Inf Cbt Sp - Which Capability is MOST needed again (split from CASW)

[OldSolduer]

Is it just me but doesn't anyone else find it odd that we are the only army in NATO without a heavy anti tank capability? Remember Anti Armour Platoone was like the warning on cigarette packages "IDLE BUT DEADLY"!!!

Idle but deadly.....I love it! ;D

We do have a heavy anti tank weapon - if you are talking Army  as a whole - the Leopard is an anti tank weapon and most likely a pretty darn good one.

If you are talking Infantry - we have (or had) TUA . I will check that out!

 

[McG]

Is the HMG a feasable Rifle Pl weapon?

This question generated a larger tangent than I expected.  It has now been moved here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/102825.0.html

Comimg back to the topic of which Cbt Sp organizations are needed is this one quote from a post that moved over to the other thread:

This tangent has brought up an interesting point. The capabilities which we want were in separate organizations for may reasons, but one of them was because the "tools" to provide DF and IF (and pioneer support) for the companies were quite specialized and bulky; they needed a separate organization to provide carriage and logistics. Military history buffs know this to be true; think about "regimental artillery" in the past or the DF platoon concept for Canadian Light Infantry of today.

A hard hitting DF weapon is already "built in" to every LAV platoon in the form of the 25mm chain gun, reducing or effectively eliminating the need for the .50 HMG in a LAV battalion.  TOW's "could" be carried on the turret of a LAV, but we choose not to. If man portable ATGMs with a reach and effect similar to a TOW are bought and issued to the troops, then do we really "need" to revive an AAP as well?

 

[a_majoor]

Dragging an idea back from the .50 thread, we are probably in agreement that platoon level ATGMs like Javelin or Gill/Spike can provide the organic ability to deal with armoured targets, providing the possibility of dispensing with a dedicated AAP at battalion level. (not to say we "should", but in a manpower and resource restricted environment, this is a tradeoff that *could* be made).

With the LAV III, we have organic DF fire, and platoon level ATGM's deal with that problem, so the only real gap is IF. We should also wish for a versatile capability which can be used against multiple natures of targets and can provide hard hitting IF beyond what 60mm or 40mm AGLs can provide. Breech loading mortars could be designed to provide DF and IF firepower with large calibre HE warheads (a thought experiment mounted a Soviet 2B9 Vasilek on the load bed of an HMMVW to give you an ides of what the concept might look like, the Russians sometimes mount it on the deck of an MT-LB). The AMOS or NEMO 120 mm mortar is the western version of this idea. A six vehicle platoon could be subdivided to 2 veh dets to provide support to each company in distributed ops, or the platoon can stay together for concentrated firepower depending on the mission.

 

[GnyHwy]

Any 120mm discussion will raise many questions as it borders on the role of the infantry and artillery.  I have never been against the 81s staying organic to the battalion, and if they were to be manned by the guns, the arty should provide closer support; similar to what they are trying in Pet right now.  The 120mm however, raises the stakes with range and max ord. 

I like the idea of having 2 at the coy/cbt tm level, but there are many questions that need to be answered aside from the obvious training bill.

Assuming they are organic to the btln, I am curious to hear what others think the CoC should be, more specifically with clearance of fires.

Who is manning them?

Who is computing their data?  I know modern 120s have computing devices, but I can't believe that they compare to our IFCCS that we use in the Arty for the 777s or 81s.  Collateral damage and fratricide is a lot more likely when computing devices are crude or simplistic.

Who is controlling them?

Who is clearing them?

If they were to be a btln asset I would suggest that they are manned, computed, controlled and cleared with Arty guys with the caveat that they are directly under the FOO(s) attached to the btln.  When the FOO is tasked to the cbt tm, the tubes come with him.  If we were to bring back MFCs, I believe they should fall under the FOO as well, just like any FACs, RADAR or UAV dets.  I am not saying that the FOO micro manage any of these people, just that they must go through him for clearances.

The problem with any high altitude long range weapon system is it will always be controlled at the highest level; likely above btln.

 

[George Wallace]

GnyHwy

I know you want to maintain control of various assets within your Corps, but historically that has not always been the case.  For instance, in WWII the RCD manned SPs (105s on Halftracks) in their Support Troop.  This could just as easily equate to us today having Turretted 120 mm Mortars as Support Troop or Platoon in an Armour or Inf unit manned by crewmen or infantrymen.  The Infantry Branch has not laid claim to the C7, C8, C6, nor the C9 that Artillerymen use, so why the fuss over mortars? 

