Light vs Medium forces

[Kirkhill]

This may generate a tangent here but the thought occurs to me that one of the problems with both the Light Infantry and the Cavalry units and there searching for roles and clarification is actually the Mech Infantry Battalions.

The LIBs actually can justify their role fairly easily,  the only real question is "how light is light" and what scale of kit can be transported to a particular location with them.

The Cavalry function should rightly be a no-brainer as an Armoured Corps job. 

The problem seems to me to revolve around the Mech Infantry.

The Mech Infantry evolved from Light Infantry in trucks to keep up with the Cavalry,  to Light Infantry in APCs to keep up with the Tanks in close combat and assaults.  Perhaps the seeds of the problem can be found in the General Purpose, Multi-Functional Combat Arms decision to purchase the LAV-III.

As the Aussies  and the USMCs can arguably demonstrate, it is a Cavalry vehicle with the dismounts being secondary to its primary missions.

The Mech Infantry has become the Cavalry.

SO.....if we take the Light Infantry out of the Vehicle mounted Light Infantry aspect of our General Purpose Mech Battalions and hand them to an "Elite" Light Infantry force, and we take the Cavalry aspects out of our GP Mech Bns and hand them back to the Armoured Corps - What exactly do we envisage the other 6 combat arms units (the current Mech Bns) doing?

Cavalry to the Armoured.  All Infantry Light, 6 with vehicular support - maybe even some LAVs and 3 para-qualified airtransportable.

 

[McG]

As I see the future being in mixed arms units, it would not break down into light infantry and mech cavalry.  Instead there is light manoeuvre battalions (spawn of current light infantry battalions) and medium manoeuvre battalions (spawn of a union of mech cavalry and mech infantry units).  The two potential ratios that I would support, of light units to medium units, are 3:9 or 6:6.

 

[Kirkhill]

And here was me trying to solve the problem and keep the peace amongst capbadges... ;D

Oh well, back to the drawing board..

On the other hand McG - let me focus for a second on your use of the word "union" in the "union of mech cavalry and mech infantry" and that brings me back to a long held position which is in some sense an outgrowth of your position on Light Infantry being independent of platform.   If they are to be independent of platform why could one of their platforms be the LAV.

A light infantry structure that, as you say, could operate...

... out of LSVW, BV206, Supacats, LOSV & tobbagin, mules, or nothing.   We must be able to insert them by air, sea, or land.   Once inserted, they manoeuvre and fight dismounted with all or most integral vehicles operating in support roles (DFS, wpns tractor, CSS).  

could just as easily operate out of the back of a Bison/Stryker type of armoured truck.

With the armoured truck it could keep up with and reinforce the Cavalry, but it would not be Cavalry.   At the same time it would still be possible for those light units to operate from other transport with no change in doctrine or TTP.

Likewise, the "elite" para-qualified battalions would be trained and organized along the same lines and could operate either in their jump role or from armoured trucks.

Thus we end up with 9 Battalions usable across a wide-spectrum of conflicts, 3 deployable anywhere at all, and we also create a credible Cavalry force, distinct from the Infantry but capable of working with the Infantry.   Either attaching a Troop to a mission that requires a Light Infantry force or having a Coy attached to a Squadron (after the fashion of the Aussies ) to create a more robust Cavalry force.

And all sorts of other combinations and permutations.  

The LAV dismounts, that apparently need specialist training to operate from the back of the LAV IIIs, would be integral Black hat infanteers - serving the additional purpose of supplying more, all together now - "boots-on-the-ground".

Cheers.

Final thought, courtesy of Infanteer's post on the Aussie Cavalry, the author mentioned that the Squadron could "almost" lift a Light Infantry Company in a pinch.  How about if the Squadron added an Armoured Transport Section with Bison/Strykers with out all the fragile kit in back.  When not transporting Infantry bodies they Cavalry no doubt could find a use for them handling logistics and resupply.

