How A Regiment SAVED Itself!!!!!!!!

[Tow Tripod]

With the acquisition of all direct fire(ITAS TOW,ADATS) assets within the army going to the Strathcona's this unit has ensured that it will remain relevant for many years to come. You have to give credit where credit is due and Blackhats off to the senior armoured Officers that ensured that this did in fact happen.It helps when the CDS is in the same boat.
To be honest I'm very disappointed that no fight was given by our senior infantry Officers in a attempt to SAVE Mortars, Pioneers and Anti Armour Platoon.If there was one, the NCO's and troops never heard about it.I think that the Canadian Infantry Corps in the only infantry organisation in NATO that doesn't have mortars from within its own battalion. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
I have heard that the army wanted to get away from duplication of tasks within the infantry corp.(Pioneers equal Engineers and that Mortars equal Artillery,Anti Armour(DFT) is priceless!!) I will argue that by doing this the infantry has or will make attrition its number one problem.I do not know many troops that want to stay in a rifle company their entire career be it mounted or dismounted.Every Private should be full of piss and vinegar when they first get it but eventually this wears off. In the Good old days this soldier would be sent to Combat Support but now they get out.
I don't know when and I don't know how but somewhere and sometime this grand EXPERIMENT will bite us in the ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With regard to the PPCLI members serving with the Strathcona's the writing is pretty much on the wall. When the infantry corp acquires a AALW"s system (Spike, Javelin, Whatever French piece of garbage available) they will be sent back to there respective battalions faster that a Strathcona being the first in line for seconds at a haybox meal!!!!!Ten to Fifteen year's after the mysterious MMEV vehicles are implemented there will be no PPCLI troops or Air defence Gunners with the Strathcona's.My own opinion is that the PPCLI and the Air Defence Troops at this Regiment are there to pass on there expertise to the Strathcona's and then get the golden hand shake. (no Rolexes)


TOW TRIPOD

 

[Journeyman]

I would love to see any senior infantry officer answer this question (preferably one not focused upon being the next rank higher).

 

[bubba]

I can't beleave it either,what a load of crap.Down the road we'll be allowed to do gate guard and kitchin duty only.Zipperheads an herbies takin over the world.Tanks musta ran outda gas,no mlvw's to pull the guns so i guess they got together one night in Shilo and decided to steal are jobs...No wonder morale is gone combat support coy was a big part of the fun factor in the infantry.I heard recce is being handed over as well..Hey maybe the infantry well get reorged into the jtf....hahaha.I WOULD LIKE TO HERE SOME OPINIONS OF SENIOR PTE/CPLS ,NCOS.Cause there the guys going to be livin with this.Maybe i'm missin the point but all i see for the infantry in the near future  is cerimonial duty or pickin up cigg butts...but who am i :threat:

 

[GO!!!]

I agree with most of what is posted here.

The only options for a 031 in a Li Bn are Recce, Sigs, Tpt, DFS and a Rifle Coy.

Not a whole lot of variance there, it seems that other parts of the army are trying to validate their budgets by removing capabilities from the Infantry Bns under the assumption that "when you need the 81s/TOW/Pioneers, we'll just attach a platoon of herbies/Strats/Engineers".

Since the Mortar capability left, I've seen one exercise in 5 years with the guns - and they did'nt shoot on it.

Same deal with the Pioneers and Engineers. They promise that they will be there when we need them, but since they are a Bde asset, there are always "higher" priorities.

There really seems to be a concerted effort to preserve the jobs of the higher ranks in the lesser used trades (artillery) at the expense of the infantry. The problem is, that by the time we get around to realising the mistake, hand the guns over to the militia and the mortars back to the Infantry battallions, there will be no Sr. NCOs left to teach things like indirect MG fire, using a plotter board etc.

 

[WogCpl]

As a CSS dude, this seems bacwards to me, like a half assed attempt at making combat teams! IMHO Instead of detaching Patricias to the Strats, the army should have stood up new units based on the battle group model. Re-role all CS and make a corps system like the EME branch has now. Attach a Platoon of Thumperheads, zipperheads and herbies to an infantry batallion and call it somthing else, name does not matter, hey thats how we roll overseas anyway isn't it?

