Light vs Medium forces

[McG]

So, you envision that the medium forces would not have the ability meet the enemy in a dismounted fight?  I know Mark C will confirm for me, if you get mounted forces caught in close contact with a dismounted enemy, that mounted force will be killled if it does not have a dismounted force to protec it.

Looking at the Canadian infantryman description, the only task that I could see removed from what a mounted force needs in its dismounted soldier is "participate in airborne operations."

Infantry Soldiers are responsible for closing with and destroying the enemy.   Infantry Soldiers have the following primary duties:

-    Expertly operate and maintain a wide range of personal and section-level weapons, including rifle (with and without bayonet), hand-grenades, light, medium and heavy machine-guns; and anti-tank weapons;
-    Use sophisticated equipment for field communications, navigation and night-vision surveillance;
-    Inspect and maintain weapon systems, vehicles and equipment (including clothing, survival gear and personal defensive equipment);
-    Participate in airborne operations;
-    Operate with support elements such as fighter aircraft, tactical helicopters (troop-carrying and reconnaissance) and artillery;
-    Engage in unarmed combat;
-    Employ fieldcraft and battle procedures including camouflage and concealment, assault, defence, and escapeand- evasion tactics;
-    Patrolling operations; and
-    Infantry section and platoon tactics, including offensive, defensive and transitional operations.

 

[Kirkhill]

A question:

What is the current effective all-up strength of the three Brigades?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Great discussion!

Given roughly the same resources as we have today I would like to see an Army consisting of six Cavalry units and six Light units.  The army would have one of each in "high readiness" or deployed at all times with the rest in rotation.  Brigades would be primarily administrative groupings with perhaps one deployable formation HQ in the Army (perhaps based on the JSR in Kingston).

The Cavalry units would be mounted and would share an MOC that includes vehicle skills and dismounted skills.  It would have similarities with both the current Armoured and Infantry MOCs.  Cav soldiers would start out as "dismounted scouts" with close combat training.  The Light units would be similar to USMC or RM infantry battalions.  Both would have associated supporting arms.

The Regiments they could be applied to this system although this is where the problems start.  The "sticky wicket" would be the three additional Cavalry units and three less "Infantry Battalions."  The 3rd Battatlions of each infantry regiment could be rolled into Cavalry, perhaps even keeping their beret colours and cap badges.  Alternatively a fourth Cavalry Regiment could be formed with two units, giving the Army six Regiments with two units each.

The big problem with my proposal is the whole cap badge issue.  I'm sure it would be seen as a "land grab."  Perhaps we water it down and have three "LAV" battalions in the Army that have associated Armoured regiments that together form Cavalry Task Forces.  The vehicle crews would all be "crewmen" and any dismounts would be infantry.  Three existing LAV battalions would convert to light forces.  I think that this option is the most feasible and the easiest to implement.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Infanteer]

So, you envision that the medium forces would not have the ability meet the enemy in a dismounted fight?   I know Mark C will confirm for me, if you get mounted forces caught in close contact with a dismounted enemy, that mounted force will be killed if it does not have a dismounted force to protect it.

Of course not!

As I said in my disclaimer, I think that, staying consistent with the "Every Soldier a Rifleman First" mentality, all Army soldiers in general need to develop a better understanding for small-unit tactics.   Most won't be SME's, but they should be able to maintain personal weapons and perform small unit fire-and-movement.   Cavalry Forces getting tagged will be no different in requirement then Engineers getting bumped on a task, Truckers getting ambushed, or a rear-area attack on an Artillery position, a headquarters, or a UMS - we all need to know how to fight.   Like the Royal Marines, I think there should be an "Army Basic Course" that puts all soldiers, regardless of trade, up to Platoon Live Fire.

However, that is a bit of a shift, for now, the two maneuver branches can focus in on dismounted, small unit tactics following their SQ when they attend a "Infantry" course or a "Cavalry" course.

Now, the main reason I'm arguing that we merge Mech Infantry and Armoured into a Cav trade to supply soldiers for Cav positions is that we do not, in reality, need either.   We don't need Armour and Mech Infantry designations because we won't be doing Combat Team attacks or breaches into the teeth of enemy defences.   As 2Bravo said in his intro to his Cavalry concept:

I believe that a force equipped solely with LAVs, Coyotes, LAV TOW and even the MMEV (ADATS) and MGS cannot try to function as a normal "heavy" mechanized battlegroup.   It cannot manoeuvre in the face of the enemy and cannot conduct breaches or mounted assaults against prepared defences without sustaining heavy casualties.   US and UK forces can take hits from enemy anti-tank fire with a much more reduced chance of fatalities than a force with only LAVs.   With the tank gone we must adapt and find a role that we can do with our mounted forces.

I don't think that the Cavalry Force needs to bring across the Mechanized Infantry wholesale into its TO&E - it may not suit the new doctrine we are attempting to create.   Just because the Cav force may do some dismounted fighting doesn't mean that these guys have to come from the Infantry - the Armoured Corps seem quite capable of providing itself with Assault Troopers.   It seems like stating that "Any dismounted fighting shall be done by the Infantry MOC" is akin to the turf wars that say "DFS assets should go to the Artillery".   Mechanized Infantry organizations seem to be suited for the Combat Team - which we don't do anymore, so I'm not sure we need to maintain the capability.

