• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

3VP to have two Jump coys ???

alexk

alexk

Jr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I was looking at the Unofficial airborne regiment websight, I noticed in a post which said the Op para role is switching from A coy to C coy in 3VP , can any one confirm this? So basicly what its saying is that 2/3 of 3VP is gonna be airborne. Would the 3RCR and 3R22R be switching also? Whould this be a big change for the forces in general?

heres the link

http://www.commando.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=460

Alex
 
3 PPCLI is authorized to have one Para Coy, exactly the same as 3 RCR and 3 R22er.  With the transfer of jump status from A Coy to C Coy, the latter sub-unit's personnel will wear the maroon beret.  A Coy soldiers will revert to the standard green headgear. 

I am told that there were a number of reasons for internal redesignation of the 3 VP Para role, one of which was a desire on the part of the CO to "share the wealth" within the unit by rotating the task amongst the 3 rifle coys on a routine basis.  The fact that this initiative will eventually allow every infantry NCM and officer within the unit to obtain their basic para qualification could be viewed as a "secondary but beneficial" byproduct of the rotating Para task.  It could be argued that this is nothing more than a "back-door" method of using the system against itself to generate a battalion which is largely (if not entirely) para-capable.  This observation is based on the fact that the 3 light battalions have first priority for para course loading to qualify all personnel filling designated para positions.  Rotate the "para" tasking to a non-para coy, and suddenly you have justification for sending a whole bunch more troops on the basic course. 

A cunning plan, no?  I say "go for it" if the unit can make it happen.  One more example of the Patricias as "delinquent geniuses" (a rather apt description which has been applied by others in the past). 

Mark C       
 
Seems like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other - why not just transfer troops between the companies rather than redesignating entire companies as a whole?
 
My guess is you wouldn't want to mess with the level of familiarity and cohesion between soldiers, NCOs and officers within the companies.   The only way you could avoid turbulence and friction within the battalion would be wholesale inter-company transfers; probably easier to redesignate C Coy as para as opposed to all the paperwork associated with these transfers.

I think that's an excellent idea myself.   As Mark C observed, it can allow the light battalions to move to wholesale "unofficial" para qualifications, which I believe should be mandatory of a dedicated light infantry force.   The question remains, will the CPC have the capabilities to handle such a large influx of new members for basic para, especially if the other two Light battalions pick up on this and do the same thing themselves?   My first guess is that, due to the priority the jump companies have with the CPC, you'll see the militia guys losing their spots, which I am not really worried about because there are better things the militia could be putting its resources to instead of giving a few troops the chance to go on what amounts to a "feel good" course (ie: They most likely will never use the skill set again within their militia unit).
 
It's very nice to have more people qualified BPara in the LIBs, but what happens with JMs, PIs, DZ Contrs, Packer-riggers etc ??? I am not sure about the intentions of 3 PPCLI's CO, but does he plan to transfer a number of WOs, Sgts and Mcpls with those qualifications to C Coy ? That would be a blow to unit cohesion...
Maybe he intends on making Para ops a Battalion effort (as far as dispatching and DZ contr), but then the rest of the unit will constantly be short those people who will be tasked to Para ops.
 
I received an entirely coincidental social phone call from the CO of 3 PPCLI this evening.   We are old friends, dating back to phase training and service together in both 2 and 3 PPCLI.   In and amongst the social "chit-chat", I took the time to ask LCol Eyre to confirm the reasons behind the rotation of 3 VP's para tasking.   I figured it was topical, given the interest demonstrated in this thread.

The bottom line is that the reasons for the rotation (to take effect next week, BTW) are exactly as I had heard.   Foremost is a desire to "share the wealth" amongst all 3 rifle coys, and in so doing eliminate some of the counterproductive "elitism" that has cropped up based on long-term sub-unit ownership of the para delivery role.   Secondary to that, is a desire to demonstrate to Army senior leadership that with a minimum of basic individual qualification and collective skills training, ANY light infantry company can be quickly and efficiently re-roled as "para-capable".  

The fact that the rotation will (over time) qualify virtually every infantry NCM and officer within the unit as basic para with some airborne operations experience, is recognized as a beneficial byproduct of the 3 VP initiative.   However, this was the not the primary motive behind the re-roling (see above).

