Combat Support Company?

[vonGarvin]

While rolling over one of the Pls may be easy (how do numbers in AAPl compare to a Rifle Pl), it may not be as easy to re-task the Coy HQ, but . . .Given current ops, would your Cbt Sp Coy spend more time acting as a Rifle Coy or doing the Cbt Sp "thing"?

An anti armour platoon of four sections(ergo 32 troops, I believe), would also have some HQ fellas.  40 or so? 
Mortar platoon: 54 all ranks (two officers, an MWO, two WOs and a whack of Sr and Jr NCOs).  Not to mention all the GPMGs, 84s, LMGs etc.  And five LAV APC (CP variants)
Pioneer platoon: organised EXACTLY as a rifle platoon
Cbt Spt HQ: only thing missing is a LAV Captain, (see: "mortar platoon second officer")

Current ops?  Depends.  During MEDUSA, they would probably have been employed in their specialist function.  Mortar Pl HQ is part of BHQ (see: "FSCC"),  as is AA Pl HQ (I think....)

 

[McG]

The FSCC is provided by the guns.

 

[vonGarvin]

The FSCC is provided by the guns.

Current model, yes; however, the guns also have their own FSCC to worry about (traditionally at Bde HQ and up).  Mor Pl used to do it at BG level (although it was set up for use by the arty BC).  That's part of my argument: arty have bigger and better things to do.

 

[McG]

You will find the Bty to be organized to provide an FSCC to the BG it supports.  Same with the Engr Sqn and an ability to provide an ESCC to the BG.

 

[vonGarvin]

You will find the Bty to be organized to provide an FSCC to the BG it supports.  Same with the Engr Sqn and an ability to provide an ESCC to the BG.

That is new since the re-rolling of the mortars a few years back.  Given that the arty now have to man 9 TF FSCCs (45 pers) doesn't sound like much, but it is, and they are having difficulty doing it.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Just be careful what you ask for.  If you get 81mm at the expense of 155mm you won't be very happy.

To me, the purpoes of the 81mms would be to give the companies a readily available means of providing suppressive fire (even "directly.")  They wouldn't usually be operating as a platoon.

 

[paracowboy]

Just be careful what you ask for.  If you get 81mm at the expense of 155mm you won't be very happy.

he wants the mortars AND the guns. Not one or the other. And if the mortars came back to the Infantry, we'd have both again.

To me, the purpoes of the 81mms would be to give the companies a readily available means of providing suppressive fire (even "directly.")  They wouldn't usually be operating as a platoon.

Mortar Platoon is a BN asset, under the CO, to support wherever he needs them. The companies would have their 60s.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Again, the mortars did not just go to the guns to keep them employed, they went there to keep the infantry companies up to strength.  I am for having both, but I am just putting that caution out there.

The company level dispersement I am suggeting is for the widely dispersed battalion battlespace faced today.  We had a US company attached to us for a while, and they had a pair of 81 mm that came from their battalion.  US Cavalry works the same way, due to their usual dispersed deployment.

The Canadian battle group has a battery of guns for the CO.  I would see the 81s for the OCs and 60mm for the Pl Comds.

 

[a_majoor]

Just a point about "re rolling" the Combat Support Coy in LIC operations; Matt Fisher told me once that the TOW pl in his Marine LAV COY (an all arms formation closer in concept to a SBCT, but I digress) was considered useful during the advance, but once OIF settled down they were more useful in overwatch positions due to the excellent optics, as opposed to the amount of firepower they could bring to the table.

Combat Support Coy can still bring lots of useful assets and skills to the table even when not employed in the primary roles, turning them into a scratch fourth rifle company is the least of their abilities, and should only be considered the last resort. I can't remember if it was Byng or Currie, but in the First World War, one of these Generals fought against the idea of breaking up Machine gun battalions to release manpower to the Infantry, and for many of the same reasons. This is an old argument, and really a scaled up version of "Do riflemen support machine-guns or machine-guns support riflemen?"

 

[vonGarvin]

Just to weigh in on some misconceptions (and to augment what para cowboy said), I want both: mortars AND guns.
Ideally, the battery in support of the BG is ready to support whomever the CO wishes.  No change from today.

