Dragoons = Mechanized Infantry?

[McG]

The overlap of Light Infantry and dismounted cavalry is another interesting discussion (to differentiate the two I will use the term Dragoons for the dismounted element of the Cavalry Arm, although other terms like "Tank Marines" or "Panzergrenadier" could also be adopted if desired).  Dragoons will need infantry skills like patrolling and heavy weapons, and they will be in intimate support of their support weapons, so need the skills to call fire on the enemy not only by communicating with artillery or orbiting aircraft, but also directing fire via tank telephone or guiding engineer vehicles into position to reduce obstacles as well. You might make the case that it is the Dragoons who will have such a skill set and training load that they could not possibly convert to Light Infantry.

I've been reading a lot of thinking to the extent that all infantry should be light.  However, in these same lines of thinking, I read that we should have "cavalry dismounts" (as Kirkhill typically describes) or "dragoons."  But from every angle that I look at it, these are all just fancy terminology for mechanized infantry.  I understand that we see future units blending mechanized infantry with armoured cavalry in order to produce a more flexible and robust fighting force.  However, it is still just mechanized infantry.  Why do we seek to obsucre, what we can already identify, through new names?

 

[a_majoor]

In my case, I am hoping to get away from the idea that "Infantry is Infantry", there are different skill and mind sets between Light Infantry and Mech Infantry, and the composite "Cavalry" ideas floating around in different threads would seem to have a somewhat different set of requirments as well.

Different roles should have different names, and Dragoons is the traditional name for troops who went into battle mounted, but fought dismounted. In the future environment, where composite units and formations migh become the norm, reffering to the dismounted element of the Cavalry regiment as "Dragoons" (or Tank Marines or Panzergrenadiers) is also a way of side stepping "corps" parochialism as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am with a_majoor on this one McG.

In my mind its a way of broadening the debate and getting away from counting cap-badges.  As well it is a way to try and redefine some very blurred lines.

EG.

Light Infantry = Infantry, Rifles, Paras, Marines, Commandos,

Motorized infantry = any of the above in trucks
Marines = Light Infantry in Boats
Paras = Light Infantry falling from the sky
Commandos = Light Infantry with neat kit and camouflaged underwear.

Mechanized infantry = Infantry in an APC  or Infantry in an IFV?

What is the difference between an Infantry section in an M113 with a pintle mounted MG and the same section in a truck with a pintle mounted MG aside from mobility?  How does that differ from same section mounted in a boat, hovercraft or helicopter similarly armed.

On the other hand an IFV sacrifices so much space to a turret that it can only carry a half-section - TTPs and kit (eg shorter rifles, no bayonets, many attachments) all need to change to accomodate the vehicle.

We ended up where we are because we put "infantry" into armoured, tracked trucks and called it mech infantry following American practice.  The Americans however, also created something called armoured infantry dedicated to the IFV Bradley.  The Brits followed as did the Russians and everybody else.  All following Germany's lead with its Panzergrenadiers and the Marder.  Some Americans are now referring to the Armoured Infantry as Dragoons.

The American AirLand Concept of the 80s was designed specifically to bust up Russian formations in Germany, splitting them into small edible chunks that could be eaten up by light infantry supplied by Germany, in German fields and towns.  This would reduce the Russian momentum and make it harder for the Russians to overwhelm the Western defences.  The entire American force was dedicated to this task.  Light Infantry had no place in this Armor centric thinking - thus the too light to fight nonsense.

Canada wanted to follow the latest fashions, maybe a harsh judgement, and rather than doing a solid appreciation of its own requirements it joined the me-too brigade but wanted Wal-Mart prices.

America has found itself with a brilliant force but perhaps over-supplied in battle-winning technologies given the current climate, but not enough man-power to guarantee similar success in a war. 

Canada's LAVs are neither as effective as trucks as the M113 nor are they as effective IFVs as the Bradleys.  Troops inside are therefore not quite Motorized, not quite Mech and not quite Armoured.  The LAV/Troop combination has very useful capabilities but they don't fall easily into the "NATO-Standard" definitions, whatever they might be.

The side-effect of the discussion of the Airland battle was that the CF wanted to participate alongside the Americans and Brits and the argument was made that there was no role on the modern battlefield for infantry. In those circumstances the infantry wanted to become mobile and started usurping the ground of the Cavalry (which as a_majoor has noted originated in Canada from the Northwest Mounted Rifles (later NWM Police then RCMP) and the Canadian Mounted Rifles).  The infantry effectively forced themselves into the Cavalry patch.

