- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Any ideas who will make up the 8th car? Should the troop leader and the troop warrant make up a patrol or should each have a junior car? Any thoughts, comments?
8 Car RECCE Troop
- Thread starter John Nayduk
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
After the "A","C", and "E", the Tp Ldr should have the next senior crew. When the Tp Ldr is busy with battle procedure etc, someone will have to move the ptl. Why not the commander of his junior car. Putting the Tp Ldr and Tp WO in the same ptl, may be putting all your entire command "eggs" in one basket. Just a thought.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
We have covered this in a couple of other threads. We have already nixed the Tp Ldr and Tp WO being in the same patrol. As Spanky said: "don't put all your eggs in one basket."
Spanky
I'd put the senior CCs in A, C, E and F before thinking of putting another in the Tp Ldr Ptl. Although, that would be the next in line. A good question would be what that C/S would be? Golf?
Would only one C/S be sufficient to supplement the Tp Ldr Ptl? Do we leave that extra C/S as a "Kit Truck" to carry extra stores for replen, or are we going to add a couple of vehicles to carry UAVs and their control and auxiliary equip?
Will the Tp Ldr, with another C/S, now be tempted to conduct Ptl manoeuvres and tactics on his own, like his Sub-C/Ss or be smart enough to remain in a position to 'control' the Troop?
Just a few quick points to ponder....
Spanky
I'd put the senior CCs in A, C, E and F before thinking of putting another in the Tp Ldr Ptl. Although, that would be the next in line. A good question would be what that C/S would be? Golf?
Would only one C/S be sufficient to supplement the Tp Ldr Ptl? Do we leave that extra C/S as a "Kit Truck" to carry extra stores for replen, or are we going to add a couple of vehicles to carry UAVs and their control and auxiliary equip?
Will the Tp Ldr, with another C/S, now be tempted to conduct Ptl manoeuvres and tactics on his own, like his Sub-C/Ss or be smart enough to remain in a position to 'control' the Troop?
Just a few quick points to ponder....
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,767
- Points
- 1,110
I wouldn't say that we nixed having a Command Ptl, only that I was the only proponent!>
Not to rehash, but I think that we should try out a few variations at CMTC before we put this thing in concrete. If the only aim of the 8th car is to have a bodyguard for the Tp Ldr and we also want the Tp Ldr and Tp WO in different patrols then perhaps we simply make the Tp Ldr the Ptl Comd of the 3rd Ptl. Its more efficient and achieves the same aim. The eight car model with the Tp Ldr and bodyguard may well turn out to be the optimum, but I'd like to see a few experiments first.
Cheers,
2B
Not to rehash, but I think that we should try out a few variations at CMTC before we put this thing in concrete. If the only aim of the 8th car is to have a bodyguard for the Tp Ldr and we also want the Tp Ldr and Tp WO in different patrols then perhaps we simply make the Tp Ldr the Ptl Comd of the 3rd Ptl. Its more efficient and achieves the same aim. The eight car model with the Tp Ldr and bodyguard may well turn out to be the optimum, but I'd like to see a few experiments first.
Cheers,
2B
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Shall we carry on?
I think that the Troop's size may become too large if we are not carefull.
I have always found the Seven Car Troop to be very flexible. An extra C/S to accompany the Tp Ldr in Coyote Troops would be an asset in the replen role and security role in the OP Screen. The Tp Ldr can not carry enough fuel, rats, ammo, and Adrep for his troop in one C/S, even without a GIB, when he goes to his Ptl Bases to replen them or pick up tapes. Does this veh have to be a Coyote or not, a good question too? Perhaps the Tp Ldr should be put in a Bison "C&R variant" for these reasons, or have a Bison as a second veh in his "Ptl".
How many Patrols should a Troop have? Most of us would agree on three, especially when we take into consideration the wide frontages they would have to cover in the Screen and requirement to have interlocking arcs, as much as possible.
Should the Recce Troop have UAVs incorporated into it, or should a separate UAV Troop be formed of UAV Operators and Int Ops to operate out of SHQ locations and contribute to SHQ close defence plan? Should they be with A or B locations? Would that mean that Arty Members man that Troop and also act as FOO and FAC? How large would this make SHQ complex?
What kind of Troops will now make up a Recce Sqn? Will there be three Recce Troops? Will there be an Assault/D&S Troop? Will there be an UAV and EW Troops? Would a 120 mm Mortar Support Troop be an asset? How about the DFS Troop? Would MGS be brought into a Recce Sqn/Recce Regt org?
