"Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?"

[Ex-Dragoon]

That would be the thread where multiple persons where so blaringly rude over a simple book recommendation. It speaks volumes that the moderator stepped in and locked the thread. I support the moderators decision and have moved on. It would do as all good for any others stuck back there to also move on.

Establishing your credentials would go a long way in preventing potential problems as well, Michael O'Leary(who is a Moderator as well) also requested that you establish them as well.

 

[Brygun]

Establishing your credentials would go a long way in preventing potential problems as well, Michael O'Leary(who is a Moderator as well) also requested that you establish them as well.

and was given the requested information.

 

[Infanteer]

Brygun, I'm trying to read through your babblegaffle, but I can't figure out WTF you're trying to say.  Get it down to one paragraph, and back it up with something substantive (eg. "I know this because we tried it in Fallujah...." or something), or switch your radio to receive and head back to the wargaming forums.

 

[Brygun]

Brygun, I'm trying to read through your babblegaffle, but I can't figure out WTF you're trying to say.  

Rather vague. Which matter/paragraph are you refering to? If its just a matter of disagreeing thats fine.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Rather vague. Which matter/paragraph are you refering to? If its just a matter of disagreeing thats fine.

Do you make it a habit of trying to be difficult with the DS of every forum you fo to? If so, you will find it does not sit well here.

 

[Infanteer]

On another note, I find myself agreeing with Unknown Factor's post.   Here is two other posts by members who have a solid background in the subject at hand and come to the same conclusions:

For what I might be able to add to this thread I will.

C Coy 2PPCLI was a Coy that never made the transition to LAV prior to its deployment on OP APOLLO.   Our training prior to deployment focused on "Light Infantry" skill sets.

I was blessed, as Coy Comd with a congruence of capabilities that made a deployment with 3 PPCLI much easier than would be possible today.

1.   Soldiers.   I had a company of soldiers who had very extensive experience in JRTC and NTC in "Light Infantry" roles in the 3 or 4 years preceding me, under some really excellent Coy level leadership.   They were a relatively experienced bunch, with outstanding multiple skill sets, especially wrt weapons, tactics and terrain.

2.   Primary Leadership.   The leadership from the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt and WO level were a diverse combination of leaders with Abn Regt/AMF (L)/ Light Bn/etc experience, who had in many cases led their soldiers in gaining the above mentioned skill sets, and who completely understood the requirements and necessity for fitness, wpn skills and tactical knowledge to accomplish the task at hand.

3.   My officers were among the best I have ever worked with.   3 excellent Coy 2ICs (over the term) and 3 excellent Pl Comds.   Fit, smart and above all tactically competent.

4.   My CSM was a incorrigible Light Infantryman, ex Abn Regt, whose fitness and tactical sense and unwavering support was an incredible asset.

5.   I had experienced 1 PPCLI as a Pl Comd in the AMF(L) Bn where we spent our winters conducting multiple (Light) exercises in the mountains, and where our transition to Mech was relatively straight forward.   I had spent 3 years in 3 PPCLI prior to a posting to 2 PPCLI.   I therefore knew most of the officers in 3PPCLI and had worked with the CO of 3 PPCLI when we were both in 1 PPCLI (hmmmm strength of the Regimental System?).

C Coy 2 PPCLI was never a LAV coy in the 20 months that I commanded it.   We never made the transition from M113 to LAV III due to the APOLLO deployment.  

My personal belief is that the transition between Mech and Light Infantry will become increasingly difficult as formed sub unit, due to the complexities of LAV III training and manning.   That being said, we do not need two separate streams, we should continue to cross pollonize our Infantry battalions to the benefit of the Corps as a whole.

Great discussion here.   I have been involved in both the Light Forces Working Group when it was a grassroots infantry initiative and after the Army took it over.   I was involved in drafting the initial cut of the definition in the first post that has since gone through the mill several times by the staff in Kingston.   A key part of this definition regarding platforms has been addressed by MCG and Dave.   The intent is not to define light forces in terms of any one platform (i.e. LAV unit) or insertion method (para unit, etc), but to give them the inherent flexibility to use whatever vehicle or insertion method the task calls for.   One task they could be in trucks, the next on helicopters, and then on foot.   It is what they do on the ground that is vital.

The other key part of the definition is 'optimized for military operations in complex environments.'    Complex environments entail not only complex terrain (mountains, jungles, etc) but also complex population and information aspects.   High-density populations with a multitude of actors (joint, interagency, and multinational) all present challenges.   Extrapolating here a bit, this definition points light forces (in my opinion) towards our greatest contemporary challenge â “ counter-insurgency â “ a task that has historically fallen to light forces.

As a bit of a SITREP, light forces development is being guided by the Army's Combat Development process, and is in fact, I think, one of the first initiatives to be put through the process.   Those interested in tracking it can find the LFWG on the DLSC site on the DIN (I don't have the address now as I'm at home).  

