Author Topic: The CCV and the Infantry  (Read 52103 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 86,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,768
  • Just plain difficult
The CCV and the Infantry
« on: August 31, 2011, 20:37:04 »
Can I jump in and ask why we couldn't create composite MBT/CCV Squadrons equivalent to the US Cavalry Troops which comprise 9 MBT (1+4+4) and 13 CCV (1+6+6) with 2 Mortar Carriers?

The US Squadron (Regiment) comprises 3 of the previous Troops (Squadrons) with an extra 14 Tank Company (Squadron) in the TOE.

3x9 + 14 + 2 = 43
3x13 = 39

To my understanding those numbers x3 are VERRRY close to the numbers of MBTs and CCVs being purchased.

If there aren't enough vehicles to go round then turn the Regiment into 2 Composite Squadrons and a Small (14) MBT Squadron.

If there are extra Blackhat numbers to fill the slots then they could either go to the Recce Squadron (TAPV/LAV-LRSS) or ride as GIBs/Panzergrenadiers in the CCVs.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 90,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,415
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2011, 22:11:22 »
why we couldn't create composite MBT/CCV Squadrons equivalent to the US Cavalry Troops which comprise 9 MBT (1+4+4) and 13 CCV (1+6+6) with 2 Mortar Carriers?

We could, but we aren't building Cavalry units.

The 3 CCV-equipped companies will have tracked mech in Canada, but it is not necessarily what they will deploy with (I know, sounds crazy).  Those Infantry Companies need to be prepared to go armoured, mech or motorized when they are force employed on operations.

Having hybrid sub-units makes force generating "general" infantry much more difficult - although I can guarantee you that Rotos 1 through 8 of the next mission will need Rifle Companies, I can't tell you they'll need tanks or hybrid armoured combat teams.  Building hybrid sub-units and breaking them up right away doesn't sound useful.  We can build combat teams with exisiting doctrine that is ingrained right from the beginning in Gagetown.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 86,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,768
  • Just plain difficult
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2011, 22:54:03 »
Put the CCVs into the RCAC and you gain more platforms for them to train on, platforms that are related to each other and which will be employed together, and the RCAC types that aren't crewing will be riding.  Thus you gain additional "infanteer" assaulters who also are in a position to learn how to operate and maintain tracked vehicles.

Leave LAVs and TAPVs with the Infantry.

Your infantry are going to have enough on their plates learning how to conduct arctic, mountain, heli and amphibious/riverine ops as well as jungle and desert ops as well as dismounted ops as well as COIN ops as well as mounted (LAV) and mounted (TAPV) ops as well as learning how to fall out of aeroplanes when and if the situation merits.

And you need Cavalry - you are a very, very, very small force.  Cavalry, especially Heavy Cavalry, is a multi-role force capable acting independently in a variety of situations as well as being able to detach a formed Combat Team to heavy up an infantry Battle Group.

Equally, although unlikely, Two MBT/CCV Regiments together with a LAV Battalion, backed by an M777 Regiment and a LRPRS Battery, would make a credible, "short term" addition to any Allied intervention.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 90,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,415
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2011, 23:24:50 »
"A multi-role force capable acting independently in a variety of situations" sounds like Infantry to me.  I don't know why you call it Cavalry.  Nor do I see the sense having the the Armoured Corps crew some of the Infantry's vehicles but not others.  Would we ask the Armoured Corps to have EMEs drive their tanks for them?  As we live and fight from our vehicles when necessary, the guy driving it should be part of the same team, not some stranger from another unit who brings the vehicle once in a while.

You list a group of environments ("desert", "jungle", "mountain" - tanks also do this), some ways to move around ("helo", "airborne", "amphibious", "mounted" and "dismounted"), and a political condition (counter-insurgency; tanks do this too).  These are all circumstantial to the core infantry task - the fact of the matter is a vehicle is a vital tool for an Infantry commander to accomplish that core task due to what it brings in terms of mobility, firepower, protection and sensors.  The fact that we can work with it or without it with little real cost is even better - that's what makes us a "multi-role force capable of acting independently in a variety of situations".
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 86,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,768
  • Just plain difficult
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2011, 08:57:57 »
"A multi-role force capable acting independently in a variety of situations" sounds like Infantry to me. 

