Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun

[Kirkhill]

As he see's the tail and starts snapping again......

I still like the idea of the GIBs being organised separately from the Crew, whether a coy/bn or pl/coy.  As has been said many times before with a small army compromises are necessary.

GIBs and CCVs/LAVs/CH147s/CC130s/Trucks/RHIBs.....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I know that the whole 9 Bns all organized the same seems counter-intuitive with only 6 Bns worth of LAVs, but there is actually some reasoning behind that decision.  The main idea is that FE will be easier if we FG 9 BGs with the same ORBAT.  As to what we are supposed to be doing with the "third companies", TAPV is supposed to provide 3 coys worth of vehicles to fill that role.  Until that time, I am confident that most COs will just train 3 LAV Coys - its not like each Bn has two Coys worth of LAVs even now....

So, unless there is a substantial change of heart come, say, June, then we are likely to be continuing down the road towards 9 common Bns - note that I did not say equal  ;D

 

[KevinB]

I shall Solve the Problem

Add another Regiment, but lets skip the Regimental the downturn and make it a BN sized one - we shall call it Not The Canadian Airborne Regiment.
For fun we shall post all the LI Jump PY's there.

Then we have 10 Inf Bn's

Make 5 Light and 5 Mech.

You can project 1 of each at a time with a decent interval.

 

[Old Sweat]

Find the py's for CLS to do that very thing, without stripping the rest of the army.

Your solution still does not fix the issue, as we would have one airborne, four light and five mechanized battalions. Is that really an ideal mix? To maintain an airborne capability for home defence, which was why our airborne forces were created post war in the first place, it means the unit could not be deployed outside Canada. So now we are back to square one, with one less mechanized battalion.

Another solution might be to concentrate all the LAVs in LAV regiments, and have them separate from the nine infantry battalions. I can think of a few reasons not to, including that seven troops are not enough to field a rifle section that is viable over time. When we went to war in 1939, in accordance with British practice, our sections were seven men. The experience on the BEF over the winter of 1939-1940 resulted in the restoration of the ten man section, even before the Germans attacked in May 1940.

It seems to me that we have wrestled with this bugbear more than a few times in the past. I don't think we have a solution in sight that won't lead to more problems.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry it was more sarcasm, I know there will never be a Cdn Para Bn again.

I would however think it may be worthwhile to round out the Inf BN's to 10, with 5 LAV, and 5 NON LAV.

Non regimentally I would suggest adding a 4th BN to The RCR regular force strength, maybe the PPCLI Ligght only, and a LI BN each from The RCR, and the R22eR

 

[SeanNewman]

How many years have you served in a Mech Bn?

Touchee.  All of my battalion time has been at 3 RCR.

That being said, enough time to see 1 RCR handily beaten by 3 RCR at every PT-based competition in the last while.

 

[Old Sweat]

I sensed some sarcasm, but being old and slow, I figured I'd provide all you small arms aces with an easy target.

I am now going to have a drink and leave the fine points of infantry organization to the pros.

 

[Fusaki]

Touchee.  All of my battalion time has been at 3 RCR.

That being said, enough time to see 1 RCR handily beaten by 3 RCR at every PT-based competition in the last while.

Just don't forget that 1RCR has deployed over twice as often  as 3RCR over the past 10 years.  We've been pretty busy with, you know, the war and stuff.  ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

Just don't forget that 1RCR has deployed over twice as often  as 3RCR over the past 10 years.  We've been pretty busy with, you know, the war and stuff.  ;D

Statistically perhaps more, but also do not forget that 3 RCR was gutted in 2006 to form CSOR, and they "took" most of the people I served with as a platoon commander.  After that it took a few years to regenerate.

Without CSOR it was looking very likely that 3 RCR would have provided the light coy to TF 3-06.

(Walks away in shame).

 

[aesop081]

:argument:

 

[HItorMiss]

Statistically perhaps more, but also do not forget that 3 RCR was gutted in 2006 to form CSOR, and they "took" most of the people I served with as a platoon commander.  After that it took a few years to regenerate.

Without CSOR it was looking very likely that 3 RCR would have provided the light coy to TF 3-06.

(Walks away in shame).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Light Coy.....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thank god they didn't it was a huge asset that 2 VP was Mech cause the light role lasted all of about 5 mins then they got LAVed up!

I know at the time 3 RCR would not have been able to transition that fast. As I have always said Mech can go light you just take away the fighting platform BUT Light can't go mech since they haven't a clue how to use the fighting system.

And I have been both.

This tangent has nothing to do with the MG discussion though.

