New roles for reserve recce? (an idea)

[Jarnhamar]

I was thinking of something from the RG31 thread.

I think most people agree that reserve recce is underused and when they are used not really used efficiently.

What about 3 possible new roles for them?

1. Force protection- While it's not really "recce", the armored reserves could be trained and charged with providing force protection to convoys or vehicles moving throughout the battle space.

2. Attached recce to combat arms.  Reserve recce elements get attached to infantry, artillery and engineer units and used at the battalion/company level to provide up to date and constant info.  On Ex Spartan bear this year the enemy force used only assets organic to the battalion (ie recce teams) to gather int in order to plan attacks. It was a great success. All the follow up ops were planned with information gathered by 4 to 6 man recce teams.  What if we expanded that "foot soldier" capability with vehicles?  I'm not talking about a recce team piling into an MSVS or beat up old LSVW to be driven to a drop off point but actual GWagons or RGs or whatever armored recce use?  The added speed mobility communications would be pretty awesome.  Also instead of an infantry battalion, for example, counting on someone driving an MSVS to bring a recce team to a location they could be driven there by a patrol from armored recce.  The latter would provide more firepower to and from the point and the recce soldiers could even augment the recce patrols?  I can think of a hundred things an infantry company could use a patrol or two of armored recce for.

3. Transport- again while not a recce task per say, drivers from armored recce would be better trained motivated and prepared to transport troops around the battle zone.  Like from point 2, more firepower, better comms, better vehicles than an MSVS.  And even if they WERE stuck using an MSVS having an armored recce team of 4 (commander navigator 2 security) transporting people around in a force protection mindset would be much more effective than cpl so and so on light duties with a bad knee, who misses timings because he has too much on his plate.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

4.  Educate *the folks who should already know* on Armd Recce capabilities so they can use an asset as its intended to be used.  >

(That is a serious reply)

 

[George Wallace]

I was thinking of something from the RG31 thread.

I think most people agree that reserve recce is underused and when they are used not really used efficiently.

What about 3 possible new roles for them?

1. Force protection- While it's not really "recce", the armored reserves could be trained and charged with providing force protection to convoys or vehicles moving throughout the battle space.

2. Attached recce to combat arms.  Reserve recce elements get attached to infantry, artillery and engineer units and used at the battalion/company level to provide up to date and constant info.  On Ex Spartan bear this year the enemy force used only assets organic to the battalion (ie recce teams) to gather int in order to plan attacks. It was a great success. All the follow up ops were planned with information gathered by 4 to 6 man recce teams.  What if we expanded that "foot soldier" capability with vehicles?  I'm not talking about a recce team piling into an MSVS or beat up old LSVW to be driven to a drop off point but actual GWagons or RGs or whatever armored recce use?  The added speed mobility communications would be pretty awesome.  Also instead of an infantry battalion, for example, counting on someone driving an MSVS to bring a recce team to a location they could be driven there by a patrol from armored recce.  The latter would provide more firepower to and from the point and the recce soldiers could even augment the recce patrols?  I can think of a hundred things an infantry company could use a patrol or two of armored recce for.

3. Transport- again while not a recce task per say, drivers from armored recce would be better trained motivated and prepared to transport troops around the battle zone.  Like from point 2, more firepower, better comms, better vehicles than an MSVS.  And even if they WERE stuck using an MSVS having an armored recce team of 4 (commander navigator 2 security) transporting people around in a force protection mindset would be much more effective than cpl so and so on light duties with a bad knee, who misses timings because he has too much on his plate.

Can you explain to me ( and perhaps all others ) what your qualifications are?  From your post, I am of the opinion that you fall into the unknowledgeable category of persons who are most likely to "underuse" and " inefficiently" use or task Armour Recce.  Please, for the love of all that is sacred, don't start trying to create Roles or Doctrine for Armour Recce if you have absolutely NO idea of what they do.