Rather, I envision a entire new organization for the "Dismount/Scout" side of the Cavalry.   Right now, I really like the Aussie organization of "Brick" or "Patrol" of 2 DFS LAV's (loaded with stores and weapons) and 1 Command LAV with a 4 man dismount team in the back.   These dismounts use the LAV's as "Armouries" taking from them a Javelin, a 60mm mortar, a C-6, or their rifles to get out to do dismounted scout duties.   They got some serious horsepower behind them with a few 25mm chain-guns.   The Aussies have 4 of these Cav "Patrols" in a Troop and three Troops in a Squadron.   Combine 1 or 2 of these "Scout Squadrons" with our fancy new Coyote-based (add LUVW) "Recce Squadron" and spice it up with Arty and Sappers, and I think you have quite a unique and flexible Cavalry Organization.

My hope with a fusion towards a Cavalry MOC which works both with the vehicles and dismounts (somewhat like our current Mech Inf) is to make a seamless career structure.   The Cav Officers take a "Cavalry" Phase III and IV which allow them to master both mounted and dismounted tactics - they become like the "Maneuver Officer" MOC we talked about.   The Cav NCM can work in both tasks (perhaps with additional skills train QL4's for either role) - as 2Bravo says "The Cavalry units would be mounted and would share an MOC that includes vehicle skills and dismounted skills.   It would have similarities with both the current Armoured and Infantry MOCs.   Cav soldiers would start out as "dismounted scouts" with close combat training".   I think if we muddied the waters with a Armour-derived "Cavalry" MOC and a bastardized "Mech Infantry" trade in the Cavalry units, it may confuse rank progression, responsibilities, career patterns, etc, etc (Who commands a Cav unit - Infantry or Armoured Cav?   A split MOC organization may leave only half the accession opportunities, with stagnation as a outcome).   A single, well-trained trade would help to focus on the "Cav" mindset.

The reason I'm saying this is that I feel that with the medium weight "Cavalry" force we are aiming for is something completely different then a simple "scrambling" of Light Armour and Mechanized Infantry.   There will have to be new doctrine, tactics, SOPs, etc.   Again, this is one of the reasons why I don't really want to see traditional "Mech Inf" plugged into a Cav Force - it may not be the right tool for the job.

That being said, I'll restate my earlier caveat that if, by some chance, a nice fleet of Bradley/M1's, Marder/Leo 2's, or Warrior/Challenger 2's (or some sort of tracked FCS system) were to end up on our laps then I would support the traditional "Heavy Combat Team" orientation.   I could see it being added to a Cavalry Army in a few ways.

1.   New "Heavy Force" gets its "Crewman" from the Cavalry MOC and its "Mech Inf" from the Infantry MOC - they are given a "Heavy Force Indoc" when they are posted to their Heavy "Regimental Formation".   They assume unique "Heavy" career patterns and are distinct from their "Light Force" and "LAV CAV" brethren.

2.   A new "Panzer/Panzergrenadier" MOC is created, which, like the hybrid Cavalry MOC, turns out Heavy Force soldiers and crewmen - only these soldiers will focus and train towards "meeting engagements, breaches, and battlefield maneuver under the tactical mobility, firepower and protection of their fighting vehicles".

Anyways, since I don't see that kind of gear coming our way anytime soon, I figure we can just tuck that idea into our pockets and focus on our "Light Force" and "LAV CAV" that we can get right here, right now.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Kirkhill]

I  was just mucking around with some numbers - and I know how you all like the numbers game but here goes. :dontpanic:


An Aussie style LAVCAV patrol has 3 vehicles and 12 crew (3+3+2 Crew + 4 Dismounts).  A Canadian Equivalent, with Coyotes might be assumed to have 14 personnel with 3 vehicles, including the 2 extra surveillance ops.

The Aussie Squadron has 4 patrols.  Lets assume 4 Canadian patrols per troop.  4x14=56.
56 bodies per troop, including Troop leader and 2ic and 12 vehicles

The Aussie Squadron has 3 troops.  3x56=168
168 Bodies per Recce Squadron and 36 vehicles.

Before we get into C4I and CSS.

This gives us lots of sense but no act.

Now lets add a LAV company to this mix, after the fashion of 2B Cav Task Force.

14 LAVs with 3 crew per. 3x14=42
42 Bodies and 14 Vehicles.

Lets assume an average loading of 12 of those vehicles with 6 bodies each for dismount.  6x12=72
72 Bodies.

We are now up to LAV and Recce combined, 36+14=50 vehicles and 168+42+72=282 bodies including 48+72=120 dismounts.

Now add in 6 MGS with 6x3=18 crew, 4 TUA with 4x4=16 crew and 4 MMEV with 4 spt vehs and 4x6=24 crew, for a total of 58 bodies and 18 vehicles.

A ASLAV-Cav Recce Squadron plus a LAV Company with attached DFS elements results in a field force with 68 F Echelon wheeled armoured vehicles and 340 F Echelon personnel including 120 dismounts.

What numbers of C4I and CSS staff would be required to support such a force in the field?

