Armoured Light Recce Vehicle for PRes Armd? (Merged splits from LAV III MGS and from TAPV)

[TCBF]

I know that Armoured Recce can keep up with the LAVs, isn't afraid to get out in front, bypass badguys, or go off an set up a decent OP, and has enough "umph" to form a good firebase while we get on an objective.  What am I missing?

- Above is a good description of Combat Recce or Close Recce at unit level. But, Medium Recce for a Bde or aa part of a Div or Corps covering force needs to be employed by a staff knowing more than just how their own arm or service operates.  Even Armour leaders mis-employ Recce.  (Especially Armour leaders...).

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm going with T22A on this one re:  info-ops potential....
It's not lots now, but it's not zero, either...
Globe & Mail
Mohawk Nation News

RE the Mohawk news bit;  Wow. Just, wow.  Someone made their tinfoil hat three sizes too small before writing that piece.  As to the predators patrolling the border, it brings up an interesting question.  How keen would these senators from the US be if it Canadian surveillance taking a peek 10 miles into US territory?  Not very would be my guess.  Sorry, tangent ends.

 

[The Bread Guy]

RE the Mohawk news bit;  Wow. Just, wow.  Someone made their tinfoil hat three sizes too small before writing that piece.  As to the predators patrolling the border, it brings up an interesting question.  How keen would these senators from the US be if it Canadian surveillance taking a peek 10 miles into US territory?  Not very would be my guess.  Sorry, tangent ends.

Not sayin' it's all AUTHORITATIVE, but it's out there, and I agree we'd see similar stuff if CF units, Reg or Res, were tasked with border surveillance - tangent, out.

 

[tango22a]

Well, I guess that it's time to fill in the OP,.prepare what remaining vehicles and stores we have for demo and saunter off into the sunset, shedding our dignity and uniforms as we go.

After literally a quarter of a centuries' search for a role and doctrine, after years of making do with diddly squat, after years of being the "redheaded stepchildren" of the Armoured Corps, it looks as if the final indignity is about to happen....NO new Recce vehicle for the PRes.

" We don't have anything for you to do but supply warm bodies for gate guard and General Duties, Thanks for coming out!.... and please don't let the door knob hit you in the a$$ on the way out....it might take the shine off it!"

D**n right I'm pi$$ed.... whatever happened to Loyalty up and Loyalty down?

tango22a

 

[tango22a]

My old Regiment celebrates its Sevety-Fifth Anniversary in 2011. And even then I am willing to bet that they will still be waiting for a Role and Doctrine and support from higher!

I expect that it will be the last I attend as a blackhatter! (if I live that long.)


tango22a

 

[TCBF]

Well, I guess that it's time to fill in the OP,.prepare what remaining vehicles and stores we have for demo and saunter off into the sunset, shedding our dignity and uniforms as we go.

After literally a quarter of a centuries' search for a role and doctrine, after years of making do with diddly squat, after years of being the "redheaded stepchildren" of the Armoured Corps, it looks as if the final indignity is about to happen....NO new Recce vehicle for the PRes.

" We don't have anything for you to do but supply warm bodies for gate guard and General Duties, Thanks for coming out!.... and please don't let the door knob hit you in the a$$ on the way out....it might take the shine off it!"

D**n right I'm pi$$ed.... whatever happened to Loyalty up and Loyalty down?

tango22a

- In Lahr, someone once asked the Recce Sqn OC how many OPs he man in a pinch, and he said about thirty, but not sustainable.  We had 21 Lynx in the troops, but in a pinch he would deploy the Sqn Cook in his MLVW with a 77 set, and anyone else with wheels and comms, if he needed to.

- Doctrinal? Not for the cooks, mechs and techs, but we use what we have. I don't see  a prob with no armd vehs with each Res Recce Regt as long as they can get Tk/Coy crses for deployments.  The rest of the skills can be taught on trucks. Think 'Technicals".