Addressing your first point:  "1. Force protection- While it's not really "recce", the armored reserves could be trained and charged with providing force protection to convoys or vehicles moving throughout the battle space."  I would like to enlighten you that this is already a role of Armour Recce.  It does not have to be created.  In that same vein, REAR AREA SECURITY is also a role of Armour Recce.

On the points of tasking Armour Recce to Infantry Companies, you may like to know that they already have their own Recce.  Armour Recce reaches out further than the Inf Company/Bn areas of responsibility and belong to higher organizations such as Bdes, Divs, and Corps.  None of these are effectively exercised by Reserves and in many cases the Reg Force.

As for Armour Recce becoming "Bus Drivers":  Forget It!  They have a lot more tasks to fill than being Svc Bn or Inf Tpt Coy drivers.

Harsh enough?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The issue, IMO, isn't re-roling Armd Recce.  The issue is that most folks don't have a clue what to do with a Recce Tp or Sqn, or what they are capable of doing. 

So, in all seriousness, to me the solution is one of education and knowledge.

 

[George Wallace]

Eggsacktly!

 

[George Wallace]

Just to give you an idea of what Armour Recce does, here is an idea of how they may be tasked:

a. Reconnaissance Tasks:

i. Route Reconnaissance;
ii. Area Reconnaissance;
iii. Point Reconnaissance;
iv. Zone Reconnaissance;
v. Reconnaissance-in-Force;
vi. Counter-reconnaissance (may require “Act” attachments based on the enemy situation); and 
vii. CBRN Reconnaissance.

b. Surveillance Tasks:

i. Screens (mobile, static); and
ii. OPs (overt and covert).

c. Tactical Security Tasks: 

i. Lines of Communication Security (non-linear);
ii. Presence/Framework patrolling;
iii. Guard (participating with other “Act” arms) ;
iv. Flank Security;
v. Convoy/VIP Escort;
vi. Movement Control Operations (to include roadblocks, snap and deliberate Vehicle Checkpoints (VCPs) and  Traffic Control Points (TCPs)); and
vii. Vital Point and Critical Infrastructure Security.

d. Other tasks:

i. Support to Cordon and Search Operations;
ii. Support to Assaults, Raids and Direct Actions (DAs).



Rear Area Security is covered in many of the tasks found under Tactical Security Tasks.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I remember, through the mists of time, what area recce is about (from a dismounted infantry perspective, anyway) - how is "zone" recce different?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thanks for the reply George,

First remember that I am talking about reserved armored recce- the ones that don't get the high speed gear. Or do reserve armored recce types get Coyotes??  I'm speaking under the assumption their using Gwagons and maybe RG31s.

Can you explain to me ( and perhaps all others ) what your qualifications are?  From your post, I am of the opinion that you fall into the unknowledgeable category of persons who are most likely to "underuse" and " inefficiently" use or task Armour Recce.  Please, for the love of all that is sacred, don't start trying to create Roles or Doctrine for Armour Recce if you have absolutely NO idea of what they do.

I fall under the unknowledgeable department. I don't have any armored recce qualifications.  I'm a light infantry section commander.  My only exposure to the reserve recce world is what I hear from my friends in the reserve armored regiments and spending 6 months work up training with a reserve armored platoon and deploying overseas for 7 months with a reserve armored platoon doing force protection (2nd tour as FP) where I was a driver, gunner, crew commander and dismount in the GWagon, Rg31 and TLav.

I can tell you when the reserve armored recce platoon started the work up training they had to rethink their own doctrine.  The PL WO had it in his head that we would be using 2 Gwagons for convoy escort. Having did a previous tour with force protection I tried to tell him we would be using 3 vehicles, atleast 2 of which being the RG31.  He told me I was wrong and we would train with 2 vehicle patrols because "that's how armored recce did it" so thats how they would do it over seas.  3 months of training time later the WO was fired and we moved to 3 vehicle teams.

