Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Well I’m not going to argue in favour of the Grizzly, or frankly the entire AVGP family, at any point in time. I’m aware of the pintle mounts on m113s and Bisons, I’m struggling to see where you’re going here.

The point is what do you want the vehicle to do. I am of the opinion that combining the APC with the AFV (lt tank - armoured car) was a step too far.

I prefer, still, the distinction offered by the Saladin Saracen line of vehicles.

Saladins were fighting vehicles. Saracens were transports that could keep up.

Saladins exposed three men to the risks of the advance to contact. The section was a bound to the rear.

 

[markppcli]

I might be wrong, but I think the point he's making is that you can argue (regardless of gun size) that conceptually the LAV/stryker is a battle taxi with a self defense weapon (that if big enough do double duty as direct fire support) and therefore could be crewed and thought of as such rather than as IFV with the increased demands for the mobile fight.

Edit- I disagree with this. While it may be functionally irrelevant in the present, it's very relevant to mapping out a plan that works to add the capacities needed.
Ex. Say you align that X and X+ into Y, and recruitment delivers. All battalions filled with 4 vehicle 40 man platoons. But still no organic SP mortars or ATGM under armour. So back to the drawing board, to fully man the battalions we need Y+, force needs to expand, budget needs to change, more recruitment needs to happen. But, if you plan to "pinch a man out of each turret" from the outset (12 per company), that man's 4x each M1129 and M1134 at the battalion level, so that the capabilities are feasible when you reach establishment numbers

Yes I understand what he’s trying to say generally, the delivery is a bit… meandering. Im arguing the points he’s trying to make to support it such as turret manning general and Stryker specific. Now I’m regards to numbers and manning, if you looked at the Force 2025 manning plan they accounted for increased combat support compiles with the two Bns becoming inactive. If you want to pull four guys from the platoon, by all means take the weapons det and keep some C6s and Carl Gs in the car as needed. Nothing sillier than a man bounding with the gpmg beside a stabilized turret.

 

[markppcli]

The point is what do you want the vehicle to do. I am of the opinion that combining the APC with the AFV (lt tank - armoured car) was a step too far.

I prefer, still, the distinction offered by the Saladin Saracen line of vehicles.

Saladins were fighting vehicles. Saracens were transports that could keep up.

Saladins exposed three men to the risks of the advance to contact. The section was a bound to the rear.

I matter how you play it, that vehicle is going to be engaged in a fight at some point, I’d rather they be capable of doing that well. The Saracen was meant to drive reserve Bns from England to Germany, never to actually be used anywhere near a front line.

 

[Kirkhill]

My preferred solution. Saladin Heavy Armoured Car, Saracen APC, Stalwart Logistics - all share common running gear

The Canadian Version



The current version



The original version employed a common chassis with common running gear and motor and created 3 different vehicles, one of which was small and more heavily armoured and one of which was amphibious for logistics. The AFV had a 76mm gun and a coax.

The Canadian version 1980 took the Mowag monocoque hull, which was a good starting point for an APC and added the original Textron TAPV one-man turret to create the amphibious Grizzly WAPC. But things started to go wrong when trying to create a Saladin knock off. They took the Saladin 76mm turret and added it to the same monocoque hull as the Grizzly. But the Saladin was built on a frame, a chassis, like a truck. That meant that the hull could be reconfigured to create a smaller target. The Cougar was stuck with the large monocoque hull because monocoques spread their load throughout the hull and are dependent on the shape for their strength. Thus big target, small gun.

Next step was the monocoque amphibious Bison with an extra set of wheels to carry more troops, a WAPC.

That became the Coyote by adding the Delco Turret used by the USMC on their LAV-25s.

Then the LAV3 with the Delco Turret was adopted for infantry use - and - in my opinion - confusion reigned. Both the Infantry and the "Cavalry" were equipped with the same vehicle - a 25mm armed armoured pickup truck.

Canada's original sin.

The LAV 3.

 

[Kirkhill]

I matter how you play it, that vehicle is going to be engaged in a fight at some point, I’d rather they be capable of doing that well. The Saracen was meant to drive reserve Bns from England to Germany, never to actually be used anywhere near a front line.