My guess is it would be something like a large Armoured Regiment with 56 tanks or a Mech Inf Battalion with 43 LAV plus support elements.  And those formations number in the 700 level All ranks.

Would that be close?

If we added a Light Battalion at 620 all in UK model, an Arty Battery with an Observation troop for another 100 and an Engineer Squadron for 100  we have 700+620+100+100=1520.  Adding another 250 CSS and Command = 1770.  Add another 1-200 for Helo support and we have 1870-1970 total strength.

Lets call it 2000 bodies to field a Recce Squadron, a LAV combat tm, a Light Inf battalion, an Arty Bty, an Eng Squadron and a Helo Squadron with CSS.

Roughly speaking a Kabul size force.

As I understand it the Government wants to keep two such forces in the field on the basis of 1 tour on 3 tours off.  Or better yet 1 and 4.

At a 1 and 3 rate that means 2x4 Task forces or 2x4x2000=16,000 deployable bodies from the brigades.  With a 1 and 4 rate and assuming no reserves then the number is 2x5x2000=20,000 deployable bodies from the brigades.

Lets make the assumption, for fun and frivolity that all of the 5000 new bodies are going to go towards making this possible and they will be assigned to the army exclusively.  Lets also assume that we are going to work with the higher 1 and 3 tempo so we only need 16,000 bodies total.  16,000 -5,000=11,000.  You need to find 11,000 deployables in the existing structure or 3,666 current effectives per Brigade including the attached Helo Squadron.

Back to the question I asked a little while back.  But in a slightly different manner.

Can each existing brigade find 3,666 deployable effectives in order to meet the Government's 2 Task Force standard, even after reinforcement by the new 5,000?

 

[Infanteer]

Whew, that's alot of number, bud!  

This gives us lots of sense but no act.

I'd want to be careful with this - what exactly do you want the Cavalry to do for "Acting".   Again, is a mechanized company desired, since it was intended to "Act" under the auspices of a mechanized/armoured assault (which the Cavalry should NOT attempt to do).

The Cav Scout Squadron that you layed out (following the ASLAV model) has 12-14 LAV III's and 16 dismounts in a Troop that could be taken in by either the Troop Warrant or the Troop Commander.   I think that this gives the "Cav Scout" Troop a decent amount of "Acting" power if required - read Daniel Bolgers account in Death Ground of an 18-Man Dismount Platoon taking the Al Mutlaa Police Post in the Gulf War during a combat team attack - they had covering fire from 25mm's and TOW's on the Bradley's and 120mm on the M1's.   I feel that our LAVCAV, if provided with LAV III 25mm and an assortment of other loadouts (TUA, 90mm DFS, Brimstone, 120mm Breach-loading Mortar) could achieve the same sort "Act" considering the Cavalry vehicles provide a good supply of suppresive fire..

As for giving the LAV CAV unit a bit more teeth, I figured thats what the attached Engineers were for.   I remember looking at TO&E for the Armoured Squadrons - they had Assault Troops attached to them.   My understanding is that, like Assault Pioneers, Assault Troops were stripped away and the task was given to the Engineers.   Is the Assault Troop role a good one for Engineers attached to our "LAVCAV" regiments?   I don't know, perhaps some input from some Engineers or Ex-Assault Troopers would shed some light on this.   Anyways, I felt that you could take those assault troops (who ever fills the spots) and form them into an "Assault Squadron".   Is the "Assault" Role required by the LAV CAV?   It's always nice to have the extra teeth.

My guess is that a LAV CAV battalion would have 1 or 2 "Scout Squadrons" (like the ASLAV) which are multi-purpose Cav units.   As well, Cav Battalions would have a "Recce Squadron" like our current one, which is more of a "Sense" unit.  Finally, it would have an "Assault Squadron" which, for the time, may have to be attached from an affiliated Combat Engineer Regiment; this Squadron would be oriented to "Combat Mobility" - "Acting", I guess.   HQ Squadron and perhaps an attached battery of LAV mortars (81mm Wolf or the proposed 120mm Breechloader) or LAV artillery (with that snazzy Denel 105mm - if it works).   I'm sure, if you scrounged up the PY's and the kit, you could find places for LAV DFS, BRIMSTONE, etc, etc.

How does that fit into your number-cruncher, Kirkhill.... ;D

 

[McG]

If the Army were to readopt tracked vehicles and tanks and we were to move back to "Combat Team" attacks and Heavy Battle capability, then I could see diversifying the Infantry to fill out "Mech Infantry" tasks - until then, I see maintaining the idea of "Mech Inf" as superfluous for our Army right now - a Cav function is much more appropriate.

Now, the main reason I'm arguing that we merge Mech Infantry and Armoured into a Cav trade to supply soldiers for Cav positions is that we do not, in reality, need either.  We don't need Armour and Mech Infantry designations because we won't be doing Combat Team attacks or breaches into the teeth of enemy defences.

...

The reason I'm saying this is that I feel that with the medium weight "Cavalry" force we are aiming for is something completely different then a simple "scrambling" of Light Armour and Mechanized Infantry.  There will have to be new doctrine, tactics, SOPs, etc.  Again, this is one of the reasons why I don't really want to see traditional "Mech Inf" plugged into a Cav Force - it may not be the right tool for the job.

That being said, I'll restate my earlier caveat that if, by some chance, a nice fleet of Bradley/M1's, Marder/Leo 2's, or Warrior/Challenger 2's (or some sort of tracked FCS system) were to end up on our laps then I would support the traditional "Heavy Combat Team" orientation.

I have a problem with the argument that we should transform because our kit does not match how we used to fight, and that with heavier kit we could just go back to the old way of doing business.  This does not take into account that the threat has changed, and that the environment we will fight in has changed.

I anticipate that to be relevant most of our potential future missions will require a significant number of boots on the ground.  Infantry companies and platoons will not be an exclusive requirement of light operations.  They will be needed in theatres conducive to mechanized operations as well.  The real world is composed of mixed terrain.  The cavalry force would be expected to move from open country, through wooded areas, and even in small towns to cities.  It cavalry is to be relevant, it must have enough infantry to project force into closed and complex terrain that it operates through. 

In the end, the soldiers that do project this force in the dismounted roll could be called mechanized infantry, dragoons, cavalry assaulters, or GIBs.  What matters is that they are included in the force structure and organized so as to be able to project dismounted force when required.

Kirkhill,
Generally, I like your force structure.  However, I still think your light infantry should be mechanized.  You have permanently assigned the troop lift, so permanently assign the troops.  This would allow their training and organization to be optimized for the mechanized roll.  Sections could be smaller to fit in the LAV, DFS Pls would no longer be required at the Coy level.  Essentially, all these elements become wasted PYs once there are stripped away to mechanize the Bn.

The Engr and Arty sub units that would have been available to support the light battalion can also be left home (more wasted PYs) because you will need to bring mech engrs and mech arty (well, maybe you APC Coy could include gun tractors and heavier guns without crews).  Better plan to have a sub-unit of each to support cavalry deployments.

However, by permanently integrating the infantry into the mech force you can get grid of PY wastages.  Your mech force sub-units' structures are optimised for the mech fight (either dismounted or mounted as appropriate to their roll).

As for giving the LAV CAV unit a bit more teeth, I figured thats what the attached Engineers were for. 

You can use engineers as infantry.  However, if you base your planning around this, you had better not expect them to be available to do engineering tasks when you need those done.

 

[Infanteer]

I have a problem with the argument that we should transform because our kit does not match how we used to fight, and that with heavier kit we could just go back to the old way of doing business.   This does not take into account that the threat has changed, and that the environment we will fight in has changed.

Yeah, maybe I can work on this argument.   I just feel that we're trying to shoe horn an Organization that was designed to, in conjunction with tanks, fight a high-intensity battle against a fully mechanized opponent on the European Plains (those damn Grenovians).   I have a feeling this is not the opponent or the environment we are aiming our LAV CAV towards, so I feel that we may want to take a look at the organization and mission of the "Mech Inf" who will now become a LAV CAV dismount/dragoon team.

I anticipate that to be relevant most of our potential future missions will require a significant number of boots on the ground.   Infantry companies and platoons will not be an exclusive requirement of light operations.   They will be needed in theatres conducive to mechanized operations as well.   The real world is composed of mixed terrain.   The cavalry force would be expected to move from open country, through wooded areas, and even in small towns to cities.   It cavalry is to be relevant, it must have enough infantry to project force into closed and complex terrain that it operates through.

In the end, the soldiers that do project this force in the dismounted roll could be called mechanized infantry, dragoons, cavalry assaulters, or GIBs.   What matters is that they are included in the force structure and organized so as to be able to project dismounted force when required.

Very true - boots on the ground is important, especially if a Cavalry unit is required to form a Task Force for a View II conflict - OOTW - where having boots on the ground in the constabulary function is the main effort.

Perhaps, taking the ASLAV variant and "beefing it up" with an extra 4 dismounts per patrol brick may give a "Scout Squadron" the teeth it needs.   This means that a "Scout Troop" will have 32 dismounts, a "Scout Squadron" - 96.

How do you feel about the mounted/dismounted "Cavalry MOC" I and 2Bravo alluded to?

You can use engineers as infantry.   However, if you base your planning around this, you had better not expect them to be available to do engineering tasks when you need those done.

I might be rightfully accused of proposing to get the Cav Engineers to do too much.   What will be their role in augmenting an Armoured Regiment with no Assault Troops now?   Do you think the ideal arrangement would have the Cav Battalion with its Integral Assault Troops (for close assault work) and an Attached Cavalry Engineering Squadron to focus on the engineering tasks?

I must really admit that I don't know much about the Assault Troops - other then that they have a cool name.     Would they be needed in a Cavalry Force?

 

[McG]

Yeah, maybe I can work on this argument.  I just feel that we're trying to shoe horn an Organization that was designed to, in conjunction with tanks, fight a high-intensity battle against a fully mechanized opponent on the European Plains (those damn Grenovians). 

The basic building blocks of the infantry were devised well before mechanized warfare.  They are proven and can be optimized to different ways of fighting through adjusting the number of people in a section, the number of sections in a platoon, the number of platoons in a company, and the type & location of support weapons.

Perhaps, taking the ASLAV variant and "beefing it up" with an extra 4 dismounts per patrol brick may give a "Scout Squadron" the teeth it needs.  This means that a "Scout Troop" will have 32 dismounts, a "Scout Squadron" - 96.