- Give us 24 old MLVWs, NVGs, GSRs, 130 Pres Recce types and three weeks and we will give you a doctrinally proficient Recce Sqn that is ready for their Coyote courses.

 

[tango22a]

TCBF:

Works for me. That's what being done at this time. The only problem being is that it is much,much easier for these augmentees to be slotted into positions as gate guards, etc. rather than to train them on Leopards or Coyotes. As I understand it, even RegF is having trouble training its people on the vehicles it will use on Tour. Instructor shortages, equipment shortages,etc. do tend to throw a wrench into the works.

Cheers,

tango22a

 

[TCBF]

- Same all over.  Light bn's re-roling into mech bn's for a roto causes the Inf even greater issues.

- Filling non-unit roto slots is a very messy exercise.  A lot of the skilled pers who are capable of doing the job will not be allowed to go by their bosses. This lowers the quality of the org, and you see a lot of 'staff' people to whom a roto is the longest weekend exercise they have ever been on.  Twenty years ago, they would not have gotten anywhere near a formation level staff with a ten foot pole.

 

[George Wallace]

Shortage of Instructors is a Force wide problem.  Perhaps the TOP should come up with a plan for experienced Instructors leaving the CF to have an option of becoming "Double Dippers" and stay in uniform as Reservists.  They can even keep their hatbadges, as they would be in the Schools, or perhaps still in their Regiments, as Training Cadre on PRL.  That would mean that no Reserve Unit would be responsible for their administration, even though they were Reservists.  They could beef up the Regular Force Trg system as well as open up opportunities to run crses for the Reserves.

.....But we know that will never happen......eh!  They would rather become Civvies and work for Calian or GD Land Systems.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

- In Lahr, someone once asked the Recce Sqn OC how many OPs he man in a pinch, and he said about thirty, but not sustainable.  We had 21 Lynx in the troops, but in a pinch he would deploy the Sqn Cook in his MLVW with a 77 set, and anyone else with wheels and comms, if he needed to.

- Doctrinal? Not for the cooks, mechs and techs, but we use what we have. I don't see  a prob with no armd vehs with each Res Recce Regt as long as they can get Tk/Coy crses for deployments.  The rest of the skills can be taught on trucks. Think 'Technicals".

- Give us 24 old MLVWs, NVGs, GSRs, 130 Pres Recce types and three weeks and we will give you a doctrinally proficient Recce Sqn that is ready for their Coyote courses.

This is probably my *Top Pick* post from this thread.  Especially the last point.  We used to teach the "doctrine" side in the sandbox we had built.  Trg aids consisted of some mine-tape, miniture AFVs, some pine tree branches, and "whatever knowledge of recce" your brain held.  I was also a supporter of TEWTs in the PRes BEFORE we started our little wknd trg ex's. 

All you have to do is look to see what you *can* do with what you have, not what you *want* to do with things you don't have.  I've visisted my old PRes recce unit and seen the Troops sitting around idle on a trg night, waiting for the Mess to open.  I blame that on lazy NCOs and people who like titles (such as Tp WO) more than they want to actually do the job.

I still think, in its current state, the PRes Armour world should be using Bisons and G-Wagons (if we have any to go around, or if/when any come home from the sandy place that aren't VOR...). 

 

[McG]

As far as what we do and how we do it, most Armoured recce, Reg and Res, can attest to the well known fact, that on exercise and elsewhere, very few outside the corps, if any, know what we do, how we do it or how to employ us. Somehow though, this thread is just packed full of experts for some reason.

I'm sorry, but this thread has about the most informed audience you to have to convince on the way forward for PRes Armd.  The participants include turret qualified combat arms with infantry/arm-specific recce experiences, technical & procurement backgrounds, force development & project experience, land operational deployments (including going to war), combat arms tactics qualifications, and Primary Reserve time.  If one wants to introduce a new/improved capability with a project for capital, reorganization, or infrastructure, then one has to be able to convince a whole range of individuals from Air & Navy to Civilians internal & external to DND.  If this group cannot be convinced on sound arguments, then the idea could not get far in the real world (unless it became one of those politically mobile things that typically leave us worse off in the end).