 

[Infanteer]

As I see the future being in mixed arms units, it would not break down into light infantry and mech cavalry.   Instead there is light manoeuvre battalions (spawn of current light infantry battalions) and medium manoeuvre battalions (spawn of a union of mech cavalry and mech infantry units).   The two potential ratios that I would support, of light units to medium units, are 3:9 or 6:6.

Agree 100% here.  Now, to get General Hillier on-board. 

 

[big bad john]

This may generate a tangent here but the thought occurs to me that one of the problems with both the Light Infantry and the Cavalry units and there searching for roles and clarification is actually the Mech Infantry Battalions.

The LIBs actually can justify their role fairly easily,   the only real question is "how light is light" and what scale of kit can be transported to a particular location with them.

The Cavalry function should rightly be a no-brainer as an Armoured Corps job.  

The problem seems to me to revolve around the Mech Infantry.

The Mech Infantry evolved from Light Infantry in trucks to keep up with the Cavalry,   to Light Infantry in APCs to keep up with the Tanks in close combat and assaults.   Perhaps the seeds of the problem can be found in the General Purpose, Multi-Functional Combat Arms decision to purchase the LAV-III.

As the Aussies   and the USMCs can arguably demonstrate, it is a Cavalry vehicle with the dismounts being secondary to its primary missions.

The Mech Infantry has become the Cavalry.

SO.....if we take the Light Infantry out of the Vehicle mounted Light Infantry aspect of our General Purpose Mech Battalions and hand them to an "Elite" Light Infantry force, and we take the Cavalry aspects out of our GP Mech Bns and hand them back to the Armoured Corps - What exactly do we envisage the other 6 combat arms units (the current Mech Bns) doing?

Cavalry to the Armoured.   All Infantry Light, 6 with vehicular support - maybe even some LAVs and 3 para-qualified airtransportable.

It almost sound like you are talking about Dragoons in the old days.  Cavalry That would fight from a dismounted position. 

 

[Kirkhill]

That's about right Big Bad John.

 

[big bad john]

IMHO that is Mech or Motorized Rifles in Soviet parlance.  I think that it is the way we should go as opposed to "Heavy" formations.

 

[Infanteer]

On the other hand McG - let me focus for a second on your use of the word "union" in the "union of mech cavalry and mech infantry" and that brings me back to a long held position which is in some sense an outgrowth of your position on Light Infantry being independent of platform.  If they are to be independent of platform why could one of their platforms be the LAV.

A light infantry structure that, as you say, could operate...

could just as easily operate out of the back of a Bison/Stryker type of armoured truck.

With the armoured truck it could keep up with and reinforce the Cavalry, but it would not be Cavalry.  At the same time it would still be possible for those light units to operate from other transport with no change in doctrine or TTP.

Likewise, the "elite" para-qualified battalions would be trained and organized along the same lines and could operate either in their jump role or from armoured trucks.

Thus we end up with 9 Battalions usable across a wide-spectrum of conflicts, 3 deployable anywhere at all, and we also create a credible Cavalry force, distinct from the Infantry but capable of working with the Infantry.  Either attaching a Troop to a mission that requires a Light Infantry force or having a Coy attached to a Squadron (after the fashion of the Aussies ) to create a more robust Cavalry force.

I still side with McG and support a 6+6 role.  Independent of transport means that Light Forces should be able to use a variety of methods to get to work (parachute, helicopter, truck/jeep) dependent on the terrain but their doctrine, tactics, and training will focus around fighting the Light battle, most likely in adverse terrain (Like the "Whale").

I see the Cav/Mech function as fundamentally different.  I don't pretend to be a subject matter expert on either, but the general impression I get from most of the Infantry NCO's and Officers around here is that the LAV (or any IFV) presents us with a entirely different ballgame.  These forces will have doctrine, tactics, and training that will focus on the mechanized battle, which sees dismounts fighting hand-in-hand with their Mechanized Platforms.

To me, these seem to be Apples and Oranges.  Both have their utility (As Afghanistan and Iraq have recently demonstrated) and neither are supposed to be "elite", there is just a suitability to for either/or (or both) to differnet terrains/theaters.  It would be a bad idea to stick 3 Commando Brigade in the back of Warriors, just as it would be a bad idea to take First Armoured Division and drop them into Tora Bora (as Max Hastings noted in the Falklands War, the Welsh Guards, a mech unit, dropped out of the Goose Green battle because, as one of their officers said, they were not "Bergan Soldiers".)

If I'm off kilter, then by all means point me in the right direction.  It just seems to me that we may not get the best result if we have our soldiers (our infantry in particular) try to do everything decently but nothing well.  I think the 6+6 proposal, where 6 maneuver elements work towards fighting the Light Battle and the other 6 maneuver elements (a mixture of the remaining three infantry battalion and the three armoured battalions) look to focusing on the Mechanized battle (as per the Canadian Cav concept or perhaps more inline with the Aussies), is the best option as it allows us to give a specific mission set to each capability while providing each with a equal level of sustainability, readiness rotation, etc, etc.

 

[big bad john]

Infanteer, you are right.   I just see that a lot of people seeing Mech Forces as LightFighters.   I see the Marines or the old 7th ID USA as the true model.   Light tracks or wheeled vehicles.   See below for Light Arty for example.  One from Para Arty and one from 29 Cdo RA.

 

[Infanteer]

Thanks BBJ.

I see Light Forces, as McG pointed out, as being independent of their transport.   If they can call fast air or a battery of light 105 in, then great - but don't always count on it.   Mech forces, I feel, build their tactics and techniques around the fact that while riflemen get off the vehicles and fight, they are only part of a total system that brings in Missiles, Heavy Artillery, 25mm Chainguns and direct cannon fire.

I've often given thought about the US Marines and the way the approach things.   They do have a "split" between their forces as well.   The Infantry seem to be largely "Light Fighters", they can rely on Armoured Amphib vehicles to bring them up to the battle, but these things are not really intended to fight a Mech Battle (read about the Ambush at An Nasiriyah in The March Up).   As well, they are able to deploy from light wheeled vehicles (BLT 1/6 in Afghanistan, CAAT) or to go "air assault" from helicopters.

Marine Mech Forces lie in the Tank Battalions and the LAV equipped LAR Battalions.   These units bore most of the fighting in Iraq with their larger weapons until fights moved into the city and, as per the diagram I put up, the terrain favoured a suitable employment of both Marine 0300's fighting the Light Battle with mechanized support coming from Marine Mech Forces.  My intention was to give a Canadian Mech Force a little more independence by giving it a CAV capability which contains intergral dismounted support in the form of scouts.

As I said earlier, I think you'd waist alot of energy and skill sets by training 42 Commando to get into Warriors.  We don't drive M113's anymore.   Apples and Oranges.

 

[McG]

Kirkhill,
Yes, an APC could be used as the means to insert light forces and it could even remain with the force during the conduct of the operation.  However, the light force structure would not be optimized to act as mechanized dismounts  (because it would be optimized for the light role).  The Engrs and CSS of a light force would not be capable of supporting a mech force (thus we deploy parallel support elements or accept that the deployed force will only operate in the medium role).  

The light infantry section sizes likely could be larger than what is needed for mech infantry.  Thus the LAV III would not be suitable without a major reorganization prior to deployment (so the infantry will now be asked to fight in a fashion other than how they have trained) or we will have to buy new APCs along the lines of turretless LAV III.

I believe it was you that argued once to split the infantry MOC into light and mech based on the different skill sets and tactics employed in the two types of operations.  The fact is that the MOC does not need to be split as long as the infantry is grouped in sub-units that are purpose structured for light or mechanized operations.  It is also essential that these sub-units train rigorously on the tactics of their specific roles.  

The difference of tactics, skill sets, and optimal organizations just don't lead to the conclusion that the optimum force generation structure is an dual-role infantry battalion.   Overall, for for force generation, we should group all our light forces into a single formation so that even the support elements have a structure optimized for light operations.