Just a thought

 

[pbi]

I would love to see any senior infantry officer answer this question (preferably one not focused upon being the next rank higher).

I am not sure exactly what the question is, but I wrote on this issue in the Army Journal a couple of years back. My argument was that we should go to a single Cbt Arm, which would look alot like the Inf. Other skills, like operating direct, indirect or anti-air weapons would be "add-on" skills to the basic Inf skill sets, just as they were when we had a fully fledged Cbt Sp Coy. I   tried to make the point that by moving capabilities to the Arty and Engrs (and later, the Armd) the Army was engaged in "jobs for the boys" (I think I used that term...). But, lots of people don't read the CAJ and of those that do read it, lots don't care. It wasn't exactly an earth-shaker, and this argument still rages on other threads here on Army.ca. I'm not resurrecting it.

Every Inf LCol I know despises the decision to gut the Inf, for the reasons posters have identified. What happened? As far as I know, the decision was taken at the very top of the Army, by the then-CLS LGen Jeffries. The idea was that we needed to find positions to man our training establishments, etc,in order to reduce the tasking meatgrinder (among other things) but that the Army was not going to get any bigger. So, these positions were to be sourced by cutting chunks out of the Army's flesh. Like you, I do not recall much debate or discussion. Was there much resistance? Did the Inf fight? At lower levels, there certainly was a lot of venting and protesting, but at upper levels I think the die had been cast.

Like you (and most other Inf) I believe that a healthy, capable Inf battalion has MORE organic capabilities, not fewer. The Inf is the backbone of 3BW, as well of almost every other type of op we engage in. The US certainly found this out in Iraq and Afgh. Try doing those ops without a strong Inf force. Not to mention the damage we have done to the development of the Inf NCO/WO by narrowing his experience path. The Canadian Inf NCO/WO once had no equal, in my opinion, in terms of broad skill sets and knowledge, or ability to act as a trainer. Do we still have that today? I wonder. When I wrote my article  in CAJ  last spring on US Inf tactical leaders in Afgh, I raised this flag of our Inf NCO capabilities. Again, thundering silence in response.(Not that I expected the mailbox to be full of hate mail, or anything...)

I would like to see some of those 5,000 positions we sometimes hear about used to restore the Cbt Sp capabilities to the Inf and   stop this charade with farming out our organic support functions, whose necessity is proven historically and re-validated daily in places like Iraq. I do not think it is too late.

Cheers

 

[Danjanou]

....I would like to see some of those 5,000 positions we sometimes hear about used to restore the Cbt Sp capabilities to the Inf and  stop this charade with farming out our organic support functions, whose necessity is proven historically and re-validated daily in places like Iraq. I do not think it is too late.

Well said boss, well said.

 

[geo]

I agree with most of what is posted here.

The only options for a 031 in a Li Bn are Recce, Sigs, Tpt, DFS and a Rifle Coy.

Same deal with the Pioneers and Engineers. They promise that they will be there when we need them, but since they are a Bde asset, there are always "higher" priorities.

GO!!!

As a former Infnatry grunt, I sympathise with you somewhat BUT with respect to the Engineers...
When was the last time you saw a Brigade deploy?

The Battle Groups that have been assembled for every mission have included:
Infantry
Armoured Recce
Engineers
Artillery
Sigs, CSS, Med, etc.........

When there has been a need for the Engineers - They've been there!
I have not heard of any instances where the Engineers have been "no shows"
We might've been tired puppies - but we have delivered the goods

IMHO

 

[George Wallace]

geo

I tend to agree with GO!!!.  He isn't saying that the Engineers haven't "been there".  They have.  He is saying that the Engineers as a Bde or BG asset, are not always there for the Inf, being controlled by a higher CP who has different 'priorities' and may not place much on those of the Inf Bn/Coy.

