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

[Infanteer]

You either equip yourself for the fight, or fight the fight you are equipped for....

True.  We may as well aim to do 1, and be prepared to do 2 if we have to. 

I wouldn't want to force Minister MacKay to use that line in the same context as Rumsfeld did if we can avoid it.  A UOR for Javelin Missiles after a Battalion has been run over may be pointless....

Canadian Leo Squadron 19 MBT....Could you not chop a half squadron to a CCV company?  Or split the Battery into a pair of Troops?  Or the Brigade Commander does less because he has fewer assets?

Canadian Squadrons haven't been that big in a while.  Fritter your tanks away into penny packets for AT Defence and you have none left for tasks tanks are best suited for.

 

[Infanteer]

I should add - the real issue is not Anti-Armour, Pioneer or Mortar Platoons, but the capability to kill enemy armour at 2000m, to provide some integral field engineering capability and to provide integral indirect fire to infantrymen.

The first question is do infantry battalions require this capability?  My opinion, and this is only mine and others may disagree, is that (1) is critical and that not having the other 2 makes things harder (if I had to choose, I'd take (3) over (2)).  Again, my opinion only.

The second question follows the first - if battalions do require this capability, then how best is it enabled?  Are "specialist platoons", with their PY costs, the answer?  It is hard to argue with 70 years of success, but we shouldn't assume that these are the default answers to a capability gap (if it exists).  Or perhaps these abilities can be integrated directly into Rifle Companies either as specialist sections or just given to platoons as equipment.  Good examples are supplying every vehicle with a Javelin system or having 1 man per section Pioneer qualified.

Finally, a question for anyone in the know - how did Recce Platoons survive the cut when the other 3 Cbt Spt platoons were axed?  Considering the Armoured Corps is 2/3 reconnaissance and that all infantry organizations are trained to conduct reconnaissance, the argument could be made that there was capability overlap there as well?

 

[vonGarvin]

I should add - the real issue is not Anti-Armour, Pioneer or Mortar Platoons, but the capability to kill enemy armour at 2000m, to provide some integral field engineering capability and to provide integral indirect fire to infantrymen.

Agreed, 100%.  (My use of the terms of "anti-armour platoon", "pioneer platoon" and "mortar platoon" are simply placeholders)

The second question follows the first - if battalions do require this capability, then how best is it enabled?  Are "specialist platoons", with their PY costs, the answer?  It is hard to argue with 70 years of success, but we shouldn't assume that these are the default answers to a capability gap (if it exists).  Or perhaps these abilities can be integrated directly into Rifle Companies either as specialist sections or just given to platoons as equipment.  Good examples are supplying every vehicle with a Javelin system or having 1 man per section Pioneer qualified.

The problem, as I see it, is penny packing it.  If they go to the company, platoon or even section level,then they aren't battalion assets, easily grouped, complete with a chain of command, to create the effect that the CO wants.  Just as we ought not to take tanks and penny pack them around to do tank things, we ought not to take (insert capability here) and penny pack it around either.

Finally, a question for anyone in the know - how did Recce Platoons survive the cut when the other 3 Cbt Spt platoons were axed?  Considering the Armoured Corps is 2/3 reconnaissance and that all infantry organizations are trained to conduct reconnaissance, the argument could be made that there was capability overlap there as well?

If I'm not mistaken, and again, only "water cooler discussion", is that the infantry recce platoons were considered first on the block, but were saved because at that time, the armoured corps was 1/3 reconnaisannce and 2/3 tanks.  Either the armoured corps saved those platoons, or we did through crafty negotiations.

 

[OldSolduer]

The second question follows the first - if battalions do require this capability, then how best is it enabled?  Are "specialist platoons", with their PY costs, the answer?  It is hard to argue with 70 years of success, but we shouldn't assume that these are the default answers to a capability gap (if it exists).  Or perhaps these abilities can be integrated directly into Rifle Companies either as specialist sections or just given to platoons as equipment.  Good examples are supplying every vehicle with a Javelin system or having 1 man per section Pioneer qualified.

I would not integrate specialists into the rifle companies. We tried that in Croatia in 92/93 and it, IMO is not a good way to do business. Yes, each section could have a pioneer/mortar BUT those specialists should be grouped into a critical mass where they can have fulfill the role they are expected to. Like Mortars, Pioneers etc.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree. I would rather keep specialist skills/combat support skills at a platoon level. Its too easy to task out a group of mortars, a section of TUA, a section of pioneers, etc, etc.