I know it does.  It does to me as well.

Quote
I don't know why you call it Cavalry. 

Because the alternative is to call it Mounted Infantry - but I am trying to find a way to better utilize the RCAC than reducing them to drivers of armoured trucks (TAPVs) many of whom will be sans vehicules - at least according to some suggestions that I have seen.

Quote
Nor do I see the sense having the the Armoured Corps crew some of the Infantry's vehicles but not others.

I have suggested this idea in the past.  That is not what I am suggesting this time.  What I am suggesting is that the RCAC be given responsibility for all the tracked vehicles and that it revert back to its role as "The Armoured Fist", that it be formed and maintained as a heavy strike force that is immediately available.

Quote
  Would we ask the Armoured Corps to have EMEs drive their tanks for them? 


No.

Quote
As we live and fight from our vehicles when necessary, the guy driving it should be part of the same team, not some stranger from another unit who brings the vehicle once in a while.
.

Agreed, wholely and unreservedly.

And to which I would add "Why wouldn't you want your Infantry/Armoured team to have the same level of familiarity when their vehicles are mixed up in the same patch of ground?"  Do you expect to maintain some of your 6 infantry battalions at high-readiness Armoured Co-Op battalions?  Why not use the "super-numary" (silly concept in an Army as small as the Canadian Army) RCAC troopers as Assaulters?  They enhance the ability of the RCAC Regiments to conduct some of the tasks that the Infantry undertakes.   They are gainfully employed in the family in which they wish to operate.  They are intimately tied to their vehicles and will be learning how to maintain, operate and fight their vehicles - in a dedicated fashion.

And.... at short notice ..... a complete, formed Cavalry Combat Team can be readily detached to supply support to an Infantry Battle Group as and when necessary.

Quote
You list a group of environments ("desert", "jungle", "mountain" - tanks also do this), some ways to move around ("helo", "airborne", "amphibious", "mounted" and "dismounted"), and a political condition (counter-insurgency; tanks do this too). 

You know that I understand those differences.  But aren't some environments more convivial to some Arms than others? 

The point is that each of those environments, each of those modes, each of those tasks, carries a training bill.  That bill has to be paid somewhere sometime.   With 6 large battalions (as I have seen suggested numerous times on this site - Personally I favour 9 small ones for similar reasons to what I am arguing now) how is the Infantry going to cover all of those bases with competent forces at high readiness?  Isn't there a risk associated with the government deploying a "ready" battalion to some distant locale because half of its number completed riverine and jungle training 4 years ago?

Which risk is greater? Deploying a trained and ready, but small unit?  Or deploying a large, confident unit whose training is not up to date?

Why not take some of the load off the Infantry Corps by allowing the Armoured Corps a wider scope of activities?
Why not increase the number of deployment options available to the government by increasing the number of ready battle groups to 12 from 9 rather than reducing them to 6?

Quote
These are all circumstantial to the core infantry task


Agreed.

Quote
- the fact of the matter is a vehicle is a vital tool for an Infantry commander to accomplish that core task due to what it brings in terms of mobility, firepower, protection and sensors.


Does that include "Shank's Mare"?

Quote
The fact that we can work with it or without it

This would seem to suggest "Yes" to my previous.

"As we live and fight from our vehicles when necessary, the guy driving it should be part of the same team, not some stranger from another unit who brings the
vehicle once in a while."

Doesn't the same thing apply to boat drivers, ship drivers, helicopter drivers, aeroplane drivers......?

You don't expect all of them to become infanteers, I am sure of that.  You do expect to train regularly with all of them, preferably in the full range of environments and across the full range of the conflict spectrum.  That eats into the amount of time available for the infanteer to learn his primary trade - which is conducted on foot in the face of the enemy.   