Will a Recce Sqn CP complex more closely resemble a Regt/Bde/Div CP complex with all the addons we are proposing?
What kind of veh allotment are we looking at? All Coyotes? Mixed Coyote/LUVW? Are we going to look for a more suitable "Mud Recce" veh?
John, you have opened up a lot of questions that have many possibilities, especially with a new Defence review possible on the horizon.
I think that the Troop's size may become too large if we are not carefull.
I have always found the Seven Car Troop to be very flexible. An extra C/S to accompany the Tp Ldr in Coyote Troops would be an asset in the replen role and security role in the OP Screen. The Tp Ldr can not carry enough fuel, rats, ammo, and Adrep for his troop in one C/S, even without a GIB, when he goes to his Ptl Bases to replen them or pick up tapes. Does this veh have to be a Coyote or not, a good question too? Perhaps the Tp Ldr should be put in a Bison "C&R variant" for these reasons, or have a Bison as a second veh in his "Ptl".
How many Patrols should a Troop have? Most of us would agree on three, especially when we take into consideration the wide frontages they would have to cover in the Screen and requirement to have interlocking arcs, as much as possible.
Should the Recce Troop have UAVs incorporated into it, or should a separate UAV Troop be formed of UAV Operators and Int Ops to operate out of SHQ locations and contribute to SHQ close defence plan? Should they be with A or B locations? Would that mean that Arty Members man that Troop and also act as FOO and FAC? How large would this make SHQ complex?
What kind of Troops will now make up a Recce Sqn? Will there be three Recce Troops? Will there be an Assault/D&S Troop? Will there be an UAV and EW Troops? Would a 120 mm Mortar Support Troop be an asset? How about the DFS Troop? Would MGS be brought into a Recce Sqn/Recce Regt org?
Will a Recce Sqn CP complex more closely resemble a Regt/Bde/Div CP complex with all the addons we are proposing?
What kind of veh allotment are we looking at? All Coyotes? Mixed Coyote/LUVW? Are we going to look for a more suitable "Mud Recce" veh?
John, you have opened up a lot of questions that have many possibilities, especially with a new Defence review possible on the horizon.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well, George, I guess I did. I like 2B's approach, let's experiment a little and see what develops.
I'm also wondering if the three block war doctrine will change the way we do things. Can anyone even agree where the crew commander will sit in the G-Wagon?
:
I'm also wondering if the three block war doctrine will change the way we do things. Can anyone even agree where the crew commander will sit in the G-Wagon?
:
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
At this moment, I have no real idea of how to form a new Recce troop, or even a recce squadron. I find it slightly disconcerting that some seem to place the troop leaders primary task as replen. This can actually be conducted by any joe blow in a suitable vehicle. Dispatch riders on motorcycles can pick up reports and tapes, but in theory, in our digitalised world, all of the pertinent information will be transmitted through that wondrous piece of equipment, the TCCCS family of radios.
However, here are some random thoughts.
It appears to me that we will no longer be conducting traditional recce in the advance. Instead, I think we will be conducting one of several tasks:
patrolling: Patrolling, which seems to be a task that we will continue in most of our present and future ops. No need for the troop leader to conduct replen, the patrols would be returning to a base location upon completion of their patrol. In actual fact, there is no real need for a troop officer in such a case. The prime emphasis would be on patrol commanders. Are two Coyotes required? Why waste expensive Coyotes jammed with surveillance gear for such a task? Patrolling could most likely be done better by other vehicles, LAV III in a higher threat area, Gelandewagons for lower threat.
Security: This, of course, is one of recce's traditional tasks, providing a screen to friendly forces. In this case, a Coyote is required with all of its surveillance gear to provide the early warning. Are two coyotes required? In almost all cases, the answer is no. One coyote is required, with sufficient manpower to operate the equipment and provide security for a longer term deployment. A Coyote and a LAV III? A Coyote and a Gelandewagon? A Coyote and a Bison? Almost any configuration of two vehicles would work. If a LAV III or a Bison were to be used as the second vehicle, enough supplies could be carried to keep the OP operational for a minimum of a week, don't you think?
Convoy escort: Again, a waste of a surveillance vehicle. This task could be done arguably better by LAV III, or even MBT's.
Rear are security: OK, far too many variables here, I admit. Any combination of OP's, patrolling and escorts could be utilized.
