Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)
- Reaction score
- 7,290
- Points
- 1,160
Technoviking said:
The Gen II AGLS ?
But not to create a tangent.... Regardless of the DFS systems (C6/C9/HMG/40mm/Eryx/Javelin/TOW) wouldn't a DFS element be part of the Support Platoon?
Then you get a complete, deployable, Combat Team.
Edit: Remove a double link
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Slight backtrack, but "Square" organizations of 4 platoons went out of fashion in and around World War One because they were awkward to handle.
The very short and dirty explanation was you basically left 50% of your force out of battle if you were "two up", but only had 25% in reserve if you went "three up". The 3 platoon system provided more balance (you could go one up and have 66% of your force in reserve, or two up and have 33% in reserve). While there were many more factors in play, (especially the introduction of automatic weapons at lower and lower levels), the square organization was essentially dead.
The very short and dirty explanation was you basically left 50% of your force out of battle if you were "two up", but only had 25% in reserve if you went "three up". The 3 platoon system provided more balance (you could go one up and have 66% of your force in reserve, or two up and have 33% in reserve). While there were many more factors in play, (especially the introduction of automatic weapons at lower and lower levels), the square organization was essentially dead.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,326
- Points
- 1,160
Thucydides said:
Not in armoured formations it isn't. And of course the infantry still has the 4 man patrol ;D
- Reaction score
- 16,609
- Points
- 1,260
Why not go back to a real Cbt Spt Coy (Recce, Mortars, Pioneers, AAP, Sniper Cell/Section/Pl [can't be in recce anymore, and now I am told has an officer :
] )
3 Real Inf Coy's
1 Real Cbt Spt Coy (hey you can Americanize it and call it HHC and then look progressive and lead chnage in your PER)
1 Admin Coy
We've totally drifted off the Ranger Bat or CAR model though.
] )3 Real Inf Coy's
1 Real Cbt Spt Coy (hey you can Americanize it and call it HHC and then look progressive and lead chnage in your PER)
1 Admin Coy
We've totally drifted off the Ranger Bat or CAR model though.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
There is a movement (at least out west) to bring back the airborne capability. They are able to run their own jump courses now and thus have more qualified jumpers in the battlions. To support them properly maybe we should put together a full time pathfinder capability as opposed to taking people from each platoon and quickly putting together an unqualified "pathfinder" section. Fine for exercise but not so good for real time operations.
There are very few qualified pathfinders currently in the jump bn (out west). And they are lost in those bn's never performing their duties or working together.
So the benefits of a proposed pathfinder capability would be:
Sharper Pathfinders
-Allowing soldiers to work together that operate at the same level will develop their skills and allow for more growth in their field. As well as the skills won't deteirorate over time.
Chemistry
- If they are able to always work together they will have a greater understanding of eachothers strengths and weaknesses. They will be able to make sounder decisions if they "know" what the other guy is going to do. (Much like a powerplay line)
No Stealing of nco's from platoons
- There would be no more last minute taking of leadership in the platoons,to put together a pf platoon. This allow that platoon to operate more efficiently.
Problems associated with setting up a pathfinder pl/sect.
Strain
-There would be more strain to on individual companies to provide capable people to serve in that role. As recruitment for other units tends take these motivated people.
Budget
-Finding money for a "new" full time pathfinder capable unit would be difficult given the new projected budget.
Solution
Given that Afghanistan is winding down and regiments are not constantly going to be rotated overseas there is more room for different kinds of training. As opposed to the constant rotation of pre deployment and supporting pre-deployment training. This would also open up the budget slightly more. But strain on individual units to provide these people would remain.
And or we could base it more off the british in that we could accept applications from the entire army. And set up a permanent platoon in Trenton (eg). This would not put the stress on battalions to maintain the skills of these soldiers on them. However that would put greater strain on the budget as our country is much larger than England so for the pathfinder unit to support an ex out west would be slightly more expensive. As well as the infrastructure if it is not already in place.
But it's just an idea.
There are very few qualified pathfinders currently in the jump bn (out west). And they are lost in those bn's never performing their duties or working together.
So the benefits of a proposed pathfinder capability would be:
Sharper Pathfinders
-Allowing soldiers to work together that operate at the same level will develop their skills and allow for more growth in their field. As well as the skills won't deteirorate over time.
Chemistry
- If they are able to always work together they will have a greater understanding of eachothers strengths and weaknesses. They will be able to make sounder decisions if they "know" what the other guy is going to do. (Much like a powerplay line)
No Stealing of nco's from platoons
- There would be no more last minute taking of leadership in the platoons,to put together a pf platoon. This allow that platoon to operate more efficiently.
Problems associated with setting up a pathfinder pl/sect.
Strain
-There would be more strain to on individual companies to provide capable people to serve in that role. As recruitment for other units tends take these motivated people.
Budget
-Finding money for a "new" full time pathfinder capable unit would be difficult given the new projected budget.
Solution
Given that Afghanistan is winding down and regiments are not constantly going to be rotated overseas there is more room for different kinds of training. As opposed to the constant rotation of pre deployment and supporting pre-deployment training. This would also open up the budget slightly more. But strain on individual units to provide these people would remain.
And or we could base it more off the british in that we could accept applications from the entire army. And set up a permanent platoon in Trenton (eg). This would not put the stress on battalions to maintain the skills of these soldiers on them. However that would put greater strain on the budget as our country is much larger than England so for the pathfinder unit to support an ex out west would be slightly more expensive. As well as the infrastructure if it is not already in place.
But it's just an idea.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think that they do that out east. At least in theory they do. Not sure if it's practiced or not.