You might be the Recce SME, but you are talking to an informed audience.  Pulling the "only I know enough to understand & discuss" card is a smokescreen and an insult.

I still think, in its current state, the PRes Armour world should be using Bisons and G-Wagons.

When TAPV delivers, there is likely to be a few more G-Wagon C&R available as its role will be largely (to fully) replaced in the regular force.

This does perhaps point to a cleavage within the Armd Corps: Sense vs Act.

Do we want an Armd Res that augments both capabilities, or only one?  What skillsets are viable to train, maintain and hone in a part-time construct?

This brings back our previous suggestion of Mini-UAV Units, and Land Persistent Surveillance units.

 

[dapaterson]

It seems that the Armd corps as a whole missed the boat in some respects; the Artillery community has been able to take on a number of sense functions and grow, while the Armd community dithered, fixated on steel beasts and missed out on growth opportunities in the Reg F.

 

[TCBF]

It seems that the Armd corps as a whole missed the boat in some respects; the Artillery community has been able to take on a number of sense functions and grow, while the Armd community dithered, fixated on steel beasts and missed out on growth opportunities in the Reg F.

- I don't count going from 72 x SP 155 tubes to 8 x towed 155 tubes growth, but I will leave that to the artillerists.

- Armour is doing fine.  New steel beasts, PRes augmentees on ops, leaving us with the most operationally experienced corps (at troop level) since WW2.  As well, the experience is concentrated in our young soldiers - this will serve us well in the future.

- As to the issues of garrison trg and kit shortages, it seems to me that using imagination as a force multiplier may be a dying art.  Methinks our enemies could teach us something here.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm sorry, but this thread has about the most informed audience you to have to convince on the way forward for PRes Armd.  The participants include turret qualified combat arms with infantry/arm-specific recce experiences, technical & procurement backgrounds, force development & project experience, land operational deployments (including going to war), combat arms tactics qualifications, and Primary Reserve time.  If one wants to introduce a new/improved capability with a project for capital, reorganization, or infrastructure, then one has to be able to convince a whole range of individuals from Air & Navy to Civilians internal & external to DND.  If this group cannot be convinced on sound arguments, then the idea could not get far in the real world (unless it became one of those politically mobile things that typically leave us worse off in the end).

You might be the Recce SME, but you are talking to an informed audience.  Pulling the "only I know enough to understand & discuss" card is a smokescreen and an insult.

Yeah, I suppose I deserve that. It's what I get for posting tired and frustrated. I'm no loger tired, just frustrated. All this thread has done for me is raise my blood pressure. Nothing said or done here has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving first contact. As such, I'll not do any more dreaming, and will withdraw to plod along in the job doing the best we can, but still hoping that snowball gets through. Guess I'll have to come up with a new name for a qualification or course so I can get that leadiing change bubble done. :brickwall:

 

[George Wallace]

I'm sorry, but this thread has about the most informed audience you to have to convince on the way forward for PRes Armd.  The participants include turret qualified combat arms with infantry/arm-specific recce experiences, technical & procurement backgrounds, force development & project experience, land operational deployments (including going to war), combat arms tactics qualifications, and Primary Reserve time.  If one wants to introduce a new/improved capability with a project for capital, reorganization, or infrastructure, then one has to be able to convince a whole range of individuals from Air & Navy to Civilians internal & external to DND.  If this group cannot be convinced on sound arguments, then the idea could not get far in the real world (unless it became one of those politically mobile things that typically leave us worse off in the end).

You might be the Recce SME, but you are talking to an informed audience.  Pulling the "only I know enough to understand & discuss" card is a smokescreen and an insult.
When TAPV delivers, there is likely to be a few more G-Wagon C&R available as its role will be largely (to fully) replaced in the regular force.
This brings back our previous suggestion of Mini-UAV Units, and Land Persistent Surveillance units.

