- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
2VP is suppossed to all mech yet we can barely field 2 coy's worth because of the vehicle shortage.
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
CFL said:
That is by design. You still have 3 LAV Coys - it is just that you only have 2 Coys worth of LAVs. That is what Whole Fleet Management is all about. Given that Units are precluded from training above Level 4 (and you can stretch that to Level 5) at home locations, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that the vehicles have to be shared.
Is this the best way to do things? Probably not. Is it a huge issue for Dom Ops (given that a mech bn moves and communicates in it LAVS? Absolutely. Is that the way that we have to do things from now on - yep.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Is that the way that we have to do things from now on - yep. Why do we always have to suck it up though. I don;t think I need to tell you that when you don't own said vehicle (ie mlvw, LAV, etc) you tend to bit the piss out of it and turn it in for the next crew. Not to mention the items that are on the checklist. What a shitty system. Here's a novel idea. Buy enough to go around. Or take them away from the 0, , 9B, 91, 91A etc (esp on domestic training) and give them to the other company. Its descions like "fleet managment" that cause me to ask "why bother at all".
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
CFL said:
I agree that one of the biggest challenges will be how to ensure that driver maintenance is done, without the goad of the pride of ownership - and I am really not sure how to go about it - maybe someone on the forum has an idea? Permanent drivers? Competition? A "LAV Staff"?
Great idea - but we are well past that point. I honestly don't see the Army reversing the course that it has taken wrt CMTC and delinking Force Generation ORBATs from Force Employment ORBATs
That is going to happen anyway - and already has in 5 GBMC (they will have 2 x BG HQ for their 3 LAV Bns). When you add up all of the BG HQ suites (ther are 12, and subtract two for CMTC, 2 for Op Stock, it becomes clear that we are going to have less in Garrisons.
I realise that the decisions have been very poorly communicated. However, while I don't agree with them all (by any stretch of the imagination) at least decisions are being made - unlike 5 years ago, when we were sitting around waiting for a bucket full of cash to come and solve all of our problems (and I think that it is clear that the cash isn't coming).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
We do have a LAV Cell that is managed by a WO. If we go this route perhaps the LAV Cell would provide the drivers as well as keep a grip on signing out of vehicles. However this would come in conflict with section cohesion and maintaining driver skills.
If the decision is just plan wrong they why go ahead with it? More of a rhetorical question.
What about 2 LAV coy with the third specializing in (fill in the blank). Then rotate yearly. The light coy would still have to do sim trainer with the LAV though to keep skills somewhat up.
If the decision is just plan wrong they why go ahead with it? More of a rhetorical question.
What about 2 LAV coy with the third specializing in (fill in the blank). Then rotate yearly. The light coy would still have to do sim trainer with the LAV though to keep skills somewhat up.
- Reaction score
- 4,164
- Points
- 1,260
CFL said:
Yeah - a real difficult problem to get around. Maybe it is about a LAV WO per coy, and perhaps a dvr per Pl that looks after the kit permanently.
I didn't necessarily say that it was wrong - I truly believe that CMTC is a good thing (one of the best FTX I have ever been on was with 1 RGJ when we went throiugh a Bn TESEX, much like CMTC). It is just that I'm not sure if the Army really understood all of the effects (second and third order effects) of the decision to lock in to CMTC. The UK version of WES is installled on a Unit's vehicles when they arrive for the training, but ours has to be permanently mounted on the equipment.
Not a bad idea. Another way to look at it would be to have a rotation witin a year amongst the three companies. That would serve to keep the dismounted infantry (NOT light infantry!) skills up to speed.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
"Another way to look at it would be to have a rotation witin a year amongst the three companies."
The only problem here lies in that a coy is rarely a coy at full strength for very long and yes I know that is a whole other discussion.
The only problem here lies in that a coy is rarely a coy at full strength for very long and yes I know that is a whole other discussion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
big talk from a man so chubby, on his last jump we had to de-rig two tobaggans and put him on the pallet instead!ParaMoe said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Get back on topic or thius thread will be locked!
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,614
- Points
- 1,160
I mentioned this some time ago in another post. While speaking with a general in 2001 we asked if there was plans to change the light infantry battalions (or something like that) and the general replied yes. The army intends to phase out the light infantry roles and make all the battalions mechanized. "Why?" we asked and he answered "because the Canadian people bought the LAV 3's so they want to see them being used"
- Reaction score
- 7,777
- Points
- 1,160
PPCLI guy and CFL,
Is there not some way that TTPs and TOETs could be adjusted to allow for a permanent cadre of LAV crews and a cadre of Dismounts/Light infantry so that you might have 2-4 dismount sections/tms for every LAV. Then depending on the mission one or more companies/platoons could be mounted. I understand this means changing the Infantry Bn from a Mechanized Manoeuvre Force to essentially a Static Force but would that necessarily be a bad thing for most missions?
Could we, as has been suggested elsewhere, organize 3 light/soc battalions, 6 line battalions with a LAV based combat support element (kind of like the old WWII structure which had the Bren Carrier), and 3 Medium Weight Dragoon type Manoeuvre Battalions/Regiments?
That would mean that the 6 line battalions with their 3 rifle coys would be trained in dismount tactics and also LAV tactics. The troops could then either step over to dedicated light soc duties or Dragoon-Armoured duties.
I am having difficulty understanding the role of the LAV at section level and how it so impacts the section and its tactics that the section operates, when dismounted, in manners radically difficult than when we were mounted in APCs. To my knowledge section tactics for the airborne were not particularly different than section tactics for their APC and Grizzly mounted brethren. Perhaps I am wrong there, if so I welcome the correction but as far as I am aware all section types were trained on the basis of 309(3) The Section and Platoon in Battle.
As George and others ably argue the LAV is not a tank, so it doesn't seem appropriate to use it for intimate support, and also its weapons don't seem to depress adequately to take it right onto the enemy position with you. Therefore it seems to me that you probably end up using it as a battle taxi to get withing 200-500m of FEBA and then have it stand off to a flank to supply a firebase along with the rest of the platoon vehs. At that point aren't all section tactics the same?
Alternatively it strikes me as a great patrol vehicle.
Anyway, got off on a tangent, couldn't the dismounts be trained independently of the LAVs and then trained in LAV cooperation as an additional skill set?
Just curious.
Is there not some way that TTPs and TOETs could be adjusted to allow for a permanent cadre of LAV crews and a cadre of Dismounts/Light infantry so that you might have 2-4 dismount sections/tms for every LAV. Then depending on the mission one or more companies/platoons could be mounted. I understand this means changing the Infantry Bn from a Mechanized Manoeuvre Force to essentially a Static Force but would that necessarily be a bad thing for most missions?
Could we, as has been suggested elsewhere, organize 3 light/soc battalions, 6 line battalions with a LAV based combat support element (kind of like the old WWII structure which had the Bren Carrier), and 3 Medium Weight Dragoon type Manoeuvre Battalions/Regiments?
That would mean that the 6 line battalions with their 3 rifle coys would be trained in dismount tactics and also LAV tactics. The troops could then either step over to dedicated light soc duties or Dragoon-Armoured duties.
I am having difficulty understanding the role of the LAV at section level and how it so impacts the section and its tactics that the section operates, when dismounted, in manners radically difficult than when we were mounted in APCs. To my knowledge section tactics for the airborne were not particularly different than section tactics for their APC and Grizzly mounted brethren. Perhaps I am wrong there, if so I welcome the correction but as far as I am aware all section types were trained on the basis of 309(3) The Section and Platoon in Battle.
As George and others ably argue the LAV is not a tank, so it doesn't seem appropriate to use it for intimate support, and also its weapons don't seem to depress adequately to take it right onto the enemy position with you. Therefore it seems to me that you probably end up using it as a battle taxi to get withing 200-500m of FEBA and then have it stand off to a flank to supply a firebase along with the rest of the platoon vehs. At that point aren't all section tactics the same?
Alternatively it strikes me as a great patrol vehicle.
Anyway, got off on a tangent, couldn't the dismounts be trained independently of the LAVs and then trained in LAV cooperation as an additional skill set?
Just curious.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
paracowboy and Ih8_maggots I'll do my best to have you put on TO or turfed from here completely.
Ghost778 that was the general thinking until Afganistan put the 3rd BN on the map and showcased their relevance.
Kirk hill it all depends on what your going up against as to how the LAV would be used. If there are BMP's in range then the LAV's could engage them. They also have coax, pintel and 25mm anti-pers rounds which can be used effectively. Remember the LAV won't drive right up on the trench nor will the trench be on a such a flat surface that the 25 can't depress and engage. I would say that the cannon would also add a lot more punch in the defence esp in hull down.
What kind of patrolling are you referring to. The LAV is huge.
Ghost778 that was the general thinking until Afganistan put the 3rd BN on the map and showcased their relevance.
Kirk hill it all depends on what your going up against as to how the LAV would be used. If there are BMP's in range then the LAV's could engage them. They also have coax, pintel and 25mm anti-pers rounds which can be used effectively. Remember the LAV won't drive right up on the trench nor will the trench be on a such a flat surface that the 25 can't depress and engage. I would say that the cannon would also add a lot more punch in the defence esp in hull down.
What kind of patrolling are you referring to. The LAV is huge.
- Reaction score
- 7,777
- Points
- 1,160
After I wrote that comment about the LAV I started second-guessing myself. You are right in your implied suggestion it might depend on what type of patrol. In my minds eye I guess I was thinking about patrolling the"wide open spaces" - basically the type of things the Aussie SAS were doing in 6x6 extended wheel base LandRovers, or the types of things they were used for in Eritrea, as well as route patrols and convoy escorts.
I can understand that urban or close terrain patrols might not be best suited to them.
As I said, just trying to understand the situation.
Thanks.
I can understand that urban or close terrain patrols might not be best suited to them.
As I said, just trying to understand the situation.
Thanks.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I remember hearing about this last december in 4 RCR. came down from ndhq that they wanted 4 to have a couple of lav's. man I don't think I ever laughed so hard about something from the army.
1 is still fielding enough so that one full platoon to each company can have the 4 sections and a headquarters lav. that's what we've been doing.
Greg
1 is still fielding enough so that one full platoon to each company can have the 4 sections and a headquarters lav. that's what we've been doing.
Greg