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, an APC could be used as the means to insert light forces and it could even remain with the force during the conduct of the operation.   However, the light force structure would not be optimized to act as mechanized dismounts   (because it would be optimized for the light role).   The Engrs and CSS of a light force would not be capable of supporting a mech force (thus we deploy parallel support elements or accept that the deployed force will only operate in the medium role).

Again, I concur.   I think that we need to make the important distinction between an APC (like the BVS10 that the RM has adopted) and an IFV (like the LAV III, the Warrior, and the CV90 series).   I don't think that APC's really need any special doctrine for employment, other then finding a Zulu harbour once they've done their job.

I believe it was you that argued once to split the infantry MOC into light and mech based on the different skill sets and tactics employed in the two types of operations.   The fact is that the MOC does not need to be split as long as the infantry is grouped in sub-units that are purpose structured for light or mechanized operations.   It is also essential that these sub-units train rigorously on the tactics of their specific roles.

Well, I based that idea on the notion that Infantry would supply soldiers to the Light Formations (a la the USMC 0300 series) and "Mech Infantry" roles would be filled out by a new MOC along the lines of the American 19D (Cav Scout).   I guess the question is whether you are going to have sharp differences on the Mech Side between "Mech Infantry" and "Armoured Crewman" or have a ubiquitous "Cavalry Soldier" type MOC (a fusion between the current blackhatter and the mech inf), which would allow for intergration of capabilities (and career patterns) down to the crew/vehicle level.

 

[Kirkhill]

What I am arguing is that we build the entire Manoeuvre concept around the Cavalry.  That the Cavalry becomes the home of the LAV-25 (with accompanying specialist dismounts) and that they become the focal point for Arty and Engr attachments to support the Manoeuvre battle.  This would result in larger Squadrons than now, capable of acting independently, or of being used as a Regimental team.

If the job calls for more Infantry support, then by all means add more infantry.  Get them to the fight in suitable transport - and one form of suitable transport is the Stryker/Bison type of vehicle. 

I quite agree that the manoeuvre battle in open terrain is different to the battle in close or complex terrain.  It does require different skills and training.  That is why I think that the Infantry should concentrate its resources on learning how to dominate the close battle and leave the manoeuvre battle to the cavalry.  I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to have 3 battalions in a formation, one jump qualified and two leg, with one of the leg battalions tasked to airmobile ops and the other tasked to, for want of a better phrase, cavalry support ops. 

The Cavalry would be the SMEs on the manoeuvre battle.  Infantry would be attached for things like holding operating positions, protecting flanks, defensive positions, possibly even some line-of-communication work but in honesty that seems to be better handled by Cavalry themselves.

The Aussie Cavalry Squadron is already a fairly good sized Squadron with in excess of 36 vehicles just in the Patrols (24 LAV-25 and 12 LAV-PC or Bison III/Strykers) and has 48 dismounts but can apparently carry up to an additional 100 to 150 bodies "just short of a company" IIRC.  Well why not make sure they have enough transport to carry a full company by adding a Transport/Log section of 8 carriers.  Together with a Coyote surveillance section 8 vehicles, 8 MGS, 4 MMEV and 4 LAV-Mor (AMOS) that would create a manoeuvre element capable in its own right.  Essentially it would become a small Unit - more on the size of an American Squadron than a British/Canadian Squadron with 80 vehicles and about 250 bodies including Blackhat dismounts but not including any additional Infantry that might be attached.

Essentially what I am proposing looks more like a 9:9 structure. 9 Battalions, (3 jump qualified) and 9 Independent Squadrons.

Strangely enough if you multiply 9 Squadrons by 80 vehicles we come up with 720 LAV variants which is well within the order of magnitude of vehicles currently available.  Also 9 x 250 = 2250.  This might mean adding another thousand or so bodies to the Armoured Corps but that would still leave lots of bodies to fill out 9 infantry battalions.