But some missions may come where we need those elements massed. Example, If we are setting up a blocking position for a large armoured force, it would be much more beneficial to have a platoon of TUAs set up rather than trying to group permanently parcelled out assets.

I guess I am saying its easier to go from bigger to smaller.

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree. I would rather keep specialist skills/combat support skills at a platoon level. Its too easy to task out a group of mortars, a section of TUA, a section of pioneers, etc, etc.

But some missions may come where we need those elements massed. Example, If we are setting up a blocking position for a large armoured force, it would be much more beneficial to have a platoon of TUAs set up rather than trying to group permanently parcelled out assets.

Not only do the soldiers on a crew serve wepaon need to work together as a team, the platoon leadership (and in a Cbt Sp Pl such as Mortars, Recce and AAP the orbats called for two officers per platoon and a warrant officer as PL WO) need to work together as well.

 

[a_majoor]

Not only do the soldiers on a crew serve wepaon need to work together as a team, the platoon leadership (and in a Cbt Sp Pl such as Mortars, Recce and AAP the orbats called for two officers per platoon and a warrant officer as PL WO) need to work together as well.

Agreed to a point.

In the near to mid future, platoons will have some of these capabilities in house. Fire and Forget anti-armour weapons like Javelin or Gill/Spike are really man portable, and light engineering capabilities may be tacked onto mechanized platoons in the form of dozer blades and Power Take Offs fitted to the vehicles. (*We* may not actually get these, but the ability will be there). A Combat Support Company provides additional capabilities and depth, but my question from earlier still stands; do we need separate organizations if the capabilities exist at lower levels?

In the mid to far future, there will simply not be a big enough manning pool to support many of the capacities we want. What do we do when we simply cannot recruit enough men to do all the jobs we want to do?

 

[vonGarvin]

In the near to mid future, platoons will have some of these capabilities in house. Fire and Forget anti-armour weapons like Javelin or Gill/Spike are really man portable, and light engineering capabilities may be tacked onto mechanized platoons in the form of dozer blades and Power Take Offs fitted to the vehicles. (*We* may not actually get these, but the ability will be there).

So what?  Whether it's fire and forget or fire and track, or blades on an APC.  How much shit can you pack into the sack known as an Infantry Platoon?  Let them (the infantrymen in the platoon) worry about doing infantryman stuff.  Like shooting their bloody rifles.  We can barely train them well enough to fire their service rifles, and now we will expect them to know how to properly operate a dozer blade?

A Combat Support Company provides additional capabilities and depth, but my question from earlier still stands; do we need separate organizations if the capabilities exist at lower levels?

Yes.  This gives the unit commander the ability to focus those special capabilities where they are needed most.  Think 'concentration of force' and 'economy of effort'.

In the mid to far future, there will simply not be a big enough manning pool to support many of the capacities we want. What do we do when we simply cannot recruit enough men to do all the jobs we want to do?

Recruitment isn't the problem in that there aren't enough applicants. But given the very real constraints of $$$, one possible solution would be to keep the Infantry manning levels where they are in whole numbers (+5000), but reduce the number of battalions from 9 to 6.  Think about this for a moment.  No longer would we have anemic battalions manned at under 600 all ranks, but we would have highly capable and flexible battalions manned at 800+.

Also, in 1992, we had four each of Regular force Brigade groups, Armoured Regiments, Engineer Regiments and Artillery Regiments.  Today, we have three each of the same things.  The only thing that didn't drop in numbers was the number of infantry battalions.  (OK, we lost one, the Canadian Airborne Regiment, but we "sort of" gained one, CSOR, although of course that is a CANSOFCOM unit, not an ARMY unit.  And the infantrymen in CSOR don't "count" against the number of Infantryman PYs allotted to the Army.  I think, anyway)

 

[a_majoor]

When long range anti armour weapons were large and required dedicated vehicles and crews to move around the battlefield, it made a great deal of sense to house them in their own organizations. Anti tank cannons were eventually replaced by long range guided missiles, which were still far too large to be carried around except by a dedicated vehicle and crew. Even medium range weapons like Milan were too bulky to be effectively manpacked around, hence their inclusion in specialist organizations.