Addressing your first point:  I would like to enlighten you that this is already a role of Armour Recce.  It does not have to be created.

Okay, see my above post.  Has armored recce adjusted their doctrine to behave like we actually do overseas or do they still do it the old way?

On the points of tasking Armour Recce to Infantry Companies, you may like to know that they already have their own Recce.  Armour Recce reaches out further than the Inf Company/Bn areas of responsibility and belong to higher organizations such as Bdes, Divs, and Corps.  None of these are effectively exercised by Reserves and in many cases the Reg Force.

Infantry companies don't have their own dedicated recce assets.  In each light infantry battalion there is a recce platoon (not sure about mech?).  Infantry companies whip up recce dets with whoever is on the ground at the time, ad hoc.

Adding armored recce to the companies bag of tools would give the battalion a lot more range and mobility for their recce. More time spent doing Recces and OPs, remembering time spent on recce is seldom ever time wasted.
I agree that they don't effectively get used- hence why I suggest they get put in a position where they ARE used.  You can thump your fist against your chest and shout about belonging to a higher organization but if you're sitting on your butts and no one is employing you like you should be, or can be, that's just a waste of time.

As for Armour Recce becoming "Bus Drivers":  Forget It!  They have a lot more tasks to fill than being Svc Bn or Inf Tpt Coy drivers.

Overseas "we" were bus drivers for officers on sight seeing trips.  We had our vehicles farmed out to other org's.  We brought people back to KAF so they could make their HLTA trips. We brought mail and junk food.  We did dog and pony shows.  Force Protection was a part of the National Support Element (SvC Bn) not the tip of the armored spear in a combat arms team- sorry.

It sounds like your ego is smarting at the idea of being a "bus driver".
I don't think there is anything ignoble about transporting a recce team (or whoever) to and from a location providing en route security, nice firepower and accurate navigation. It's not being a bus driver it's accomplishing the mission. I'm guessing but from what I know of my buddies with armored recce they would jump at a chance to have that kind of responsibility and challenge on their shoulders.

Harsh enough?

Why would you want your reply to be harsh George?
You yourself said armored recce gets under used, is it such a bad thing to discuss ways (right or wrong) to get them in the battle?

 

[MikeL]

In each light infantry battalion there is a recce platoon (not sure about mech?).

Yes, Mech Battalions have a Recce Platoon,  as well as Snipers. 

Adding armored recce to the companies bag of tools would give the battalion a lot more range and mobility for their recce.

Would Armoured Recce need too be part of/posted to a Rifle Coy?  Or could they still belong to the Bde, Battle Group(or whoever) and be tasked to a Rifle Coy/Cbt Teams as required.  When not att to a Coy they could still do the Bde/BG Armour Recce tasks.  Is there enough Armour Recce pers and vehicles too go around to support having Armour Recce dets assigned to all Rifle Coys and still enough in the Armour Regt to support Bde/BG Recce tasks?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We don't need any new roles. If we're utilized properly, we have more than enough work for what we already do.

Typically, and broadly, when we are out front, we are way out front. Far enough that there is no contact with any of our own side except by radio. Much farther out than the infantry would normally operate.

In the rear area security and retrograde ops, we have a huge amount of tasks that we are equipped to do and that we accomplish.

We have recce'd for the infantry before. Recce'd their objectives, then provided guides to move them into their attack positions. In most cases we've been there a couple of days and rehearsed the routes and times, only to have the Company\Platoon\ Section Commander ignore us and our input and strike off on their own anyway. Normally and almost always to their own detriment.

Again, we don't need any new roles, especially if they're designed by people that don't understand what we do in the first place. We just need others to understand what we do and how we do it.

 

[brihard]

Typically, and broadly, when we are out front, we are way out front. Far enough that there is no contact with any of our own side except by radio. Much farther out than the infantry would normally operate.

When? I mean, operationally as opposed to on exercise? Honest question.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When? I mean, operationally as opposed to on exercise? Honest question.