Any of the above tasks could be completed to a much higher standard if UAV's were to be employed, especially if there was a sufficient quantity of them to provide 24 hour coverage of the area of concern. Of course, this will never happen. We will never have sufficient numbers, and even if we did, the weather would never cooperate.
I suppose that my basic argument is not that we don't need an 8 car troop. What I am arguing is that we do not need an 8 car Coyote troop. What we need is an 4 car Coyote troop, and four additional vehicles of some sort. Looking through the above, it would seem to me that an 8 car troop made of a mix of Coyote and LAV III would provide the best mix. In cases where it would be deemed best to have a Coyote/Gelandewagon patrol, then we should utilize the Reserves. I am also against the argument of using the troop officer as a resupply resource while in the screen. Use the troop officer as part of the screen, by all means. But don't have him cruising around in a surveillance vehicle dropping off beans and toilet paper, please!
However, here are some random thoughts.
It appears to me that we will no longer be conducting traditional recce in the advance. Instead, I think we will be conducting one of several tasks:
patrolling: Patrolling, which seems to be a task that we will continue in most of our present and future ops. No need for the troop leader to conduct replen, the patrols would be returning to a base location upon completion of their patrol. In actual fact, there is no real need for a troop officer in such a case. The prime emphasis would be on patrol commanders. Are two Coyotes required? Why waste expensive Coyotes jammed with surveillance gear for such a task? Patrolling could most likely be done better by other vehicles, LAV III in a higher threat area, Gelandewagons for lower threat.
Security: This, of course, is one of recce's traditional tasks, providing a screen to friendly forces. In this case, a Coyote is required with all of its surveillance gear to provide the early warning. Are two coyotes required? In almost all cases, the answer is no. One coyote is required, with sufficient manpower to operate the equipment and provide security for a longer term deployment. A Coyote and a LAV III? A Coyote and a Gelandewagon? A Coyote and a Bison? Almost any configuration of two vehicles would work. If a LAV III or a Bison were to be used as the second vehicle, enough supplies could be carried to keep the OP operational for a minimum of a week, don't you think?
Convoy escort: Again, a waste of a surveillance vehicle. This task could be done arguably better by LAV III, or even MBT's.
Rear are security: OK, far too many variables here, I admit. Any combination of OP's, patrolling and escorts could be utilized.
Any of the above tasks could be completed to a much higher standard if UAV's were to be employed, especially if there was a sufficient quantity of them to provide 24 hour coverage of the area of concern. Of course, this will never happen. We will never have sufficient numbers, and even if we did, the weather would never cooperate.
I suppose that my basic argument is not that we don't need an 8 car troop. What I am arguing is that we do not need an 8 car Coyote troop. What we need is an 4 car Coyote troop, and four additional vehicles of some sort. Looking through the above, it would seem to me that an 8 car troop made of a mix of Coyote and LAV III would provide the best mix. In cases where it would be deemed best to have a Coyote/Gelandewagon patrol, then we should utilize the Reserves. I am also against the argument of using the troop officer as a resupply resource while in the screen. Use the troop officer as part of the screen, by all means. But don't have him cruising around in a surveillance vehicle dropping off beans and toilet paper, please!
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,767
- Points
- 1,110
Lance,
Excellent point on the Tp Ldr's role. I think that we can employ the Tp Ldr as more than an echelon and RRB. Personally I'd like to see the Tp Ldr as a Ptl Comd in a six-car Tp. The six car Tp with the Tp Ldr as a Ptl Comd gives you same number of Ptls as the eight car variant with the Tp Ldr in his traditional role.
Looking at the Coyote, I do not see a problem using one for Convoy Escorts or patrols. The surv gear just gives the Sqn flexibility. Depending on the task the whole Sqn could have to be employed for either big convoy escort or it could need to have everybody in OPs. Right now we have the flex.
That being said, having command variants with two dismounted scouts could also be useful for these missions. I'd hate to give up the mast/remote flexibility but perhaps a mix of surv and command (with scouts) in each Ptl?
Cheers,
Iain
Excellent point on the Tp Ldr's role. I think that we can employ the Tp Ldr as more than an echelon and RRB. Personally I'd like to see the Tp Ldr as a Ptl Comd in a six-car Tp. The six car Tp with the Tp Ldr as a Ptl Comd gives you same number of Ptls as the eight car variant with the Tp Ldr in his traditional role.