 

[GnyHwy]

For instance, in WWII the RCD manned SPs (105s on Halftracks) in their Support Troop.  This could just as easily equate to us today having Turretted 120 mm Mortars as Support Troop or Platoon in an Armour or Inf unit manned by crewmen or infantrymen.

WWII was a time when guns were plenty and accuracies were somewhat disregarded.  Collateral damage was not a significant issue and fratricide was somewhat acceptable.

The Infantry Branch has not laid claim to the C7, C8, C6, nor the C9 that Artillerymen use, so why the fuss over mortars? 

No fuss at all about the mortars no matter who mans them.  Whatever the comd decides, I am on board, but I believe many are underestimating the current technologies and procedures.  Which is why I asked the questions 2 posts above.  As well, many talk about this being a plt organization.  This unit would not be a plt.  Once command and support staff are added  it would be a lot closer to a coy; or bty even. 

 

[Infanteer]

Anyone know of US experience with 120s is the Stryker Battalions?

 

[a_majoor]

I personally think a 120mm is a bit of overkill at the Bn level; a breech loading 81 (especially an automatic mortar like the Vasilek) should suffice, and the vehicle can carry far more ammunition than the 120. The ability to level the tube and make a direct shot to breach walls or hit a vehicle in an emergency would be quite useful as well.

OTOH the argument is about capabilities, if a 120 can provide this capability more quickly or more reliably then I'm not going to say no...

 

[Loachman]

Everything that moves through the air needs co-ordination anyway, through the applicable Air Space Co-ordination Centre. It makes no difference to whom the weapon or aircraft belongs.

 

[Good2Golf]

Everything that moves through the air needs co-ordination anyway, through the applicable Air Space Co-ordination Centre. It makes no difference to whom the weapon or aircraft belongs.

Not to over-emphasize the ASCC, it is the FSCC that still rules the FSCC/TACP/ASCC(and in some cases ADCC) 'Troika', and assists the G3 'controlling' the battlespace (which C/S "3" controls on behalf of the respective Commander of the AO).  In short, he/she who 'owns' the ROZ/RFZ/other control measure gets to say yea or nay as to what happen in that space.  If the tubes are under command of the battlespace owner, they can fire away to their heart's content IAW the fire plan...flopping-around-in-the-air things can only go where they are cleared/authorized to go IAW the ACP/ACO/ATO/AOD.

Regards
G2G

*edit - clarified the C/S 3 inside the bracket

 

[vonGarvin]

To amplify what Good2Golf was saying, we used to have an organisation and CP that handled everything "airspace" at the battalion level. Anything that came into said airspace had to check in and things were fine.


Now, in an effort to save PYs, we have several organisations all conflicting with one another over how to do exactly that....    :

 

[Infanteer]

But in the old days, conflict wasn't "complex" and "network-enabled" - we now fight "hybrid" "full-spectrum operations" in a "JIMP environment".

Obviously, TV, your proposal just wouldn't work.... 8)

 

[dapaterson]

But in the old days, conflict wasn't "complex" and "network-enabled" - we now fight "hybrid" "full-spectrum operations" in a "JIMP environment".

Obviously, TV, your proposal just wouldn't work.... 8)

You forgot "whole-of-government".

 

[vonGarvin]

But in the old days, conflict wasn't "complex" and "network-enabled" - we now fight "hybrid" "full-spectrum operations" in a "JIMP environment".

Obviously, TV, your proposal just wouldn't work.... 8)

You forgot "whole-of-government".

Doesn't the "P" in JIMP mean "public", and therefore "whole-of-government?" 

8)

 

[dapaterson]

Look, if you're trying to reduce useless and redundant acronyms and phrases that serve no purpose you're obviously unsuited to our modern approach to warfare.


...next thing you know he'll start begging to get the mortars back...

 

[vonGarvin]

Look, if you're trying to reduce useless and redundant acronyms and phrases that serve no purpose you're obviously unsuited to our modern approach to warfare.


...next thing you know he'll start begging to get the mortars back...

I'd even take the Greek mortar:

 

[dapaterson]

Greek mortar?  A whole new meaning to man-pack.

 

[GnyHwy]

Greek mortar?  A whole new meaning to man-pack.

Tee hee hee.

On a bright note that might please DLR, the Greeks are probably selling... really,  really, really cheap.

 

[McG]

Anyone know of US experience with 120s is the Stryker Battalions?

They have the unique mortarman occupation.  It might not make for a clean comparison to the Canadian Army.

 

[Jungle]

Greek mortar?  A whole new meaning to man-pack.

Greek mortars eh ?!? They're the ones that are loaded from behind ??...