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

[Humphrey Bogart]

How about an "FS Company"

C-16 Platoon
HMG Platoon
81 mm Mortar Platoon

;D

No the guns can have Mortars, I'd rather have an Anti-Armour capability given the choice.  The fact that a CF infantry bn has no real anti-armour capability at this moment is a little disturbing.

 

[OldSolduer]

No the guns can have Mortars, I'd rather have an Anti-Armour capability given the choice.  The fact that a CF infantry bn has no real anti-armour capability at this moment is a little disturbing.

If I were a CO,,,,,I'd want my mortars too. Mortars were the only indirect fire asset that the CO could call his own. ANd I agree with the Anti Armour as well.

 

[vonGarvin]

The fact that a CF infantry bn has no real anti-armour, integral indirect fire or pioneer capabilities at this moment is a little VERY disturbing.

Fixed it for you.  (Just making a statement that I agree, but it shouldn't come to an either/or.)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Well I completely agree with that as well but at the end of the day money talks and if I had to pick between all 3 I would choose anti-armour as its a capability that cannot be filled by other units.  The light bn in particular need to get this stuff back.  We don't have LAV's or anything of that other good stuff and without these specialties we are, well, kind of useless.

 

[OldSolduer]

Fixed it for you.  (Just making a statement that I agree, but it shouldn't come to an either/or.)

We need all, however the Anti Armour Pl, as I understood it, was a Bde asset and was only grouped with the battalions for administrative purposes. In time of war, I beleive that the TOW Platoons would have been a TOW Company, that reported to the Bde Comd. Am I right or out to lunch?

 

[Webgear]

When was the last time any battalion or regiment ran an TOW course? I would speculate the anti-armour capability for the army is likely dead for the short to middle term.

There likely isn't many old school AAP members left in the infantry, most of the guys I know have remustered in other trades or have left the CF for good.

I would like to see the battalions with this skillet again, it was a large mistake that needs to be corrected.

 

[Webgear]

We need all, however the Anti Armour Pl, as I understood it, was a Bde asset and was only grouped with the battalions for administrative purposes. In time of war, I beleive that the TOW Platoons would have been a TOW Company, that reported to the Bde Comd.

I believe you are correct, this is what I remember.

 

[OldSolduer]

I can't quote the MND, however, in order to maintain a general purpose combat capability, anti armour skills are very important. Just my  :2c:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think bringing back some of these specialties into the infantry can only be a good thing.  It would give something soldiers to aim for and give us an icreased capability.  The problem right now is that if we want to do this we need to cut positions elsewhere and this is just not possible.  The Infantry would need to increase the maximum strength of the bn's for this to work. 

Also if the army is going to get serious about this whole light infantry concept like they say they are then it is imperative that the light infantry bn's get these capabilities back.  When you don't have LAV's then an DFS Pl, Mortars, and Pioneers become all the more necessary.

Light Inf Bn's especially should be able to fight as self-sustained units.  Imagine if all the 3rd Bn's had Mortars, DFS, and Pioneer.  They would be a hell of a lot more deployable IMO then they are at present. 

 

[Journeyman]

.....we need to cut positions elsewhere and this is just not possible.

Yes, but you do understand we had a pressing need for a Div HQ, right? 

 

[dapaterson]

The Infantry would need to increase the maximum strength of the bn's for this to work. 

No, the CF would have to give the Army more PYs, and the Army would have to decide that amongst all its requirements that increasing the size of the bns comes out on top.


The Infantry can try to influence that battlespace, but the Army has many competing priorities for more people - even some that involve light blue uniforms that would probably come out ahead of growing the bns.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

No, the CF would have to give the Army more PYs, and the Army would have to decide that amongst all its requirements that increasing the size of the bns comes out on top.


The Infantry can try to influence that battlespace, but the Army has many competing priorities for more people - even some that involve light blue uniforms that would probably come out ahead of growing the bns.

This is essentially what I meant but if you want to break it down scientifically thats great lol in any case we have these weapons and we just spent a shit tonne of money on them now we better actually use them and not just let them sit at the back of CQ as someone else mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[OldSolduer]

How about an "FS Company"

C-16 Platoon
HMG Platoon
81 mm Mortar Platoon

;D

We used to call that sort of organization "Combat Support Company"

Recce
Mortars
Anti Armour
Pioneers
Signals w BHQ

No reason why it can't be done is there?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

We used to call that sort of organization "Combat Support Company"

Recce
Mortars
Anti Armour
Pioneers
Signals w BHQ

No reason why it can't be done is there?