 

[McG]

Now what you are proposing is to have infantry whose sole purpose is to support the mech cavalry, but you are keeping them is seperate homogenious units.   Integrate the two arms.   If the function of a specific infantry unit is to operate out of the back of a LAV III, then it does not make sense to have all its lift in another unit (when do they train together?   How often will the infantry have the option to train in thier mounted roll?).

Integration of infantry and cavalry would change your proposal to 6:9 (6 x light Bn and 9 x mech Sqn).

 

[Kirkhill]

Now what you are proposing is to have infantry whose sole purpose is to support the mech cavalry, but you are keeping them is seperate homogenious units.  Integrate the two arms.  If the function of a specific infantry unit is to operate out of the back of a LAV III, then it does not make sense to have all its lift in another unit (when do they train together?  How often will the infantry have the option to train in thier mounted roll?).

No, I'm continuing to explain things poorly.  I am not proposing that Infantry operate out of the back of the LAVIII. I am proposing that Blackhat Assault Troops/Dragoons operate out of the back of the LAVIIIs.

I AM proposing that the Blackhats have the organic capability to lift infanteers in support of their operations - not necessarily to fight the manoeuvre battle themselves but to take and hold ground in support of the manoeuvre battle. That's why I refer to the Stryker/Bison type of vehicle - essentially a turretless armoured truck.

The infanteers would operate out of the Blackhats lift vehicles in the same way that they would operate out of the helicopters assigned to them or to the Bv206s assigned to them.  I am not proposing that the infanteers be employed to go haring off across country chasing the enemy.  Let the Cavalry do that.

My only reason for suggesting that one of the Battalions in a formation be tasked to co-operate with the Blackhats was an extension of the rationale that would see one of the other Battalions tasked to work with the Helo squadron attached to the brigade or to the Air transport squadron available to drop the 3rd battalion.

Having said all of that, if the man-power limits decision making then I don't have a problem with the 6:9 formulation of 3 Infantry Regiments of 2 light Battalions and 3 Armoured Regiments of 3 Independent, unit-sized Squadrons.

Lessee now - 9 infantry LCols become 6, 3 armoured LCols become 9.  I am sure that could be sold to the Armoured Corps ;D

 

[George Wallace]

Kirkhill

That sounds a bit like The 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment, (the Kangaroos) of WW II.

GW

 

[McG]

I am not proposing that Infantry operate out of the back of the LAVIII. I am proposing that Blackhat Assault Troops/Dragoons operate out of the back of the LAVIIIs.

Okay, so this is about transforming the mechanized infantry battalion into a Cavalry MOC thing?  Otherwise, why are we converting the dismount positions from infantry (the dismounted fighters) to crewmen (the mounted fighters)?  This would also mean establishing 3 or 6 new manoeuvre units.  The manpower that would be required to do this would mean that none of the 5,000 new positions would be available to bring existing units up to strength (in fact, the new units would likely be just as under strengthed as our current predicament).

 

[George Wallace]

Okay, so this is about transforming the mechanized infantry battalion into a Cavalry MOC thing?   Otherwise, why are we converting the dismount positions from infantry (the dismounted fighters) to crewmen (the mounted fighters)?   This would also mean establishing 3 or 6 new manoeuvre units.   The manpower that would be required to do this would mean that none of the 5,000 new positions would be available to bring existing units up to strength (in fact, the new units would likely be just as under strengthed as our current predicament).

I am not following you here.   Why would this mean establishing 3 to 6 new manoeuvre units?

 

[McG]

He is talking about 9 of each (vs the 12 we currently have combined).

 

[Infanteer]

I AM proposing that the Blackhats have the organic capability to lift infanteers in support of their operations - not necessarily to fight the manoeuvre battle themselves but to take and hold ground in support of the manoeuvre battle. That's why I refer to the Stryker/Bison type of vehicle - essentially a turretless armoured truck.

This is why I proposed that the any Light Formation have its own organic transport (BVS10, tac air) if the mission requires it - let the Cav guys focus on their game instead of worrying about being glorifed taxi guys.

As McG said, different TO&E's make for a hard time of just loading a Light Force unit onto a Cav Force structure for a ride.