This is certainly getting better.  Roughly a platoon available in each tp, and a coy available in a sqn.  If you plan on using the LAV as the firebase, cut-off, and anti-armour, you can probably get away without dedicated fire sp det in the pl HQ.  Maintaining a selection of sp wpns available when/if needed in the LAVs for the dismounts would also offset risks of no fire sp det.

How do you feel about the mounted/dismounted "Cavalry MOC" I and 2Bravo alluded to?

Mechanized infantry have shown this can work.  My only concern is that the dismount positions are established and organized intelligently.

What will be their role in augmenting an Armoured Regiment with no Assault Troops now? 

Same role we fill for everyone else.  We can offer mobility through breaches, obstacle crossings, route repair, route clearance, etc.  We may have passed the days of breaching through an obstacle to destroy the enemy on the other side, but not every obstacle denotes a fire sack.  Rivers are obstacles that we can get our forces across.  A point obstacle in a short defile may be part of the enemy's delaying battle (in which case just being slow to breach it means that its mission was a successes).  Dismounted infantry/dragoons/cavalry/guys-with-rifles can secure the far side and the engineers can punch through.  We are the mine/counter-mine warfare guys.  We are the camouflage & non-electronic deception guys of the army (potentially useful in a force that is fighting to win the information/recce battle).

As far as the assault troop, all their pioneer tasks have fallen to the engineers.  Their roll of dismounted fighter has gone to the infantry.

 

[Infanteer]

The basic building blocks of the infantry were devised well before mechanized warfare. They are proven and can be optimized to different ways of fighting through adjusting the number of people in a section, the number of sections in a platoon, the number of platoons in a company, and the type & location of support weapons.

Yes, you're right.   Adjusting the numbers is the key so as to make the a Groundfighter force "fit", both doctrinally and organizationally, into the type of force structure we're aiming for.   I think by "beefing up" the Scout Patrols will achieve this.

This is certainly getting better. Roughly a platoon available in each tp, and a coy available in a sqn. If you plan on using the LAV as the firebase, cut-off, and anti-armour, you can probably get away without dedicated fire sp det in the pl HQ. Maintaining a selection of sp wpns available when/if needed in the LAVs for the dismounts would also offset risks of no fire sp det.

Getting robust.   Playing the numbers game, I can see that something like this would have a "Scout Patrol" of:

3 x LAVIII - (9 Pers)
2 x Dismount Scout Teams (8 Pers)

Giving the Scout Patrol 17 Pers/3 LAVIII

4 of these Patrols plus a Troop HQ (1 Lav - Troop Commander and Troop Warrant: I'm unsure of where the Troop Warrant is supposed to go) makes:

Scout Troop of 72 pers/13 LAVIII

That is a pretty big troop, and although very robust, it may not meet the requirements of fitting into our current manning levels.   Perhaps, going off of our current numbers, we may be forced to drop a "Brick" leaving a Troop of 55 Pers in 10 LAV III with a dismount capability of 24 guys (3 x 8 scout sections).   These 8-man sections could maneuver off of the firepower off of the 10 LAV's in the Troop.

Going from there, 3 X Troops would equal 165 pers / 30 LAVIII - add Sqdn HQ and Admin and we may be at 180 / 35 vehicles with a dismount capability of 72 Scouts (3 x 24) with a very significant firebase of 30 or so LAV's.

If you can get 2 of these in a Cavalry Battalion, I think you're doing okay.   Add a Recce Squadron with Coyotes and LUVW's and a HQ/Admin Squadron and you have a Cavalry Battalion that weighs in at about a bit over 500 pers (144 Cav dismounts - there is your Rifle Company) and some 100 or so vehicles.   This is just a Scientific Wild-Assed guess, but I don't think my Ballpark figures are that out to lunch.

What are the rough numbers for three of our Mech Battalions and our 3 Armoured regiments - I'm wondering if we could fuse them together to get 6 Units of 2 x Scout Squadrons, 1 x Recce Squadron, and HQ and Admin.   I think the vehicle pool is possible if we are converting three "Mech Battalions" to "Light Battalions" to achieve a 6:6 unit ratio of Light and Cavalry Force Capabilities, its the manning numbers I'm worried about (I think our Mech Battalions are a little understrength and our Armoured Regiments are smallish).   Are we going to squeeze 3000 troops from those 6 Units, or are we going to come up short and hope for the "5,000" troop promise?

Add an Engineer Squadron (Cavalry) and a Artillery Battery (Cavalry) and ISTAR and expanded support assets as needed and you have a pretty potent Cavalry Battlegroup for deployment on a variety of operations.

Workable?   If not, it sure was fun waving my wand for once.... ;D

Mechanized infantry have shown this can work. My only concern is that the dismount positions are established and organized intelligently.

Yep.   As I said, the Americans and the Aussies do this, so I think it is achieveable.   I have seen a few journal articles arguing for dedicated "mechanized Infantry" career paths - I'll see if I can dig those up and find some good information on where to start.