The Saladin and Saracen were bought as a set to be used in the F Echelon. The Stalwart was created later to allow the logistics to keep up.

Don't confuse the Saracen with Saxon. The Saxon was designed, as you suggest, just to get from garrison to the battlefield on highways.



None of which should be confused with the Scorpion, Striker, Spartan, Samaritan, Sultan, Samson, Scimitar, Sabre, Sturgeon, Salamander or Stormer.

Blame the Brits.

 

[Kirkhill]

And with respect to being engaged in a fight - battle taxis, like the M113, do not engage. They dismount their troops before the fight and go into Zulu harbour. The troops take their pintle mounted gun with them. That was one of the problems with the Grizzly. The guns stayed with the vehicle. As a result the vehicle was drawn into the fight.

 

[markppcli]

Then the LAV3 with the Delco Turret was adopted
Canada's original sin.

The LAV 3.

Or the only relevant, successful piece of military equipment we’ve produced in twenty years.

For the record, ignoring information and restating your point at greater length gets grating. Vehicles have all gotten larger to add bigger guns and more armour. Now instead of assuming incompetence, as is your custom, perhaps we could consider that optics and TI have gotten drastically more sophisticated and the ability to hide, yes even dismounts, has been reduced. At the same time the effectiveness or man portable AT weapons makes a Saracen little more than a death trap, and while ideally yes the armoured recce will identify the enemy first, some times they don’t really want to be found or you don’t merit the Bde’s recce assets.

 

[markppcli]

And with respect to being engaged in a fight - battle taxis, like the M113, do not engage. They dismount their troops before the fight and go into Zulu harbour. The troops take their pintle mounted gun with them.

Oh well how sporting of the enemy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tata Mark.

 

[GR66]

Yes I understand what he’s trying to say generally, the delivery is a bit… meandering. Im arguing the points he’s trying to make to support it such as turret manning general and Stryker specific. Now I’m regards to numbers and manning, if you looked at the Force 2025 manning plan they accounted for increased combat support compiles with the two Bns becoming inactive. If you want to pull four guys from the platoon, by all means take the weapons det and keep some C6s and Carl Gs in the car as needed. Nothing sillier than a man bounding with the gpmg beside a stabilized turret.

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this idea from our Mech Infantry types.

IF we were to have proper CS support at the CS Company level for the LAV Battalions (ideally I'm thinking a LAV-AT Platoon, LAV-Mortar Platoon, LAV-SHORAD Platoon and even a LAV-DFS Platoon) and have a "weapons locker" for GPMGs/AT Weapons in each of the Section vehicles could we then drop the Platoon HQ LAV from the platoon?

 

[Good2Golf]

Or the only relevant, successful piece of military land equipment we’ve produced in twenty years.

 

[markppcli]

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this idea from our Mech Infantry types.

IF we were to have proper CS support at the CS Company level for the LAV Battalions (ideally I'm thinking a LAV-AT Platoon, LAV-Mortar Platoon, LAV-SHORAD Platoon and even a LAV-DFS Platoon) and have a "weapons locker" for GPMGs/AT Weapons in each of the Section vehicles could we then drop the Platoon HQ LAV from the platoon?

Where would you sit the platoon commander, Signaler, and WO? One of the reasons for going to six dismounts was giving up a seat for attachments ( medics, a foo, what have you) loose the car and we loose that. We’d have to fight our LAVs differently as well, which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just different.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes I understand what he’s trying to say generally, the delivery is a bit… meandering. Im arguing the points he’s trying to make to support it such as turret manning general and Stryker specific. Now I’m regards to numbers and manning, if you looked at the Force 2025 manning plan they accounted for increased combat support compiles with the two Bns becoming inactive. If you want to pull four guys from the platoon, by all means take the weapons det and keep some C6s and Carl Gs in the car as needed. Nothing sillier than a man bounding with the gpmg beside a stabilized turret.

I'll try to be a bit less meandering.

We have LAV 6.0s for the infantry. That is not going away.
We have a manning problem. That doesn't seem to be going away.
Without a change in technology, meaning a major capital investment and a number of years, technology is not going to change either of those situations.