Doctrinally, in the advance we can be 30 -50 km ahead of the FEBA, which would obviously depend on the nature of the conflict.

Many times on ex we are operating outside of the training area where the rest of the troops are. Sometimes not, depending on what task the Brigade Commander needs doing.

Many times we're just constrained by the small size of the training area.

Sometimes we luck out and get to use the whole Sqn to recce from Pet to Meaford or Borden, or vice versa.

Flexibility is one of our characteristics, which makes us adaptable to just about anything imagineable.

 

[brihard]

Doctrinally, in the advance we can be 30 -50 km ahead of the FEBA, which would obviously depend on the nature of the conflict.

Many times on ex we are operating outside of the training area where the rest of the troops are. Sometimes not, depending on what task the Brigade Commander needs doing.

Many times we're just constrained by the small size of the training area.

Sometimes we luck out and get to use the whole Sqn to recce from Pet to Meaford or Borden, or vice versa.

Flexibility is one of our characteristics, which makes us adaptable to just about anything imagineable.

Understood. Has this doctrinal role been validated in the contemporary operating environment? I'm aware that the Americans and Brits used recce screens in the advance into Iraq, and I certainly don't question the retention of that role. Given the likelihood that mechanized advances or meeting engagements between conventional peer or near-peer forces is low- and at that, only in the initial stages of modern conflict - how do we best capitalize on the considerable number of reserve armoured recce troops and vehicles we have sitting at home, however? The closest we've come to use of reserve armour in their intended role overseas has been in convoy escort roles. OZ's anecdote nicely illustrates that there appears to be some deficit between doctrine and reality right now with regards to how reserve armoured get employed in the two way range. I would contend that, as poorly understood as reserve armoured recce's doctrinal role may be, it would seem that me that perhaps there's a delta to be bridged here between what is in place, what has actually been done, and what may be envisioned...

Absolutely the ability to recce forward of a FEBA must remain a core doctrinal role. But if the realit yof force generation and force employment is putting thsoe troops to different use, how can they be better prepared for it? An organization as flexible as that should never be put in a situation to get an NCO fired for saying 'armoured recce doesn't do that' on workup training...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Understood. Has this doctrinal role been validated in the contemporary operating environment? I'm aware that the Americans and Brits used recce screens in the advance into Iraq, and I certainly don't question the retention of that role. Given the likelihood that mechanized advances or meeting engagements between conventional peer or near-peer forces is low- and at that, only in the initial stages of modern conflict - how do we best capitalize on the considerable number of reserve armoured recce troops and vehicles we have sitting at home, however? The closest we've come to use of reserve armour in their intended role overseas has been in convoy escort roles. OZ's anecdote nicely illustrates that there appears to be some deficit between doctrine and reality right now with regards to how reserve armoured get employed in the two way range. I would contend that, as poorly understood as reserve armoured recce's doctrinal role may be, it would seem that me that perhaps there's a delta to be bridged here between what is in place, what has actually been done, and what may be envisioned...

Absolutely the ability to recce forward of a FEBA must remain a core doctrinal role. But if the realit yof force generation and force employment is putting thsoe troops to different use, how can they be better prepared for it? An organization as flexible as that should never be put in a situation to get an NCO fired for saying 'armoured recce doesn't do that' on workup training...

Without getting into the "training for 'a' war, vice 'the (this)' war" ball of wax. The collective Battle Test Standards are set by those way over my paygrade. That is what we follow and train to, until told otherwise. Every arm is the same.
Being able to accomplish all of our BTS makes us that much more capable of modifying or changing things as the situation warrants. They are a firm base in which to ground our overall expertise.

Having said that though, as was also stated, we are extremely versatile and flexible. We do use a number of scenarios, sometimes through no other reason than that's all there is. When we try something, and it works, it gets evolved and practiced to where we can SOP it, until another flyball comes along.

We are hardly static and stuck fighting hordes of the red menace.