 

[GO!!!]

GO!!!

As a former Infnatry grunt, I sympathise with you somewhat BUT with respect to the Engineers...
When was the last time you saw a Brigade deploy?

The Battle Groups that have been assembled for every mission have included:
Infantry
Armoured Recce
Engineers
Artillery
Sigs, CSS, Med, etc.........

When there has been a need for the Engineers - They've been there!
I have not heard of any instances where the Engineers have been "no shows"
We might've been tired puppies - but we have delivered the goods

IMHO

Geo,

Perhaps I did'nt make myself clear. My intent was not to bash the Engineers for not showing up, they do an admirable job.

The "higher" I'm speaking of is the one that gives us all the tasks. There seems to be little or no interoperability between the trades and when on exercises, there are few opertunities to work with members of 1 CER. If we do not practice with our support trades, we are only hurting ourselves. The loss of the Pioneer platoons has made us too dependent on other trades, and while the Engineers are not available all of the time through no fault of their own, at the end of the day, we still don't have that capability.

edit: thank you George - that's exactly what I'm trying to say!

 

[geo]

Let's face it, the Pioneers haven't always been available for the very same reasons.
The Pioneer Platoon was a battalion resource and the CO didn't always consult with the OCs on how to use em.

A lot of the BG commanders are Infantry types - I would've hoped that they would have had enough sense in the disposition of their assets and resources.

When you get down to it...

An Infantry battalion would've had an Infantry platoon - 3 sections
A Battle group comes with a fully equipped Engineer Squadron - 2 to 3 troops of 4 sections each

The BG has, in theory, more capacity now than it ever had in the past... you have to use it properly - is the only caveat.

5 CER and the R22R have been doins some rather creative things over the last couple of years. They've taken Engineer Troop commanders and put them in as Platoon commanders within the battalions. There have been some occasional strange results but, by and large, the Engineers have learnt a lot AND the Infantry Bn & Coy commanders have gotten a better handle on how best to use the resources that are available to them.

 

[Tow Tripod]

Another task that was filled by combat support was to build ranges for the rifle company's. Right now the company's are task to build there own ranges. This takes away training time with your own section or you delegate your 2I/C with section training while the Platoon Comd is running around lost or unsure how to conduct the range.Usually the three Sgt's are talking to each other on how to best make this abortion of a range work and the Pl WO is getting some of the supplies required to make the range happen. Also lets say you are tasked to build a section attack range the first thing everyone needs is a work party and nine times out of ten they come from the platoon that is tasked with building the range. Anybody see something wrong with this?!!??!?!?!? This is robbing troops of training because they have a understanding of the conduct of the range because they built it !!!
Some people will say why don't you get the engineers to built it? But you as the OIC or 2i/c are responsible for safety and the last thing you can do is delegate your range to somebody that doesn't have a clue about the safety aspects of the range!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The pioneer's always had the best ranges because they had all the bat sim equipment available with them. Now we have to source a adv demo NCO that is available only when his Regiment can cut him loose.
To make a long story slightly shorter I think army transformation is having a negative effect on training. If the only platoon live fire training that we can do is during a BTE in Wainwright for a specific mission then we are heading to disaster.
The only solution that I see is to task a troop from the engineers to build ashit load of ranges at different time frames for high quality live fire training. Iam sure they wouldn't be to stoked about that!!!

 

[geo]

TT
been there and done that.
who do you think is tasked to develop, build and maintain conventional ranges.

from personal experience, if the Pl Comd & 2IC can specify what it is they want, the Sappers are more than up to the task to put a range together for you. And they'll prolly throw in a few goodies that weren't on the original requesition.

But that's just me

Cheers!

