Mech infantry or all light infantry with some Armd APC units?

[Kirkhill]

Speaking of artillery, given that the FOO and the FAC ride the turret to use its tools to help their trade, how do we address THAT issue?

Easy enough - permanently assign a battery of gunners with SPHs to each LAV Battalion along with the Leos of the Direct Fire Support platoon I alluded to above and give all of them Green hats and Infantry cap badges. They will conduct the walking pace - C7 range battle.

Likewise the Armoured Corps should get SPHs and gunners in Blackhats to complement their LAV mounted Dragoons to conduct their broad, sweeping, high-speed manoeuvres for which their mindset best suits them.

 

[ArmyRick]

Having talked to a cbt engineer friend of mine who just got back from the a-stan, he told me his LAV crew were all RCD. A gunner, commander and driver, all 011. Guess some of this thought is happening.

 

[George Wallace]

Having talked to a cbt engineer friend of mine who just got back from the a-stan, he told me his LAV crew were all RCD. A gunner, commander and driver, all 011. Guess some of this thought is happening.

This was the solution that they came up with when we rushed more Engineers off to Afghanistan for mine and IED Clearance and gave them LAVs for protection.  As they had no LAVs, nor LAV qualified pers in their Regiment, they crewed the vehicles in Afghanistan with Armour soldiers.  Things done in the typical Canadian Army way....."use your initiative - get it done".

I am sure that with time, and the eventuality of Engineers getting LAVs in the Regiments in Canada, then they too will be getting LAV D&M and Gnry Crses.

 

[vonGarvin]

Having talked to a cbt engineer friend of mine who just got back from the a-stan, he told me his LAV crew were all RCD. A gunner, commander and driver, all 011. Guess some of this thought is happening.

As George said, the Engineers weren't LAV qualified.  This was due to several circumstances, not the least of which was that they were close to "last in line" to get them.  So, time was short, no time to train up crews, so...find some crews elsewhere.  One time solution.
4 ESR is chock-full of LAV qualified troops and officers.  

 

[AIC_2K5]

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_08/iss_2/CAJ_vol8.2_04_e.pdf

A very interesting article summing up the work of the Light Forces Working Group thus far (the article was written about 2 1/2 years ago, but is still very relevant).

An excerpt:
"When comparing light and medium forces envisaged for the Canadian Army the LFWG
determined that there is a difference between light and LAV infantry. The FEC of the
Army of Today dated 31 Mar 04 indicates that light forces will not be expected to rerole
to medium for an operation as has sometimes been the case in the past. Similarly,
it was determined that the re-rolling of LAV based infantry to light would be equally
inappropriate as this type of Infantry without their LAVs does not equal light infantry as
some would have you think. LAV infantry without their APCs become at best
dismounted infantry or motorized infantry if they are provided wheeled transport.
Light Infantry remains a different capability due to their mindset, greater specialization,
different skill sets and light equipment. Notwithstanding, the Army, at least in the short
term, has adopted a philosophy that a LAV infantry company minus their APCs will
equal a light infantry company for force employment in order to make the managed
readiness program work."

...and the official concept for light forces:

"Light Forces will be developed that are scalable
from company to battalion size task forces
tailored to conduct full spectrum of operations in
complex terrain and environments. They will be
resourced, equipped and trained to conduct and win in Blocks 1,2 and 3 when
executing the full range of conventional missions/tasks and to support to SOF in
their operations. They will be employable alone or in conjunction with medium
forces forming light coy and bn sized Task Forces (TF) to conduct operations.
These light TF will be based on light infantry and will have all five operating
functions resident within commiserate to the operating environment / threat
anticipated. (approved by ACDB 3 Mar 05)"

(Although the preceeding probably belongs in All Arms Light Forces, the thread hasn't been touched in about 2 years and I figured it was safest to place here.)

 

[McG]

I am sure that with time, and the eventuality of Engineers getting LAVs in the Regiments in Canada, then they too will be getting LAV D&M and Gnry Crses.

The Engr on the previous tour crewed their own LAV.  However, we had to cut-back guys' summer leave to do it. 

I don't know what the current roto is doing.

 

[Mortar guy]

Wow, great debate! I go away on the Combat Team Commander's Course and miss all this good stuff!

George, I have to say that your method of debating here is getting a little old. Instead of slamming RecceDG and others for 'not knowing anything' or 'talking out of their lane', why don't you just explain your position based on your knowledge of LAV tactics, infantry training, and modern (i.e. post LAV III introduction) combined mechanized operations? That would certainly be more productive and less hypocritical. I think I see why you will never agree with RecceDG or I. It's because you are convinced that the LAV is just an M113 with wheels.