What I am asking to be considered is a return to the status quo ante 1980 and the Airland Battle focus and the reconstitution of a more generalist army.

By using terms like Dragoons and Cavalry Dismounts I am trying to differentiate the specialists associated with LAVs and IFVs from the generalists of the Infantry.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

No offense kirkhill, you put way too much thinking into simple subject's. What the hell is this dragoon crap! It's cause of that kind of thinking our military changes too many things in the way our military functions that we can't seem to keep up. We have 3 reg force Infantry regiments, they each have 3 battalion's (2 mech, 1 light) and they each a role to play. They also know what they're doing. All this name changing and over analyzing results in idiot decisions like changing the infantry Battleschool to this BIQ bullshit. You sound like your in the MO, if you are maybe you should stop over analyzing and start soldiering!

​

 

[Kirkhill]

Worse than that Bitter. I'm a civvy. Lots of time to play word games and over analyze. 

No offense taken.

As I have explained a couple of times in the past my principle aim is to keep suggesting alternative ways for looking at problems so that you professional types might find other routes to success. As a-majoor was alluding to, there have been a few occasions where the colour of the beret and the size of the rice bowl seemed to be a block to finding compromise.  By stirring the pot I like to think someone might see something else.

That's all. 

Have a natter with CFL about me. He and I have exchanged views in the past.

Cheers.

By the way, as regards each having a role to play, I agree.  What is it?  As regards them knowing what they're doing - why the discussions over orbats, equipment and task force organization at NDHQ? 

Just curious.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

We all know the boys (including myself) in all the bn's know what they're doing, NDHQ however? Maybe they're the one's doing too much over analyzing. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Corporal, I have no doubt at all that you and the rest of the guys in the battalions know your jobs.  Not an issue.

I should have been less flippant perhaps.  Its not so much about whether you can do your jobs once your feet are on the ground but more a question of where are your feet likely to be put and how many different things are you likely to be asked to do once you get there.  Will the training and kit be appropriate for the next surprising venture that the government decides upon?

Cheers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"Have a natter with CFL about me. He and I have exchanged views in the past."

All water off a ducks back.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers   CFL.   I enjoyed the sparring.

Perhaps we should get back closer to McG's point though.    I know that you guys in the LAV battalions have argued that it requires specialized skills to operate in and with the LAVs. I believe you.

At the same time I have heard some concern that some of you might not be getting as many foreign service opportunities as you would like.   Not all but some.

As well there seems to be, at least in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, a preference for light 3rd battalion types   who also seem to be specialized troops, or perhaps I am missing something.

This is not to prompt a p***ing contest but just to get at the question that a_majoor, infanteer and many others, myself included, have been trying to struggle with.

With a limited force how might it be structured so that troops can easily switch from light to lav and back.   Failing that possibility what type of force will best meet both the needs of the government to be able to respond appropriately and broadly and also allow those troops that wish to deploy the opportunity while those that need more garrison time get that chance.   Is there a way to square the circle?

That is the discussion that is ongoing on the infantry and cavalry threads.

I guess the bottom line is: if we have too few light troops and too many lav troops then the light troops will get used up while the lav troops get irritated waiting for the call.

Is there a way to make lav or light troops, their kit and organisation, more flexible, more interchangeable?   Is there a better way to get more out of the Armoured Corps personnel and structure?

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

What are the 3rd bn types specialized in other than jumping? In 2002 C-coy 2PPLCI (mech fags according to those EEElite 3VP boys), anyways we did everything that we were tasked by the 3VP CO. There is nothing special or different in the Ghan that can be done by a mech bn or a light bn. Ooh I'm riding around in a G-wagon, I'm so qualified! That G-wagon hits an anti-tank mine what do you think will happen, the liberal magic solution will save them, at least in LAV-III, there's a bit more of a chance. No disrespect to the 3rd, but there are other infantry bn's who can do the same job in the ghan!

​

 

[McG]

Kirkhill,
While your intent to "broaden the debate and getting away from counting cap-badges" may be noble, I think it obscures key issues and merely transfers an empire between cap badges.

A Mech Infanteer/Dragoon requires specialized skills, kit and TTPs to interface with the vehicle and systems that carry him/her.   They are less infanteers than sub-systems of their vehicles.

While an infanteer (light) can be dispatched to the scene quickly and armed to meet the threat a Dragoon with all the specialized training and kit loses a lot of that value without their vehicles.

Dragoons seem inherently less flexible in employment.

The soldier who's sole function is to fight dismounted is infantry.   If you don't like the term "mechanized infantry" then perhaps stick with "armoured infantry" or even "mounted infantry."   Regardless of what you call them, they require all the basic infantry skills and training.   Mechanized infantry is much more than just a "sub-systems of their vehicles" and more a part of a mutually supporting team that includes AFVs, dismounted infantry, indirect fires, aviation, engineers, ISTAR, and all other elements of the battlefield.     ... and all infantry, regardless of light or mechanized, must be able to function as part of this mutually supporting all arms team.

Yes, if you strip away most of the basic infantry skills, then your dragoons would be much less flexible.   That is why it is important to keep the emphasis that they are infantry (regardless of cap badge).

... and here is some moderately related thoughts from another thread:

I would argue that every Canadian infantryman is trained in a dismounted role first rather than a light role.

Having taught BIQ, this is in fact incorrect. The skills that are taught are infact 'Basic infantry skills' commonly reffered to as 'Light infantry skills' amoung the trade. In fact all infantry soldiers in Canada are light infantry first, the continued training that is offered once they arrive at their parent Bn will dictate whether they are mechanized or light. The splitting of hairs occures when a mechanized soldier dismounts and conducts dismounted operations and the answer is no he is not a light infantry soldier.   The conduct of the overall operations of that Bn are still mechanized operations, hense the terms apply to their speciffic roles not to the temporary employment of the soldier.

This arguement could go on forever but the reality of the situation is that you wouldn't call a light infantry soldier a mechanized soldier just because he mounts the back of a LAV for insertion.   Light infantry soldiers are trained quite differently than mounted soldiers in that they closely follow the training requirments of the CAR becoming proficent in all aspects of Airborne, Mountain, Anphibious and Aimobile operatations and it is this continueous training that sets them apart for their mechanized counterparts. ...

Rather than drag more threads into this debate, I've thrown in quotes & rebutals to ideas from the following:
Towards a True Light Infantry, Page 6
Canadian Airborne..opening for reserves aswell?, Page3

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually there is a difference between Mech Infantry and Dragoons.

One works as part of the vehicle team where the IFV is the primary weapons system.  This is the Dragoons where there were only ever a maximum of 7 riders in the back of a Bradley but more commonly 4.  There were too few to conduct standard infantry tasks.

Mechanized infantry starts from the premise that the vehicle transports the infantry.  Sufficient vehicles of sufficient size are supplied to get the infantry from A to B.  That is what the M113 did.  The vehicle was only transport.  Motorized infantry was the same thing transported by trucks.  The infantry battalion did not fight mounted.  It fought dismounted.

The Stryker Brigade is closer to the Mechanized/Motorized concept.  The troops are primarily to fight dismounted and the vehicles are transport.  They are a relocatable static force.

The Dragoons, Cavalry, Armoured Infantry Battalions fully expect to conduct their fights mounted with the guys in the back seldom getting out except to clear obstacles.  They are an assault force.  They are a mobile force. 

Check Death Ground again.

Where the LAV fits in this continuum I don't know but given the turret and limited troop space I am inclined to see it less as an infantry transport and more of a cavalry vehicle.

 

[McG]

As to the Armoured/Cavalry - What exactly are they supposed to be doing if the infantry is doing mounted assaults, mounted patrols, mounted recce, mounted fire support?

They could crew the fighting vehicles for the infantry, they could provide the heavier non-dismountable direct fire support, they could conduct deeper recce, etc.

 

[McG]

Where the LAV fits in this continuum I don't know but given the turret and limited troop space I am inclined to see it less as an infantry transport and more of a cavalry vehicle.

I've found more room in the back of a LAV than in the old M113.

 

[Kirkhill]

They could crew the fighting vehicles for the infantry, they could provide the heavier non-dismountable direct fire support, they could conduct deeper recce, etc.

That seems reasonable enough but do the Strats, RCDs and 12 RBCs take over all the LAVs then? Create 9 equal infantry battalions, 3 jump qualified for special occasions.

Assign a LAV squadron to an Inf Battalion as needed, or an Inf Company to a LAV Regiment?

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

Too much over analyzing!!! And where did this dragoon crap come from? The only thing I keep getting is, LAV crews and bn's are stupid and don't know a thing about being infantryman and light are the gods of war, sorry I'm a stupid mech fag!

 

[a_majoor]

People driving into battle in a G-wagon are courting trouble to begin with, but that isn't exactly what we are talking about.