The biggest difference between light and medium forces in my mind is not equipment but training.   Much like in a LAV battalion where the individual training is greatly focussed on LAV qualifications, I believe that every light soldier should be qualified Basic Mountain Ops, Basic Urban Ops (course forthcoming), and, depending what we do with the para capability, Basic Para qualified.   As available and necessary, jungle ops should be included.   As well, reflexive shooting, familiarity with airmobile ops, HUMINT gathering, and a mastery of patrolling are all a must.

The three critical shortfalls, as I see it, that we have in light forces now are firstly training (see above paragraph â “ we're not there yet and Dave touched on some of the problems), firepower, and transport.   Quick hits for firepower involve some of the new inf weapons systems on the books, adopting the new light rifle coy structure with a weapons platoon, enhancing our sniper capability, and better integrating non-integral fires (close air, etc).   We need to get light direct fire support back at the unit level as well.   A quick hit for transport is a light patrol vehicle, perhaps based on the special ops variant of the G-Wagon (but this could be problematic in a high-density IED environment).   We have to fix our helicopter situation, but this will not be a quick hit.

On the subject of donkeys, by coincidence currently elements of B Coy, 3 PPCLI, are undergoing mule training at the USMC Mountain Warfare Training Centre.   Don't laugh, it might be useful some day.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Brygun, I'm trying to read through your babblegaffle, but I can't figure out WTF you're trying to say.  Get it down to one paragraph, and back it up with something substantive (eg. "I know this because we tried it in Fallujah...." or something), or switch your radio to receive and head back to the wargaming forums.

uhoh brother,

the P.C Barbarians are gonna get riled up with your "holier than thou attitude"......

dileas

tess

 

[Britney Spears]

WRT to the mules.

<a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050813/ap_on_re_as/afghan_us_donkeys>Donkey-borne Marines in Kunar Province</a>

 

[1feral1]

That would be the thread where multiple persons where so blaringly rude over a simple book recommendation. It speaks volumes that the moderator stepped in and locked the thread. I support the moderators decision and have moved on. It would do as all good for any others stuck back there to also move on.

What a piss weak answer  :

Frankly Brygun, its your attitude that really sucks and I take great offence to. Being new on here, maybe you should learn and LISTEN and take some decent advice from many good posters on here. Its obvious you know nothing shy of a few book issues, and whatever shit spews from your mouth should be taken at that.

Should you ever get get into the CF, you will really be struggling to say the least. To me attitude means everything, and although this is the INet, you can choose a brave face while hiding behind it. With almost 30 yrs in two armies I have seen your type way too many times come and go, and crash and burn sooner or later. That is guaranteed.

I have taken the time to read every single post YOU have created on here, and as of late, you seem to play some kind of an arrogant no-it-all expert role on subjects which you are clueless about. At least you have admitted you are so unfit, you  can't even do one SINGLE pull up to pass a basic PT test, which tells me you are not even a member.

Just remember its your credentials on here and your reputation at stake, not ours, and as far as I am concerned you've burnt your bridge with me, and I can see there are others who are a wee tad agitated also.

So, gonna fill in your profile? Look at mine (and others), I have nothing to hide. Time to fish or cut bate Brygun, the choice is yours.

 

[Infanteer]

I'd listen to Wes - he can be cranky (he's allowed to be), but he's usually right....

Anyways, let's get this one back on topic.

 

[Acorn]

Why bother with "fill in your profile?" It only makes a difference in the initial assessment of a poster's (poser's) knowledge. Frankly, I find "fill in your profile" to be a lazy way of assessing someone. The more posts one makes, the easier it is to establish, or destroy, credibility. The fact that the profile can be exaggerated (to say the least) makes it less than usefull as an assessment tool.

Brygun has made certain statements. His (her?) words have "filled in the profile."

Acorn

 

[Brygun]

Quote from: Brygun on Today at 21:16:13
Rather vague. Which matter/paragraph are you refering to? If its just a matter of disagreeing thats fine.


Do you make it a habit of trying to be difficult with the DS of every forum you fo to? If so, you will find it does not sit well here.

Seriously, it was a sincere offer to clarify. How it was considered something else is baffling. My apologizes for not protraying the sincerity.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Why bother with "fill in your profile?" It only makes a difference in the initial assessment of a poster's (poser's) knowledge. Frankly, I find "fill in your profile" to be a lazy way of assessing someone. The more posts one makes, the easier it is to establish, or destroy, credibility. The fact that the profile can be exaggerated (to say the least) makes it less than usefull as an assessment tool.

Brygun has made certain statements. His (her?) words have "filled in the profile."

Acorn

Agreed.  How much weight would one give somebody, for example, because he has "ex-Cpl" in his profile?  Could be Scott Taylor posting for all we know.  I would agree that one establishes one's bonafides every time they post.