All good arguments from everyone but I can tell you that my latest experience in the field these past 3 weeks has confirmed my belief that LAV trg comes at a cost for the infantry. The sub-unit I trained with that was decent (but far from great) at LAV tactics was utterly horrible at dismounted skills and likewise, the sub-unit that was very good at dismounted skills had a long way to go before they could be considered competent with the LAV. It was interesting because that exercise was the embodiment of this argument and it was plain for all to see that you could not be skilled at both LAV and dismounted tactics given the very real limitations of training time and resources. The soldiers and NCOs in each coy even stated as much when I asked them.

Now, I think much of this debate is taking two distinct paths:

1) The LAV is just an APC like the M113 or the Grizzly. The infantry manned those so why can't they crew the LAV III?

and

2) It would be too hard in terms of PY's to transfer the LAVs to the Armd. Also, it would be a great loss of prestige for the Infantry and we would be reduced to plodding dolts while everyone else gets to have some real mechanized fun.

Well, for point 1, I don't know how to respond to that one other than to say go crew a LAV for a day! I was brought up in M113s and Grizzlies and the complexity of the vehicle is incredible. Comparing the Grizzly to the LAV is like comparing a Cessna 172 to a Boeing 777. We never did any crew drills in the Grizzly or the M113; we had no thermal, stab, TACNAV, etc. Anyway, all this has been said before and I suppose it won't change some people's opinion about how complex the LAV is. I will say this though - why is it that we are one of the few western armies that doesn't crew their IFVs with a different MOC or sub-MOC than the GIBs? Do we know something everyone else doesn't? No, we don't. In fact, the LAV was introduced with very little official thought (although a lot of unofficial debate) about who would crew the thing. We took Grizzly bns, changed absolutely nothing with regards to TO&E and made no adjustments to career progression or employment of the infanteers.

For point 2, this reeks of cap-badgism. Actually, most of this debate has centered on what's best for one Corps over another. I would take the driver-gunner-crew commander PYs right out of the inf bns to form these LAV Sqns. So the infantry is 800 pers smaller, at least the bns left would be able to focus their training on infantry skills rather than slowly decompose into the Second Best Armoured Corps in Canada as is now happening. I would rather have smaller Bns with more focussed trg, supported by very competent crews than be stuck with the status quo. I would form 6 LAV Sqns, each with 3 Troops of 16 LAVs. The personnel would be the PYs currently assigned to LAV crews anyway (i.e. Troop Leader - LAV Capt, Sect Comd - LAV Sgt etc.). The only new positions would be 6 Majs to Comd the Sqns, and don't tell me we couldn't find 6 Majs if someone was to seriously comb out NDHQ! I am not wedded to the idea that the LAV crews must be Armd but they must train solely on the LAV. Call them 031B if you like, I don't care. However, creating a new sub-MOC seems far less efficient than giving this task to the Corps that already specializes in crewed vehicle training and tactics.

LAV Sqns could be affiliated with inf bns although this need not be permanent. In my view, this would mean that every inf bn would be light if need be, but could be mech with a LAV Sqn attached. Combined arms trg would happen all the time (just like it does now).

Anyway, that's enough. We're just going to keep arguing in circles, no doubt. It's funny that the more experience I get with LAVs and combined arms operations, the more I think we are headed down the wrong path with the status quo. Oh well, the infantry crewed the M113 in the 70s, why can't we crew the LAV in the 21st century!? Long live mindless inertia!

MG

 

[vonGarvin]

MG:
Though mindless inertia is a thing to behold ;D, I'm with you that it certainly is NOT a thing of beauty.

One argument you make for a "sub MOC" is worth looking at.  Having said that, I must sue you for perjury of my ideas (I know you have a mind-reading satellite network scanning my brain for ideas!).  I'll PM you an early draft paper I was writing for Prelims for AOC (and then abandoned when that requirement was deleted/amended)

One point about the skills of the infantrymen manning the LAVs you saw: I doubt that it's systemic due to the complexities of the LAV, but rather to the system of how often we train.  Fighting combined arms is a complex affair, irrespective of the tools invovled.  I'll agree 100% that the LAV 3 certainly ain't no "Fancy Schmancy M113".  As you said, apples and oranges (or was it Cessnas and 767s?)  Anyway, have a look at the paper, hope you have fun on the CTCC Course (the extra "course" is intentional: Ask Cayle, he loves shit like that!)


Talk to you soon!


Captain Sensible
(formerly "Hauptmann Scharlachrot") ;D

 

[ArmyRick]

Mortar Guy, I think your arguments are good. LAV IIIs are more complex than the grizzly or lunch box with tracks.

25mm Chain gun, with 7.62mm Coaxial MG, stabilized is alot different than the old APCs IMO.

 

[GAP]

Great arguments and responses, but.................how realistic is it that anything will change?

 

[ArmyRick]

How about this idea.

Stand 8 CH back up as a regiment (with squadrons at each brigade). Go with the formation that Mortar Guy recomended and have 8 CH responsible for crewing LAVs.