The train-up of non-qualified C Coy personnel will NOT deprive reservists of Basic Para vacancies.   3 PPCLI will receive priority for 1 CMBG course serials until such time as C Coy is fully qualified.   LFWA vacancies that are not allocated to 1 CMBG will not be affected.   Even with 3 PPCLI taking priority for 1 CMBG course vacancies, we're talking minimal impact.   Figure a maximum of 2 full Basic Para serials, given that roughly 1/3 of the coy is already B Para qualified.    Yes, some personnel serving within other 1 CMBG units will have to wait a few extra months to receive their non-operationally mandated "atta-boy" jump course.   Ah well, they can always apply for a posting to 3 VP if they are truly serious about jumping.   Commander 1 CMBG is fully on-board with the 3 VP initiative.

Para-qualified personnel were not cross-posted from A Coy to C Coy for the exact reason assumed by Infanteer.   The CO did not want to adversely impact existing cohesion within either sub-unit.   A "no brainer" perhaps, but one which any soldier can appreciate.   Besides, simply cross-posting qualified personnel would have compromised the fundamental objectives of the re-roling initiative.

As far as sufficient PIs, JMs, DZ Controllers, etc, are concerned, this is pretty much a non-issue.   Every time 3 VP does a jump cycle, it is typically an "all hands man the pumps" effort to get everyone through the refreshers, JM checked, and dispatched.   In my experience roughly 60% of the battalion jumps whenever   there are sufficient chutes and lift for "continuation para", so it takes a concerted unit-wide effort to pool the necessary personnel with appropriate supporting qualifications anyways.   A Coy, the Recce Pl Pathfinder Section, and the jump-tasked elements of DFS and Sigs Platoons hold rougly 2/3 of the JM and PI-qualified personnel within the unit. The remainder come from the other rifle coys and non-jump-tasked elements of Cbt Sp and Admin Coys.   As OC B Coy, I was constantly giving up PIs and JMs from my coy to support continuation para,   but that was OK because unless it was a "Para Coy only" tactical jump, roughly 1/3 of my company would be jumping as well.   The situation is no different when it comes to Mountain Operations Instructors.   B Coy has a minimum of 2 per platoon, plus another 2 qualified MOIs within the Coy HQ.   This is based on B Coy's "Mountain Operations" role within the battalion.   The other coys only have a handful of MOI-qualified personnel within their ORBATs.   So what?   When A or C Coys need extra MOIs for sub-unit training, B Coy obliges.   For Battalion-level operations in mountainous terrain, B Coy is the "facilitator sub-unit" that establishes and runs the various installations required to move the remainder of the unit.   Hence they are manned with the bulk of the unit's MOIs.  

All of that to say, I think that Jungle's concerns about the need to cross-post qualified JMs, PIs and DZ Controllers as part of the para re-role are largely unfounded.   Pathfinder section provides the DZ Controllers, so that qualification is moot in terms of the Para Coy's internal requirements.   Same with the Riggers, who will continue to reside within the unit QM.   There are undoubtedly several qualified PIs and JMs already serving within C Coy, so the sub-unit's minimum "top-up" requirement is pretty minor.   Any PI and JM shortfalls needed for C Coy to be self-sufficient for refreshers and tactical jumps will most likely be  satisifed with a few extra vacancies on the next serials of the JM and PI courses run at CPC.   Until then, A Coy (or B Coy or Cbt Sp Coy) can provide additional JMs and PIs on an "as needed" basis.   A the end of the day, there is no requirement for cohesion-busting cross-postings to provide the specialist para qualifications needed for the para re-role.

Hopefully this first-hand information direct from the source will answer a few more questions and alleviate any significant concerns.

Cheers,

Mark C
 
The down side of all this is that now 3VP having priority in 1 CMBG, no Gunners, Engineers or Armd Recce will get a chance to earn wings.  So much for the "share the wealth" and "stop elitism" idea.  They are also integeral to the Bde and should also have a chance to be jump qual as there is a requirement for them to jump also.  Now one unit is hogging the positions. 

I have heard some rumblings of discontent from VP pers outside the unit.  I am also hearing that Jump Crse positions are drying up due to the new priorities of filling the 'new' jump coys.

OH WELL ::)

GW
 
George,

No offence, but I have 3 words for you - "Train to need"   It is not a new concept.....

As I said above, C Coy's requirements will likely be satisifed with the equivalent of 2 Basic Para course serials.   CPC is currently running at full capacity, and even with 3 VP's para-roling initiative there are far more vacancies to go around these days than there were just a couple of years ago.   In fact, LFCA has managed to get enough Reserve vacancies to form a composite infantry "jump coy" for their summer concentration.   If there are enough B Para vacancies to allow that, then I would suggest that there are enough for deserving 1 CMBG personnel - even with 3 VP taking precedence for a mere couple of serials.

