- Reaction score
- 1,466
- Points
- 1,040
:rofl:Thucydides said:Here, of course: ;D ;D ;D
Photoshop that behind a LAV 3 APC, and we have a winner
:rofl:Thucydides said:Here, of course: ;D ;D ;D
Thucydides said:Here, of course: ;D ;D ;D
And it would be easier to tell if the TF Comd is doing "extracirricular activities".Infanteer said:I wish the Battle Group rifle companies had those so they quit bi**hing about the amenities in KAF....
Keep them in the launch tubes. Across the battalion, you would have more missiles ready to fire than AAP ever carried ready to launch + under armour. With MSVS, the CQ will have more capacity to carry in the echelon. If you are the Pl tasked to a flank, then pull the C-16 & Carl G and give these to the CQ along with the bins of the back racks and use this space to carry missiles (don't worry, your stuff will fit in the space that he just emptied of missiles).Technoviking said:... And if they have missile launchers, where do we store the missiles? Don't forget, we have C-16s in the platoons now, so those carriers are getting full.....
I have not suggested that what I proposed is ideal, but it is middle step between what we have now (no AAP, mortar or Pnr) and the Cbt Sp Coy of 4 CMBG circa 1989.Technoviking said:So, if we take platoons away from companies to do BG tasks, then those companies are reduced in capability. ...
That's one of the beauties of the old-school Combat Support Company, an infantry battalion could conduct its own guard for its own covering force (with Anti Armour and Recce Platoons forward of the main defensive area).
As it stands now (er...during our time in Kandahar with a BG, etc), the nine battalions "briefed well", but they were all shadows of battalions. I think politically it would be suicide to recommend that say "x" Regiment were to reduce by one battalion, leaving the others at 3 (as an example, if it went to 8).MCG said:Maybe cannibalizing one battalion in each bde is the way to go. It certainly provides a pool from which to draw all the desired PYs ... and it would mean that every bn would deploy once every 3 years based on our traditional tempo. However, if we are going to do the exercise of reducing the number of battalions - should we first determine if 6 is any better than 9 a number from a strategic perspective? What if we are better off having a number of battalions that is not divisible by 3?
It is even more frustrating when one considers that the FGing CMBG had a LAV TUA capability going unused back in Canada. We could have had heavy missiles for smashing grapehuts the whole time.Sully said:On Operation Archer in 2006 (1 PPCLI - Recce PL) I cannot count how many times internal TOW and Mortar platoons would have had an immediate effect during engagements. Don’t get me wrong, I owe my life to the US Air Force and Canadian Artillery numerous times over. I am saying that there were times that both of these entities were engaged elsewhere and unable to support our operations (spread too thin/expended ammunition). A Mortar or TOW platoon would have cleaned house!
Thucydides said:Moving back a bit on topic, I am wondering which model is favoured:
80's style mech battalion, with a separate combat support company housing the mortars, AAP and Pioneers, or
USMC LAV/SBCT model with assets integrated at the company level.
I am a bit on the fence, since I understand the arguments for keeping assets centralized, but am also thinking of the Distributed Operations model where companies and even platoons are working far beyond the effective range of most battalion/battlegroup assets (obvious exceptions being M777 batteries or air support assets), so having assets directly integrated in the company provides immediate support.
I also realize that if we accept the DO model, there is one asset which has not been mentioned; an integral logistical support element analogous to the "admin troop" in an armoured squadron.
Remembering that most of our operations are conducted in Canada, either as an IRU or Dom Op, having a fourth company in a battalion, even as Cbt Sp, would allow for more "sandbag fillers". Let us never forget that they are all infantrymen and infantry officers, who can if needed "close with and destroy the enemy" using machine guns, rifles and bayonets. Or shovels. Whatever.Danjanou said:Secondly, we've already touched on the flexibility of using them in as 4th maneuver (albeit perhaps wasteful considering the skill sets) rifle company, or even 5th if we ever go back to the 4+ companies battalion, in lower intensity operations, say a old Cyprus style peacekeeping mission.