Combat Team of tomorrow? Mechanized Infantry Company of tomorrow?

[Yard Ape]

Will there be a "new" Combat Team in our army without tanks?   What will it look like?   Could a more permanent structure replace the old combat team?

I would propose a reorganization of the mechanized rifle company.  It would have three dismountable rifle platoons, a LAV APC troop, and an LAV MGS troop.  A platoon would be commanded by a Lt, and would consist of all the dismounts of a Mech Pl as we know it today.  The APC Tp would be commanded by a LAV Capt and would be broken into three sections (one for each dismount Pl) and the sections would be commanded by LAV Sgts.  The MGS Tp would be commanded by a Battle Captain.  The troop would consist of two platoons of four MGS and one TUA det.

I would see this including the the manouver officer MOC that I have already proposed (http://army.ca/forums/threads/17788.0.html). Rifle Pl Comd would be first job in a Bn, then a senior platoon (MGS Pl, Recce Pl, etc).  After that a Capt could fill a Tp Comd job.

I would expect that only one coy in each Bn would be restructured as such (short of war).  Unfortunatly, our gaovernment is not buying enough MGS to make this possible now.


Now, here is a picture that is only loosly related to this post:

 

[Kirkhill]

Trying to figure whether to put this here, under army structure, section in the attack or as a stand-alone thread.

What about a Captain's Troop model?  A grouping midway between the Platoon and the Company.

Instead of 4 Vehicles and ~30 bodies, a permanent grouping of 7-8 vehicles and 20-30 dismounts with support capable of independent action.

A Unit then would have 9-12 deployable entities that could be "brigaded" if needed but might be better suited to the low intensity, area dominance missions that seem to be the basis for operations in the near future.

Lieutenants would be Captain's Assistants and get a lot of OJT before being given an independent command.

Majors would still command subunits of 2-4 subsubunits?

It would fit into the combined arms Regiment.

Just a thought.

 

[Tanner]

How do you gain lodgment? With tanks, the Cbt Tm would move to within 1-200 m of the Obj. You would most certainly not be doing that with the LAV III. Too vulnerable to En fire. Are you anticipating dismount 300+ m from the Obj. The Inf will be really tired.

Food for thought.

 

[ArmyRick]

I put a detailed description of what I call the Maneouver Team in "adopting the regiment as a regular force regt"... give it a quick peek and tell me what you think...

 

[McG]

How do you gain lodgment?

Suppress with greater volumes of direct and indirect fire.  Destroy key enemy systems with guided non-line of sight munitions.  Make greater use of physical and electronic means to isolate the target.  Fight at night.  Employ smoke/other obscurants that are penetrable to our thermal.  Gain better SA of the target.  Think outside the Cold War box.

 

[ArmyRick]

McG, you are on right on IMO ! Fire for effect !

 

[Kirkhill]

If our enemies fight the way that we were taught in the 80's the combat team wouldn't make it to the 1-200m range.  The tanks might but RPGs would start stripping away the LAVs at 300-600m.  Consequently, and admitting I have not done it myself, I might be inclined to dismount in defile at 300-500m and manoeuvre in on foot.  Fewer infanteers killed per RPG.  On the other hand more infanteers killed per arty tube.  You pays your money and you takes your chances.

In any event, the structure that I was suggesting was based on my perception of trends that include more capabilities per pair of boots, greater dispersal of forces, larger areas of operation and influence, greater frequency of low intensity conflict,  more peace support operations where the enemy is more likely to be encountered at team to platoon strength than battalion  to brigade strength.

I have no problem with and in fact agree with the notion of maintaining an Armoured Battle Group capability, maybe even 2 or 3.  I was thinking more along the lines of organizing the Mech forces on the above lines.

Cheers.

 

[ArmyRick]

If (big If) the LAV MMEV works (engage targets at 8 Km or less) and then their is LAV TUA (again big If) then they will engage targets at 4 Km or less. This should leave LAVIII with 25mm to deal with enemy IFV, APC, etc. Stop thinking cold war and start thinking Iraq/afghanstan..

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Suppress with greater volumes of direct and indirect fire.   Destroy key enemy systems with guided non-line of sight munitions.   Make greater use of physical and electronic means to isolate the target.   Fight at night.   Employ smoke/other obscurants that are penetrable to our thermal.   Gain better SA of the target.   Think outside the Cold War box.

I'd rather just go with the US "legacy forces" model that are testing their mettle in Iraq right now.

LAV's might be fine for peacekeeping when both sides have signed an agreement, but if there is any likelihood of an urban battle where your opponent has RPG's, I think we're setting ourselves up for big casualties if we don't have tanks to act as the mobile pillboxes that first the Israelis and now the Americans have proven to be absolutely essential.

Bottom Line:   I'll gladly accept the heavier support and logistics load to give our guys extra layers of armour for protection and tracks for mobility.

JMHO,



Matthew.    

 

[Evocatus]

Yarde Ape: great grafix....where did you aquire ?
8)

 

[a_majoor]

Since we don't have Tanks any more, we may have to get some sort of direct fire solution that can bolt onto existing LAV and Coyote vehicles.