 

[Brygun]

Rather hope we can get back on topic shortly. The army.ca privacy statement clearly states the profile information is optional. An option to leave blank IS being taken. I dont consider it any fault of mine to refuse demands on optional material.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Back on track guys. I think some things are pretty obvious and there's no need to belabour them.

 

[Brygun]

Actually neither Dien Bien Phu nor Khesahn are good examples of what you are trying to describe. Neither of these were established airfields/areodromes that subsequently needed "infantry" to defend them in order to continue their operations.

Thank you for a good post. Its discussions like yours Michael that are part of why I took the time to participate in army.ca.

 

[claybot]

Infanteer
The quote you use

For what I might be able to add to this thread I will.

C Coy 2PPCLI was a Coy that never made the transition to LAV prior to its deployment on OP APOLLO.  Our training prior to deployment focused on "Light Infantry" skill sets.

I was blessed, as Coy Comd with a congruence of capabilities that made a deployment with 3 PPCLI much easier than would be possible today.

This part should be clarified a little.... Yes C Coy 2PPCLI hadn't made the transition to LAV prior to OP Apollo but thet were still a mech company since they had M113's prior.
Yes they did focus on "Light Infantry" Skill sets prior to deployment - but that training was just more of what the 2 bn normally did, rucksack marches were part of morning PT. The final range that C Coy went through for their confirmation training was the same range the rest of the battalion went through.

 

[Kirkhill]

Claybot:

Your observations and Devil39s comments suggest the compatibility of Light Infantry and the M113, an armoured truck or transporter as opposed to a fighting vehicle.

The LAV looks to me more like an armoured fighting vehicle, or armoured car, that can carry a few troops as well.  As noted elsewhere the difference in vehicle capabilities and limitations on ability to transport personnel have resulted in different TTPs and less commonality between Light troops that could hitch a ride in the back of an M113 and those troops that work regularly with LAVs.

Replacing M113 with Bison/Stryker would have likely preserved 9 similar infantry battalions.  Sticking a turret on the vehicle changed the game entirely.  IMHO  ;D.

 

[Unknown Factor]

Replacing M113 with Bison/Stryker would have likely preserved 9 similar infantry battalions.   Sticking a turret on the vehicle changed the game entirely.  

I agree entirely with this statement, being defined as Mech Inf in todays Army is a lot more specific than it used to be.   When all 9 BN's had M113's we regularly called them Mech BN's, this at the time was, I belive, to be correct as the main effort of those BN was to close with the enemy in a large mounted Mech attack.   That did not however mean that we were continually training for Mech op's with those vehicles.   In fact as I stated before we spent a good majority of the year training dismounted a fact that I think is eluding some.   In fact I would compare a lot of the training to that what was conducted in the CAR while I was there less the jumping and intensity.

If you want to integrate Light Inf into the Mech attack, I think it may actually be prudent to give them M113's as there is no mech attack that will outrun it over broken terrain. Additionally the inclusion of the vehicles to any operations in the north would be an asset, especially for continued operations, with an airlift capability they could be brought in once suitable austere airstrips could be developed.   Keeping to a simple platform would enable the Light Inf to qualify drivers as well as gunners on wpns which are much more user friendly such as the .50 cal and mk19 within turreted systems, without disrupting their current training tempo or without becoming to complex.

Expansion of the roles within the Light Inf would facilitate a Bn within each Regt that maintains the capability of Airborne, Airmobile, Amphibious and Complex Terrain, with further trg operating patrolling and gun platforms based on the G-Wagon and M113. This in it's self would greatly enhance the retention of younger soldiers who look for something else to aspire to rather than just being an extension of a vehicle. But the arguement that the Light Infantry requires extensive trg to become mounted soldiers is a bit out of place, there has been a lot of excellent progress in the past few years, specifically in the areas of who to send to which theater.   With the expectaion of opening another front - so to speak- in the next few years I belive the Mech units will find their plate rather full in the next few years.

With that being said, 3 Light Inf Bn in Canada has given them the ability to accomplish more in the stand point of being proactive in a theater rather than just making a presence.   I believe there are still people out there in the Army that look at themselves as Peacekeepers first killers second, accomplishing the tried and true rather than venture into an area of operations which may cause casualties.   Since 2001 operations as they relate to the Canadian Army are no longer considered to be "Safe" and if anything has impressed me in the past few years it has been the Armies willingness to accept those risks and prepare it's soldiers for those risks and in no place has this been more true than within the Light Inf Bn's themselves.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

Hey Claybot, we just didn't do sets of light infantry training and we did a heck of a lot more ranges than the other coy's. I got in 2001, it wasn't until 2003 I actually did mech shit, and that was enemy force in Gage town, so that doesn't really count! Your either one of 2 things; someone in 2VP who is bitter and didn't get to go on Op Apollo, or are gullable and listened to someone who is pissed and didn't get to go and are cutting us down out of spite.  :threat: :threat: :threat: