The DFS Regt & other Future Armoured Regiment ideas
- Thread starter MedCorps
- Start date
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I agree, give the LAV-III MGSs to the infantry and let them be the combined arms manoeuvre battalions. Let the RCAC become more traditional cavalry; reconnaissance and surveillance. Take the organization of the present armoured reconnaissance regiments (RCD & 12 RBC) and just expand on it by giving them an NBC recce troop and a tactical UAV troop. This is very similar to the US Army SBCT's cavalry unit.
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
If they are insistant on moving the TUA to the armoured corps I think it would make more sense to spread them out. Each of the three armoured regiments could be composite organizations. Each armoured regiment would have the following:
1 or 2 Reconnaissance & Surveillance Squadrons
- SHQ with 2 Coyotes and a Bison CP
- Admin Troop with stores, transport, maintenance and medical sections
- 3 x Recce Troops with 6 Coyotes each
3 Composite Armoured Squadrons (one in support of each infantry battalion)
- SHQ with 2 LAV-III TCPs
- Admin Troop with stores, transport, maintenance and medical sections
- 3 Fire Support Troops (one in support each infantry company)
- Troop Headquarters with 2 LAV-III DFSV (25mm cannon)
- TUA Section with 2 LAV-TUA
- MGS Section with 2 LAV-MGS
This would evenly distribute the new LAV-MGSs and the LAV-TUAs throughout all three brigades. Each squadron would train with and deploy with their affiliated infantry battalion. This would give each infantry battalion 6 TUAs and 6 MGSs, 18 to each brigade and 54 to the deployable army. This leaves 12 MGS for the CMTC and CTC. I don't know if the Army is planning on mounting all 72 TUA turrets on the LAV-III but this would leave extras for the CMTC and CTC as well.
This would go hand in hand with the present transformation. All direct fire support and surveillance assets in the armoured regiments, all indirect fire support assets (including mortars) in the artillery regiment, all mobility and counter-mobility assets (including pioneers) in the engineer regiments and this lets the infantry concentrate on its primary mission. I would also convert the infantry LAV-IIIs to Canadianized Strykers with a PWS replacing the 25mm turret. This would let the carry a 9-man dismounted section instead of the current 7-man section. But that's a whole other topic.
1 or 2 Reconnaissance & Surveillance Squadrons
- SHQ with 2 Coyotes and a Bison CP
- Admin Troop with stores, transport, maintenance and medical sections
- 3 x Recce Troops with 6 Coyotes each
3 Composite Armoured Squadrons (one in support of each infantry battalion)
- SHQ with 2 LAV-III TCPs
- Admin Troop with stores, transport, maintenance and medical sections
- 3 Fire Support Troops (one in support each infantry company)
- Troop Headquarters with 2 LAV-III DFSV (25mm cannon)
- TUA Section with 2 LAV-TUA
- MGS Section with 2 LAV-MGS
This would evenly distribute the new LAV-MGSs and the LAV-TUAs throughout all three brigades. Each squadron would train with and deploy with their affiliated infantry battalion. This would give each infantry battalion 6 TUAs and 6 MGSs, 18 to each brigade and 54 to the deployable army. This leaves 12 MGS for the CMTC and CTC. I don't know if the Army is planning on mounting all 72 TUA turrets on the LAV-III but this would leave extras for the CMTC and CTC as well.
This would go hand in hand with the present transformation. All direct fire support and surveillance assets in the armoured regiments, all indirect fire support assets (including mortars) in the artillery regiment, all mobility and counter-mobility assets (including pioneers) in the engineer regiments and this lets the infantry concentrate on its primary mission. I would also convert the infantry LAV-IIIs to Canadianized Strykers with a PWS replacing the 25mm turret. This would let the carry a 9-man dismounted section instead of the current 7-man section. But that's a whole other topic.
In the next while the LdSH will have a tow coy from the 1st bn and an ADATS battery from 4AD arriving to begin the first phases of the new "Direct Fire Model". It's going to be a weird time considering that folks from other units will have more relevance in the building than B sqn, the only tank squadron out there but currently no tanks as A sqn is using them to develop tactics for the MGS. Morale is at an all time low I must say. It may be the beginnnig of an interesting concept or a total flop. Using an ADATS missile to take out a tank from long range doesn't seem like the most cost effective way to engage targets and using the LAV 3 chassis as a platform for a two tube TOW launcher (as proposed) seems nutty as well. The US Bradley as mentioned by others has a good TOW system on the GM turret. Why not have the 25mm capability as well? We are making a very complicated fire team and really? Do we have the funding to properly employ and sustain such a monster? The political will to not support a bad idea seems to be lacking at all levels as well. Personally, I think we need a real MBT but we are destined to relinquish ourselves to minor roles in the world anyhow. I just want to get some opinions on the matter.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The whole reason as I understand to TOW coy is that it is to allow the amoured to catch up and learn the system. However if a new system is going into place in the near future then why not leave the TOW elements were they are and stand them back up.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Lance Wiebe said:
Lance,
I don't know where you got the idea that Reg Force Armour has given the recce role to the reserves, we (Reg Force) have maintained the ability to do both. Our courses are geared to Brigade recce tactics. Surveillance is a task of reconnaissance troops and we do it well. The Coyote may not be a great recce vehicle but it is what we have and we use use it to the best of our ability and the vehicles limitations.
We also need to maintain an Armour School in order to keep the turret skills and (Proper) Crew Commanding skills within the Army. Yes the Infantry conduct recce but not mounted recce as the Armd Corps does it. The Inf are the experts in dismounted recce patrolling as they should be. We however are the mounted experts and should remain as such.
The Mgs is not allocated to the Armd School. This has been told to us on numerous occasions. I agree with the mission specific task forces as they are being called now and feel the each Regt should be equipped the same in order to develop cohesiveness and the ability to train with each other. This way if a mission comes up the Commander can then plug and play from his own resources and be assured that all troops know SOP's and have already trained together thus providing Task Force cohesiveness.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Doug
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Wow, this is really quite interesting.
Just one word on the NZ way of doing things. First. They are much smaller in Pop (thus GDP), land mass, and influence on the world stage. Second. They are not right next door to the States who are VERY concerned about their northern border.
The States (not to mention NATO, UN, etc.) would love for us to get our acts together as far as being able to not only defend ourselves, but to help them out in various operations. So if we allow our politicians to sell us short once again, and lower our capabilities (read no MBT's) to that of a country like NZ, then we are going to have about as much say on the world stage as they do. Read, not much. I'm sure the States would love to take on more tasks involved with our protection, and will listen to us when we complain to them about various issues which affect us. This is of course the political side of things.
So lets not look at how the New Zealanders, nor how the Aussies do things as it is just self-defeating. We need to keep our ability to field MBT's and to carry out roles that are higher then low intensity/police actions.
Lets hope that a lot of the training in various vehicles and roles is just familiarity and not the standard (probably wishful thinking).
As for the comments of getting rid of the Armoured Corp. GA! Worthy is rolling in his grave.
Thanks
Just one word on the NZ way of doing things. First. They are much smaller in Pop (thus GDP), land mass, and influence on the world stage. Second. They are not right next door to the States who are VERY concerned about their northern border.
The States (not to mention NATO, UN, etc.) would love for us to get our acts together as far as being able to not only defend ourselves, but to help them out in various operations. So if we allow our politicians to sell us short once again, and lower our capabilities (read no MBT's) to that of a country like NZ, then we are going to have about as much say on the world stage as they do. Read, not much. I'm sure the States would love to take on more tasks involved with our protection, and will listen to us when we complain to them about various issues which affect us. This is of course the political side of things.
So lets not look at how the New Zealanders, nor how the Aussies do things as it is just self-defeating. We need to keep our ability to field MBT's and to carry out roles that are higher then low intensity/police actions.
Lets hope that a lot of the training in various vehicles and roles is just familiarity and not the standard (probably wishful thinking).
As for the comments of getting rid of the Armoured Corp. GA! Worthy is rolling in his grave.
Thanks
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,333
- Points
- 1,010
Yeah, we can not look at how other nations do things and be self defeated..
Lets just look at our own army and become self defeated...
NDHQ needs sorting out (a known fact)..
However specifically on the topic of tanks. We can't afford it. We can't afford the maintenace. The fuel. Etc, etc.
By the way. The RCD (I am sure the other regiments) started life as a cavalry regt. Just because tanks are going the way of the dodo, it doesn't mean armoured (formerly Cavalry) is dead. Its just being re-roled.
Lets just look at our own army and become self defeated...
NDHQ needs sorting out (a known fact)..
However specifically on the topic of tanks. We can't afford it. We can't afford the maintenace. The fuel. Etc, etc.
By the way. The RCD (I am sure the other regiments) started life as a cavalry regt. Just because tanks are going the way of the dodo, it doesn't mean armoured (formerly Cavalry) is dead. Its just being re-roled.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Rick
We don't even have parts for the Coyotes/LAVs. But I agree with you. What the US does cannot reflect on us. The Brits are going light also. They also see tanks as a if needed resource. We don't have to loose are mounted knowledge. If the Corp just keeps the basics going.
Look at the Germains in the 30s. They used cutout tanks.
We don't even have parts for the Coyotes/LAVs. But I agree with you. What the US does cannot reflect on us. The Brits are going light also. They also see tanks as a if needed resource. We don't have to loose are mounted knowledge. If the Corp just keeps the basics going.
Look at the Germains in the 30s. They used cutout tanks.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 169
- Points
- 710
Recce41 said:
True. And, look at Canada in the 1930's.
With the advances in technology and the decline in our manufacturing capabilities, I would discount the relevance of that comment.
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
George
As I said. The Brits are also getting rid of their tanks. At the RAC conferance in England. They are cutting their tank Regts down to 3 and going light or Recce. But I don't find the cut otu statement redundent. It was just an example, that skills and tactics can be refined at a low cost. Then when we get even a light tank. The basic tank skills are there to start with.
Remember when C Sqn changed from Cougar to tank. We won gunnery and may I pat myself on the back. My troop came second overall and my C/S was second in score. Skilss are skills. Gunnery is Gunnery, CC is CC, tactial driving is tactical driving.
As I said. The Brits are also getting rid of their tanks. At the RAC conferance in England. They are cutting their tank Regts down to 3 and going light or Recce. But I don't find the cut otu statement redundent. It was just an example, that skills and tactics can be refined at a low cost. Then when we get even a light tank. The basic tank skills are there to start with.
Remember when C Sqn changed from Cougar to tank. We won gunnery and may I pat myself on the back. My troop came second overall and my C/S was second in score. Skilss are skills. Gunnery is Gunnery, CC is CC, tactial driving is tactical driving.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 169
- Points
- 710
First, the British are not getting rid of their tanks, they are reducing the size of their fleet, which they can afford to do.
Second, I disagree with you on the loss of Tank skills. I have already stated that the Cougar was a dismal failure as a tank trainer. I will agree that some gunnery skills may be maintained, but they will not always be as easily convertable as you think. I have seen Cougar CC's who couldn't convert to tanks. Tactical driving IS NOT Tactical driving as you say. To move a Tank tactically is not the same as a "Road Bound" LAV or Coyote. BTDT. Resupply of Heavy Armour is not the same as Resupply of a wheeled fleet. There are many skills that will be lost and that is it pure and simple. Don't put a happy face on it. Skills will be lost, and to regain them in Battle is too late.
