daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,218
- Points
- 1,160
Yea no wearing your collar up like that isn't listed as allowable on the kitlist. Please stick to cam paint in the front left tacvest pocket and field dressing in the right.
Yea no wearing your collar up like that isn't listed as allowable on the kitlist. Please stick to cam paint in the front left tacvest pocket and field dressing in the right.
I don't disagree, there are some arguments that the dedicated dismounted forces may have some slightly different requirements than than those who aren't; but I'm not airborne enough to understand that line of reasoning.Which should be for all soldiers engaged in close combat, mechanized or light. Rifles and radio work the same. But I digress.
US Army Armored units were deployed in Afghanistan in a dismounted infantry role. You lose some flexibility when you cling too tightly to defined "specialist" roles.I have my doubts frankly, its not like mechanized units aren’t given the same tasks, and aren’t expected to perform them. Sooner we end the fetishism of light infantry the better.
Infantry elements of Armored units where deployed like that - but most Armored and Artillery where used for Convoy work -- I am unaware of any Armored troops used as Dismounted Infantry - outside of Scouts - and even then they retained UpArmored HummersUS Army Armored units were deployed in Afghanistan in a dismounted infantry role. You lose some flexibility when you cling too tightly to defined "specialist" roles.
I was referencing an episode of The Spear podcast from the Modern Warfare Institute at Westpoint that follows the deployment of an Tank Platoon in a dismounted role at a COB in Afghanistan in 2009. A very interesting episode of the podcast and an interesting podcast series for those that haven't heard it before.Infantry elements of Armored units where deployed like that - but most Armored and Artillery where used for Convoy work -- I am unaware of any Armored troops used as Dismounted Infantry - outside of Scouts - and even then they retained UpArmored Hummers
Right, look at 1 VP in 2009, all dismounted work, including 4 man recce patrols.US Army Armored units were deployed in Afghanistan in a dismounted infantry role. You lose some flexibility when you cling too tightly to defined "specialist" roles.
US Army Armored units were deployed in Afghanistan in a dismounted infantry role. You lose some flexibility when you cling too tightly to defined "specialist" roles.
I believe Artillery were used by the Brits in Afghanistan as cimic / psy ops types. “Non kinetic strikes” was the termTangentially...
Artillery and armoured units were regularly deployed as Infantry in Northern Ireland, over decades, and generally did an excellent job in a variety of operational roles previously thought of as 'Infantry only' tasks.
I've even had some Navy bods on patrols who did a great job... under supervision of course
Tangentially...
Artillery and armoured units were regularly deployed as Infantry in Northern Ireland, over decades, and generally did an excellent job in a variety of operational roles previously thought of as 'Infantry only' tasks.
I've even had some Navy bods on patrols who did a great job... under supervision of course
Big difference between Canadian Infantry who also drive in a LAV, than tankers...Right, look at 1 VP in 2009, all dismounted work, including 4 man recce patrols.
Not to bash the issues of the Troubles - but Urban/Rural Patrolling in NI is significantly different that the same task in most areas of Iraq or Afghanistan.Tangentially...
Artillery and armoured units were regularly deployed as Infantry in Northern Ireland, over decades, and generally did an excellent job in a variety of operational roles previously thought of as 'Infantry only' tasks.
I've even had some Navy bods on patrols who did a great job... under supervision of course
I was more commenting on the value of DICE being strictly for the light infantry try and pointing out that mech sized infantry can and is tasked with those tasks.Big difference between Canadian Infantry who also drive in a LAV, than tankers...
How much of a difference is there between US armour/artillery and their Canadian or British peers as far as breadth of training, noting the US habit of thin-slicing job specs?There is a major difference in the attitude and experience/training when units come under contact especially dismounted or in light vehicles - Infantry generally revert to close with and destroy - while other units tend to not do that.
Big difference between Canadian Infantry who also drive in a LAV, than tankers...
Not to bash the issues of the Troubles - but Urban/Rural Patrolling in NI is significantly different that the same task in most areas of Iraq or Afghanistan.
When I was in Iraq the US Army had Armored and Artillery units on FOB/COB security missions. They didn't really leave the wire in those roles, just permitter patrols and OP (Tower) duty - they had for the most part rolled Infantry and MP's into convoy duties after the Artillery and Armored had colossally screwed those up.
There is a major difference in the attitude and experience/training when units come under contact especially dismounted or in light vehicles - Infantry generally revert to close with and destroy - while other units tend to not do that.
Big difference between Canadian Infantry who also drive in a LAV, than tankers...
Not to bash the issues of the Troubles - but Urban/Rural Patrolling in NI is significantly different that the same task in most areas of Iraq or Afghanistan.
When I was in Iraq the US Army had Armored and Artillery units on FOB/COB security missions. They didn't really leave the wire in those roles, just permitter patrols and OP (Tower) duty - they had for the most part rolled Infantry and MP's into convoy duties after the Artillery and Armored had colossally screwed those up.
There is a major difference in the attitude and experience/training when units come under contact especially dismounted or in light vehicles - Infantry generally revert to close with and destroy - while other units tend to not do that.
I think it is more than one can either incorrectly attempt to apply previous experience that either isn't relevant or is OBE.I think what I'm seeing from this discussion is that no matter what the task is, it takes time to become proficient.
And the second point is that often your previous experience is a hindrance to adapting to your current situation.
ArmorHow much of a difference is there between US armour/artillery and their Canadian or British peers as far as breadth of training, noting the US habit of thin-slicing job specs?
The Aussie SASR have a board outside one of their ranges reminding people that 1) Perfect Practice makes Perfect 2) 10,000 reps are required to commit something to unconscious memory.I always figure it takes two years for a new body to learn, understand and adapt when moved into a different environment. Experienced hands can take longer.
Pack a lunch and bring the wife and kids.
Which rather goes to my point.The Aussie SASR have a board outside one of their ranges reminding people that 1) Perfect Practice makes Perfect 2) 10,000 reps are required to commit something to unconscious memory.
That is the wrong take away -- that is discussing things like mag changes - target scans etc.Which rather goes to my point.
If someone has done something 10000 times they are no longer thinking.
I don't want that person on my team. I'd sooner somebody that observes and works from first principles.
That is the wrong take away -- that is discussing things like mag changes - target scans etc.
You have removed a lot of processing power to allow the Assaulter to use their mind to see the picture of the fight - and react accordingly -- rather than being slowed down by thinking and looking for the right mag pouch to get a reload - the need to look at the mag well etc.
The goal of IA's is to make them immediate - putting those task into the "unconscious memory" frees up the active memory to be able to react quicker and more accurately to what is seen and presented.
That is the wrong take away -- that is discussing things like mag changes - target scans etc.
You have removed a lot of processing power to allow the Assaulter to use their mind to see the picture of the fight - and react accordingly -- rather than being slowed down by thinking and looking for the right mag pouch to get a reload - the need to look at the mag well etc.
The goal of IA's is to make them immediate - putting those task into the "unconscious memory" frees up the active memory to be able to react quicker and more accurately to what is seen and presented.