Sniper platoon is in my opinion probably not the best spot as they have skills of there own to maintain.
As long as there is place for them to feed off of eachother, I think that's all that matters.
Sniper platoon is in my opinion probably not the best spot as they have skills of there own to maintain.
As long as there is place for them to feed off of eachother, I think that's all that matters.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
You mention you are infantry, and out west. I am quite certain from your post that you sure arent in 3 VP.
1: There is no jump battalion, it is a jump company. Recce has a jump det, and most snipers are static square / MFP qualified.
2: We have a number of PPF qualified members, and there is another serial getting ready to go.
3: A movement to bring back the airborne capability? When did it leave? I have been in para coy since 2008, and have seen no shortage of numbers. In the company right now we have a full compliment of jumpers, and lots of pers in A coy ready to take the spot of anyone who leaves. We regularly do airborne exercises, so the capability is there and has not, and will not gone anywhere.
4: There is no such thing as sniper platoon. It is a detachment.
5: If there was to be a PPF section, it would be in recce, where it belongs.
6: Where did you get your information from? Because it is not correct.
1: There is no jump battalion, it is a jump company. Recce has a jump det, and most snipers are static square / MFP qualified.
2: We have a number of PPF qualified members, and there is another serial getting ready to go.
3: A movement to bring back the airborne capability? When did it leave? I have been in para coy since 2008, and have seen no shortage of numbers. In the company right now we have a full compliment of jumpers, and lots of pers in A coy ready to take the spot of anyone who leaves. We regularly do airborne exercises, so the capability is there and has not, and will not gone anywhere.
4: There is no such thing as sniper platoon. It is a detachment.
5: If there was to be a PPF section, it would be in recce, where it belongs.
6: Where did you get your information from? Because it is not correct.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
My bad I meant det.
1. 3vp has 1 coy dedicated to jump, another coy almost completely qualified, and yet another coy at least 1/3 qualified. And that was before the serials ran when I left. Not to mention the medics, engineers and arty guys attacthed at that time. And the goal was to have an entire jump bn.
2. I only knew two ( I know there is more) of which never put their skills to use. Its good that they are running more.
3. If you consider "capable" jumping 1 coy in on three passes. We have a different definition of capable. Perhaps I should have used the word relevant.
4. See above
5. My point exactly, put them together where they can work with eachother and use their skills.
6. What part is incorrect?
1. 3vp has 1 coy dedicated to jump, another coy almost completely qualified, and yet another coy at least 1/3 qualified. And that was before the serials ran when I left. Not to mention the medics, engineers and arty guys attacthed at that time. And the goal was to have an entire jump bn.
2. I only knew two ( I know there is more) of which never put their skills to use. Its good that they are running more.
3. If you consider "capable" jumping 1 coy in on three passes. We have a different definition of capable. Perhaps I should have used the word relevant.
4. See above
5. My point exactly, put them together where they can work with eachother and use their skills.
6. What part is incorrect?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
UnwiseCritic said:
1: As I mentioned, you obviously arent in 3VP. We havent had 3 rifle companies for months. I taught on the last course, so when it comes to this stuff I am pretty up to date. Interesting you mention all the people attached to us at the time, because that is news to me. A medic, yes, but not the others.
2: Since your numbers are wrong about everything else, I dont expect you to know how many pathfinders there are in 3 VP.
3: Our formations depend on aircraft, not on jump qualified personnel.
6: See all of my above corrections to your lack of information. If you were in 3VP, it is obvious it wasnt for long. I am guessing you did 3 years, got out, and are now an expert.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I know there are only two companies right now. And I know more people are about to leave. Retention is horrible but that's for another thread.
Even if we could always get aircraft we still weren't able to make a jump that could seize (and hold) an airfield or bridge.
No I don't know how many pathfinders there are. But that doesn't change the fact they should be put together and have a dedicated pf sect.
Never claim to be an expert. The main point I am trying to get across is wouldn't it be a good idea to put them altogether? Either by bn or as a platoon somewhere.
Even if we could always get aircraft we still weren't able to make a jump that could seize (and hold) an airfield or bridge.
No I don't know how many pathfinders there are. But that doesn't change the fact they should be put together and have a dedicated pf sect.
Never claim to be an expert. The main point I am trying to get across is wouldn't it be a good idea to put them altogether? Either by bn or as a platoon somewhere.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think they have recently been working on that capability. Chow might be able to clarify.
Future reference for people on these forums. Don't play like a politician and try to discredit the person instead of discrediting the idea. It seems to happen on most of these threads. Even stupid people will have a good idea from time to time.
Not saying mine is a good idea or not.
Future reference for people on these forums. Don't play like a politician and try to discredit the person instead of discrediting the idea. It seems to happen on most of these threads. Even stupid people will have a good idea from time to time.
Not saying mine is a good idea or not.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,301
- Points
- 1,160
The Engr Para Sect in 1 CER has been asking similar questions about its own sustainability. When you consider individual tasks and career courses, how many guys need to be in the FG base so that a functional organization is available for collective training? Is that size sufficient to ensure availability of pers for potential FE?
Before addressing either the engr or the pathfinder question, the first answer one needs is what the Army really wants in a parachute capability. If we are serious about having such an ability, should it maybe be concentrated in a single location as opposed to being spread about the country in different sub units, sub-sub-sub units, and individuals?
Before addressing either the engr or the pathfinder question, the first answer one needs is what the Army really wants in a parachute capability. If we are serious about having such an ability, should it maybe be concentrated in a single location as opposed to being spread about the country in different sub units, sub-sub-sub units, and individuals?
Similar threads