A Mech unit, regardless of its name, has certain attributes based on the use of weapons platforms and transport. A mech unit is fast, hard hitting and protected. A mech unit also needs a large and flexible logistics tail, and is vulnerable to close in threats (IEDs, mines, ambush, etc.) The dismounted soldiers in a mechanized unit use their infantry skills differently than a Light Infantry unit would. Patrolling would be close in to clear the area around a combat team hide, for example, while the defense involves using the dismounted troops to provide close in protection for the major weapons platforms (who gets sited first; the rifle trench or the tank?). Additional skills are needed to direct the fire of major weapons systems (i.e. shooting a target using a tank telephone), and in offensive operations, the dismounted soldiers would work in close cooperation with the heavy weapons platforms. Because of the size and volume of the turret and ammunition, Mechanized Infantry tend to have much smaller sections by default. As a partial way of making up for this, Mechanized soldiers rely on heavy weapons which require vehicles to use effectively (25mm, .50 HMG, 40mm AGL, 81mm mortar, TOW, etc.) While many of these weapons could be "man packed" in theory; the amount of time and effort needed, and the minimal amount of ammunition that could be carried makes this a rather impractical idea.

The Light Infantry would work at long range, so to speak, conducting dismounted recce or fighting patrols well away from their patrol base, setting defenses without the use of tanks or heavy weapons, and (borrowing from the "Towards a true Light Infantry" thread) engaging the enemy through "sniping" attacks rather than attempting to use shock assaults. Enemies who require shock assault tactics can be "pinned down" by the LI until a more robust force arrives (it was claimed a single sniper could hold up an entire battalion in WW II), or until the LI could vector in fast air/artillery or helicopter firepower on the target.

It is certainly true that well trained soldiers can and will be able to move from mounted "Dragoons" to stealthy "Light Infantry", but as I hope my examples have shown, this isn't a simple matter of climbing aboard or dismounting from a vehicle. Since there are not enough vehicles to constantly train in mechanized tactics, and our vehicles are at the low end of the scale compared to "Warriors" or M-2s, Canadian soldiers are a more hybrid force than most, so the transition between roles is quite a bit easier than in a more richly equipped force.

 

[McG]

Assign a LAV squadron to an Inf Battalion as needed, or an Inf Company to a LAV Regiment?

Integrate a LAV Pl into each rifle company.

 

[claybot]

If one were to look at the Russian forces which have Mechanized and Motorized Divisions one would see that Mech is BMP, Motor is BTR.
Canada has LAV III. therefore we are Motorized.

Dragoon, mech motorized, light etc ...... terms we no longer need. Give all the LAV's to the armoured force call them mechanized if you wish. They can provide vehicles when requested.
Combine the Light and Mech concepts together into one all purpose fighting force giving the Army 9 Infantry Battalions trained for airmobile, amphibious and mech. Dismounting is easy compared to the rest, we can be delivered the to battlefield by ourselves or others.
Disband the PPCLI, RCR and VanDoo create one Infantry Regimental unit consisting of 9 battalions with one hat badge. It works for the Australians.

People will claim this will not work different tactics between Armoured and Infantry, a typical excuse for most. Good Leadership and proper training will fix that problem. We can not continue to base our doctrine/tactics on Cold War mentality. Yes the Interim Army project says we no longer follow that strategy and have moved to the "Three Block War" but in reality we are still basing alot of our tactics on the ColdWar.
We do not have the resources for everything and were proving that already with understrength battalions that strip other units so they can complete their mission.

One Regiment, One Army, One SOP

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If one were to look at the Russian forces which have Mechanized and Motorized Divisions one would see that Mech is BMP, Motor is BTR.
Canada has LAV III. therefore we are Motorized.

Dragoon, mech motorized, light etc ...... terms we no longer need. Give all the LAV's to the armoured force call them mechanized if you wish. They can provide vehicles when requested.
Combine the Light and Mech concepts together into one all purpose fighting force giving the Army 9 Infantry Battalions trained for airmobile, amphibious and mech. Dismounting is easy compared to the rest, we can be delivered the to battlefield by ourselves or others.
Disband the PPCLI, RCR and VanDoo create one Infantry Regimental unit consisting of 9 battalions with one hat badge. It works for the Australians.

People will claim this will not work different tactics between Armoured and Infantry, a typical excuse for most. Good Leadership and proper training will fix that problem. We can not continue to base our doctrine/tactics on Cold War mentality. Yes the Interim Army project says we no longer follow that strategy and have moved to the "Three Block War" but in reality we are still basing alot of our tactics on the ColdWar.
We do not have the resources for everything and were proving that already with understrength battalions that strip other units so they can complete their mission.

One Regiment, One Army, One SOP

Can you elaborate on the Australian system and structures?

Thanks,


Matthew.