A brace of "Fire and Forget" missiles like Javelin or Gill/Spike on the turret of the LAVs, and maybe a kinetic energy missile like LOSAT (with a very short time of flight) on the Coyote to take advantage of the sensor suite is one possible solution. If there is no money for LAV derivatives, a less expensive launch platform like a Hummer has been demonstrated for missiles like LOSAT and Hellfire as well.

These are not tanks, or even tank substitutes, but some possible "out of the box" ideas which use MOTS solutions for ease of understanding and quick adoption if something like this is judged to be useful.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Question for Yard Ape based on the picture provided....

"Instead of adding (4) dedicated DSFV and only 2 dedicated mortar carriers, what would you think about going to (6) of the Delco 120mm or Patria Haggland AMOS 120mm?"

In essence you by going to a common unit you would increase both your available direct and indirect fire capability.

Additionally, what are the chances of refitting the standard LAV-III with a TOW bolt-on (similar to the M2 Bradley) to provide them with both an anti-bunker and anti-tank capability once again increasing the lethality of all vehicles instead of relying on a specialized few?

Many thanks,



Matthew.  

 

[30 for 30]

"Slat" cages on our various LAV variants could provide some significant protection against the RPG threat, allowing less of a hump for dismounted soldiers. Could our LAVs handle the added weight? Strykers don't have the added weight of a turret, but I recall reading that they are overly heavy.

They seem to be fairly reliable in Iraq. I noticed the other day that Black Watch Warriors heading north have been fitted with slat protection.

 

[Tanner]

Think outside the Cold War box.

OK, I would suggest the Arty Maneuver for Fire doctrine. Don't push the assault at all. An Arty Regiment could do the job in far less time and effort. Picket and suppress. Push the advance, deny svc and sp, force capitulation by Arty Fire.

Unfortunately, that is about all the thinking we can do outside the box. To consider a Cbt Tm doctrine with our current capability is simply not practical. The LAV III is effective in a prepared def position. When it moves it is vulnerable to ALL forms of direct and indirect wpn systems.

It is good for Peacekeeping.

 

[pbi]

It is good for Peacekeeping.

So why are the USMC equipped with it? Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

LAV and LAV derivatives can move fast, potentially unhinging the enemy by showing up in unexpected times and places. This is one aspect of "Manoeuvrist" doctrine. The Marines use LAVs as part of the bigger force package, and have tools to crack harder nuts, like M-1 tanks and Cobra helicopter gunships if the LAVs start running into trouble.

We can start thinking "Cavalry", and offer our services to coallitions to do rear area security, flank screening, economy of force and exploitation with the current suite of equipment, but I think everyone concurs there is a need for some more tools in the toolbox.

 

[Tanner]

So why are the USMC equipped with it?

The Marines are a IA force. As per Majoor, the LAV is rapidly deployable and a formidible opponent in the def when supported by Atk Hel. They constitute an effective response to En offensive Ops until the heavies arrive. In the offense, its a liability. hence the Bradley.

 

[a_majoor]

I always hate being constrained by the mantra "well, our Allies will supply that capability". I think we should remember our Allies might have a few other things to do besides holding our hands, and the inevitable "friction of war" could make hash out of what support we do get ("what do you mean GR 475219? Thats not what you said in the O Gp"). We need to quickly, cheaply and effectively upgrade what assets we do have, rather than vainly wait for the arrival of the Merkava C4 A1 variant.

Given we are going "medium" for the forseeable future, we should also concentrate on finding ways to unhinge the enemy without doing the direct assault, either by being able to "snipe" him with PGM fire, confuse his SA with unpredictable and rapid movements, isolate him from civilian and military support...like Sun Tzu said, "supreme excellence in war is achieved by defeating your enemy without fighting".

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

LAV and LAV derivatives can move fast, potentially unhinging the enemy by showing up in unexpected times and places. This is one aspect of "Manoeuvrist" doctrine. The Marines use LAVs as part of the bigger force package, and have tools to crack harder nuts, like M-1 tanks and Cobra helicopter gunships if the LAVs start running into trouble.

We can start thinking "Cavalry", and offer our services to coallitions to do rear area security, flank screening, economy of force and exploitation with the current suite of equipment, but I think everyone concurs there is a need for some more tools in the toolbox.

The only thing I know is that I've seen a hell of a lot of footage lately showing infantry pinned in urban areas on radios and they're not calling for LAV's.  They're calling for Abrams.....



Matthew. 

 

[a_majoor]

The only thing I know is that I've seen a heck of a lot of footage lately showing infantry pinned in urban areas on radios and they're not calling for LAV's. They're calling for Abrams.....

Matthew.

That's exactly my point: we are constrained to work without tanks for at least a generation, so the future combat team has to achieve the same ends through different means. Move fast and dislocate the enemy. "Bolt on" some direct fire weapons to  LAV's and Coyotes to augment MGS. Use clever HUMINT and CIMIC to expose the enemy and separate them from the civilian base. Create a better organization to move information from sensor to shooter without too much filtration and latency.

This should be like the "Thinking about the Section attack thread"; climbing outside the box and looking around for a new solution rather than moaning and weeping over the constraints we are working under now.