While I understand the issue with the training level of the troops (dealing with it first hand on a daily basis), the issue I am getting at is weapons like Javelin or Gill/Spike provide the firepower of weapons like Milan in the size/weight package of a Carl Gustave, rendering them into effective platoon level weapons. The need for a dedicated organization for anti armour weapons is greatly reduced in this scenario. (In the best of all possible worlds there would be a Battalion AAP with an even more powerful weapon like Dandy [with double the range of Gill/Spike], but manning and finances would seem to reduce this to an either/or equation). Given the diffusion of firepower and the extended distances that even platoon level organizations are now dispersed (issues that Infanteer has raised in the past), perhaps instead of talking about a Combat support conpany to manage the firepower we might consider something like (for lack of a better term) a Battalion fires cell, which provides information to the platoons to tie in their firepower into an integrated whole.

Handwaving a bit here, if the cell can identify the location of the subunits through LOCSTATs or the Blue Force Tracker, they can create overlays showing where there is coverage by various weapons (and where there are holes in the fire plan), and adjust the subunits accordingly. If there is an automated reporting system that can update ammunition usage, then ammunition can be "pushed" forward even during engagements.

Consolidating battalions from 9 to 6 makes eminent sense both for the fiscal realities of today and the demographic realities of tomorrow; in real terms this means the Army will stabilize to three Brigades with two battalions of Infantry each; with a corresponding Armoured Regiment, Artillery Regiment, Engineer Regiment and Service Battalion (plus the host of "other" supporting elelments).

 

[Infanteer]

1.  Although the last thing I was to do is introduce an element of nintendosniper to this, the PC game Combat Mission is probably one of the most realistic simulations of modern combat I have ever seen - it easily surpasses the JCATs systems or any other synthetic environments I have seen the Army use.  Anyways, in a scenario I played as a Stryker Infantry Company against an attacking battalion of T-72s, a generous alottment of Javelin systems quickly blunted the enemy armoured offensive enough to be nailed by a counter-attack by an M1 Tank Platoon.

On "capability requirement" vs "combat support company", if we have a simple system that can kill most armour at 2000 meters and can be given to every infantry carrier (or even 1 per platoon), we are probably pretty good and the idea of an "anti-armour platoon" starts to really slide down on the list of requirements.  Infantrymen ain't firing their rifles at 2000m, so they are probably better off firing anti-armour missiles.

With that met, the only real question up for study is if a mounted system such as the TOW is still required and, if so, is it best nested in an Infantry Bn?  If it isn't required, or is and is found to best fit somewhere else, then there is no requirement for an anti-armour platoon if the infantry platoons are equippied with a modern anti-armour system.

Now, mortars are another argument altogether.... ^-^

2.  "Shrink to Grow" has appeared as an argument before and (I believe) was discussed here:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_2/CAJ_vol10.2_23_e.pdf

The authors article does make sense; understrength battalions have similar costs to full-strength ones in terms of organizational, infrastructure and administrative costs, but deliver less output.  Having 6 rifle battalions with 4 Rifle Coys and a Cbt Spt Coy gives you 24 coys + 6 cbt spt.  This isn't much less than the 27 rifle coys + 9 cbt spt (-) that you see today, but with Battalions properly manned, the mounting is less disruptive and the cohesion is that much better.  Wouldn't it be nice to build a Battle Group out of a single battalion?!?

This shrink to grow also has the benefit of reducing the span of control for the Brigade Group with little loss in capability.

 

[vonGarvin]

On "capability requirement" vs "combat support company", if we have a simple system that can kill most armour at 2000 meters and can be given to every infantry carrier (or even 1 per platoon), we are probably pretty good and the idea of an "anti-armour platoon" starts to really slide down on the list of requirements.  Infantrymen ain't firing their rifles at 2000m, so they are probably better off firing anti-armour missiles.

You and Thucydides make good points, and I'm not suggesting that we don't give Anti Armour weapons that are more capable to the infantryman.  And I get your point that infantrymen aren't firing at 2000m; however, hopefully they are sited such that they can't fire at 2000 (reverse slopes and all).  I just mean that *some sort* of anti armour weapon housed within a specialist platoon such that they can be sited with one thing in mind: killing enemy armour at long ranges.  I only know "3750" from a variety of multiple choice and laundry list exams, but I also believe that outranged most tanks.

This brings me to the "range band" concept.  For each element, from section up to battalion, I prefer to think of each as having a "range band".  These "range bands" are essentially the max range for each:

Section: 600m
Platoon:  2000m
Company: 3000m
Battalion: 5000m

These of course are simply rough numbers and only useful as an assist to planners and stuff, but the idea is that if you were to lay out a checkerboard of a battlefield, and site your sections, platoons and so on to hit Kill Zones from those ranges listed above, then you're doing pretty good.

Now, I know that the Section Carrrier can hit out beyond 2000m, so, this doesn't mean that because it's a section weapon that it waits until the enemy is 600m away.  It just means that those section carriers ought to have their systems considered by the platoon level.  If that makes sense.  (I may have to come back and edit this after some coffee) 

 

[a_majoor]

Actually your post makes perfect sense, and platoons have such positions as the LAV Sgt to manage these assets. The Platoon Weapons det commander would be the logical choice to deal with long range anti armour weapons issued at platoon level; maybe the weapons det needs to be enlarged and reorganized in a bottom up approach to dealing with these weapons (a DF and IF Sgt to manage the anti armour weapons and mortars perhaps?).

A heavy weapons platoon at the company level has been suggested before, a platoon built around 3X 10 man C-16 mechanized/motorized sections has the theoretical ability to employ that system rather than C-16's gathering dust, adding a useful capability to the fight.

What is actually coming clearer for me is the issue of range and target indication; platoon/coy level weapons like LAVs, C-6 on the SF kit, C-16's, 60mm on bipods and modern Anti Armour weapons all provide means to deal with targets about 2000m away, but identifying and marking the targets at those ranges is problematic in most environments. Maybe we should also be talking about organizing to havce eyes on as well....

 

[McG]

I should add - the real issue is not Anti-Armour, Pioneer or Mortar Platoons, but the capability to kill enemy armour at 2000m, to provide some integral field engineering capability and to provide integral indirect fire to infantrymen.

The first question is do infantry battalions require this capability?  My opinion, and this is only mine and others may disagree, is that (1) is critical and that not having the other 2 makes things harder (if I had to choose, I'd take (3) over (2)).  Again, my opinion only.

I think your capability (2) can be chopped into finer increments - ie. what tasks does the bn need to be capable of without external augmentation?  Creation of protective obstacles and dismounted mobility support would be the two big things.  Search was mentioned else where, but that shouldn't be a pioneer or "engineer light" capability - search should be all arms.  Risk search (IED environments) and search for evidence admissible in court should be left to the appropriate specialists.  Mounted mobility support best remains with the Engineers as it generally requires large specialist vehicles/equipment (or a heavy MBT that can mount mechanical breaching implements).  The size/structure of the organization will be determined by the scale of the tasks given to it.  Explosive breaching & Coy protective obstacles may not necessitate a Bn Pnr Pl, but may instead warrant Coy level organizations.

On "capability requirement" vs "combat support company", if we have a simple system that can kill most armour at 2000 meters and can be given to every infantry carrier (or even 1 per platoon), we are probably pretty good and the idea of an "anti-armour platoon" starts to really slide down on the list of requirements.  Infantrymen ain't firing their rifles at 2000m, so they are probably better off firing anti-armour missiles.

If every section carrier were fitted with a heavy 2 - 4 km ranged AT missile, then the Bns would probably exceed the capability that was provided by AAP.  If you want to screen the left flank, task any platoon.  As this is PY neutral, I would suggest you have proposed the most viable option here.

 

[vonGarvin]

Search was mentioned else where, but that shouldn't be a pioneer or "engineer light" capability - search should be all arms.  Risk search (IED environments) and search for evidence admissible in court should be left to the appropriate specialists.  Mounted mobility support best remains with the Engineers as it generally requires large specialist vehicles/equipment (or a heavy MBT that can mount mechanical breaching implements).  The size/structure of the organization will be determined by the scale of the tasks given to it.  Explosive breaching & Coy protective obstacles may not necessitate a Bn Pnr Pl, but may instead warrant Coy level organizations.

And whom do we task to do this?  And at what cost?  A section?  A platoon?  A few riflemen here and there?  And yes, "search" is an all-arms "thing" now, but search member.  I'm talking what I think is "search leader" or something like that. 
As an example, as a young MCpl during Op SALON, an infantryman at that, I was conducting "search" just as "they" describe nowadays.  And who led us?  Bearded bastards (aka "Pioneers"). 

If every section carrier were fitted with a heavy 2 - 4 km ranged AT missile, then the Bns would probably exceed the capability that was provided by AAP.  If you want to screen the left flank, task any platoon.  As this is PY neutral, I would suggest you have proposed the most viable option here.

Actually, the CO would task a company to then task one of its platoons.  And now they are doing a task that yes, they can do, but by the same logic, we could have those vehicles with dozer blades, doing pioneer shit one moment, and then don't forget the mortars on the back, and they can...

Get where I'm going?  It's nice to have flexible platoons, but beware the mantra of "jack of all trades, master of none."  (And the platoons can screen anyway, I think you mean "guard" if they have the ability to kill tanks at +2km with their APC mounted missiles.)

Our system is broken, and our engineers were unable to do their div level tasks in Kandahar because they were too busy doing what pioneers would have done a decade ago.  And the gunners were firing some missions that mortars would have fired a decade ago.  TOW platoons of old could have blown apart a few grape huts that tanks were blowing apart for us.  We had a system that did work, and it was broken.  I think it's too late to fix, and we'll just have to make do with what we have.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree. Engineers have numerous tasks to do beside supporting Infantry Battle Groups. As far as simpler engineer tasks such as breaching smaller obstacles, walls, some demolitions work that is exactly what Pioneers was intended for.

I have a copy at home I reviewed over the weekend of the Infantry Battalion in Battle (1971). Interesting how they cover off the relationship and differences in responsibilities between engineers and pioneers, mortars and artillery. They had thought of such things back then contrary to some peoples opinions these days.

Also, take a look at a Stryker Infantray brigade for some ideas. They have at the rifle company level, javelins in each section, 3 x 105mm MGS and 2 x 120mm mortar at company level. They also have a battalion mortar platoon to re-enforce mortar fire (For supporting the CO's main effort I would guess). They also have a reconnaissance platoon at battalion level and they also have a Cavalry squadron (equivalent to a armoured recce regt in CDN terms) that al;so performs mostly reconnaissance. They maintain 9 x TOW ATGM strykers as a company at brigade level. You can see some overlap in capabilities, nothing wrong with that.

My take and how we could make this work at our level?
1. Get ALAWS back on line and make it a platoon weapon (If its javelin 2,500m range)
2. Purchase M224 60mm mortars and make it a platoon weapon
3. 81mm back to Infantry battalion for the battalion mortar platoon
4. LAV TUA back to battalions for battalion AAP (TOW current missiles reach 4 KM and the Bunker buster missile can do a number on things like grape hutrs)
5. Bring back pioneers as a platoon, keep their task to the simple engineering task to alleviate stress on engineers. Stick them in regular LAVIIIs, give them extra demolitions and an 84mm for each section. There are many types of 84mm ammo than can do demo/breaching work.
6. Infantry Recce and snipers, no change. Except maybe purchase the T-hawk Micro-UAV for each recce det (Does all UAV really HAVE to be Air Force or Artillery?)

This would give the CO more capabilities and give him more COAs for any mission he plans. There is a minor overlap in capabilities but I see nothing wrong with that. It would be a matter of will power on a senior commander to make something like this happen. You can argue money, personel, etc, etc but in reality it is the will power of those in charge and what they consider to be there main effort.

 

[Kirkhill]

In a world of limited PYs would you consider trading bodies in the section for Battalion or Company level assets?

Would a battalion of 10 platoons (3 companies of 3 platoons + a "CO's Reserve" - A spare rifle platoon of experienced soldiers as a swing force) with each section reduced to 6 or 7 troops be an acceptable trade-off if it gained you a 6 tube mor platoon, a pioneer platoon and a DFS platoon?

 

[McG]

And whom do we task to do [search]?  And at what cost?  A section?  A platoon?  A few riflemen here and there?  And yes, "search" is an all-arms "thing" now, but search member.  I'm talking what I think is "search leader" or something like that. 

You don't need a pioneer for this.  The Rifle Sect Comd can be the search leader.  Search is a reasonably simple undertaking.  And yes, a few soldiers here and there can sustain such a skillset - Combat Diving has been sustained for years with individual team members dispersed through the units as opposed to being in a standing Tp.  It can be done.

Actually, the CO would task a company to then task one of its platoons. 

Maybe.  Maybe one of the platoons is already detached from a Coy and reporting direct to Bn HQ or maybe it was the Coy Comd that wants the screen and the task did not come from Bn. In any case, I don't care who assigns the task - the point is that any Pl could do the job and it would not be an ability exclusive to one Pl.  But, never pass an opportunity to be a pedant, I suppose.

...  And now they are doing a task that yes, they can do, but by the same logic, we could have those vehicles with dozer blades, doing pioneer shit one moment, and then don't forget the mortars on the back, and they can...

Don't be silly.  Dozer blades significantly change the mobility characteristics of a vehicle and could not be mounted with the LAV ISC, & mortars come with significantly new skill set requirements.  In the LAV III, you already have crews trained to conduct a direct-fire mounted battle and the platform integration has already been done by the manufacturer.

Get where I'm going?  It's nice to have flexible platoons, but beware the mantra of "jack of all trades, master of none." 

It is also nice to have everything, but we are constrained by limited resources.  In the current climate, it will be a huge fight just to reestablish the highest priority combat support capability (either mortars or missiles depending on who is typing).  I believe a substantial success would be if you can bring back mortar platoon, provide TOW/Spike-LR equivalent capability on all infantry fighting vehicles, and find ways to directly insert some pioneer skillsets into the rifle platoons.

If you are able to achieve and solidify this success, then down the road you can start arguing for the new Hy DF Pl with Spike-ER equivalent capability and a dedicated Anti-Armour & Anti-Bunker role, or you could start arguing for a new Pnr Pl with specialized section carriers that have a limited earth moving capability.

 

[Infanteer]

You don't need a pioneer for this.  The Rifle Sect Comd can be the search leader.  Search i
It is also nice to have everything, but we are constrained by limited resources.  In the current climate, it will be a huge fight just to reestablish the highest priority combat support capability (either mortars or missiles depending on who is typing).  I believe a substantial success would be if you can bring back mortar platoon, provide TOW/Spike-LR equivalent capability on all infantry fighting vehicles, and find ways to directly insert some pioneer skillsets into the rifle platoons.

If you are able to achieve and solidify this success, then down the road you can start arguing for the new Hy DF Pl with Spike-ER equivalent capability and a dedicated Anti-Armour & Anti-Bunker role, or you could start arguing for a new Pnr Pl with specialized section carriers that have a limited earth moving capability.

That sounds good.

 

[vonGarvin]

You don't need a pioneer for this.  The Rifle Sect Comd can be the search leader.  Search is a reasonably simple undertaking.  And yes, a few soldiers here and there can sustain such a skillset - Combat Diving has been sustained for years with individual team members dispersed through the units as opposed to being in a standing Tp.  It can be done.

Search Leader isn't the only thing that the old-school pioneers did, of course.  But for Search Leader, they will need instructors to teach them (Engineers?)  And what do we remove to teach them how to do that?

This is my point, and not trying to sound pedantic, but while rifle sections, platoons and companies need to be flexible and have as much integral capabilities as is practicable, we have to avoid turning them into a swiss army knife of capabilities.  In combat operations, their role is to close with and destroy.  Period.  Yes, it takes many capabilities to do that, but already, they are so overtasked now that there is barely enough time to get them to do the basics.  Like marskmanship as an example.

The idea of a combat support company is to take those capabilities that are battalion level tasks and have them available, without regrouping, where the CO wants them.  Yes, platoons and companies need to be able to take out tanks, kill infantry, etc, but those are for the company and platoon tasks.  The BG level stuff ought to be a BG level concern, and task.  Hence the combat support company.

So, if we take platoons away from companies to do BG tasks, then those companies are reduced in capability.  In the example in your previous post, a guard or screen, for the BG task for say a covering force, then the company from which the platoon is taken means that the company in question is down by a third, and that platoon (if on a screen), is not necessarily within range of fire support that the company can bring to bear (in a conventional setting, of course).

That's one of the beauties of the old-school Combat Support Company, an infantry battalion could conduct its own guard for its own covering force (with Anti Armour and Recce Platoons forward of the main defensive area). 

  But, never pass an opportunity to be a pedant, I suppose.

Hello, my name is Technoviking.  I don't think we've met. ;D

Don't be silly.  Dozer blades significantly change the mobility characteristics of a vehicle and could not be mounted with the LAV ISC, & mortars come with significantly new skill set requirements.  In the LAV III, you already have crews trained to conduct a direct-fire mounted battle and the platform integration has already been done by the manufacturer.

Now who's being silly? 

Sure, you can slap a missile launcher on a LAV 3 APC, and the direct-fire mounted battle that infantrymen and infantry officers are trained to fight are all in support of the company, platoon or section.  We don't train our crews enough to be able to conduct a guard or screen.  We could, of course, but then we get back to my points above, which include what do we forfeit in order to train them to do so?  And if they have missile launchers, where do we store the missiles?  Don't forget, we have C-16s in the platoons now, so those carriers are getting full.....

 

[a_majoor]

And if they have missile launchers, where do we store the missiles?  Don't forget, we have C-16s in the platoons now, so those carriers are getting full.....

Here, of course:    ;D ;D ;D