Mk48 thats the way to go not really significantly heavier then the C9 and gives you more punch and range being 7.62 but thats just my 2cents.

 

[SeanNewman]

...As I have always said Mech can go light you just take away the fighting platform BUT Light can't go mech since they haven't a clue how to use the fighting system...

I would agree that the Mech combination is better overall.  For example, say an average Mech unit can pull off a 90% at Mech but even though they're not the best at Light can still pull it off at 60%.  Take those Light guys at 90% light and they'd be able to pull off a 25% at most even if given a crash course (obviously "scores" just meant as generalizations).

I really like Techno's concept though that they should be in their own brigade if it's going to happen.

And now for the last thing I'll say not C6 related: The best of both worlds IMO is Armour guys manning the vehicles and Infantry pouring out of the back.  Then you get 90% at both because both will get to focus on what they do.

 

[vonGarvin]

And now for the last thing I'll say not C6 related: The best of both worlds IMO is Armour guys manning the vehicles and Infantry pouring out of the back.  Then you get 90% at both because both will get to focus on what they do.

I couldn't disagree more.  If you take 3 of 10 persons from the section and make them armour crewmen, then you won't get "60%" going sans VBL.  And the LAV III APC is an infantry vehicle, not armour.  Just because the outer hull of the vehicle is made of high hardened steel, and just because there is a turret, does not make it a tank (or tank "light").  Its employment on the field of battle is different from using a Coyote or a Leo.  Just as I wouldn't advocate putting an infantry crew in a FOO variant of the LAV III APC, neither would I put an armoured crew in a LAV III APC.

 

[KevinB]

Calvary Crewman...

  Make the LAV crews a specific trade.

Win-Win.

Its a fact with training hours (and total hours) being finite, plus training dollars, that you cannot train to do the job to the fullest, and that requires compromises.
  To me the best method is to seperate the crews and go from there.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The mechanized infantry section is organic - the LAV is much a "member" of the section as a C9 gunner.  The section manoeuvres, fights, and lives as an entity that happens to include the LAV.  Much as you wouldn't want to outsource organic indirect fire or engineer support in a Battalion, nor do you want to outsource an organic part of the infantry section.

 

[KevinB]

In your belief, but nothing says it is in fact so.
I honestly think both the Zulu Vehicles and the Dismounts would work better if seperated at birth.

 

[Fusaki]

Another problem with having "Cavalry Crewman" as a separate trade is the redundancy of qualifications we need within the section.

In a mechanized section, you need to have at at least two LAV drivers, two gunners, and two crew commanders.  Guys get sick, go on leave, get wounded, and killed and there needs to be alternate crewmen within the section who know the team and can fill positions on short notice.

Also, turrets need often need to be manned for weeks on end.  As the section rotates it's members through 2-man sentry shifts, it's important that at least one of those guys is a qualified gunner, if at all possible.

 

[KevinB]

I disagree.
  The Crewman can spell each other for leave etc.  and have an overage like should be done with a deployed section.  It does not take a Gunner/CC qualified soldier to look thru the sights etc. nor a driver to move it -- a few hour class on emergency procedure will make the people somewhat familiar and able to move and shoot it in-extremis.

 

[Teflon]

I disagree.
  The Crewman can spell each other for leave etc.  and have an overage like should be done with a deployed section.  It does not take a Gunner/CC qualified soldier to look thru the sights etc. nor a driver to move it -- a few hour class on emergency procedure will make the people somewhat familiar and able to move and shoot it in-extremis.

Your right in insinuating that it doesn’t take a genius to use the turret or move the LAV but based on my not so limited LAV time it does take a moderate level of experience to do either effectively.

 

[Fusaki]

I disagree.
  The Crewman can spell each other for leave etc.  and have an overage like should be done with a deployed section.  It does not take a Gunner/CC qualified soldier to look thru the sights etc. nor a driver to move it -- a few hour class on emergency procedure will make the people somewhat familiar and able to move and shoot it in-extremis.

I don't think that's good enough.

If you're thinking of a mechanized infantry section simply as light infantry riding around in 21 tonnes of armour, you're only using fraction of its potential.

By thinking of mechanized infantry section as a single organism, you facilitate greater synergy between the IFV and the dismounts.

A young Pte should ideally start off as a C9 gunner, then become a LAV driver or gunner, then dismount as the 3ic, then back in the turret as the 2ic Crew Commander, then dismount again as the Sect Comd.  This career progression of back and forth between dismount and crew creates the synergy required for a mechanized infantry section to fight as a single organism.