Same role we fill for everyone else. We can offer mobility through breaches, obstacle crossings, route repair, route clearance, etc. We may have passed the days of breaching through an obstacle to destroy the enemy on the other side, but not every obstacle denotes a fire sack. Rivers are obstacles that we can get our forces across. A point obstacle in a short defile may be part of the enemy's delaying battle (in which case just being slow to breach it means that its mission was a successes). Dismounted infantry/dragoons/cavalry/guys-with-rifles can secure the far side and the engineers can punch through. We are the mine/counter-mine warfare guys. We are the camouflage & non-electronic deception guys of the army (potentially useful in a force that is fighting to win the information/recce battle).

As far as the assault troop, all their pioneer tasks have fallen to the engineers. Their roll of dismounted fighter has gone to the infantry.

Okay, confirms my feelings.   Sounds like we want to avoid forcing the engineers to act as "Fire and Maneuver" Cavalry elements - lets let them focus on mobility/counter mobility tasks and obstacle destruction (like the good old Funny Tanks of WWII).

 

[Kirkhill]

Well I was kind of predicating this on something like a Kabul or Bosnia situation.  A Force is in place to supply security for a particular region with dispersed locales needing protection and spaces between needing patrolling.

My working premise is that the focus of any Canadian Force will be a Light Infantry presence that would be adaptable to any terrain, with or without Cavalry support.

My second premise is that it used to be held that the strongest all round defense posture was a triangle because it was harder for an attacker to find and split seams.  Thus a 3 company light battalion.

I also figured that regardless of terrain there will be a heavy need for engineering resources so a full  Squadron of engineers, not necessarily with mobility gear but certainly with construction and EOD capabilities.  

Also my working assumption was that any force, but especially a light force will require fire support thus the battery of arty.  And at this point I would like to put in a plug for long range arty.  There are two reasons I see to have lots of tubes on hand.  One is for weight of ordnance on target, a good thing.  The other is to cover a large area, in which case you need to disperse the guns.  A 30 km Gun can cover about 2800 km2 of ground.  A 15 km Gun can only cover about 700 km2 of ground.   To cover the same ground that 1 30 km gun can cover from one gun position you need at least 4 separate guns at 4 separate positions with 4 separate commands and 4 separate ammunition dumps.  In the cases where weight of fire is not as important, both from operational need and also from the increasing effectiveness of the bullets and the accuracy of the guns, then 4-30km guns or a half battery,  can be as effective as  16 or more 15km guns like the C3.  ie a Troop can replace the best part of  a Regiment when weight of fire is not the issue.  As seems to be the case on most stability ops.

The longer range also allows fire in support of a fairly wide ranging patrolling effort.

Which brings us to the Cavalry.

Looking closer at the ASLAV-CAV I sense that they came at the equation from the SASR direction rather than from the US Armd Cav direction.  Their vehicles are "undermanned" by most standards.  12 people in 2 "LAV-25" and a "Bison" that could carry 28-30.  That leaves a lot of room for beans, bullets and bandages on board.  Suggesting an ability to range very widely independently.  Also their is a distinct lack of heavy supporting weapons.  Suggesting that this particular Cavalry is intended more for Sense than Act, except perhaps as the SASR act.

The 4 scouts per patrol would, I think, only be scouts although they have an anti-tank capability with the Javelin, possibly another indicator of a dispersed operating mode.  Not a high expectation of encountering armour but an effective capability exists just in case.

As you point out Bolger does make note of the 18 man assault from 4 Bradleys and their success.  But he also is at pains to point out that there are "too few rifles" in the US army at large and the Armoured forces in particular.  In fact, IIRC, that is the entire premise of the book.

Also, if the Patrols are going to be operating in a dispersed fashion then how quickly will it be possible to gather a sufficiently large number together to create a useful force?

Finally, Scouting, Pioneering and Infanteering are three very distinct tasks I believe and while all can put in an assault I think that an Infantry platoon will probably be more effective than 8 Scout/Pioneer teams.

Thus I don't expect the Recce element of the Cav to do much more than Sense.

Having said that I have now created a protected area secured by a number of defended locales operating under an umbrella of artillery fire support.  The area between the defended locales is being vigorously patrolled by the Recce element.

What happens if Action is required outside of the defended locales but under the arty umbrella?  A Quick Reaction Force is required - both to get quickly to a threatened defended locale and also to react to what ever the Recce bumps into.  Thus the LAV Company.  This also answers for the 4th company that people have been asking to be reassigned to the battalions.

And because we don't know what we are going to run into thus the additional elements from the DFS Squadron to thicken the LAV Company up and turn it into a pretty effective Combat Team.

Then there is your question McG of why not turn all 4 companies into mech companies.  Well I guess it boils down to costs and manpower and flexibility to me.

As I noted a Light Unit can find employment in many different environments.  Thus it is very flexible and employable even in terrain that Light Cav couldn't get to, let alone LAVCav.  So I am still beating the drum to base our force around Light Infantry.

Conversely, to paraphrase Infanteer a Mech Soldier and a Bergen Soldier are different.  How quickly can a Mech unit be converted to Bergen duties so that they can be effective in a Light environment? On the other hand a Light Infanteer, given a lift by any means can co-operate with any systems on any battlefield, or so it seems to me.  I am not suggesting that Light Troops can replace Mech Troops.  They can't. But a battalion of light troops still offers a task force commander a number of tactical options.