His support may be only 5 meters away in the back of a 10 tonne truck.  Equally it could be 1200 km away on some airfield or other.  Those realities are going to shape the way he/she engages the enemy - and the shape of that engagement requires planning, training and famiiiarity.

Quote
.....with little real cost is even better .....

If it were with little real cost I could agree with you.  But I can't for the life of me see how you can escape the cost.

Quote
- that's what makes us a "multi-role force capable of acting independently in a variety of situations".

A variety of situations.... yes.  Not every situation.

Take some of the workload off yourselves by passing it on to the RCAC and let them train for a different variety of situations.

As currently configured the Armoured Corps seems to be destined to find your enemy for you then show up with some Direct Fire Support if you need it.

The RCAC is comprised of a Regiment of Dragoons (Mounted Infantry), a Regiment of Cavalry that was raised from Mounted Policemen that served as Mounted Infantry in South Africa and a Tank Regiment formed in WW2 with Militia Cavalry roots.



In the movie "The Light Horse"  there is a scene at Beersheba where a British Cavalry commander is offended that the Charge to take the position is to be lead by the Mounted Infantry of the Light Horse (Lee Enfields and Bayonets - not a sword or lance in sight)  To paraphrase:  if there is any charging to be done the cavalry should do it.

I occasionally get the sense that in the Canadian Army there is a strong sentiment that: if there is any charging to be done the infantry should do it.

I think the mob is too small for that type of attitude and the workload has to be distributed more broadly.

My own prescription:

1 SF Regiment

3 Lt Bns (Helo with Para Capable Elements and TAPV Carriers)

6 LAV Bns with a TAPV Patrol Company

3 MBT/CCV Cavalry Regiments.

There is enough overlap there to permit units to move up and down the scale of training given enough time if the Army is engaged for a protracted period in particular environment.   Equally there is enough variety of capability there to allow the government to react to a variety of situations in and expeditious fashion AND to make interesting careers.

Just sayin'.

And PS,  I still owe you a Guiness or two.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,869
  • What the????
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2011, 09:49:21 »
The plan I saw on the PPT (I think it was from D INF in Gagetown) was for 1 VP to have 2 x Coy CCV, 1 x Coy LAV III and 2 VP to be 2 x Coy LAVIII and 1 x Coy CCV.

I do not agree with the armoured taking on the CCV. How many vehicles should they have as part of their training? This includes Driver, Gunnery, Surv Op and Crew Commander). Do we end making 3 new MOSIDs? CCV Crewman, Tank Crewman and Recce Crewman?

Right now in the armoured, they have
-Leo 1 (Still some kicking around aren't there?)
-Coyote
-G-Wagon (P Res)
-MRAP

25 years ago, it was simply Leo1, Cougar and Lynx.

I think keeping CCV in the infantry units tasked to do them will work. Note in those battalions, pers will have oppurtunity to rotate between CCV and LAVIII. I am guessing by keeping CCV co-located with MBT in 1 CMBG will allow for better Combat team trg oppurtunities.
Please do not bother to comment on my post unless you actually read it and understood what I am getting at. Its kind of like receiving orders and noth bothering to do a mission analysis. Make sure you get the point.

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,869
  • What the????
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2011, 10:26:05 »
Also keep in mind, for employing the CCV will depend on what vehicle we get (It calls for a highly mobile vehicle with a 25mm or 30mm 0r 35mm gun).

Lets say we get the ASCOD with 30mm Marder canon, its employment would ideally be with MBT. Its basically taking the principles of using the LAVIII but now you have a more armoured, bigger gun, slower but can move better in crappier terrain.

The real trg that will get more specific will be in driver, gunnery and crew commander trg.

Comparing Boats, Airplanes and helicopters to CCV and LAVIII (as to means of support from another unit) is VERY different. Boats, planes and helicopters are very limited, have other missions to support and the crew do NOT fight from them or with them.

The LAVIII and eventually the CCV, the crews will be living out of these, they are dedicated to their sect/platoons. They fight with crews on board or alongside when dismounted. Their sighting systems work as STANO when operating out hide/harbour or pulling OP.