There is zero operational requirement for para-qualified Armoured Recce Crewmen that I am aware of.   On that basis, I would humbly suggest that the LdSH should be the lowest 1 CMBG priority for "spare" vacancies.   1 CER has a justifiable (if unofficial) requirement to man a single para-qualified field-section (plus a few spare personnel), in order to provide engineer support to the 3 PPCLI para coy should a "company group" be formed.   That is 1 CER's ONLY para requirement, and even those few positions are (to my knowledge) not formally jump-tasked.   The same applies to 1 RCHA in the form of a para-qualified 81mm mortar group and FOO Party.   Beyond those few small Engineer and Artillery sub-sub-sub-units, all Basic Para vacancy allocations to 1 CMBG units (other than 3 PPCLI) are used for nothing more than nice-to-have "attaboy" rewards.   Bottom line?   Your argument that other 1 CMBG units have an "operational para requirement" holds no water.   If you can show me designated para positions on ANY current unit REMAR beyond what I have mentioned above, then I will quite happily concede your point.    

I would expect any soldier who is "upset" about 3 VP's priority for para vacancies to look beyond their selfish personal desire to sport a set of wings that they will likely never use after the basic course.   3 VP's sub-unit rotation of the para role makes emminent sense for the OPERATIONAL health of that particular unit.   You won't convince me that the initiative is wrong just because a bunch of people who don't NEED the Basic Para qualification will have to wait a few extra months to obtain it.    :'(

As for any Patricia grumbling outside of 3 VP, they can get in line like everyone else.   Or better yet, they can request a posting to 3 VP and put their money where their mouths are.   Having served 2 tours in a mech battalion and 1 tour in 3 VP, I have no sympathy for anyone in a non-jump position whining about a lack of Basic Para vacancies.  

I personally think that sending deserving people on the Basic Para course is a good thing WHEN THERE ARE SPARE VACANCIES.   If there are no spare vacancies for non-para-tasked 1 CMBG personnel due to an operational requirement (that Comd 1 CMBG has signed-off on, BTW), then too bad.   They can wait their turn, in accordance with their place in the para-qualification pecking order.   It is not about 3 VP "hogging" vacancies.   It is all about operational training priorities and requirements.  

Not to sound harsh, but I can't stand whining.   Like I said before - anyone within 1 CMBG who truly wants to jump and put their qualification to its intended use, should be taking active steps to work their way into 3 VP Para Coy or its jump-tasked attachments.   Everyone else is just looking for a "good go".   Nothing wrong with the latter, but it takes a back-seat to operational requirements.  

To further illustrate my point, I will offer a simple analogy.   If an infantryman wants to become qualified on the 105mm Howitzer just so that he can have the "thrill" of pulling the lanyard 5 times, does that mean he (or she) should be loaded on the course?   Should the infantryman be course-loaded ahead of an unqualified Artillery Gunner because he or she deserves an "attaboy"?  ::)
 
I never saw the purpose of offering para courses to those that really have no use for it. We have sailors here in Halifax that I know have spent no time in the army that have jump wings on their uniforms, it looks so out of place. Kudos to them for passing the course but to me not needed. It would be like  the navy opening up the damage control school to 2 RCR. I believe the RCDs lost their jump troop when the CAR was disbanded well slightly after. Why does Armoured anyone is the Amroured Corps need a jump course?
 
Mark C

I understand fully the reasons you have stated.  Not really bitching, myself, about the priorities for 3 VP.    It is good for 3VP.  Ex-Dragoon has brought up the RCD Jump Troop, which is an often, if not completely forgotten, element of the SSF.  That would fit in with the Jump positions of the Engineer and Gunner requirements.  It is a Cbt Arms 'team' that will have to fight.  When someone brings up the "Train to need" concept, I cringe.  I seriously feel that concept has not held us in good stead, and is only a direct result of budget cuts and lack of imagination....as you have pointed out about training in other posts.  I look at that concept as being a root of many of our current problems.

I accept the fact that 1 CMBG has set this as their priority, but also see it as a small form of elitism, in that one unit wants to eventually have the majority of its members Jump Qual, and too heck with the rest.  So be it.