To use OZ's example, one last time, every arm has it's intransigent individuals and dinosaurs, in this case he was found out and replaced. That's not a doctrinal fault, but one of Unit vetting.

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience."

- George Santayana -
The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

 

[George Wallace]

Thanks for the reply George,

First remember that I am talking about reserved armored recce- the ones that don't get the high speed gear. Or do reserve armored recce types get Coyotes??  I'm speaking under the assumption their using Gwagons and maybe RG31s.

Like the Infantry, the Engineers, and all the rest of the Cbt Arms, there is no seperate and different "Doctrines" for Regular Force and Reserves.  As recceguy can attest, there is a serious problem of a large training delta having developed between Regs and Reserves since the introduction of the Coyote to Armour.  This, however, does not mean that a new Doctrine has been developed to cover this.  At the same time, the Regular Force is also forced to adjust/modify/adapt to the equipment that they are given to use. 

I fall under the unknowledgeable department. I don't have any armored recce qualifications.  I'm a light infantry section commander.  My only exposure to the reserve recce world is what I hear from my friends in the reserve armored regiments and spending 6 months work up training with a reserve armored platoon and deploying overseas for 7 months with a reserve armored platoon doing force protection (2nd tour as FP) where I was a driver, gunner, crew commander and dismount in the GWagon, Rg31 and TLav.

I can tell you when the reserve armored recce platoon started the work up training they had to rethink their own doctrine.  The PL WO had it in his head that we would be using 2 Gwagons for convoy escort. Having did a previous tour with force protection I tried to tell him we would be using 3 vehicles, atleast 2 of which being the RG31.  He told me I was wrong and we would train with 2 vehicle patrols because "that's how armored recce did it" so thats how they would do it over seas.  3 months of training time later the WO was fired and we moved to 3 vehicle teams.
Okay, see my above post.  Has armored recce adjusted their doctrine to behave like we actually do overseas or do they still do it the old way?

You were in a unique situation here and looking at it, that WO was several Pay Grades above what he should have been.  You likely saw some of the less than stellar examples of how Armour is misused and abused as well as some of the less than stellar personnel in the job.

Infantry companies don't have their own dedicated recce assets.  In each light infantry battalion there is a recce platoon (not sure about mech?).  Infantry companies whip up recce dets with whoever is on the ground at the time, ad hoc.

Adding armored recce to the companies bag of tools would give the battalion a lot more range and mobility for their recce. More time spent doing Recces and OPs, remembering time spent on recce is seldom ever time wasted.
I agree that they don't effectively get used- hence why I suggest they get put in a position where they ARE used.  You can thump your fist against your chest and shout about belonging to a higher organization but if you're sitting on your butts and no one is employing you like you should be, or can be, that's just a waste of time.

I think recceguy covered the answer to this, but I ask you: If the Inf Bn won't provide recce down to the Coy level, why would another Arm?

Overseas "we" were bus drivers for officers on sight seeing trips.  We had our vehicles farmed out to other org's.  We brought people back to KAF so they could make their HLTA trips. We brought mail and junk food.  We did dog and pony shows.  Force Protection was a part of the National Support Element (SvC Bn) not the tip of the armored spear in a combat arms team- sorry.

Here you witnessed first hand the lack of knowledge of what Recce does and some of the misuse and abuse that they face.  I guess this is why you have been formulating these questions and hopefully you are garnering useful info in the replies.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

When? I mean, operationally as opposed to on exercise? Honest question.

This is the right question, and it has gone unanswered.  We do not have a mobilisation base type of Reserves.  All of our structures must lead to a Force Employment output, or we are wasting the taxpayers money.  Rightly or wrongly, there are no FE outputs that have a natural fit for the Pres Armd Recce as they are currently structured and equipped.  Nada.  Not a one.