Yes, the infantry can dismount and fight away from these vehicles like they do with helos and boats. However thats only when the situation dictates and the mission analysis demands it as the best COA most likely to succeed.

Please, please do not compare Apples and Oranges.
Please do not bother to comment on my post unless you actually read it and understood what I am getting at. Its kind of like receiving orders and noth bothering to do a mission analysis. Make sure you get the point.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 20,258
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,909
  • The usual suspect.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2011, 11:10:59 »
Last time I checked, Armour crewman was that...a crewman. Able to fight the (non-descriptive) armour vehicle under all conditions.

Who cares if the Armour Corps gets the CCV as long as the Infantry and Armour units work together on a regular basis. At one time we did. We knew how to work with each other and how each entity complimented each other.

Now it's like a couple of kids. One getting a new piece of kit to ride around in but wants to shoot the thing too. Anyone remember the M113? It was a means for the infantry to get closer with and destroy the enemy and nothing more. The .50 cal was usable in the intimate support role. Now the LAVIII is doing the same role with a more accurate gun. When it was coming in there were cries of "The Infantry want to crew them with our guys because of....yadda yadda"

Now this CCV. It's a bigger gun and able to take out bigger targets like light tanks and bunkers, reminds me of the firing capabilities of a Cougar. Don't remember too many Infanteers wanting to get in that thing.

Next thing you'll hear is "We want to crew the tanks too because we can put guys on the back deck".

/rant
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 83,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,922
  • It's all good
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2011, 21:44:18 »

The 3 CCV-equipped companies will have tracked mech in Canada, but it is not necessarily what they will deploy with (I know, sounds crazy).  Those Infantry Companies need to be prepared to go armoured, mech or motorized when they are force employed on operations.


The platform has not been chosen yet - it may be wheeled.  As to employment, dollars to donuts we end up with a composite BG with a LAV Coy, TAPV Coy, and CCV Coy...
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 237,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,678
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2011, 22:59:10 »
The platform has not been chosen yet - it may be wheeled.  As to employment, dollars to donuts we end up with a composite BG with a LAV Coy, TAPV Coy, and CCV Coy...

And, due to the need to support so many dissimilar vehicle types, an integral maintenance company and an integral spare parts company.

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 83,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,922
  • It's all good
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2011, 23:43:07 »
And, due to the need to support so many dissimilar vehicle types, an integral maintenance company and an integral spare parts company.

Not for CCV - apparently maint and SPSS will all be delivered by the supplier.  Besides, the mix is not not all that different from LAV, RG / COUGAR and TLAV now.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,447,087
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 872
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2011, 00:18:23 »
Good luck with maint and spares then. The best support is delivered when you need it and where you want it. CCV maint contracts won't come repair a veh out at Post Office. You'll have to get it back into the hardstand in Wainwright.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • "Look, I don't know if shooting penguins will help the environment or not. But I do know that the decision shouldn't be in the hands of people who just wanna kill for fun."
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 156,142
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,275
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2011, 01:55:39 »
Not for CCV - apparently maint and SPSS will all be delivered by the supplier.  Besides, the mix is not not all that different from LAV, RG / COUGAR and TLAV now.

The supplier is going into the field to do first & second line maint? Excuse me if I seem somewhat skeptical of the idea. You used to be in LFCA when we had to leave crews stranded on the Hogs Back because CBO wouldn't bring an APC out til Monday. Even when we could have self recovered (which we did on many occasions anyway). They also locked up the contract so that units that had qualified APC drivers couldn't draw it for the weekend and use it for recovery.

I have no confidence in civvies that are supposed to work on Army time under Army conditions.

Full civvie maintenance contracts for any kind of AFV is like buying a pig in a polk.



edit - spelling
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 12:26:42 by recceguy »
If I were to live every day as though it were my last, the body count would be staggering

DISCLAIMER - my opinion may cause manginal irritation.