 

[plattypuss]

I would have thought that the decision to "strip" the Inf Battalions of pioneers, mortars etc was recognition of the importance of the Infantryman.  Why waste the valuable asset of a trained infantryman with knowledge/skills that are perhaps done better by other trades who already specialize in indirect fire and engineering tasks.  There is the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none" and perhaps the CF and the Infantry Corps is better served becoming the master of the infantry skills which are becoming more and more technical and specialized everyday.  If urban ops is becoming the new battleground more infantry soldiers are required, not less (ie tasked out to other capabilities).  The recruiting well is not full so the CF had to make some hard decisions on how to maximize the Infantry boots on the ground.  I wonder how long will it take the Infantry Corps to recover from one Company of RCR being moved over to the the Spec Ops Regt?
All that being said, US experience has shown that Engineers are extremely busy and not available to the soldiers on the ground at all times.  I think that is why the Urban Ops course will teach Infantry soldiers, basic demoltions (I'm not sure if this is a formal qualification or not and whether it is the instructors and/or students who recieve this).  Also the inherent mortar capability is useful when the Combat Forces rate of advance moves quicker than the guns can support.  But that is why we tailor our Task Forces as they go out the door.
The MMEV will replace the TUA, ADATS and LEOPARD but I doubt that the golden handshake will be offered. If it does go Armoured and not AD (as the Air Defense skills are quite technical and specific) the Infantry PYs for sure would be rolled back into the Infantry Corps perhaps even the SOR.  Everybody with emphasis on BODY is required in the CF today.

 

[vonGarvin]

I would have thought that the decision to "strip" the Inf Battalions of pioneers, mortars etc was recognition of the importance of the Infantryman.  Why waste the valuable asset of a trained infantryman with knowledge/skills that are perhaps done better by other trades who already specialize in indirect fire and engineering tasks.  There is the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none" and perhaps the CF and the Infantry Corps is better served becoming the master of the infantry skills which are becoming more and more technical and specialized everyday.  If urban ops is becoming the new battleground more infantry soldiers are required, not less (ie tasked out to other capabilities).  The recruiting well is not full so the CF had to make some hard decisions on how to maximize the Infantry boots on the ground.  I wonder how long will it take the Infantry Corps to recover from

The error you've made, and others have too, is that being a pioneer, a mortarman, an anti-tank gunner or recce patrolman ARE infantry skills.  So is being a machine gunner, LAV gunner, rifleman, etc.  Boots and bayonets is NOT what being an infantryman is all about.  It certainly is part of it, but consider that it was the Infantry, not the artillery, who run ran the battle-group FSCC.  Infantry pioneers were not engineers, and the reverse is also true.  Let us also not forget the decision to strip from the infantry the fourth rifle company (occured in 1998?).  So, PY's aside, the infantry is no longer the organisation it used to be.  And in reponse to another's question, we are the only NATO nation to NOT have mortars in the infantry (though we do have the 60mm...for the time being)

 

[plattypuss]

Note that this is not a point I am emotionally tied to but it is an interesting topic...If we look at the role of the infantry, I would wonder if the skills which we have spoken of are actually tasks assigned to the Infantry Corps.  It would be interesting to see if these tasks were assigned to the Infantry Corps after the Canadian Army's experience in WWI and/or WWII and the realities of the skill sets required by an infantryman or whether they have always been there.  In Napoleonic days the infantry skills were basically all about boots and bayonets and artillery was artillery, engineers - engineering.  At some point did someone say these skills needed to be updated or spread out?  If we went out as an Army to do battle again the skill sets such as mortar, pioneer etc would no doubt save the lives and once again highlight the requirement for these skills integral to the infantry Bn. However the CF is only sending out Task forces and (correct me if I'm wrong) each time a roto goes out a Company has to beg, borrow and steal from other companies (or more pointedly the TUA, Mortar or Pioneer Pln) to get up to strength. 
Perhaps our time in Afghanistan will change the perception of what is required within an Infantry Bn however the nature of operations today and recently all point to the need for more soldiers on the ground conducting patrols etc for security, HUMINT gathering reasons etc and not employed in roles better served by other MOCs.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Note that this is not a point I am emotionally tied to but it is an interesting topic...If we look at the role of the infantry, I would wonder if the skills which we have spoken of are actually tasks assigned to the Infantry Corps.  It would be interesting to see if these tasks were assigned to the Infantry Corps after the Canadian Army's experience in WWI and/or WWII and the realities of the skill sets required by an infantryman or whether they have always been there.  In Napoleonic days the infantry skills were basically all about boots and bayonets and artillery was artillery, engineers - engineering.  At some point did someone say these skills needed to be updated or spread out?  If we went out as an Army to do battle again the skill sets such as mortar, pioneer etc would no doubt save the lives and once again highlight the requirement for these skills integral to the infantry Bn. However the CF is only sending out Task forces and (correct me if I'm wrong) each time a roto goes out a Company has to beg, borrow and steal from other companies (or more pointedly the TUA, Mortar or Pioneer Pln) to get up to strength. 
Perhaps our time in Afghanistan will change the perception of what is required within an Infantry Bn however the nature of operations today and recently all point to the need for more soldiers on the ground conducting patrols etc for security, HUMINT gathering reasons etc and not employed in roles better served by other MOCs.