Remembering that the FE outputs of the Militia writ large in Force 2013 are Domestic Response Companies and TBG HQs on the domestic side of things, and on the expeditionary front a) Force Protection Company on Line of Operation 3 post Roto 0, b) individual augmentees on LoO 3 post Roto 0, c) individual augmentees for LoO 4 as early as Roto 0, d) substantial individual reinforcements to Int and CSS and e) the entire IACC capability, I see no role for PRes Armoured Recce as currently figured beyond the odd individual augmentee or the straigthforward domestic role - and the same can be said of PRes Gunners.

Without a FE role, there is no requirement to FG any Armd Recce troops. Hence the real question is not what PRes Armd Recce should do, rather it is why do we still have them on the ORBAT? 

An even tougher question is whether we can afford the overhead and training bill that comes with this non-employable capability just because we don't want to ruffle any feathers?

We are a Small Army - and I believe we are the best in the world.  As the budget screws get tightened, we need to focus our efforts and resources on employable capabilities, or we will waste our hard earned reputation and battle proven capabilities.

Tough talk, but this are tough times.  Time for tough decisions.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Guess the best plan would be to pull all the equipment from all the different types of PRes Units, derole them and have them all sit around the Armouries playing some basterdized form of Light Infantry then?

A few rifles, some outdated tac vests, and Robert is your dad's brother.

Hey, I know, just like back in the 60's. We can all pretend that we're the local response units in case the big one hits.

Overhead? A few G Wagons (in the big scheme of things) and ancillary costs?

That's really getting down in the weeds.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We actually fired a WO, 2 Sgt's & 2 Cpls out of our platoon. having deployed with leaders that shouldn't have deployed (previously), I thought it was great our platoon commander stepped up and made it happen.  He didn't take any shit.

Armored Recce "already does force protection" may be true but the first tours to Afghanistan didn't have reserve armored recce in the force protection role.  It started off as a platoon of LAVs from the reg force infantry (often qrf) for a while then down to the infantry reserves for a few years.  After  around 2008 I believe they started using reserve armored groups as force protection. In 2008 I want to say we were the second reservearmored recce platoon to do force protection.  And even on TF0308 there was a manning shortage and we couldn't come up with a full platoon of armored reserves so it had to be augmented with 12 infantry reservists.

I'm pretty sure for a while most armored reservists went on tour as individual drivers (not as crew members).  I think from day 1 reserve armored should have been used for mounted force protection and if it can be included somehow, recce tasks.

f the Inf Bn won't provide recce down to the Coy level, why would another Arm?

I would answer because they can.  The battalions can get very light on the ground.  I've "lead" 4 man section attacks because all I had in my section were 3 guys plus me. We don't have a lot of people to employ sometimes.  We've taken artillery troops and used them as riflemen on month long ex's because we were that short of dudes.
I'm not trying to suggest that groups should get the armored recce to "do the job for them". The context I'm using is that if these guys are sitting around NOT being gainfully employed we should use them- and at the same time like Recceguy said when they DO work with us we should actually use the info (et el) they are giving us and not just listen to what they're saying notionally. 

I get that I'm only seeing this tactically from a section level standing on my toes peeking at the platoon and company level but like I said I can think of a shit ton of ways to benefit from armored recce reserves- not all of it traditionally "recce roles" but then again the US used airforce computer technicians as force protection- camp security because there were no jobs in their specific trades for them over seas.

In a theater of war I can't see an infantry company putting a section of soldiers in the back of an MSVS and having a cpl driving a recce team out to a point somewhere dropping them off then coming back in.  We're not training how we would fight.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just a small point but its a Troop not a Platoon in the blackhat world.

 

[brihard]

A war / The war- yup, seen and I've gotcha on that one. So if we get into 'a' war - and not one where we get the luxury of a six month workup before formed PRes sub-sub units go out the door on roto 1 - are there sufficient doctrinally assigned task that reserve armour troops (troop as in the organization), with the kit reserve units actually hold, and with the skills and competencies they actually have, that they could deploy on short notice and actually do? I recognize that the same question can be turned right back around on PRes infantry- but the difference is that we are not dependent on a an organic fighting vehicle to be able to fill some doctrinal roles. It sounds like at best the TAPV will be held at the ATCs. IF we grab a troop of G-Wagons crewed and commanded by armoured reservists, is there a viable force employment output that can be achieved even in a conventional war context?