GW
Second, I disagree with you on the loss of Tank skills. I have already stated that the Cougar was a dismal failure as a tank trainer. I will agree that some gunnery skills may be maintained, but they will not always be as easily convertable as you think. I have seen Cougar CC's who couldn't convert to tanks. Tactical driving IS NOT Tactical driving as you say. To move a Tank tactically is not the same as a "Road Bound" LAV or Coyote. BTDT. Resupply of Heavy Armour is not the same as Resupply of a wheeled fleet. There are many skills that will be lost and that is it pure and simple. Don't put a happy face on it. Skills will be lost, and to regain them in Battle is too late.
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
George
I agree, not all Cougar CCs could crew a tank. And I have seen tank crews make fools of themselves in Cougars. I was there when the Dragoons came home. And some ccs were lost for one extra reason. They had to load. It was one extra thing the cc had to do. But for tactical driving. A good wheeled driver can drive a tank. For he has to pick his ground better, to get from A to B.
I agree, not all Cougar CCs could crew a tank. And I have seen tank crews make fools of themselves in Cougars. I was there when the Dragoons came home. And some ccs were lost for one extra reason. They had to load. It was one extra thing the cc had to do. But for tactical driving. A good wheeled driver can drive a tank. For he has to pick his ground better, to get from A to B.
- Reaction score
- 6,028
- Points
- 1,160
Just got this today. I won't post the whole document, just the one line that pertains here.
26. LFCA Transformation Priorities. LFCA Transformation priorities are as follows:
f. RCD Transition to Surveillance Squadrons.
26. LFCA Transformation Priorities. LFCA Transformation priorities are as follows:
f. RCD Transition to Surveillance Squadrons.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I think I asked this in another thread but I'm not sure if I got an answer.
"Has NDHQ done any analysis of the use of MBT's in urban operations in Iraq?"
I'm just somewhat dumbfounded that the fact the MBT's were absolutley required to act as
mobile pillboxes to secure urban areas where combatants had RPG-7's (or equivalents), has
not been factored into the redesign of our force structure.
Thanks in advance for any insights that can be provided on their thought process.
Cheers,
Matthew. ???
"Has NDHQ done any analysis of the use of MBT's in urban operations in Iraq?"
I'm just somewhat dumbfounded that the fact the MBT's were absolutley required to act as
mobile pillboxes to secure urban areas where combatants had RPG-7's (or equivalents), has
not been factored into the redesign of our force structure.
Thanks in advance for any insights that can be provided on their thought process.
Cheers,
Matthew. ???
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Like I said before in another thread sarcastically "Don't ya know we will NEVER go it alone, we will always have somethere to save us"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
There is no doubt that we will never go it alone. We never have. However. Being operational able to hold our own units is something different. By the sounds of it, some of you are already buying into this idea that we will only be able to be used as a "slot in" in some other countries formations. If we continue to degrade our strengths and training, then that is precisely where we are going. Yes we do that already, and have done so in the past. but we have also had our own formations as well. 4CMBG comes to mind. Yes, it was still part of a Divisional force. But we had the skills and equipment at that time to do it. Do we now? No. Can we again if the Gov gets its head out of the sand? Yes.
To lose the skills and have to regain them back again (someday) by going down this path we seem to be set upon is rather sad. Turning the RCD into a Surveillance Squadrons? What the heck is that? Turning the Strats into a DFS unit. May as well line the darn things with pop cans for the amount of survivability our crews are going to have. And don't tell me that we have to go light because the rest of the world is. I don't see the States, China, and just about every other European nation (and even those smaller then us) scrapping their tanks. So how is the tank heading the way of the Dodo? Except it seems in Canada?
As for the Cougar transfer ability. Well it was something at least, if no where near perfect (read again, NO WHERE). I would guess that alot of it would have to do with the intelligence of the crew as to how well they could convert. Of course, I won't go there.
NDHQ? Oh man. If there is one place that the CAF needs to cut, it is there. Not to mention converting most of the jobs back into military personal as opposed to civil servants. Why do we need 5000 bureaucrats to run the forces? I swear they have a dept to look after a dept. and so on and so on...
And please lets get away from the cavalry term. Yes we were once so back in the horse days, but it seems to have been turned into an American term for their types of units. Its sets my teeth on edge. I prefer the term light horse, or light armoured. And yes, I would like to see us get back to our British roots more. But hey, that is where our beloved regimental system comes from.
Sigh
To lose the skills and have to regain them back again (someday) by going down this path we seem to be set upon is rather sad. Turning the RCD into a Surveillance Squadrons? What the heck is that? Turning the Strats into a DFS unit. May as well line the darn things with pop cans for the amount of survivability our crews are going to have. And don't tell me that we have to go light because the rest of the world is. I don't see the States, China, and just about every other European nation (and even those smaller then us) scrapping their tanks. So how is the tank heading the way of the Dodo? Except it seems in Canada?
As for the Cougar transfer ability. Well it was something at least, if no where near perfect (read again, NO WHERE). I would guess that alot of it would have to do with the intelligence of the crew as to how well they could convert. Of course, I won't go there.
NDHQ? Oh man. If there is one place that the CAF needs to cut, it is there. Not to mention converting most of the jobs back into military personal as opposed to civil servants. Why do we need 5000 bureaucrats to run the forces? I swear they have a dept to look after a dept. and so on and so on...
And please lets get away from the cavalry term. Yes we were once so back in the horse days, but it seems to have been turned into an American term for their types of units. Its sets my teeth on edge. I prefer the term light horse, or light armoured. And yes, I would like to see us get back to our British roots more. But hey, that is where our beloved regimental system comes from.
Sigh
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
recceguy said:
Just a note. There seems to be a disconnect in the upper military ech. RCD will be a Recce Regt conducting Recce tasks, and as I have stated before Surveillance is a Recce TASK. The Cmdt of the Armour School has addressed this with the Director of Armour to get the word out to the higher ups that there is a difference and that by stating that we are forming Surveillance Sqns is wrong and is causing confusion as to our role.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,259
- Points
- 1,110
Cdn Blackshirt,
I cannot speak for Ottawa, but 2 CMBG had a good PD session two weeks ago from a Marine who had been in the first Fallujah battles. One of his key points was about how tanks are needed for the urban battle. I think his words were "I love tanks." The tank (M1) was so valuable due to both its firepower and its protection. Other systems can provide firepower, but none can take multiple RPG hits and keep fighting. That beind said, he did point out that the traditional "en masse" employment of tanks is not feasible in the urban environment. I see great potential in the light infantry/tank team for the urban setting.
A synopsis of the presentation is at the following link. http://army.ca/forums/threads/25726/post-154350.html#msg154350
Zipper,
I'm sorry if my using "Cavalry" all the time sets your teeth on edge.
Cheers,
2B
I cannot speak for Ottawa, but 2 CMBG had a good PD session two weeks ago from a Marine who had been in the first Fallujah battles. One of his key points was about how tanks are needed for the urban battle. I think his words were "I love tanks." The tank (M1) was so valuable due to both its firepower and its protection. Other systems can provide firepower, but none can take multiple RPG hits and keep fighting. That beind said, he did point out that the traditional "en masse" employment of tanks is not feasible in the urban environment. I see great potential in the light infantry/tank team for the urban setting.
A synopsis of the presentation is at the following link. http://army.ca/forums/threads/25726/post-154350.html#msg154350
Zipper,
I'm sorry if my using "Cavalry" all the time sets your teeth on edge.
Cheers,
2B
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
"Cavalry" is a historical term denoting a type of unit and (by implication) the sort of tasks it was ment to perform. To say something is a Cavalry regiment, has a Cavalry tasking or uses Cavalry doctrine is not an Americanism (currently, only the Americans have forces configured to perform these roles).
A "Light horse", "Light Armour" or "Mounted Rifle" type unit would have different roles and abilities (although related to the "C" word), and are certainly worth discussing as alternatives to what we have today.
A "Light horse", "Light Armour" or "Mounted Rifle" type unit would have different roles and abilities (although related to the "C" word), and are certainly worth discussing as alternatives to what we have today.
Similar threads
