One of the problems that was always encountered with platoon organization was the lack of dedicated crewing of the LAVs in the company. The LAV III is a crewed vehicle it is one component of a the mechanized rifle section, neither the dismount or the LAV by itself are fully effective without each being fully supported. The LAV must be crewed by the same crew on a continuous basis for the crew to be effective. The LAV gunner, driver, and crew commander can not just be swapped out at random. Every time a LAV crew member is swapped out it takes considerable time and training together for the crew to get back up to snuff. The drills and TTPs are a skill that must be constantly practiced to remain effective. The armoured corps knows this and crews their vehicles this way for this reason.
Vehicle maintenance was constantly an issue as the LAV crew were constantly being sent off for some job and an unqualified troop was told to help out the one remaining crew member to do maintenance with no idea how to properly do it. Some maintenance just didn't get done, and the maintenance that did get done took 5 times as long, wasting valuable training time. Furthermore, the section commander and/or 2IC/DVC only ever saw the vehicle on exercise and was never around and never had time to ensure the vehicles readiness. This isn't just a problem because of lazy people--although sometimes that was part of it--but more a philosophical problem with the existing LAV crewing organization that results in maintenance issues discussed. If the crew and DVC paraded with their vehicles every day this would change.
The other issue is that the dismounts should be focused on what they do best, infantry work,ie. getting on the ground and getting the job done. In garrison, they should be improving these skills through courses not dicking around with vehicle maintenance they no nothing about. Yes, they need to be familiar with the LAV III, but even if one is familiar or even a trained as a crew member, it is very difficult if not impossible to jump back into the crewman saddle and be effective. Infantry are not dumb, but in the reverse it would be very difficult for a crewman to be effective in dismounted close quarter battle situations without consistent training.
My solution to the problem is heavily based upon Capt O'Leary's "21st Century Infantry Company" and from my own experience; for more info on his solution read this: http://members.tripod.com/RegimentalRogue/papers/21st.htm
I believe that each mechanized infantry company should have 3 rifle platoons, a LAV platoon, a company headquarters, a company quartermaster section, and a company transport section. The vehicles are all crewed by dedicated crew, but they are infantry soldiers not armoured soldiers, more on this later.
The Rifle platoons should have 3 rifle sections of 7 soldiers with a SGT Sec Cmd, a MCPL Sec 2IC, 2 X CPL/PTE light machine gunners, and 3 X CPL/PTE Rifleman. The platoon headquarters should consist of the PL CMD (LT), the PL 2IC (SGT), PL SIG (CPL/PTE), and 2 designated marksmen rifleman (CPL/PTE) equipped with either an accuriszed C7 or a specialty rifle. The last are new positions that I believe are essential for operations. They are not dedicated snipers, but infantry soldiers with "good shots' and more accurate rifles and better scopes to provide better protection and defence against snipers The platoon total adds up to 26 soldiers, but they are all dismounts.
Some of you will notice that I have deleted the platoon weapons detachment...where is the Carl G , 60mm mortar, and the GPMG team. Wasted positions, as the enhanced firepower of the LAV III deletes the need for them...mostly. Each LAV III has or should have a turret pintle mounted C-6 that can be swapped out with one of the rifle sections LMG as required. Second the LAV III 25mm and co-ax C-6 positives outweigh the negatives of not always having a C-6 available, plus there is no room for a GPMG team. The Carl G, M-72, and Eryx issue is a complicated debate, but I think all 3 should be replaced by a single disposeable short range direct fire guided weapon like the MBDA/Lockheed-Martin Kestrel/Predator, the SAAB-Bofors NLAW, or the Rafale SPIKE-SR...all weapons designed to provide short range disposable multi-purpose anti-armour/bunker busting capability out to 600m. In the interim, the existing and less-than ideal weapons will have to do, unless the Army purchases a small quantity of Bofors AT-4HP-CS (High Performance-for Confined Spaces); basically a disposable multi-purpose Carl Gustav round. When a DFGW-SR becomes available, 4 weapons per vehicle will more than suffice.