Offline MCG

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 112,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,312
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2011, 09:10:39 »
As for CCV, if it does turn out to be something like the CV9030 then it should go to the Armoured Corps if we want it used to its full advantage.
If the platform itself can cause so much confusion between the existing lines, perhaps
As for CCV, if it does turn out to be something like the CV9030 then it should go to the Armoured Corps if we want it used to its full advantage.
If the platform itself can cause so much confusion between the existing lines, perhaps this is indication that we could/should rethink the idea of a homogeneous manoeuvre branch and analogous manoeuvre regiments and force structures.



Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,542
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2011, 09:54:42 »
If the platform itself can cause so much confusion between the existing lines, perhaps If the platform itself can cause so much confusion between the existing lines, perhaps this is indication that we could/should rethink the idea of a homogeneous manoeuvre branch and analogous manoeuvre regiments and force structures.

If by rethink you mean that we should resolve to bury that idea.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 86,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,768
  • Just plain difficult
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2011, 10:49:33 »
I agree Tango2Bravo.

But perhaps not in the way you might think.

I adhere to the notion that the role of the infantry was to occupy and hold ground: an essentially static role.
The role of the cavalry was essentially a manoeuver role.

These days, especially in the Canadian Army, both Infantry and Cavalry (as embodied in the RCAC) are essentially manoeuver forces.  There is a very limited ability to hold ground for an extended period.

The RCIC, equipped with LAVs, has in my view become Rangers/Mounted Infantry/Mounted Rifles/Light Dragoons/Light Cavalry.  The RCAC has had much of its "Cavalry" role usurped by the "Infantry".   The RCAC now seems to me to have been relegated to supplying recce forces and Direct Fire Support to the Infantry.  I believe they could be better utilized as Heavy Dragoons, forming Heavy Combat Teams of Leos and a Puma/CV90 type CCV.

Perhaps, logistically, it would also make sense to split Armoured Engineers from the Field Engineer structure and incorporate them into the "Heavy Dragoons" as as a permanent Attachment? 

Because of the range at which Gunners operate these days I don't think they need the same degree of intimacy with the formations they support.

The Engineers are operating in the face of the enemy in MBTs and TLAVs.

The Gunners, excluding the FOOs and FSCCs, generate much of their protection from the range of their guns and missiles.  The FOO vehicles, could they be supplied by the "client" organization with the FOOs riding in back?
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,542
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2011, 11:29:06 »
Tanks do not just provide "direct fire support." Both infantry and armour are manoeuvre arms. They both have "battle space" where they move about and engage everything within sight/range without having to be told.

I would use the CV9030 as a recce vehicle. The infantry should be fine with a tracked vehicle with a machine gun or AGL in some kind of protected weapon station.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 136,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,826
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2011, 11:40:34 »
Re the armour providing the FOO vehicles, that was tried in the Second World War with indifferent results. The headquarters squadron of an independent armoured brigade held six OP tanks for use by FOOs of supporting field regiments. SP regiments, on the other hand, had their own OP tanks. I don't like the idea of the armour providing the vehicles because in practice all members of a FOO party are supposed to be able to do all the jobs - driving, signalling, shooting the guns and being a FAC. In practice usually only two or three members of a six person FOO party are qualified FACs.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 83,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,922
  • It's all good
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2011, 12:23:17 »


I adhere to the notion that the role of the infantry was to occupy and hold ground: an essentially static role.
The role of the cavalry was essentially a manoeuver role.


The role of the Infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy.  They don't just occupy and hold ground - they take it.

In order to do so, we have to be able to manoeuvre, in concert with all other elements of the combined arms team.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 90,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,415
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2011, 13:02:37 »
Kirkhill, your conception of the role of the Infantry/Armour is, in my opinion, an outdated one that was finished with the Boer War.  The dichotomy of static/maneuver that you propose isn't true and I don't feel it represents anything on the modern battlefield; both the Infantry and the Armoured compose the maneuver arm; both use fire and maneuver to win battles.  They just do it in slightly different ways.  A better philosophical dividing line is probably that the infantry "arm the man" while the armour "man the arms".  For the Infantry, a vehicle is something to arm the man with.