As well, there is the issue of administrative deltas.  

The Brit Light Battalion has  620 bodies.

When they are issued Saxons so that they can get to the fight protected from shrapnel and rifle bullets they get 24 section vehicles and 48 drivers and co-drivers essentially.  The authorized battalion strength goes up to only 667  bodies.  They add on a Transport Platoon to the battalion if you like.

When they are re-roled to Warriors then the 24 sections get lifted in 24 Warriors with 72 crew.  Essentially 2 full platoons worth of Armoured specialists.  As well they add on another 105 bodies that are just for CSS, maintenance and resupply.

Those extra 177 bodies are the reason I dont want to Mechanize the Light Battalion in the Task Force.  8 Task Forces would mean an additional 1416 person years, which if you did convert the Mech Forces back to Light Role, would essentially be surplus to requirement.

Conversely I can lift an entire battalion on its own transport  or I can harden F-Echelon a bit by adding a Armoured Transport Platoon and have it more available to co-operate with armoured element or even hand Quick Reaction duties.  The Aussies are doing this by supplying their air-conditioned armoured bus, the Bushmaster.  No armaments at all, just nice comfortable seats and big "bullet-proof" windows and cold water.  Just the thing for jogging around Suffield or Shilo in the middle of August.

If wishes were horses time...

If Manpower allows it I would prefer to see 9 task force sets, 3 per brigade.  That would allow 9 light infantry battalions, 9 Recce Squadrons, 9 LAV Companies and 3 DFS Squadrons.

2 of the Light Battalions would be Domestically assigned as Ready Forces.  At least one available for sovereignty taskings, the other available in an emergency for foreign assignments.
Normally they would go from be Domestic Ready status to working up for Foreign deployments and cooperation training.

2 more Battalions would deployed along with a Recce Squadron and a LAV Company and a DFS "Troop" each.

2 more similar teams would be on work up to deploy

2 more similar teams would be on recovery having just returned

That leaves 1 Light Infantry battalion, 3 LAV Companies, 3 Recce Squadrons and a DFS Squadron in reserve conducting Formation Training and ready to be dispatched to a coalition effort in a High Intensity Conflict conducting screening.


But for these wishes to become horses the structure needs 9x2000 bodies or 18,000 deployable effectives plus 3 Brigade HQ and Support elements as well as a Contingency Support Group.  Call it 25,000 for the Field Army alone?

So I doubt if my gypsies will be riding anytime soon.

Unfortunately.

 

[McG]

Those extra 177 bodies are the reason I dont want to Mechanize the Light Battalion in the Task Force.  8 Task Forces would mean an additional 1416 person years, which if you did convert the Mech Forces back to Light Role, would essentially be surplus to requirement.

Those soldiers still have to exist somewhere if they are to be available when it comes time to mechanize a battalion.  How do you see this saving on PYs?

I also figured that regardless of terrain there will be a heavy need for engineering resources so a full  Squadron of engineers, not necessarily with mobility gear but certainly with construction and EOD capabilities.

However, the equipment and skills to support a light force are not the same as the equipment and skills to support a mech force.  There is some overlap, but a dual purpose infantry battalion would require a pool of engrs that sp light ops, a pool of engr that sp mech ops, and a pool of engr that could sp either.  Currently, these manpower adjustments are done in the CER and not seen by the supported unit.

 

[Infanteer]

Well I was kind of predicating this on something like a Kabul or Bosnia situation.  A Force is in place to supply security for a particular region with dispersed locales needing protection and spaces between needing patrolling.

I wouldn't want to predicate Force Capability on Kabul or Bosnia.  These are View II Operations that require boots on the ground, well trained soldiers, rather then "Combat Capability".  Heck, the Company that replaced ours in Bosnia was cobbled together from Reservists from all of the Combat Arms trades - I took out two Armoured Recce guys and a Bird Gunner to oriente them to the AO.   It doesn't take much to watch Bosnians fornicate in their cars on the LZ.  

Kabul, although much more dangerous, still didn't require any specific skill sets, it required skilled soldiers who could get out and make the ISAF a visible symbol to reinforce Karzai authority - in our model, it wouldn't really matter if these were Light Force soldiers patrolling in Jeeps or Cavalry Soldier patrolling in LAV's (or, probably best, a combination); it's about presence.

Better to define your organization by the View I Operations where they will be expected to operate as a cohesive unit/battlegroup rather then a bunch of dispersed "peacekeepers" in which any unit can gear down towards.  For what it's worth, I was basing my organizational thoughts on "Son of Iraq" - inserting a LAR-like unit into a coalition invasion, or a "Step-child of Chechnya", sending 3 VP into Tora Bora (or other disagreeable terrains where 4th Generation Enemies like to hide) to clear mountains and caves out.

The 4 scouts per patrol would, I think, only be scouts although they have an anti-tank capability with the Javelin, possibly another indicator of a dispersed operating mode.  Not a high expectation of encountering armour but an effective capability exists just in case.

Agree here.  As I said above, the dismounts would load up the DSV LAV as the "Patrol Armoury" - there should be a whole variety of iron available to these guys.