The LAV III Platoon will consist of 4 LAV III sections, each with a designated Rifle platoon or Comany Headquarters to support. Each LAV III Section will have four 3 person crews with a section having 1 senior SGT as the section commander, a senior MCPL as the Sec 2IC, and 2 MCPLs as driver vehicle commanders in a addition to 8 CPL/PTE drivers and gunners. The 4th LAV III section will be the LAV PL HQ section which will crew the Rifle Company Headquarters vehicles and the Section Commander will also be the LAV III PL Cmd; this will be the LAV CPT (a senior Cpt.) responsible for the command and control of the Rifle Company while mounted or while in support of the dismounted soldiers. The same goes for the respective LAV Section CMD, 2IC, & DVC. The LAV PL 2IC will be a senior WO who will act as the 2IC of the LAV PL. An additional 2 MCPL DVCs will command the other 2 LAV III in the LAV PL HQ Sec. This means each LAV PL will have 48 crew members consisting of 16 LAV III, with 1 Cpt. 1 WO, 3 senior SGT and 11 MCPL plus 32 CPL/PTE. Why MCPL DVCs for the non-Sec 2IC positions in the LAV III? Experience, these are not junior MCPL positions, but mid-level or senior MCPL positions in my opinion responsible for the co-ordination of substantial firepower and movement better suited to a Master Corporal whom has first had experience as a dismount section 2IC. I must reiterate, each LAV III section within the LAV platoon will have a continuing affiliation with one of the company's rifle platoons and normally each LAV III vehicle with a rifle section. Then why have a separate LAV platoon to begin with? The separate LAV III platoon ensures that the crews are dedicated and the LAV crew's are not constantly being robbed to pay Peter and vice-versa with the rifle platoons. Furthemore, it ensures combat effectiveness by maintaining dedicated crews in a concrete manner. Then why not have armoured soldiers and officers crew the LAV platoons? If infantry soldiers no longer serve in crewed positions then if one of the crew members are injured who replaces them? The infantry are no longer cross trained and one entire vehicle is out of commission. Yes, I know that I said it is difficult to swap in a new crew member, but one must still get on with the job at hand when necessary. However, when dedicated crews exist the vehicle will be used most effectively than if it is crewed on an "ad hoq" basis.
At the company level, I think there are two additions that should be added to round out the companies capabilities. The company should add a 60mm mortar section primarily in the bipod role for a company level indirect fire support capability with a small section of 6 or 8. A third mortar should be available for specific tasks such as a platoon level raid, but normally kept stored with the company quartermaster section. Secondly, the company should have a medium range direct fire guided weapon (DFGW-MR) section with 2 X DFGW-MR weapon detachments for a total section of 6 soldiers. An ideal weapon would be the Javelin DFGW-MR used by the US Army and being aquired by many allied armies. There is sufficient additional room for these soldiers in the company headquarters vehicles.
Lets add up the numbers 26 X 3 = 78 + 48 = 126 + 16 + CQMS, COY HQ, & COY TPT SEC = 138+ so the total number of soldiers in the company will add up to about 160 soldiers and officers once attachments are added. Is this doable in the Canadian Army with our troop limitations, I believe, YES!
Where are they coming from? First of all this is only one component of my vision of permanent all arm battle groups replacing army regiments. Heresy! Bullshit. There is way too much attacthment to regiments in our army. The Army exists to serve Canada not the other way around. I digress, fewer non-infantry tasks would be filled by infantry personnel such as the current regimental (battalion) quartermaster, transport, and/or signal platoon positions. Also the long range anti-armour tasking would go to their armoured corps troopers. This would free up additional infantry positions for the rifle companies. I still believe that dedicated sniping and mounted/dismounted medium and close recce and long range dismounted should be the primary task of infanteers. I also believe that 81mm mortar and up should primarily be the task of indirect fire support soldiers (artillery) not---direct combat soldiers (ie. infanteers). Now I am getting off topic.
The purpose of this rant is to depict a more effective orgnaization for the mechanized rifle companies and I believe this does so both from an administration level and also from a combat effeciency level. One big question will remain is who command's the sections, platoons, the company. The dismount commander is always the "senior man", but the LAV commanders are in charge while the company is mounted. Remember we are part of a team and the LAV vehicle and crew are just one component of the team. I have seen this work in practice. This is only an organizational change to enhance effectiveness of the rifle company rather than a pure philosophical change. There are only a couple of areas where I see persons other than the LAV crew commanding a vehicle while mounted only the 2IC, CSM and OC. Occaisionally, I could see a platoon commander riding shotgun in the gunners seat while recceing an objective with their LAV Sec Cmd (SGT), but not during long road move or while going into combat or on patrol. Yes, there maybe a slight improvement in situational awareness while sitting in DVC position, but this is nothing that can not be fixed if a commander's independenl thermal viewer (CITV) turret was added and hooked up to the CSAM viewer in the vehicle. This could be easily added to the LAV III, but at a cost, but also with a huge increase in vehicle effectiveness. No system is perfect, but the platoon and section commanders' swapping out with vehicles commanders DOES NOT WORK...THIS IS COMBAT INEFFECTIVE!
- and maybe there is and I haven't seen it yet. When reverse engineering, we start with a list of capabilities and vulnerabilities, then determine the effects that these aford us, and then move to org, doctirne, and tactics.
Haven't seen you on lately.