Combined task forces were used in the Second World War; in the Canadian Army, they were generally named for their commander, ie WORTHINGTON FORCE. We weren't as good at it as the Germans, but it wasn't uncommon.  Armoured regiments and artillery regiments generally split down in order to send individual batteries of guns (or more correctly their FOO) and squadrons of tanks to support individual brigades or battalions of infantry.

Infantry battalions were in themselves combined arms teams, and mortarmen (76mm) and anti-tank gunners (57mm) were infantrymen trained in those specialites and formed seperate platoons within Support Company.  Carrier Platoon personnel also belonged to the company, and again, these were infantrymen trained to drive armoured, fully tracked carriers and fire the weapons mounted on them (generally a Bren LMG).  The Pioneer platoon was also integral to Support Company, and consisted of - once again, infantrymen, trained in the specialties of the pioneer trade.  All wore the same cap badge, all called themselves Royal Canadians, 48th Highlanders, or what have you.

The Division had a Machine Gun battalion, with heavy MGs and 4.2" mortars.  Once again, these heavy mortarmen were infantrymen, wore the badge of the Toronto Scottish, Saskatoon Light Infantry, Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa, or whomever, just the same as the Vickers gunners in the battalion.

As for why we moved away from that is certainly a matter of debate.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The Commander of the Army JUST spoke to us and touched on this question.  In a nutshell they determined they needed to get rid of any duplication.  He also said that the 3000 army troops he hopes to get will directly go into putting the rifle coy's back to around 130 strength and even then they will wait awhile before tabling that decsion.

 

[Danjanou]

Not to disagree with the Commander of the Army, but I would argue that it is not duplication. The 81mm mortar pl in an infantry battalion is a very different beast that an 105mm or 155mm artillery troop/battery with different skill sets, needs and usages. The same could be said for the assault pioneer platoon versus a field troop of engineers. Mind others more articulate and astute than me have already said that in the 2 pages here and elsewhere on the site.

 

[Journeyman]

In addition to the integral capabilities these soldiers brought to a battalion, with the obvious benefit of better knowing how to employ them, is the matter of unit cohesion. Waiting until the rounds are impacting upon your position is the wrong time to get to know each others' abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Every study I've seen or history I've read on the topic emphasizes that unit cohesion requires a settling-in period and common challenges. (For those without operational experience, think "Mel Gibson going to meet the helicopter guys playing softball" in We Were Soldiers Once, and Young ).

This is simply not going to happen when your deploying elements are plug-and-play, topped up with augmentee rentals. That being said, no one actually asked for my vote before gutting the infantry, so I figure the best way to make the most of this poor situation is to:
a) develop the strong, effective leadership necessary to bring these ad hoc units together quickly, and
b) encourage/mentor each and every soldier to maximize their own tactical competences and skill sets.


Of course, if the gunners, engineers, and armour guys who now benefit from stealing the infantry capabilities want to buy us beer for allowing them to "keep in the game," well, that would be OK too.  ;D