Nobody has seriously advocated taking away Engineer or Artillery vehicles and giving them to the Armoured as well.  This is because vehicles are tools for those that employ them, and the Armoured Corps is not the "Heavy Vehicle Driving Corps".

When it comes to the CCV, a wheeled option would be completely ridiculous as we already have the LAV III.  I'm going to side with Tango2Bravo that something like a CCV would probably be best for Armoured Recce.  The requirements for an Infantry CCV are, in my opinion, an MBT hull with an RWS like this.  It offers the true protection and mobility to accompany the tanks into the teeth of the enemy while not armed with a big turret to avoid the predilection to use the thing as a tank.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

R031button

  • Guest
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2011, 13:25:51 »
Kirkhill seems to be trying to find a way for modern forces to emulate Napoleonic / 19th Century military designations, who really gives a crap if the Infantry current preforms roles once preformed by Cavalry? I would propose instead that it is best for one Arm to maintain one focus. The RCAC focuses on destroying the enemy through maneuver and firepower, then Infantry (to my knowledge there is no such thing as an RCIC i'm a moron) focuses on taking and holding ground / closing with and destroying the enemy. My argument against the idea of RCAC crewing APC / IFVs is simply this, what happens when the driver is killed by a mortar round in a leager or patrol base? Or breaks an ankle taking a dump in the bush? If he's a totally different trade then the rest of the guys, presumably they aren't qualified to crew the vehicle, then how do they move it? In a current mechanized battalion, it's a simple issue of the alt driver taking over, following that argument, why not maintain a spare crew force? Because then we're taking the close with and destroy specialists, that we're not training to the crew the vehicle because we want that specialization, and kicking them out of the back of the vehicle, and limiting the dismounted force of the ground. Or I suppose the CQ could have an HL filled with spare crew, hardly seems ideal though.

Regarding the original point of "training bill," do you really think that retraining Armoured Crewmen to preform what is essentially an Infantryman (the term assaulter was used) has no training bill?

That being said, I don't see an MRAP style vehicle doing well in the Recce role, or actually any "conventional war" setting. They are by nature very tall vehicles, designed to get stand off from the ground, the side effect is that they present very large targets, and are not well equipped to take direct fire. I much prefer the idea of a CV90 in that role.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 13:43:58 by R031button »

Offline Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 86,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,768
  • Just plain difficult
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2011, 13:30:32 »
PPCLI Guy:

I understand that the role of the "Infantry" IS to "close with and destroy the enemy, by day and by night, regardless of season or terrain"  (I believe I remember the phrase correctly).

I also understand that the "Infantry" is an arm of manouevre and needs to manouevre to achieve its assigned objectives. 

I was trying to suggest that Historically "Infantry" was not an arm of manoeuvre, in my opinion, and did not become so, in the modern sense until it became motorized.

The fact that dragoons were raised and cavalry adopted rifles and then incorporated dragoon regiments into the cavalry family, while the infantry learned to ride horses in South Africa and camels in Egypt suggests to me that the discussion over roles, titles and equipment has gone on a very long time.

Equally the fact that the Coldstream Guards have ridden horses, camels and Sherman Tanks suggests that titles win over roles.  The "family ties" are considerably stronger than any tactical consideration when it comes to regiments and roles.

With that in mind, and believing that the Government needs more than 6 large LAV Bns at its finger tips in order to act on the world stage,  I am proposing to enhance the Government's options by taking the RCAC and ensuring that all the RCAC members are gainfully employed riding in fighting vehicles rather than sitting on the sidelines waiting for a chance to drive and shoot armoured trucks - as some proposed force structures I have seen seem to suggest.  Or alternately the number of Squadrons in the RCAC is reduced.

At the same time the RCIC is bemoaning the fact it does not have enough people to do its current jobs and wants to add more..... At the same time they want to tank on the administrative and logistical burden of an addition F-vehicle.