So I'm going to make a suggestion based on Mark's observations.

If the GPMG is silly how much sillier is a C7? And yet the C7, C9 and C6 are the primary weapons of the dismounted infantry.
If the vehicle is going to be a carrier for weapons that might come in handy (the CG, the C6) then you are effectively turning the section in the back into a Weapons Det.

Suggestion - rather than eliminating the Weapons Dets and keeping the Sections why not convert the Sections into Weapons Dets.

The result would be 6 soldiers in a LAV 6.0 with 4 empty seats and room for the C6, the CG, a Javelin a DMR and perhaps even a 60mm mortar (or perhaps as few Switchblades or NLAWs are more appropriate these days).
The LAV commander would still have 3 Rifles in each LAV, or a dismount group of 12. And would also be able to man an operationally relevant assortment of weapons that could assist the stabilized turrets.

Meanwhile the other 4 soldiers currently in the LAVs could be concentrated into an Assault Company or a straight Rifle Company transported in ACSV-TCVs.

That Rifle Company could be refilled from the Light Battalions or from the Reserves or be the RFL2/3 Companies referenced in Force 2025.

If the Ukrainian effort is demonstrating anything it is that distributing everything equally across the entire force is not a recipe for success. There continues to be a strong need for concentrations of forces in reserve which can be allocated according to need. Perhaps keeping a concentration of rifles in reserve within the battalion is one place to start?

 

[markppcli]

You misunderstood my point about the C6 in the offence entirely. The purpose of that dismounted platoon is to clear objectives out, having a guy running along side 4 stabilized machine guns with his gpmg isn’t providing a valuable tool in that context. The sections already have their ability to suppress when the turrets can’t, and the geometry will likely not work for the dismounted C6.

Now why I would keep the C6 in the LAVs is for deliberate attacks and defensive operations where the cars are cut away to provide counter moves or cut offs, a feint, what have you. Critically however I don’t think you gain a whole lot of anything by pulling half the dismounts out of 3 companies to form a 4th company that is now going to be tasked out to clear those objectives the other companies lack the bayonets to deal with.

 

[KevinB]

I'll try to be a bit less meandering.

We have LAV 6.0s for the infantry. That is not going away.
We have a manning problem. That doesn't seem to be going away.
Without a change in technology, meaning a major capital investment and a number of years, technology is not going to change either of those situations.

So I'm going to make a suggestion based on Mark's observations.

If the GPMG is silly how much sillier is a C7? And yet the C7, C9 and C6 are the primary weapons of the dismounted infantry.

The C6 isn’t an individual weapon. Sure I’ve run one solo with an assault pack with belts in it - but it’s just a heavy LMG at that point.

The LAV has a C6 coax, a 25mm and a C6/9 commander MG Pintel mounted.

Dismounting the C6 works fine for dismounted operations away from the LAV’s but is generally pointless when working with LAV’s.

Frankly the C7 is pointless to, ideally everyone would have a C8 other than a Platoon DMR.

If the vehicle is going to be a carrier for weapons that might come in handy (the CG, the C6) then you are effectively turning the section in the back into a Weapons Det.

The Weapons DET is a Platoon HQ function.

Suggestion - rather than eliminating the Weapons Dets and keeping the Sections why not convert the Sections into Weapons Dets.

Adopting an Arms Room principle isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but you don’t do it to strip manpower.

The result would be 6 soldiers in a LAV 6.0 with 4 empty seats and room for the C6, the CG, a Javelin a DMR and perhaps even a 60mm mortar (or perhaps as few Switchblades or NLAWs are more appropriate these days).

6 GIB’s plus the three crew?

The LAV commander would still have 3 Rifles in each LAV, or a dismount group of 12. And would also be able to man an operationally relevant assortment of weapons that could assist the stabilized turrets.

I’m really having a tough time understanding you here.

I’m no longer following what you consider the section

If you are talking about 6 dismounts / car
That leaves 18 Dismounts plus Pl Commander, Pl WO, Sig, 3 man weapon DET

That’s not an infantry platoon at that point.

Meanwhile the other 4 soldiers currently in the LAVs could be concentrated into an Assault Company or a straight Rifle Company transported in ACSV-TCVs.

That Rifle Company could be refilled from the Light Battalions or from the Reserves or be the RFL2/3 Companies referenced in Force 2025.

If the Ukrainian effort is demonstrating anything it is that distributing everything equally across the entire force is not a recipe for success. There continues to be a strong need for concentrations of forces in reserve which can be allocated according to need. Perhaps keeping a concentration of rifles in reserve within the battalion is one place to start?

Which is a reason for having a 2 up one back company layout, to give some depth. Bn should not penny pinch out of Companies and Platoons as that would just make those weaker forcing any ‘extras’ to be committed earlier.

 

[Kirkhill]

@markppcli

To help me understand better,

Can you clarify the primary purpose of the LAV mounted infantry? What operations dominate your training schedule?

 

[Infanteer]

@markppcli

To help me understand better,

Can you clarify the primary purpose of the LAV mounted infantry? What operations dominate your training schedule?

No different than any other infantry. Close with and destroy the enemy.

 

[markppcli]

@markppcli

To help me understand better,

Can you clarify the primary purpose of the LAV mounted infantry? What operations dominate your training schedule?

Our training schedule focuses on the build up to Cmbt Team attacks, we sometimes call this a level 5 range. Our tasks, as a platoon, within a combat team context are as such (@Infanteer feel free to correct me here): clear enemy positions on the objective during a combat team attack, conduct hasty attacks and defile drills to clear the axis of advance, provide flank security on the advance.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am asking, not proposing, if there is a different way of organizing things.

I am asking if putting everything in the battalion up front in the LAVs, equally divided, is the only way to create an effective LAV Battalion. Is there an advantage to doing that?

What I am seeing from my distant perspective is vehicles that are crowded and capabilities that are distributed. When concentration of one, or any of those capabilities is required is that easily accomplished and regularly practiced.

When I said that the LAV 3.0 was Canada's Original Sin that was not a knock against the LAV. What I meant by that is that, in my opinion, it blurred the line between the RCAC roles and the RCIC roles.

The RCAC has a history that emphasises the vehicle in the operations. The RCIC history emphasises the man. There is no reason why both the RCAC and the RCIC can't be equipped with the same vehicle but I would expect them to use them differently.

The Armoured Recce used to keep their "infantry" in the rear of the Squadron/Regiment in as separate "assault" element to be called on when that capability was required. Just like they could call on their Troop/Squadron to add additional weight to their fires.

The infantry use to keep their support in the rear of the Platoon/Company/Battalion in separate weapons dets, sections, platoons, companies to be called on when required.

I have long argued that the LAV's stabilized turret overshadows the support weapons of the Canadian infantry battalion and renders many of them redundant. In my view when the LAV 3.0 was adopted it swung the Infantry Battalion away from the rifleman centred organization to something that was looking more like an RCAC Armoured Car Regiment.

Which is why I am wondering about seeing the Battalion as 2 or 3 Support Companies with a Rifle company attached rather than 2 or 3 Rifle Companies with a Support Company attached.

Carl Gustav vs BMP-1 in Mariupol

Приватний канал

You can view and join @polkazov right away.

t.me

 

[FJAG]

Our training schedule focuses on the build up to Cmbt Team attacks, we sometimes call this a level 5 range.

That actually raises a slightly off-topic question in my mind.

I always found that the best exercises for actually training troops ended with the combat team level. Battalion and brigade and division exercises became important for the battalion and above staff but generally were uninspiring and marginally useful for the people at the company and below level. It was something like a cross-over point between training for warfighting and battle management.

While I found the German live-fire battlegroup in Shilo fun, they were pretty scripted and routine (probably useful for the conscript army that they were in those days). The majority of the battlegroup and brigade exercises and the RV exercise I attended were fairly boring for the bulk of the troops.

I've never been on a Maple Resolve or to BATUS so can't talk about them.

My question for those in battalions and armoured regiments is: is there sufficient training value in a battlegroup and above exercise with troops? Or would we be better off having live exercises with troops end at the combat team level while battalion and above exercises focus on TEWTs and CAXs and perhaps field exercises that only involve the command teams from the coy level on up?