Guess the best plan would be to pull all the equipment from all the different types of PRes Units, derole them and have them all sit around the Armouries playing some basterdized form of Light Infantry then?

A few rifles, some outdated tac vests, and Robert is your dad's brother.

Hey, I know, just like back in the 60's. We can all pretend that we're the local response units in case the big one hits.

Well, we have sufficient small arms and ancillary equipment, so 'a few rifles and some outdated tac vests' is a strawman. But besides what frankly comes across as bitterness- yeah, actually, in the case of armour and arguably artillery there's a method to that madness. With 37 training days a year, what's our limit of exploitation for what we can actually reasonably expect reservists in the combat arms to attain and to sustain in terms of proficiency at battle tasks. And IBTS eats up a lot of that time if done properly.

Thinking out loud here, this is sort of 'stream of consciousness', so bear with me. Alternatively, why not pool PRes combat arms troops, hammer the IBTS so we're all good to go on the most basics, and work on low level common BTS. Make an assessment of what tasks the PRes shall be expected to BPT do on roto zero - mortars? Force protection static and mobile? And what sort of manning shall be provided to standing organizations - IATF, JTF-X, etc - and what capabilities the PRes shall be expected to BPT do on a Roto 1- formed sub-sub units configured around Roto 0s first fast assessment of what sort of tasks are going to need to be sustained. If more rifle platoons are needed, hammer platoon tactics. If a role for armoured recce and such is seen, then take some guys and get them trained up on that using the area TAPVs. Obviously there would still need to be trade streaming of some NCOs and officers in order to ensure sufficient depth of expertise in skill sets, but this doesn't need to exist in the context of hard trade delineations. But if DP1s are seen as specific competency streams, as opposed to trades with hard left and right arcs, maybe we'll find more versatility. I can't help but think of how the artillery already stream their NCMs in a number of very distinct and very different directions, gunline, OP, CP, etc. What if we streamed the whole way for infantry, artillery, and armoured all collectively? (I omit engineers deliberately- I still see an obvious need in the PRes to maintain that as a distinct trade).

Domestically, the nature of TBG ops is such that the infantry/armour/artillery distinctions really mean little in terms of employment; if we look at skillsets and force employment objectives for the PRes holistically rather than trying to force square pegs in round holes, maybe we'll get better taxpayer value out of those of us who wear funny hats. Are our trades as much an identity as an employment structure for us? We're seeing the dogged defense of the regimental system causing issues with administrative overhead. In the PRes combat arms, is firm trade identity maybe doing the same? And, ifour leadership are cultivated from an organization that from the get-go is interchangeable and interoperable, perhaps we won't have quite so much difficulty with guys hitting field grade as officers and not knowing how to use the other capabilities. It could even be part of carer management to deliberately expose leadership to other capabilities for a sustained period of time.

And absolutely none of this precludes us from taking suitable trained troops and sending them up to battalion, regiment, or what have you as individual augmentees to bolster platoons and sections, or other trade organizations as is envisioned under the Force 2013 concept. The anticipation of this need could even see some spots opened up on PCF courses for generalized combat arms reservists to help bridge the kit delta.

This is just my musing though. I'm obviously infantry-centric, and I've also long seen a lot of value in cross training. I more want to provoke thought here than anything; please don't take this as an attempted attack on your trade, because it's not. I don't see much likelihood of the Fort Francis Foreskin Fusiliers sending a rifle platoon or company on tour any time soon, nor the Gridsquare Gunners sending a formed militia gun troop or battery. Reserve armour is not unique in this, it's just arguably the worst off in terms of force employment reality.