Well we still have a combat support coy its just all they have in them now is

Sigs and BHQ
Recce
Snipers

and as of two months ago 3 RCR now has an "Assault Pl" aka DFS

 

[OldSolduer]

I find it difficult to comprehend the thinking of some of the high priced help. Stripping the infantry of its integral indirect fire assets, its anti armour assets (which really wasn't the unit's to begin with) and field engineering assets was IMO a short sighted money saving scheme. It reduced the flexibility of the bn into depending on assets that are now NOT integral.

I seem to recall a proposal from the MSE world that would have seen the Bn Tpt Pl stripped away and replaced with MSE Ops top to bottom. Am I out to lunch on this one?
:blotto:

 

[daftandbarmy]

I like the Commando 21 Orbat myself. It's about the only 'new' thing I've seen come out anywhere that recognizes the reality of current fighting conditions and weapons systems:

Commando 21 organised each RM Commando unit into six sub-units, styled companies. Each company was subdivided into troops; note that a “troop” is the RM nomenclature for a platoon rather than for an individual soldier.

The new structure was presented as giving the RM more firepower, more mobility, more information, more flexibility and more fighting power. According to open-sources each Stand Off Combat Company was to have a field strength of five officers and 78 other ranks, and each Close Combat Company was to have five officers and 98 other ranks. Under the Commando 21 re-organisation the overall strength of each of the three units was originally stated to be 692 all ranks.[2]

The companies are:

Command Company
Main HQ
Tactical HQ
Reconnaissance Troop (includes a sniper section)
Mortar Troop (9 Barrels of 81 mm) (Includes 4 MFC pairs)
Anti-Tank (AT) Troop (Milan—to be replaced by Javelin ATGW)
Medium Machine Gun Troop

One Logistic Company
A Echelon 1 (A Ech1)
A Echelon 2 (A Ech2)
FRT
RAP
B Echelon (B Ech)

Two Close Combat Companies
Company Headquarters (Coy HQ)
Three Close Combat Troops (Troop HQ, 3 Rifle Sections, Manoeuvre Support Section)

Two Stand Off Companies
Company Headquarters (Coy HQ)
Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) Troop (0.5" heavy machine guns)
AT Troop
Close Combat Troop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_21

 

[medicineman]

I seem to recall a proposal from the MSE world that would have seen the Bn Tpt Pl stripped away and replaced with MSE Ops top to bottom. Am I out to lunch on this one?
:blotto:

MSE Ops need real world jobs too you know  >.

I guess if that happens, nowhere to get a bit of a break from a rifle coy if you're a little broken, other than the kit shop or maybe Bn HQ.

MM

 

[OldSolduer]

It was just a proposal about 12-14 years ago, if I remember correctly.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Never mind new capabilities (or return of the old). 

I just want to staunch the bleeding. 

The Corps has just absorbed a 100 PY "tax" in order to pay for ASICs and CSS Revitalization - all of this in an infantry-centric Army that is part of an Army-centric CF.  Those positions are coming out of our Battalions.  Given that, short of mess talk, not sure that discusssion of what we should bring back is useful....

 

[McG]

No the guns can have Mortars, I'd rather have an Anti-Armour capability given the choice.  The fact that a CF infantry bn has no real anti-armour capability at this moment is a little disturbing.

The problem with brining back AAP is that it would immediately suffer from the same thing as its predecessors - "We haven't fought against tanks since Korea"itis.

Back when Bosnia was the big show and Afghanistan seeming to be a one roto wonder, I listened to the CLS comment on the huge number of PYs being consumed in AAPs when only two dets were ever operationally deployed.  In his eyes at the time, this was a huge area of fat to cut in order to create other Army priorities.  … and of course, “anti-armour” is a very niche capability when you know you will never fight an enemy with armour  …  rly:

Of course, a “Hy DFS Pl” with LAV TUA could have done wonders to help TF 1-06 and 3-06 in smashing grapehuts prior to the arrival of tanks in Afghanistan.

We do need AAP, but it needs to come with a name that will prevent them from too closely associating it with the Soviet tank hordes we are not going to fight while instead recognizing its multi-role utility.  Hopefully, this better name will also prevent those other guys from equipping it with hypervelocity KE missiles that would reduce the Pl’s utility to anti-armour only.