As you point out Bolger does make note of the 18 man assault from 4 Bradleys and their success.  But he also is at pains to point out that there are "too few rifles" in the US army at large and the Armoured forces in particular.  In fact, IIRC, that is the entire premise of the book.

Yes, I was using the example to point out that smaller Infantry Platoons can maneuver successfully if given a decent weight of mechanized firepower.  I feel that a "Scout Troop" can provide this to its dismounts.

Also, if the Patrols are going to be operating in a dispersed fashion then how quickly will it be possible to gather a sufficiently large number together to create a useful force?

That's why we have to practice, refine, and master a new doctrine, isn't it?  

Finally, Scouting, Pioneering and Infanteering are three very distinct tasks

Are they?  Seems to me the Infantry Battalions had their guys doing all these jobs in-house.  That being said, I think you're pointing out that a small-unit shouldn't be multi-tasked with these, which I agree with to an extent.

Thus I don't expect the Recce element of the Cav to do much more than Sense.

In View 1 type conflicts, yes - they must perform there Recce tasks.   But in View II (OOTW) where presense is needed, they are more then capable of providing extra "boots on the ground".   I believe that the Strats Recce Squadron had, for a time, an assigned AOR in the 1 VP BG overseas.

Conversely, to paraphrase Infanteer a Mech Soldier and a Bergen Soldier are different.  How quickly can a Mech unit be converted to Bergen duties so that they can be effective in a Light environment? On the other hand a Light Infanteer, given a lift by any means can co-operate with any systems on any battlefield, or so it seems to me.

Try and make a difference between Mechanized Infantry (3rd Inf Division destroying the Republican Guard) and Motarized Infantry (Paras in North Ireland barreling out of Saxons).  I have no complaints against Light Forces being motarized in a pinch if required - heck, I'd even like to see them have thier own integral transportation if possible.  Nothing wrong with keeping a few trucks around and it doesn't take a specialist to drive them.

But for these wishes to become horses the structure needs 9x2000 bodies or 18,000 deployable effectives plus 3 Brigade HQ and Support elements as well as a Contingency Support Group.  Call it 25,000 for the Field Army alone?

So I doubt if my gypsies will be riding anytime soon.

Unfortunately.

Oh-oh.  Back to the drawing board, Kirkhill.  

 

[Kirkhill]

Simpler solution.  6 Taskforces instead of 9.  8 month tours instead of 6.  1 tour every two years. 

Force Requirement drops from 25,000 to 16,000.

Problem solved.

 

[George Wallace]

So simple on Paper....  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

Simpler solution.   6 Taskforces instead of 9.   8 month tours instead of 6.   1 tour every two years.

Less time at home training and more frequent trips to watch Bosnians fornticate.

So simple on Paper.... ;D

Isn't it always that way? 

 

[Kirkhill]

Every plan starts on paper and regardless of "no plan surviving contact with the enemy", "prior planning prevents piss poor performance" and "failing to plan = planning to fail". ;D

Doncha just love military maxims?  People have been doing this for so long they are like Hallmark cards, "one for every occasion".

Cheers ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Just took another look at the back of the envelope.

Another way to get down to the 15 - 16,000 level.  Other than longer tours and less down time.

My Task Force is predicated on one of 2 Bravo's or the Aussie's Recce Squadrons, a LAV Combat team, a Light Battalion, a Battery of guns and a Squadron of Engineers. With a minimum desire for 8 such forces, preferably 9.

An alternate proposal would be to say we can't do that, likely and supply 4 Light TFs, with a Battalion, a Battery and a Squadron of Engineers with C4I and CSS as well as 4 Cavalry TFs with One Recce Squadron, a LAV Combat team, a Battery and a Squadron of Engineers.  Again with C4I and CSS.

So 8 TFs each with arguably less than half the Combat Capability of the 8 Cav/Light TFs.  Unfortunately the Support, C4I and CSS requirements wouldn't mean half the Manpower. 

Instead of 25,000 bodies it would still require 15,000 or so. 60%, maybe 2/3s.

The only other alternative I can see is to say that we can only afford 12,500 bodies and supply 4 Cav/Light TFs and that's your lot World.  Carry on.

1 TF at a time.

 

[NCRCrow]

If u were at the CDS Brief today, the future looks like a Tier 2 Force securing the perimeter and the JTF doing the inside work.

The Army is the place to be in the next 5 years.

 

[Zipper]

Wonder when that brief is going to be posted somewhere?

I need to ask.

Why are you assuming we are going towards a Aussie type structure for the Cav? I wonder why you would want to have only 3 LAV's per trp, when a tank trp has 4 and a recce trp has up to 10? I think we would need much more in the way of vehicles per trp, as well as sqn. Also, why would we need an Assault troop? If we were a recce squadron, yes. But why set yourself up so light?

As far as engineers are concerned, you can have a LAV engineering/dozer/mine clearing vehicle in your SHQ. Then you can have a engineering trp as part of your regimental formation. Same with your MGS/TUA and mortar/arty. Either have them assigned within each of the F ech trps, or have them attached at the RHQ level.

Myself, I would have the mortar/arty attached as a separate trp, and incorporate the MGS/TUA in the F trps. In fact, I would do away with many of the TUA's and have the TOW mounted on the turrets. But thats just me.