Looking at the Coyote, I do not see a problem using one for Convoy Escorts or patrols. The surv gear just gives the Sqn flexibility. Depending on the task the whole Sqn could have to be employed for either big convoy escort or it could need to have everybody in OPs. Right now we have the flex.
That being said, having command variants with two dismounted scouts could also be useful for these missions. I'd hate to give up the mast/remote flexibility but perhaps a mix of surv and command (with scouts) in each Ptl?
Cheers,
Iain
Some thoughts:
In Spring of 93 (94?), the talk at the Armour School (as Lance can verify) was how we will adopt the four man Coyote without an increase in personnel. The Coyote was bought on "The Lynx Replacement Project", no more, no less, so a 21 man Tp would remain 21 men. I recommended an eight car troop in a paper I wrote ( which was handed back to me - unminuted - three days later), but admitted that with no extra soldiers, a six car troop would have to suffice, with each patrol short a surv opr. I suggested not crewing the Echo c/s, and having Foxtrot patrol with the troop leader for security and signature. I also liked the idea of a large enough Tp HQ, so that the Tp Ldr does not go comatose due to sleep deprivation. I once pulled a Tp Ldr's ruck out of his Lynx, and replaced it with my Observer on week two of a Fallex. I did this to give them a four man crew - briefly - so at least one of them could stay awake and answer 49er on the net. 49ers can be funny that way. (Tp Ldr survived Fallex and led a Coyote Sqn in Petawawa and Kabul few years back).
Obviosley, the need to drive around and through the enemy screen at night to deliver crew cook bacon and eggs is/was a freak peacetime occurance ( ;D), but strange things do happen. Still, if one can't pack a Coyote for a five day OP without resupply....
But back to the 8 Car Troop: I say, give the Troop Leader a patrol partner best suited to the sit. You can pair a very experienced CC or Ptl Comd ( or even, briefly,in trg, a Tp WO) with a new Tp Ldr, or an experienced Tp Ldr with a new CC. Whatever works.
In Spring of 93 (94?), the talk at the Armour School (as Lance can verify) was how we will adopt the four man Coyote without an increase in personnel. The Coyote was bought on "The Lynx Replacement Project", no more, no less, so a 21 man Tp would remain 21 men. I recommended an eight car troop in a paper I wrote ( which was handed back to me - unminuted - three days later), but admitted that with no extra soldiers, a six car troop would have to suffice, with each patrol short a surv opr. I suggested not crewing the Echo c/s, and having Foxtrot patrol with the troop leader for security and signature. I also liked the idea of a large enough Tp HQ, so that the Tp Ldr does not go comatose due to sleep deprivation. I once pulled a Tp Ldr's ruck out of his Lynx, and replaced it with my Observer on week two of a Fallex. I did this to give them a four man crew - briefly - so at least one of them could stay awake and answer 49er on the net. 49ers can be funny that way. (Tp Ldr survived Fallex and led a Coyote Sqn in Petawawa and Kabul few years back).
Obviosley, the need to drive around and through the enemy screen at night to deliver crew cook bacon and eggs is/was a freak peacetime occurance ( ;D), but strange things do happen. Still, if one can't pack a Coyote for a five day OP without resupply....
But back to the 8 Car Troop: I say, give the Troop Leader a patrol partner best suited to the sit. You can pair a very experienced CC or Ptl Comd ( or even, briefly,in trg, a Tp WO) with a new Tp Ldr, or an experienced Tp Ldr with a new CC. Whatever works.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Although, when in the Screen you don't like "Visitors" in you OP, if you don't have the supplies for an extended period, you will need Replen. Who do you want to do this? The SSM and SQ should not be that far forward. Some visiting "Dignitary"? I don't think so. It boils down to the Tp Ldr being the "lesser of all the evils". I don't know how much fuel you would need to carry for several days (or more), but I am sure that the operational requirements will call for a lot more than you have the luxury of carrying. The Surv Suite eats up a lot of power, and you have to run up the engines to recharge. Two cans of diesel will get you back to replen in an emergency, but that would mean leaving the Ptl Base. Not an option I would think conducent to you OP's well being. Replen and passage of info by non-electronic means will be required at some point, so who should bring it to you?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
TCBF said:
Not to be anal Tom, but I really don't like the idea of moving a C/S out of the OP/Ptl Base once Set. Move in and stay. Don't be moving any of those vehs until it is time to depart for good. Replen from an RV outside the OP Base and hump all the shyte up to the OP Base. The use of the "Visitor Park", well removed from the OP and Base, would provide more security than moving vehicles in and out of the OP Base. Visitors,even those bearing gifts are such a pain. :
I agree, but If the Tp Ldr is also acting as an RRB to his OPs in a steep river valley, he ain't about to move, either. I just hate visitors.