Gw 

 
I'm a firm believer in having as many para qualified people as possible but I must agree with George on the fact that in reality what they are doing by having an "overage" of jumpers at the expense of others, makes it exactly what has been referred to as an "attaboy" exercise.
Ex-Dragoon, I must also disagree with you on your point, it has been argued in other threads that EVERYONE is Infantryman first and therefore if a position is available why not make a resource that could be used in the future.
I never put up the maroon beret but spent 3 weeks in Fort Bragg with "E" bty as their CP tech because they were short at the time.

edited because I wrongfully put a quote in Ex-Dragoons mouth but I'm sure he will make me pay. >:D Sorry, Bud
 
I personally don't see what is so "elite" about giving someone jump status; sure it requires courage to parachute into combat ops, but it is no different then the courage required to dismount from a landing craft on a hostile beach or pop out of the hatch of a LAV in the middle of a high intensity firefight.  All these are simply methods of getting to the fight, it's what you do once you get there that decides if you are "elite" or not (In this case, I would identify "elite" as "alive and functioning in a cohesive unit as opposed to dead like the enemy").

Heck, I don't even think we should wear "jump wings" on our uniform; if we do, why can't I wear an Iltis badge beside it?
 
My understanding was that the LIBs were the most undermanned inf bns in the Army, each with only two rifle coys and a combat support coy. Just curious if these units are now at "full" strength with three rifle coys plus a combat support coy etc., as it is noted above that 3VP has an A (para, soon to be rifle coy), B (mountain) and C (soon to be para) coy.
 
Well, I've said what I had to say, and won't dispute any further dissenting opinions.  I will simply say that the Basic Para qualification is nothing more than a "nice to have" bauble if you never have a reason to jump after the fact.  Who should take precedence for course vacancies - a light infantry battalion with an established para role, or individuals within units that have zero para requirement?  I will leave that brain-twister to each of you to decide.....

RNW - the LIBs are no longer undermanned.  At least not 3 PPCLI.  They are fully manned in accordance with their peacetime establishment.  Bn HQ, 3 rifle coys, a combat support coy (reduced due to Army-driven elimination of the Mortar, Pioneer and now DFS/Anti-Armour Platoons), and an Administration coy.  According to the CO 3 PPCLI as of a personal phone call last night, the unit is sitting at very close to full authorized peacetime strength.  They received 4 or 5 consecutive platoons of BIQ recruits from Wainwright during the unit reconstitution year following the Afghanistan deployment.
 
Infanteer said:
Heck, I don't even think we should wear "jump wings" on our uniform; if we do, why can't I wear an Iltis badge beside it?
Click to expand...
Because I never heard of an Iltis Brotherhood. I've been around the planet, and seen the strong bonds that unite Paratroopers the world over. It's not a myth... there has to be something about this Airborne thing !!!
BTW, it is legal for you to decide NOT to wear the wings... it's your choice.  8)
 
Yes they are "nice to Have" for some.  But gee Jungle, you've gone and peeve off all the "Truckers". ;D

GW
 
You are so correct, Jungle. I was a leg in Pet. during the Para heydays and its not a myth. The bond that was there was seemed real enough to touch. Infanteer, if you ever load up for a military jump just once, I guarantee you would never ask a question like that again.
 
MARK C
"As for any Patricia grumbling outside of 3 VP, they can get in line like everyone else.  Or better yet, they can request a posting to 3 VP and put their money where their mouths are."

The chances of getting posted is slimmer then getting the actual course.
 
Yowza, looks like I opened a can of worms there; I better retreat before I take a beating!

I do not deny the esprit de corps that highly cohesive jump units have, but deep down I question whether that comes from a three week basic para course or from something else.  These soldiers would most likely excel in any military role; 3VP in Afghanistan, even with its attached "leg" unit from its sister battalion, was highly regarded in less spectacular (then a combat jump) Air Assault Ops.  Or perhaps the Falklands serves as a good example - the Paras and the Marines both provided examples of what a highly skilled light infantry unit can accomplish in the face of adverse terrain and weather with an enemy in dug in positions; both were able to accomplish their difficult missions despite the Marines not possessing membership into the "Airborne Brotherhood".  Obviously, other factors were in play here; this is what I was trying to get at with my original post.

I don't deny the psychological boost soldiers will get from being "jumpers", I just have the suspicion that there are other more prevalent factors in determining an "elite" outlook and performance by a unit of soldiers.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me to shut up and I'll go perform the 5th point of flight procedure.... ;)

Mark C

Agree with your last remark 100%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Infanteer
  • Locked
Personal kit in Afgan...
Replies
5
Views
9K
Spr.Earl
Spr.Earl
Back
Top