Mech infantry or all light infantry with some Armd APC units?

[DG-41]

Attach an armoured transport squadron(Huh?) of NON-fighting vehicles to move the infantry under cover - Back to the notion of the defrocked Priests and Kangaroos; the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment and the 25th Cdn Armoured Delivery Regiment (The Elgin Regiment)

Hmmm......

Although I sympathise with the idea that "adult Infantry can run turrets" and in my ideal world, we'd ALL have the appropriate AFV (including TANKS!) for the job, we ain't in an ideal world right now.

With this plan, you can effectively mechanise all the reserve light infantry units, without having to issue them all their own AFVs. Keep a battalion's worth of APCs at the major training areas, role the local units as APC regiments, and then plug the LIBs into them as required.

Not a bad idea, really.

DG

 

[mike01]

Gee, I saw the words Light Infantry and I thought I'd take a look, but I realize it is only a lot of mech talk.  Sorry, I'll keep my comments out of this one but let me just say don't confuse the mechanized with the light. Same role, different ways to get it done.

 

[Mortar guy]

I actually wrote a paper on this subject if anyone's interested. Well, it's very close to this subject anyway.

I wrote about the FEC and the Infantry and one of my conclusions was that the LAV training bill was preventing the infantry from training to the level necessary for fourth generation warfare. Besides, we already have a Corps that excels at fighting crewed armoured vehicles so why is the infantry wasting precious training hours, manpower and money trying to be Canada's second best Armoured Corps? You would have a hard time convincing me we're not doing that in the infantry, especially when you see 9 guys dismount from 4 LAVs on an exercise or realize that real infantry PCF courses are curtailed to pay for LAV courses.

Anyway, if anyone's interested, just PM me your email address and I'll fire it your way.

MG

 

[Red 6]

In the J-series Table of Organization and Equipment (this was late Cold War thru the early 90's), the M113 & ITV were substitute standard in armored reconnaissance until the Bradley came on-line. E Company (anti-armor) in mech infantry units was equipped with the ITVs in these units for several years until replaced with the Bradley. Does anyone know if there are still anti-armor companies in mech infantry and which series is the Army up to now?

 

[ArmyRick]

They may retired the M901, but the Stryker Brigade Combat Team has a anti-armor company with stryker TOW 2B ATGM. So in the US Army case, I could see them bringing back or keeping the Infantry ATGM trade alive.

 

[Red 6]

The TOW 2B has been around for a lot of years. Does this version of the Stryker mount the same hammerhead as on the old ITV & the FIST-V?

 

[ArmyRick]

No, its new mount system, I'll try and dig up some links to show you photos, but try www.gdls-canada.com

 

[retiredgrunt45]

LAV's are great for moderate cross country in southern climates but has anyone here tried driving a Grizzly or Bison in deep snow, doesn't work to well. Churchhill Manitoba February -60 our 2 tracks, 1 Arvil and 1 Queen Mary freeze up after only 2 hours of been shut down, Diesel fuel runs like mollasses in this temp, batteries freeze and burst. Coy CSM orders Maint to get them back up, They have to place a herman nelson heater hose into each track to heat up the engine and the fuel tank and then slave them of one of the Grizzlies to get them started, just so they would turn over and then keep them running 24 hrs a day with exception of daily maintenance 1 hr or less. 6 Grizzlies need tires inflated several times daily because of cold temps, must keep them running 24 hrs also. Sentries must keep and eye on the engine temp gauges to ensure engine radiators don't burst from the extreme cold. Try doing this for 3 weeks and then x that by a company strenght of tracks and LAV"s. "Logistical nightmare". As anyone who has done their winter indoc in the artic knows. Armoured vehicles are more of a burden than an asset. Its mucklucks, parka, man power and 3 guys pulling a toboggan who are going to get the job done.

We had 4 NTV's (Northern terrian vehicles) which started even in -60 after being left shutoff overnight. We never had a problem with. Turn on the ignition let the glow plugs run for a few minutes and voila starts every time. The Rangers used them plus their own snowmobiles to get around.

 

[ArmyRick]

If you want to go armored in the arctic, then use the Viking (an armored BV206 on steroids). Not to mention use lots of snow mobiles (For mobility only). The far north is more of an light infantryman's fight.

However last I checked, we are not battling taliban in the North West Territorries.

 

[TCBF]

..... yet.

Once the North West Passage becomes a year-round trip, and others realize that 40% of the worlds untapped oil and gas are in the arctic, we will have the fight of our lives to keep it.

 

[9Tiger9]

I have wondered if perhaps having a mech capability within the support companies of the light battalions? Logically, it would be capable of being used in a multitude of different tasks within the company and still service the rest of the battalion or higher? This would perhaps create a greater equality between the battalions as far as inter-changeability is concerned? Just a thought.

 

[vonGarvin]

This would not work.  As pointed out elsewhere, mech infantry is more than a mode of transport: it's a mode of fighting, a mode of thinking.  Though similar to a distanced observer, especially when the GIBs get out of the back, mech and light are not the same. 
Also, please note that all infantry battalions are currently re-orging such that they will all have 2 x mech coys and 1 x light coy.  9 battalions, all the same.

 

[hat]

Some thoughts to ponder.

Both mech and light infantry have roles.  However, the operating environments we find ourselves in these days predominantly favor mech infantry.  Light infantry is specialized and often has difficulty sustaining itself.  Mech infantry has greater staying power and brings greater firepower to the table.  If I had the choice, I would only use light infantry when mech could not be used.  Why? Because I want the fight to be drastically unfare, destroying as many of the enemy as possible while sustaining as few friendly casualties as possible. 

Even armies that have their own integral helicopter resources have trouble sustaining light forces in the field.  Most light forces operating in Afghanistan spend alot of their time operating from vehicles such as HMMV, LUVW etc...  LAV can go most of the same places.  Why wouldn't you want to have greater protection and be able to shoot at night, on the move, accurately (3 things that give you the decided advantage).

Having said the above, mech infantry must have the mindset that they are willing to get out on the ground and fight the dismounted battle.  If that means advance to contact, dismounted patroling and ambushes, humping hills and mountains -so be it.  Mech infantry should also be prepared to conduct airmobile ops.

Mech and light can cooperate.  Yes, light can seize a bridgehead.  The opposite is also true.  Mech can secure an LZ for rapid buildup of light forces on an objective, then act as intimate support, reserve or just another maneuvre element.  The important thing is not to unnecessarily restrict our thinking.

My $0.02

 

[STING]

This would not work.  As pointed out elsewhere, mech infantry is more than a mode of transport: it's a mode of fighting, a mode of thinking.  Though similar to a distanced observer, especially when the GIBs get out of the back, mech and light are not the same. 
Also, please note that all infantry battalions are currently re-orging such that they will all have 2 x mech coys and 1 x light coy.  9 battalions, all the same.

  Does this mean that all the light Coy's will be jump capable ... aka Para Coy's ... ?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

   Does this mean that all the light Coy's will be jump capable ... aka Para Coy's ... ?

Nope, just the light companies of the three Third Battalions - and that is NOT going to work.

 

[AIC_2K5]

...note that all infantry battalions are currently re-orging such that they will all have 2 x mech coys and 1 x light coy.  9 battalions, all the same.

Wow...here's a crazy idea...keep the 6 mech battalions and 3 light battalions untouched and as force expansion progresses in the coming years stand up 3 more light battlions. 12 battlions. 6 mech and 6 light. Fits pretty well into the 3 year managed readiness cycle of having 2 task forces ready to deploy aside from a surge and strat res TF.

Has anyone in the puzzle palace thought of this? Does anyone else see the merit in this obvious solution?

 

[ArmyRick]

We don't need six light battalions.

 

[vonGarvin]

Wow...here's a crazy idea...keep the 6 mech battalions and 3 light battalions untouched and as force expansion progresses in the coming years stand up 3 more light battlions. 12 battlions. 6 mech and 6 light. Fits pretty well into the 3 year managed readiness cycle of having 2 task forces ready to deploy aside from a surge and strat res TF.

Has anyone in the puzzle palace thought of this? Does anyone else see the merit in this obvious solution?

Though not in the puzzle palace, what you propose makes too much sense.  Go back to growing dope, bubbles

Cheers

 

[HItorMiss]

The reasoning behind the change was in fact due directly to OP's. It has been ascertained that light companies are less then useful in the environment were currently operating in for the next decade or so. This does not mean that Light Infantry is a skill set that is now dead in the CF as some people like to say simply that in our current organization and training scheme the Light Bn's are not finding a role. As it is C-Coy 3VP is the last light company on the TO&E for OP Archer (to my knowledge) In fact we on roto 2 LAVed our light coy from 2 VP ASAP when it was clear that the Gwagon was not a good idea and the Nyala was not a fighting vehicle. With the 2 Mech and 1 light Coy concept your getting the best of both worlds in the perfect world. You get 2 companies that have sustained mobility and fire power and one compnay easily transportable. You also get depth in your infantry as everyone gets a taste of the others and the skills set mix and match. You also avoid what is happening right now with 3 VP C-Coy where they cannot even if asked to, LAV up the company. Now you're light Coy can LAV at any time and your 2 LAV Coy's can go light if and when needed.

All IMO of course.

 

[ArmyRick]

Basically its a good compromise IMO.