In all my experience, I have never known, nor seen, an Inf Recce Platoon, even with Coyotes, do the same kind of Recce as Armour Recce.  On this point I do find a flaw in your logic.

 

[Infanteer]

In all my experience, I have never known, nor seen, an Inf Recce Platoon, even with Coyotes, do the same kind of Recce as Armour Recce.  On this point I do find a flaw in your logic.

I have - it's called an OP.  Find away....

 

[George Wallace]

I have - it's called an OP.  Find away....

Lateral Drills, Blind Corner Drills, Gap Drills, Obstacle Drills, Contact Drills, and numerous other Drills.

Route Recces, Area Recces, Sector Recces, Point Recces, and the numerous other types of Recces that they do; not just setting up an OP or OP Screen.

The various types of Escorts that they do, such as: Convoy Escort, VIP Escort, etc.

Movements like Leapfrog (Alternate Bounds), Caterpillar (Consecutive Bounds), and Snake Patrol.

The way that their "Resupply" is carried out is also quite different.

On a whole, Infantry may do the same things as Armour by “Name”, but the way that they do it is quite different.  I would be hesitant to take an Inf Coyote and throw its crew into an Armour Recce Troop and expect them to perform well without days/weeks of ‘conversion trg’/familiarization to the different ways that they operate. 

On a whole, I have found that Infantry really have no concepts of how Armour works.  I have worked with 2 RCR, when I was in C Sqn RCD, and even they, who worked with us Tankers on a regular basis, did not know how Armour worked; although I must admit, they were light years ahead of every other Infantry Bn in Canada (4 CMBG Inf Bns worked with Armour on a regular basis and also had a fair idea of how to work with Armour, but still had problems.)  The major problems/differences will be first noticed in the Resupply/Replen systems (as has been discussed in other threads).

 

[ArmyRick]

I think most of us grunts understand that Infantry Recce platoon carry out different task than Arm Recce Squadron.

Convoy escort is being performed by force protection (mostly reservist) these days in theater and its mostly infantry guys.

As far as "infantry guys don't know how to work with armour" or is it Armour does not how to work with Infantry?

In My opinion, COIN is mostly an infantryman's fight and in this case, armour becomes a supporting assett.

Now the task that ARM Recce do, I can see as supporting the entire brigade or contingent in this case.

I do beleive all battalions have moved their coyotes back to the armour corps.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Once again I am waaaay late to this thread (moved this summer).

Since much of this thread has talked about doctrine I thought I might throw some 2008 Ground Maneouvre Reconnaissance (GMR) out there. Regarding the levels of recce, we have:

a.  Combat Recce - collection of info by elements below unit level engaged in close combat with the enemy. A combat team conducting an advance to contact can be seen as a form of combat reconnaissance.

b.  Close Recce - Recce tasks performed by the infantry recce platoon within a battle group's area of interest.

c.  Medium Recce - Mounted recce tasks conducted by the armoured recce squadron within the battle group or formation's area of interest.

d.  Long Range Recce - collection beyond the limits of medium recce.

I note that Medium Recce includes collection for a battle group HQ. I also note that my 1979 edition of The Reconnaissance Squadron in Battle had some somewhat different definitions on the levels of close and medium recce (same definitions for combat and long range as exist in GMR):

a. Close Recce - conducted by a battle group or brigade headquarters on specific tasks. This is the domain of the brigade reconnaissance squadron and of infantry reconnaissance platoons.

b. Medium Recce - Conducted by recce units under the direct control of a higher formation HQ.

All that to say that we need to be careful when we use Medium/Close Recce as a dogmatic way of saying what Armoured and Infantry Recce elements do and do not do. I think that there is a certain amount of overlap and the 1979 doctrine certainly had this overlap.

