMPV simply due to relative availability and commonality with the M109A6 chassis), 2 BN's of M109A6, a HIMARS BN, and odds and sods based of the AMPV for the 2 new Mech Bde's (Mortars, Engineer, MRT, FIST, Med, CP, C-UAS, MSHORAD etc).
Then you could have 2 Bde of Light forces (ISV, BsV whatever) supported by M777 Bn's.
Two Bde of LAV (3 Inf Bn each) , and 2 Mech Bde's (1 Tank Bn and 2 Inf Bn each) one prepositioned in Latvia)
I'd also make the MP's drive around bases in TAPV's until they remember their job.

I wouldn't invest in a lot of LAV variants simply as I would dedicate those Bde's to PSO's, and Protected Mobility task supporting the Heavier Mech units, or the Light ones as needed.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So three trades:
Armoured Crew (Tank)
Calvary (Mixed Inf and Armour specialties: AFV [not tank] driver, gunner, CC, assault pioneers, mortars [mounted], as well as dismounted infantry Recce and Sniper, and Armoured Recce )
Light Infantry

Where do I pick up my consulting cheque?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think the key is a cavalry, not sure if I’d stretch as far to say Army

I honestly don't know what to call the CA, you could form 1 Light Bde Group, the 6 LAV Battalions however are weird anomalies - as you have towed guns (ish) a Tank Battalion (ish) for them, and then have a bunch of reservists in TAPV's and LSVW's

With the risk of further derail: IF I was King, I would invest in another BN of Tanks, and 4 BN's of Tracked IFV (AMPV simply due to relative availability and commonality with the M109A6 chassis), 2 BN's of M109A6, a HIMARS BN, and odds and sods based of the AMPV for the 2 new Mech Bde's (Mortars, Engineer, MRT, FIST, Med, CP, C-UAS, MSHORAD etc).
Then you could have 2 Bde of Light forces (ISV, BsV whatever) supported by M777 Bn's.
Two Bde of LAV (3 Inf Bn each) , and 2 Mech Bde's (1 Tank Bn and 2 Inf Bn each) one prepositioned in Latvia)
I'd also make the MP's drive around bases in TAPV's until they remember their job.

I wouldn't invest in a lot of LAV variants simply as I would dedicate those Bde's to PSO's, and Protected Mobility task supporting the Heavier Mech units, or the Light ones as needed.

But... but... but... what about the thousands of reservists that you're paying hundreds of millions of dollars per annum to train and equip?

 

[KevinB]

But... but... but... what about the thousands of reservists that you're paying hundreds of millions of dollars per annum to train and equip?

You will note above I have 6 Bde's there - which is basically what Canada can field with the current state of the CA Reg AND Res.
If the CA isn't willing to get kit to the reserves, then they may as well be abolished - as they don't offer anything tangible.

 

[Infanteer]

So three trades:
Armoured Crew (Tank)
Calvary (Mixed Inf and Armour specialties: AFV [not tank] driver, gunner, CC, assault pioneers, mortars [mounted], as well as dismounted infantry Recce and Sniper, and Armoured Recce )
Light Infantry

Where do I pick up my consulting cheque?

Why three trades? What's wrong with the two that currently exist?

 

[dapaterson]

Why three trades? What's wrong with the two that currently exist?

Do you want a list of names ?

 

[KevinB]

Why three trades? What's wrong with the two that currently exist?

Personally I don’t think the Armoured (Tank) fits the same philosophy as Armoured (Not a Tank) - it’s a smaller trade than the Infantry so simply cutting it in half makes it tough.

Then cutting up the Infantry, one can take a flamethrower to the 3x3 mindset that seems to derail the CA into any other viewpoint.

Plus then you can check the box for the Leads Change in the PER

Downside I created a 10BN (6 LAV and 4 TIFV) Mounted Rifle trade. But that fix is another consultation and Cheque.

 

[markppcli]

Why three trades? What's wrong with the two that currently exist?

Well obviously the status quo is bad, and treating a new trade managed by its own branch, with its own school and courses will solve our problems.