Fact is, there is no way you should NOT pack a Coyote as best as possible for an extended OP. Visitors should be discouraged. Also, I dislike the anality of the OP RV being a good hump away. If I have to man the RV, I then lose a lot of people from the OP routine, PLUS have their butts hanging out too far away. If the OP is that exposed, don't visit it. If you have to restock it, then use deception. Too many procedures appear to have been developed for administrative convenience rather than tactical survival.
Fact is, there is no way you should NOT pack a Coyote as best as possible for an extended OP. Visitors should be discouraged. Also, I dislike the anality of the OP RV being a good hump away. If I have to man the RV, I then lose a lot of people from the OP routine, PLUS have their butts hanging out too far away. If the OP is that exposed, don't visit it. If you have to restock it, then use deception. Too many procedures appear to have been developed for administrative convenience rather than tactical survival.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I seem to remember the troop WO that went to NTC with the first Dragoon roto there said "every time the troopie moved to replen the OP's he was killed". Not a really an effective method of resuply.
We'd be better off to take more beans, bullets and bangers and start leaving some of our creature comforts behind. Stick it out in the OP without any movement (couldn't agree with you more on that George).
If our Int is so far out of whack that we actualy have to mauintain an OP for more than 96 hours then chances are as a force we're fubar'd anyway
We'd be better off to take more beans, bullets and bangers and start leaving some of our creature comforts behind. Stick it out in the OP without any movement (couldn't agree with you more on that George).
If our Int is so far out of whack that we actualy have to mauintain an OP for more than 96 hours then chances are as a force we're fubar'd anyway
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
TCBF said:
Same problem if you send a C/S off on a mission of replen. You are correct in the thoughts of stocking it up to the teats and hoping it lasts, or you pull out before you run out.
Now, does the Tp O have to man a RRB or is that a job for a C/S from SHQ or RQ? The Tp O is to control his OP Line, and as such it may be in his best interest to have "eyes on" in some cases. There is the oportunity for some minor replen and Crew Shifts.
I am sure that we will all agree, in the case of "Close or Active Contacts" no one is moving in or out of the OP.
Next Question: What are we going to do in "Electronic Silence" if it extends over a long period?
"Next Question: What are we going to do in "Electronic Silence" if it extends over a long period?"
Depends. If it is on all forms of emmisions, a 'Mud" OP may have to be deployed. Orders should dictate at what level of contact silence is broken for. Sure hope someone at Brigade remembers what a classic Mark I eyeball screen is.
Depends. If it is on all forms of emmisions, a 'Mud" OP may have to be deployed. Orders should dictate at what level of contact silence is broken for. Sure hope someone at Brigade remembers what a classic Mark I eyeball screen is.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,767
- Points
- 1,110
Not to tell warstories, but on ATHENA Roto 0 the Patrols left camp with sufficent supplies to operate for at least 72 hrs without resupply. We basically stuffed the vehicles full of rations and water and strapped jerry cans on a rack on the side.
There was still the requirement to have visits by SHQ (we didn't have an echelon) to pick up tapes if required and drop off water and diesel for prolonged OPs. We did this with Iltis, SUVs, the Bison RRB and an LSVW if required manned by SHQ and SQMS personnel. Some OPs were a week long and covert and they basically crammed their vehicles and paired down on creature comforts. Other OPs were located in areas that required engineer clearance both in and out so resupply was not an option. The bottom line was that the Tp Ldr was not the echelon for the OPs, and if the OP was less than three days this was not an issue. If an OP is critical and needs to be long standing and resupply is not possible then the option exists to send a third vehicle (like a Bison) to bring extra food, fuel and water.
As for tapes, sometimes we need to trust the ability of the Ptl Comd and Surv Ops to describe what they are seeing and tell us about it on the CNR.
Regarding electronic silence I figure that we would only experience this if facing a peer or superior enemy (WW V?) In this situation we will face greater problems than the collection of the information (ie using binos vs the surv suite). The big problem will be passing the information.