Maybe it is time to start creating new MOCs
For example
Tank Crewman
LAV Crewman (Trained either LAVIII or Coyote) or Create a third MOC Recce Crewman (Coyote only).

It seems other armies have divided up their armour corps into seperate trades, why can't we do it?

The personal will be added in over say a 3 to 6 year starting up period.

Thoughts?

 

[Journeyman]

I offer only a very diffused (not yet thought through) thought, in that I see similarities between your proposal and how army aviation evolved in the US Army. Essentially, the LAV and helicopter provide mobility, firepower, sensors, logistic capability....et al. I see the potential for similar career paths developing for those crewing the weapon platform - - but sadly, at this stage I also see the same issues of bureaucratic/staff college templates/corps inertia squandering good opportunities and ideas.


Oh, and Alex, I see your cynicism landing you in a DEU-wearing staff position for your sins  >

 

[Mortar guy]

Bob,

Been there, done that. I was too cynical for those jobs and was asked to leave because I kept yelling "bullshyte!!" in meetings.

8)

MG

 

[a_majoor]

Since my experience in Combat teams dates back to the Grizzley/Cougar era I will not get directly into this, but rather ask a question regarding training time with advanced kit.

To my knowledge, the US Army National guard operates M1/M2 combat teams and has a full suite of modern artillery weapons as well and trains once a month. Nordic nations use very up to date equipment like the CV-90, Striv 122 (Leopard 2A6 varient) and Finnish 8X8 AFV's very similar to our LAVs; most conscripts only see their vehicles during the two week training camp they attend once a year. The IDF operates a vast and varied fleet of AFV's with mostly reserve soldiers, and while I can't remember off hand how often they parade, I do know that prolonged call ups are detrimental to the Israeli economy, so they probably don't do it more often than our US or Nordic counterparts.

Given that, I can't see why we seem to be arguing about the amount of training our Regular Force soldiers get (given they have far more training time than reservists), or even why there is such resistence to giving Reserves the kit since other nation's Reserve forces can use similar kit with limited amounts of time devoted to training. I would suggest that we may really need to look at streamlining how we train our soldiers instead.

 

[vonGarvin]

How about this idea.

Stand 8 CH back up as a regiment (with squadrons at each brigade). Go with the formation that Mortar Guy recomended and have 8 CH responsible for crewing LAVs.

Maybe it is time to start creating new MOCs
For example
Tank Crewman
LAV Crewman (Trained either LAVIII or Coyote) or Create a third MOC Recce Crewman (Coyote only).

It seems other armies have divided up their armour corps into seperate trades, why can't we do it?

The personal will be added in over say a 3 to 6 year starting up period.

Thoughts?

Thoughts: the system, as it is, isn't broken, but rather perhaps has a flu.  (Does that make sense?)
Anyway, forget for a moment that LAV 3s and Coyotes aren't employed the same way.  Just for a moment.  Okay, that moment is gone, because although the turrets are virtually identical (differences are so minor they aren't worth mentioning here), the SYSTEM that is the LAV 3 APC is employed in a manner wildly different from the Coyote.  Yes, both have eight wheels, a GM Delco turret, but the game ends there.  One is a surveillance vehicle crewed by specialists in mounted surveillance.  The other is a Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) (perhaps debatable, but I'll use this term for now).  The MICV is designed, or rather employed, to fight as part of a four vehicle platoon, which in turn is part of a 15 vehicle company, or even larger combat team.  The Surveillance vehicle is employed to fight as part of a two-vehicle patrol, which in turn is part of an eight vehicle troop.  The MICV is employed to support dismounted troops around it.  The surveillance vehicle is employed to fight in self defence only.  So, although it's been pointed out the comparing M113/AVGP to LAV 3 is like comparing CDs to Mustangs (or something like that), comparing the LAV 3 to the Coyote is a similar fallacy.

So, how to "fix" or "heal" the system?  Some tools would help, such as a stand-alone crew trainer.  More importantly would be a mind-set that would establish a career path that sees a soldier either mechanised or light throughout his or his career (with some exceptions, naturally).  Nothing worse than taking a guy or girl who's been "light" all their career and then tossing them into the back of a LAV 3.  Train, train train is all I can say.  This applies not only to "mech" skills, but ALL skills.  Heck, we've heard criticism of the mech skills out west, but I imagine that musketry skills are also sadly lacking, as well as the proper employment of MGs, patrolling, etc so forth and so on.

So, instead of radically changing the system, I would offer that a moderate sedative first be applied, and then the gradual injection of medication.  (These are metaphors for first focus on training that needs to be delivered and then introduce badly needed tools such as stand-alone crew trainers).

 

[tank recce]

Here’s a wild concept. Rather than re-role us to R031B, why not cross-train us in the use of the LAV, in order to ALSO use us as “Dragoons” (to borrow a designation coined above)?