It seems like a no-brainer to me (and there are no doubt those that will say I qualify) that IF a CCV is needed, and IF the Infantry is short of Manpower, and IF the RCAC has more people than vehicles - I stipulate that I don't know any of those assumptions to be true but your planning documents certainly seem to suggest that some some of your friends and associates believe them to be true - IF those statements are true THEN it would seem to me to be logical to assign the new vehicle to the available manpower that has the skills in place to support the new vehicles and incorporate them into deployment ready Units just as the Infantry does.

Tango2Bravo:

Point taken on the tanks.  But isn't it not true that tanks, like all other arms, are most effective when mutually supporting.

Equally isn't it also true that it takes time and training to build an effective, mutually supporting combined arms team?

Therefore, doesn't it follow that integrating arms at the lowest possible level ensures the most effective training and employment?

WRT the CCV as a Recce Force rather than an Assault Force - I see your point. 

Old Sweat:

Stipulated that this may be another one of my strange ones  ;D

Having said that isn't it fair to say that WW2 lasted 11 months for most of the Canadian Army (June 6, 1944 to May 8, 1945); that many vehicles were destroyed either by enemy action or use; that many similar vehicles of differing makes and models from a variety of manufacturers (some enemy) were in use; and above all there were a whole lot more vehicles in service?

This to my mind means that the logistical challenge of maintaining an operational fleet was vastly different in WW2 where a broken down Daimler might be replaced by repaired Chevrolet or a purloined Bren Carrier than the current challenge of maintaining a small number or vehicles in operating condition for a period of decades.

In the current environment might it not be acceptable to achieve an "indifferent" result (neither better nor worse)?


R031button:

You're not totally wrong.  I do enjoy clarity and a particular interest and peeve of mine is the way that vocabulary changes meaning over time thus making it difficult to "learn from history so that we're not all doomed" - to paraphrase.

In point of fact I accept the notion of Light Infantry fighting in Light Tanks or as Royal Marines.  Or as noted above - Guardsmen riding camels and horses. 


For me this is all about generating the largest number of effective intervention options for our Government with the available resources.

I don't believe an all LAV army is the answer.

Cheers.

PS WRT Light/Para/Helo troops

If there is a lack of manpower to effectively man 3 Hvy BGps and 6 Med BGps I would sooner that those ranks were filled first (complete with Mors, Pnr-Sprs, and DFS) then I would sacrifice man the Lt Bns.

Additional, supernumary numbers I would assign to CSOR where they could be formed into non-traditionally sized and formed raiding squadrons in the fashion of the 1st SSF.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 15:58:53 by Kirkhill »
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Offline Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 86,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,768
  • Just plain difficult
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2011, 13:36:45 »
R031button:

http://army.ca/inf/

FYI
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

R031button

  • Guest
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2011, 13:41:11 »
I stand corrected, my bad.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 90,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,415
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The CCV and the Infantry
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2011, 13:46:10 »
R031 Button is correct in the administrative advantages of the infantry's vehicles belonging to them.  As a Platoon Commander, I rotated guys through positions to give them a change.  When we had one driver evac'd, I had a ready pool of spares.  When the vehicles weren't required, those crew easily transitioned into the dismounted role and provided additional bayonets.  Just as I wouldn't want some guy to bring me my C6 when I needed it, I don't need my vehicle to be loaned to me on occasion.

As for the roles of Infantry and Armour, they are both very similar.  Yes, the Infantry "close with and destroy the enemy" while the Armour "destroys the enemy through maneuver and firepower".  But the Infantry also destroys the enemy through maneuver and firepower while armoured forces do indeed close with and destroy the enemy (ever see tanks in intimate support?).  Both are maneuver arms forces and both focus on "find, fix, strike."

What differentiates between the two is, likely, the nature of the objective and the terrain on which the objective lies.  Sometimes, it will suit the Armour and sometimes it will suit the Infantry.  In either case, one supports the other in finding, fixing and striking.  There are some tasks (fighting in mountains, counter-attacks) that create situations where Armoured/Infantry forces will act on their own, but in most situations against a competent enemy, some form of combined arms fighting will be required.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr