Potential Changes to Soldier Qualification Course

[TCBF]

"http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/B-GL-383/002/PT-019/B-GL-383-002-PT-019.pdf

Above is the link for Cbt Svc Sup Battle Task Stds: Look at the fun you can have!

BTS:
L (for logistics) 5006 B/C: React to Ambush
L 4001B/C: Attack
L 4101C/D: Defend
L 4391 B: Recce of New Loc
3004 B/C: Conduct a Dismounted Recce Ptl
6004 C/D: Handle POWs/Detainees"

As you can see, what they learn on course is irrelevant - theunits must STILL be able t accomplish BTS, as listed, including ATTACK and DEFEND, when necessary.

Tom

 

[Pikache]

I disagree strongly, it's highly like that any enemy we might face will be in a guerilla force practicing asymetrical warfare in a low-intensity conflict. That said they will no doubt follow act the part, and strike where they believe is the point of least resistance, affording them the best chance for maximum damage, and the minimal cassualties with good chance of escape.
"Now an army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the low lands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness."
i.e. they hit the support trades who have soft skinned vehicles with light weapons. Being trained from the enemy's POV greatly educates on how to defend against their techniques, and emparting the ability to the unit QRF to turn the tables and counter attack with the enemy's own tricks is a good way of dealing with a irregular force.

I'm not disagreeing with teaching support trade troops anti ambush or any related drills like that. I'm questioning the use of support trades in an offensive role, such as platoon attack. Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of truck drivers with knowledgeable NCOs and officer to lead them to conduct a well done platoon attack, or situations. (I mean no offence to support trades, but that's just not your thing, as if you guys have to do platoon attacks, something's really wrong)

 

[kilekaldar]

"Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of truck drivers with knowledgeable NCOs and officer to lead them to conduct a well done platoon attack, or situations"

I don't disagree with the lack of qualified leadership(that's a seperate issue), however when a unit gets bumped, the first responders are that unit's QRF, in a support outfit that DOES mean truckers, mechanics, sig ops, etc. in an offensive role. And frankly, if a convoy or support area get's hit the best tactic is an immidiate counter-attack by the defenders. At least that's the strong impression I get from reading about other military's past experiences with guerrilas.
The fact is that there is no more 'front line', with the advent of highly mobile warfare, the practice of 'bypassing' enemy formations, the almost garanteed presence of irregular enemy troops wandering around 'secured' areas, support elements are put in the battle zone and are juicy targets BECAUSE they aren't as adept in combat. Being able to conduct limited offensives at the platoon level should be a basic requirement for self-defence.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a dumb private.

 

[McG]

I also question the wisdom of platoon attacks and raid/ambush. I mean, when are support trades troops ever going to use those stuff?

The platoon attack I can understand.   I think every soldier should participate in a couple of these as part of their trg (both from the fire base and in the assault).   I don't think the CSS would have as much to gain from learning to conduct raids.

However, these conflicting views illustrate why the decision how to change a course should not be thrown off onto the course staff.   It must be a national decision.

 

[Garett]

The Standards guys were out at my Simunition Ex yesterday asking us about putting Urban Ops on the SQ course.  Looks like they're going to do a day of it, not enough to get good but enough to be familiar.

Raid, Ambush, Deliberate attack:  Easier to react and defend against it if you know how it works by doing it yourself.

 

[Pikache]

Raid, Ambush, Deliberate attack:  Easier to react and defend against it if you know how it works by doing it yourself.

I'll buy that for 5 cents.

 

[TCBF]

"I'm not disagreeing with teaching support trade troops anti ambush or any related drills like that. I'm questioning the use of support trades in an offensive role, such as platoon attack. Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of truck drivers with knowledgeable NCOs and officer to lead them to conduct a well done platoon attack, or situations. (I mean no offence to support trades, but that's just not your thing,"

Soldier First - Tradesman Second.  But read the BTS.  That is our Doctrine.

"if you guys have to do platoon attacks, something's really wrong)"

Battle is a series of things going wrong.  Part of our problem is that we have never suffered a defeat in depth, where we have had Corps and Army level assetts being over run, such as what happened to the US 10th Corps in Korea.  We have no concept of this.

But, BTS are BTS, read 'em.

Tom

 

[TCBF]

"http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/B-GL-383/002/PT-019/B-GL-383-002-PT-019.pdf

Above is the link for Cbt Svc Sup Battle Task Stds: Look at the fun you can have!

BTS:
L (for logistics) 5006 B/C: React to Ambush
L 4001B/C: Attack
L 4101C/D: Defend
L 4391 B: Recce of New Loc
3004 B/C: Conduct a Dismounted Recce Ptl
6004 C/D: Handle POWs/Detainees"

As you can see, what they learn on course is irrelevant - theunits must STILL be able t accomplish BTS, as listed, including ATTACK and DEFEND, when necessary.

Tom