(The following caveats apply – I’m not too up on how a Reg LAV infantry Bn organizes itself, or how often it deploys for FTXs. I’m outside my lane, please take the concept and gently correct the errors made in good faith)

Presented for your consideration – a Battalion of Regular Mech Infantry, deployed on exercise for 4 weeks. Call it 1RCR, with A, B and C Coys. Along comes A and B Sqn GGHG, coming out to play on one of the weekends. A Sqn provides 15 LAV crews for A Coy, B Sqn borrows C Coy’s LAVs and deploys 2x 8-car troops doing recce stuff (there may be one or two GWagons in the mix, depending on VOR, etc).

A Coy does Mech Inf, with their crews getting a few days refresher training in running around with rifles.
B Coy does Mech Inf with their own crews.
C Coy does light stuff for the weekend – OBUA, rappelling, etc.

There are 4 "was-heavy" Res Armd  units in Ontario; each could take a different weekend. (The QYR being such traditional recce types, they wouldn’t have any truck with actual armoured vehs –  ;D) On the following month, 1RCR is back in the shacks and 3RCR deploys to the field. Out we come again for our monthly FTX - A Sqn does recce, B Sqn does Dragoon. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Advantages Reg Inf – refresher training time for the LAV crews on foot infantry stuff
Advantages Res Armd – REAL training on REAL equipment. Full stab with LRF?? Holy ****!! I’ll gladly drive a bunch of pedestrians about for the chance to work with that stuff!

Concerns – Who pays for the courses? Who pays for the weekends? (Salaries and rats are obvious. How about fuel, ammo, parts & maint?) Can we routinely deploy that many people? (Real, working AFVs? I think we’d do ok!)

 

[vonGarvin]

First up: not a reservist task to "taxi about" the mech infantry units.  If it were reservists, well, they could be armour, infantry, whatever, for they will not have the time to train up on the vehicles for the basic courses (driver, turret operator, crew commander) and then to train up on the collective training to master their skills.
This is NOT a slag against reservists: the regular force isn't doing this that well right now, hence this thread. 

Having said that, they are Infantry Vehicles.  Full stop.  Crewing them and fighting them IS an infantry skill, just as is bayonet fighting, musketry, patrolling, conducting section attacks, machine gunning, and so on and so forth.

What needs to be done is NOT organisational change, but rather the training mindset.  It CAN be done, I've seen it done and it works.  It just takes time and does not do so at the expense of "other" infantry skill sets.

(as an aside, imagine arguing taking away recce platoon from the infantry, after all, let's see THEM conduct a company attack)

(Poor example, but since our support platoons have all been destroyed, the old argument would have been to not have mortar platoons as it detracted from "infantry" skills)

 

[aesop081]

Pardon my intrusion but....

Did we not waste, when we had Grizlies, a perfect oportunity to sort out all these issues in preparation for something like the LAV 3 ?

 

[vonGarvin]

Pardon my intrusion but....

Did we not waste, when we had Grizlies, a perfect oportunity to sort out all these issues in preparation for something like the LAV 3 ?

Yes we did.
Go here for more info:
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/papers/21st.htm

 

[tank recce]

First up: not a reservist task to "taxi about" the mech infantry units.  If it were reservists, well, they could be armour, infantry, whatever, for they will not have the time to train up on the vehicles for the basic courses (driver, turret operator, crew commander) and then to train up on the collective training to master their skills.
This is NOT a slag against reservists: the regular force isn't doing this that well right now, hence this thread. 

Having said that, they are Infantry Vehicles.  Full stop.  Crewing them and fighting them IS an infantry skill, just as is bayonet fighting, musketry, patrolling, conducting section attacks, machine gunning, and so on and so forth.

What needs to be done is NOT organisational change, but rather the training mindset.  It CAN be done, I've seen it done and it works.  It just takes time and does not do so at the expense of "other" infantry skill sets.

Is it the mindset, or the time & ca$h available for the training?

Could other reservists function as LAV crews? Hell, yeah! While maintaining their core skill sets? Hell, no! If 2RCR can't maintain LAV and bayonet skills in the same soldier, what chance do the 48th have?? I agree with Hauptma Captain Sensible and CSA-105, that the Reg Armd should not be doing this. They have tanks and Coyotes to keep them busy, and not enough time on either.

We, the G-Wagon-driving red-headed step-children, are the only ones who could do such a thing with the Inf as a means of developing and maintaining our own core skill sets.

I'm not saying it should be a "task", so much as a modus vivendi. We get the desperately needed skills, and the opportunity to use and maintain them. 1RCR gets the opportunity to maintain bayonet skills in its LAV crews.

This is something the reg Inf could probably take or leave. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better deal for the SWAT black hats.