The Tps must maintain "mud OP" skills for more reasons that this. In some circumstances the mud OP will be the best choice for the Ptl Comd regardless of the EMCON state. On our CAV CUP competition here at the Regt last Jun I visited several outstanding mud OPs established by junior Ptl Comds (MCpls). (Before eveyone jumps on my for visiting the OPs we brought the Ptl Comds around to each other's OPs during our workup FTX to see different solutions to common problems and have a chance to share thoughts and experiences.) The skill is still resident and being taught to the new soldiers, despite the other options available.
Cheers,
Iain
There was still the requirement to have visits by SHQ (we didn't have an echelon) to pick up tapes if required and drop off water and diesel for prolonged OPs. We did this with Iltis, SUVs, the Bison RRB and an LSVW if required manned by SHQ and SQMS personnel. Some OPs were a week long and covert and they basically crammed their vehicles and paired down on creature comforts. Other OPs were located in areas that required engineer clearance both in and out so resupply was not an option. The bottom line was that the Tp Ldr was not the echelon for the OPs, and if the OP was less than three days this was not an issue. If an OP is critical and needs to be long standing and resupply is not possible then the option exists to send a third vehicle (like a Bison) to bring extra food, fuel and water.
As for tapes, sometimes we need to trust the ability of the Ptl Comd and Surv Ops to describe what they are seeing and tell us about it on the CNR.
Regarding electronic silence I figure that we would only experience this if facing a peer or superior enemy (WW V?) In this situation we will face greater problems than the collection of the information (ie using binos vs the surv suite). The big problem will be passing the information.
The Tps must maintain "mud OP" skills for more reasons that this. In some circumstances the mud OP will be the best choice for the Ptl Comd regardless of the EMCON state. On our CAV CUP competition here at the Regt last Jun I visited several outstanding mud OPs established by junior Ptl Comds (MCpls). (Before eveyone jumps on my for visiting the OPs we brought the Ptl Comds around to each other's OPs during our workup FTX to see different solutions to common problems and have a chance to share thoughts and experiences.) The skill is still resident and being taught to the new soldiers, despite the other options available.
Cheers,
Iain
"As for tapes, sometimes we need to trust the ability of the Ptl Comd and Surv Ops to describe what they are seeing and tell us about it on the CNR."
- Good to see someone pointing out that 'trust in one's subordinates' is not a sign of weakness.
"The Tps must maintain "mud OP" skills for more reasons that this. In some circumstances the mud OP will be the best choice for the Ptl Comd regardless of the EMCON state. On our CAV CUP competition here at the Regt last Jun I visited several outstanding mud OPs established by junior Ptl Comds (MCpls). (Before eveyone jumps on my for visiting the OPs we brought the Ptl Comds around to each other's OPs during our workup FTX to see different solutions to common problems and have a chance to share thoughts and experiences.) The skill is still resident and being taught to the new soldiers, despite the other options available. "
- You are most correct. The Coyote uses the 'toolbox' approach, you use ONLY what you need to accomplish the mission - the rest stays in the box. Too often, higher treats a Coyote Sqn as a 'Mobile DEW Line' and sees them as land-locked radar picket ships. Good use of the proven concept on touring the OPs for 'Lessons Learned'. Kudos to the RCD for keeping up the basic skills.
- Good to see someone pointing out that 'trust in one's subordinates' is not a sign of weakness.
"The Tps must maintain "mud OP" skills for more reasons that this. In some circumstances the mud OP will be the best choice for the Ptl Comd regardless of the EMCON state. On our CAV CUP competition here at the Regt last Jun I visited several outstanding mud OPs established by junior Ptl Comds (MCpls). (Before eveyone jumps on my for visiting the OPs we brought the Ptl Comds around to each other's OPs during our workup FTX to see different solutions to common problems and have a chance to share thoughts and experiences.) The skill is still resident and being taught to the new soldiers, despite the other options available. "
- You are most correct. The Coyote uses the 'toolbox' approach, you use ONLY what you need to accomplish the mission - the rest stays in the box. Too often, higher treats a Coyote Sqn as a 'Mobile DEW Line' and sees them as land-locked radar picket ships. Good use of the proven concept on touring the OPs for 'Lessons Learned'. Kudos to the RCD for keeping up the basic skills.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,767
- Points
- 1,110
I learned a ton about OP operations on this three day exercise that cost a grand total of $ 1800 bucks and a few IMPs. Our OC put in the OP tour and it was an excellent part of the exercise. Each Ptl Comd usually has a little trick that can benefit the others. It was a good "back to basics" FTX to shake off some Kabul dust and put some cam paint back on.
Cheers,
Iain
Cheers,
Iain
Similar threads