Going back to GMR, the difference between Close and Medium Reconnaissance becomes a little more clear when it is explained that in the current construct Medium Recce finds the enemy while Close Recce defines it. For example, the armoured recce elements could be executing a Zone Recce that find enemy platoon positions with six-figured grids and a general idea of obstacles while the infantry recce coming up behind are defining those platoon positions down to section positions with to eight-figured grids and the exact definition of obstacles. The infantry recce guys might also be providing guides to combat teams while the armoured recce guys are seeking to push past the enemy to get into the depth. None of this is all that different from what occured in the past. The big takeaway for me is that a Recce Sqn or Troop equipped with Coyotes can certainly execute tasks in support of a Battle Group and still be doctrinally correct. I also suggest that Armoured Recce can execute what might be called Close Recce tasks since they were originally conducting Close Recce anyway.

Looking at tactical tasks from GMR more closely, armoured recce have the Zone Recce task while the infantry  recce troops do. Armoured recce can conduct counter-reconnaissance and reconnaissance in force if they have "Act" attachments. The infantry conduct close target reconnaissance while the armoured do not. The infantry have explicit guiding/marking tasks while the armoured do not. Beyond that they share a common constellation of tasks (Route, Area, Point, Screen, the range of Tactical Security tasks and the range of Stability Operations tasks). I take from all this that there is a certain level of commonality that we can exploit while still recognizing that an armoured Patrol Commander and an infantry Recce Section Commander may visualize the battlefield a little differently and come up with different ways to execute similar tasks.

Bringing this back to the PRes Armoured and the thread, they do indeed have a role and associated tasks. GMR provides a doctrinal framework for the Armoured Recce Troop (Light Mounted). The manual is careful to say that the Pres Armoured Recce Troop does not perform close recce even if they dismount, but I think that they might have been exagerating the point a little too much. Nevertheless there is a role and doctrine for the PRes Armour.

I think that the real issue is a lack of vehicles and radios. You can improvise vehicles but it is hard to improvise communications. I think that if every PRes Armoured unit owned a Squadron of LUVW with full comms installations we wouldn't have this thread. Coming up with a new role or doctrine will not necessarily slay that dragon.

All that being said, I think that the new proposed tasks (expeditionary convoy escort, domestic CRBN and domestic close recce) can certainly work if they come with equipment. They all exploit some aspect of what a Recce Troop can do. A troop of LAV RWS in each area in 2012 for Convoy Escort training would be a nice start.

I will also say that the existing PRes Armoured Regiments can certainly provide augmentees for Regular Force units even if they lack Coyote qualifications. It creates a bit of a PCF burden at the start but that shouldn't be seen as a show-stopper. They can come with important baseline skills and Armoured Corps ethos that lets them integrate despite a lack of PCFs.

Sorry for the long post!

 

[a_majoor]

OR the PRes can get this:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/status-of-flying-cars-parajet-samson.html

Parajet Skycar

The Parajet skycar costs $80,000 and can be ordered now and is scheduling deliveries for late 2010 Parajet flew and drove its prototype from London to Timbuktu in January 2009.

    The Parajet SkyCar in “fly mode” is suspended by the latest ram-air wing and capable of take-off from a field or airstrip in less than 200 metres. It will be easier and safer to fly than any other aircraft, as it has no pitch control and therefore impossible to stall or dive. Should the engine fail, the pilot would simply glide down into the nearest field or strip of sandy desert.

    In the unlikely event of catastrophic wing failure, car connection system failure or mid-air collision, an emergency ballistic reserve parachute can be deployed.

Wing: Custom-made Paramania Reflex Wing
Wing Span: 38 sqm
Take off Speed: 37 mph
Max Speed: 100mph
Cruising Speed: 82 mph
Range (miles): 200
Take off Range: 150 meters
Max. Altitude: 15,000 ft
Estimated standard price: £50,000
Deposit (fullly refundable): £10,000
Delivery date: Late 2010