To jump down a few calibres, there is absolutely no reason why the 60s aren't grouped at company level and employed as a group (or troop, to put it in "arty-ese").  With their range (farther than the 25mm) and their ability to hit stuff behind cover, they are an excellent tool for the company commander to use as he sees fit.

To go middle ground, the 81mm mortar platoon rarely shoots as a platoon.  The norm is the group (2 groups in a platoon, each of four mortars).  Having said that, the smallest fire unit is a section of two.  If you imagine a four company battle group, there is enough of them to go to a section per company, if that's required.  Keeping them at Unit level allows the CO to use them as he sees fit.  The only restriction at the section level is the plotting and coordination of their fires.  Remember, there is a lot of stuff up in the sky, and it's all friendly, so we don't want to be lobbing stuff up there "willy nilly".  Also, at unit level, the platoon can indeed fire as such (superimposing onto the 155's beaten zones), if need be (read: Panjwai)

As A_Majoor pointed out, in WWI, they wanted to reduce the MGs in order to have more bayonets.  Now, it's a different time and different situation, but one can easily see that a platoon of TUA can influence the battle space a lot more than a platoon of bayonets.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Perhaps we are in some degree of violent agreement on the mortars.  I am a fan of mortars (friendly ones).  I do want crewed 81mm mortars in support of Canadian deployed battlegroups.  While it would make sense to group them under one platoon, I will still venture that they would be best served chopped out to the companies.  Perhaps habitual affiliation.  The companies have FOOs and they are responsible for coordination.  Having MFCs back would certainly help things out.  I would still keep the 60mms at the platoon.  They were used as such and were successful.  I'm not saying that you can't group them, but they saw some excellent employment at very low levels.

Again, I go back to my Cav training down south with regards to fire support for dispersed forces.  A Canadian battlegroup could be spread over an area the size of Nova Scotia and conducting combat operations.  The CO will rarely if ever be able to support everyone with a single fire support group.  Some operations may see greater density (and we have seen those), but you will still have elements out at isolated FOBs far from the action who should have some fire support as well.  The US Cav I trained under had a pair of mortars at the company and a battery of guns at the battalion (Troop and Squadron for the pedantically inclined). 

I have recommended in my reports that mortars come with crews (we had the mortars overseas, but the crews could either man the guns or the mortars).  I also added the caveat that they shouldn't be at the expense of the M77s (call me paranoid, but I wanted to put that in).  TOW and pioneers would certainly be useful, but I put the mortars first.

Going back to practicalities, what nine or ten rifle companies will we shut down to create the combat support companies?  Volunteers anyone?  Maybe we shut down a couple of battalions?  Would a BG consist of two rifle companies and a combat support company?

A final thought on mortars.  What about having them as a specialized MOC?  You would be a mortarman (either a subset of artillery or infantry).  Officers could come from infantry or artillery.

 

[vonGarvin]

Going back to practicalities, what nine or ten rifle companies will we shut down to create the combat support companies?  Volunteers anyone?  Maybe we shut down a couple of battalions?  Would a BG consist of two rifle companies and a combat support company?

That is a good question, but  I think that it would be a matter of short term pain for long term gain.  We've already seen short term gain and are now suffering the long term pain.
Tough decisions to be made, but in practicality, we aren't manning that which we already have.  Slash the third battalions (for now), fill up the remaining six and re-invent the spt coys may be an option.  I don't know.  I don't get paid enough to make that decision.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

They are questions above my pay grade as well!

For some flavour, here is a picture of a US Army 81m mortar firing in support of a company in contact.  The mortar was attached directly to the company.  M777 and A-10s were also employed, but the 81mm fired first to get the bad guys heads down to support a squad caught in an exposed position.

 

[HItorMiss]

You and your darn mortars VG, although you raise many good point's. I will add from personal perspective and from talking to Pat's from the previous Roto say that as good as the Indirect fire was TOW would have been betterin many instances in taking thing's out behind the mud walls and in the mud house's. From my vantage point on the south side of the Arghandab river we could see a place that had we had TOW in the BG even just one TUA would, could have reduced it to rubble long before Air,Arty or mortars. We could have rained missiles into to it all day and all night. In some areas the walls hindered our engagement of the enemy and the 25mm wasn't cutting it to get the guys behind, imagine what 2-3 HE heads from a TOW would have done....

I agree 100% on the manning of Cbt Spt Coy I just don't think the first to return should be mortars in fact even though I have argued for TOW I truly believe the loss of Pioneer Pl took away a huge asset from the Infantry, one which I don't think any person who has been down in the south would argue would have en extremely useful in every and all situation.

*EDTIT Grammer and Spelling.....poorly too

 

[Mortar guy]

Regarding the fleshing out of the CS Coys - remember that those PYs still exist in the army. The Pnr, Mor and AA Pls were chopped so their PYs could be reassigned to CMTC and the "Command Support Battalions". Anyone seen one of the latter lately? Besides, as we all know, the CF is expanding by thousands of troops and there is an opportunity to add new PYs to the Bns without having to chop rifle coys. So, with very little pain we could have CS Coys with Recce/Mors/AAP although I would call the last a Direct Fire Support Pl and not limit it to TOW. Pnrs could be thrown back in the mix with the addition of a pl's worth of PYs to each Bn. Anyway, all I'm saying is that if there is a will, there is most definitely a way.

MG

 

[paracowboy]

Perhaps we are in some degree of violent agreement on the mortars.   

I think we are.

While it would make sense to group them under one platoon, I will still venture that they would be best served chopped out to the companies.

  which I saw done often in 3 RCR. Just like snipers are grouped with Recce for Admin purposes, but farmed out to Coys, or used only at the CO's (or higher) directive, so it was with Mortars. So should it be again.

 

[McG]

Going back to practicalities, what nine or ten rifle companies will we shut down to create the combat support companies?  Volunteers anyone?  Maybe we shut down a couple of battalions?  Would a BG consist of two rifle companies and a combat support company?

This is like the counterpart to the question I raised.  Our traditional doctrine tells us we should have five companies and one should be cbt sp.  If you only can have four companies, should one of them be Cbt Sp or should they all be rifle?  If you only can have three companies, should one of them be Cbt Sp or should they all be rifle?   

The initial response was go with the Cbt Sp Coy and re-roll it as needed.  That seems to have been tempered to some degree by a recommendation against re-rolling and the identification that certain headquarters elements might be unavailable due to other task they might be tied to within the BG.

Combat Support Coy can still bring lots of useful assets and skills to the table even when not employed in the primary roles, turning them into a scratch fourth rifle company is the least of their abilities, and should only be considered the last resort.

Mortar Pl HQ is part of BHQ

I think that the Cbt Sp platoons need to be flexible in their employment.  When the companies are operating dispersed (separate AOs and not mutually supporting) then there needs to be TOW, mortar, and big direct fire cannons at the company level.  The Cbt Sp platoons can be employed as wholes if the BG is operating two up, one in depth, and a reserve.  Everything in between requires a specific solution of its own.  Thus, I don’t think this argument should confuse any examination of the requirement for a Cbt Sp Coy.

 

[warrickdll]

...
The company level dispersement I am suggeting is for the widely dispersed battalion battlespace faced today.  We had a US company attached to us for a while, and they had a pair of 81 mm that came from their battalion.  US Cavalry works the same way, due to their usual dispersed deployment....

...
To go middle ground, the 81mm mortar platoon rarely shoots as a platoon.  The norm is the group (2 groups in a platoon, each of four mortars).  Having said that, the smallest fire unit is a section of two.  If you imagine a four company battle group, there is enough of them to go to a section per company, if that's required.  Keeping them at Unit level allows the CO to use them as he sees fit.  The only restriction at the section level is the plotting and coordination of their fires.  Remember, there is a lot of stuff up in the sky, and it's all friendly, so we don't want to be lobbing stuff up there "willy nilly"....

Between the CPOs, Recce(Survey), and MFCs, there were rarely enough NCOs to fully man the mortar platoon's 2 groups (we often only had one) - what would be required to split the groups in half?

 

[Mountie]

Just a quick note regarding the dispersement mortar topic.  According to several TO&E's that I've seen, British mortar platoons are organized with three sections of two mortars rather than the Canadian TO&E or two groups of four mortars.  This allows each section to operate in support of a rifle company.  The British platoons have two mortar vehicles and a section command vehicle for fire direction.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I heard that 1 VP is going to run a Basic Pnr crse during this PCF Cycle.  Siounds like we might be getting somewhere....