Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

[armyvern]

I6 seems to have said what makes sense.  Many Purple trades are more than suited for a deployment to KAF.  Filing claims and memos is the same whether on a ship or in an operational Army base. Take the super-green ones (with jump wings, etc, etc) and send them outside the wire to push stuff to the tip of the spear.

Now you're talking!! I know some of us get outside the wire, but not all. And although we Army loggies may indeed find ourselves more comfortable carting a C7 or other around with us we're not as highly skilled/trained with our weapons as the boys and girls at the pointy end.

An intensive bit of shyte in Wainwright prior to deployment would help with that situation.

 

[KevinB]

I guess I only speak PPCLIese 

 

[battleaxe]

My guess is that these are all symptoms of an army that is preparing for more intensive ops in theatre and perhaps another mission somewhere else.  I wonder if the other services [navy, air force] have been asked to help out somehow?*


*edit- not to go infantry, but perhaps train to assume some domestic role of the army in order to free up troops.   
 

I guess it all depends on what spin local media wants to put on any given story.  I don't know the specifics of the planning on this..but our biggest paper (Chronicle Herald) in Halifax (slanting story to attract navy readers) put this out this morning.

"Sailors could be turned into infantry soldiers under a new plan the military is considering to keep fresh troops headed to Afghanistan". 

A Rear-Admiral is quoted as saying "It's entirely possible to turn a sailor into an infantry soldier".

Trenton and  Cold Lake newspapers are probably getting airforce families worried as we speak.

I'll wait to hear the official CF policy on this one, and ignore all newspaper reports until I do.

 

[tasop_999]

battleaxe, you are quite right in that the media has had alot to do with some of this current conversation.  There is a grain of truth to the old addage that states "the media runs the country, not the government." The media picks up on stories which will sell well to the mass market, and many of those involve extreme amounts of controversy.  Stuff like sending sailors to Afghanistan, which really has people talking right now.  I too am waiting on the official word from the powers that be, simply to satisfy my own perverse curiosity. 

While such a move to send sailors to Kandahar may work on paper, and maybe in some policy wonk's head, it does not seem like a sane man's move in the current state of the CF.  Everyone who wears their uniform with pride knows why they are here in this outfit.  There is not one person who is totally oblivious to the state of manning in the frontline units of the CF.  There may be no harm in taking a limited number of people out of the recruiting stream for a while and augmenting the Infantry, but the brass needs not forget that there is also a list of distressed trades out there which are crying for butts to fill chairs. 

Extreme care must be taken to ensure that people who are veterans of the first Roto to Kandahar actually stay with the CF.  These people are needed within not only the Combat Arms world, but all the other branched involved in this operation.  If successive battle groups are sent over without the benefit of the previous one's experience, then it is like starting at square one.  Combat experience in the Canadian sense is something relatively new to alot of people and it must be passed on in the schools and training establishments.  I read earlier in this thread that many people returning from the Stan are getting out.  That is a shame.  They are needed more now than ever to train the next group going over. 

In sum, other occupations do have something to contribute, but not at the expense of operational readiness in the other services.  That is just lunacy, straight up craziness.  I am a bit cynical, but even I don't think that the Brass is that dumb.  I am pretty sure that our leadership has some sort of plan and I am interested to hear it.  CBC news said this morning that there was to be a decision on using sailors and others in the next week or so.  I look forward to it with eager anticipation.

 

[vonGarvin]

Once we lost the CBT support companies, we lost a spot where someone could go for a break from the 'colony', now these young guys can look forward to being shuffled between sections, or platoons as a break. Seniority gains them little, where before it meant going to mortars or pioneers to be treated like a mature soldier. Noone enjoys being 3i/c of a section as a senior Cpl. He'd be a #1 on a gun tube, or given lead roles in pioneers.

Dont get me started on Tow.

Signing-resigning bonus maybe

Hopefully not too 'Hijacked'

+100%

 

[vonGarvin]

1 PPCLI will NOT be painting any rocks - and the troops will be accorded the respect that is their due based on their experience.

1 PPCLI will be conducting a 3 day AAR after Remembrance Week in order to capture lessons learned - and then the Battalion will lead the Brigade Leadership Symposium in January.  The Symposium will not have academic talking heads - it will feature M203 gunners, section commanders, senior NCOs and junior officers talking about their exxperience in theatre, and passing on what they have learned.

This war is a section commanders war - and they are the ones that need to tell the story.  That is why, where possible, speaking engagements are being filled by junior NCOs, vice majors...

As for rock painting, leave that to the  RCR (j/k)
Actually, very well said, and hopefully this will transfer out of 1 CMBG to the rest of the army.  Knowing the Bde Comd, I bet it will

 

[gaspasser]

I think someone said something about MOSID a while back.  It is supposed to group us all into job knowledge groups so the powers that be can employ us accordingly.  But, I can't see an MSE Op doing a Sup Techs job or and AVS's job in a pinch.  It just won't happen.  Okay, so we put hard Air force trades in the field overseas, the squadrons are already hurting for people to do the work, who will fix the planes ( I know, don't go there) to fly the supplies.  Will they put pilots or Naval officers in the field to replace infantry officers?  Probably not! 
I'm all for doing your field stuff first, even going combat arms first then VR out to you choice.  I don't begrudge the lads thier positions or mean to belittle them, they're our heros and deserve our utmost respect for what they're going thru, but putting trained techs and operators in the rough now would be a waste of training and talent.
my 0.02

 

[Petard]

Just wondering aloud here for a moment, bear with me, but what of my suggestion of looking at 10/90 units? What I'm suggesting here is to somewhat mobilize reserve units with Reg force cadre leading and augmenting Coy size reserve units, the Reserve side of it made up by soldiers given 2-3 year contracts.

The cadre I'm suggesting would be made up of volunteers from the infantry units that just returned, and post them summer 07 to Reserve units that can sustain building up Pl+ within their geographical area, and can be supported by a Reg force infrastructure not too far away. These Regulars would be from Cpl to Lt in rank, granted the equivalency for their experience overseas and promoted one up. This Reg Force cadre would not supplant the Reserve one but augment it, they would be the mentors to Reserves given a 2 to 3 year class C contract. These sub-units would begin their initial training locally in the fall of 07, eventually taking part in collective training by Winter 08, deploy as a whole with their cadre's summer 08. In addition, on return these reserve units could then become the building block for these Territorial Bn's some have mentioned we need. This process could be repeated in each area in sequence, ie West, Central, Que and Atlantic, although it would be unlikely given the commitment timelines the other areas would deploy such units to Afghanistan, they would be available for other tasks. Who knows what that might be by then?

I realise this would go against the current idea being floated about limiting soldiers to one tour, but would this not be more acceptable than this re-rolling of non-infantry units? Does getting these people volunteering to be cadre away from the mother Corps to help shape a Reserve unit to deploy as a whole, not give them a worthwhile goal to stay?

Ok just a straw man I've built here, now I guess I'll have to stand back and let the winds blow it apart.

 

[McG]

Petard,
Have a look here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48605.0.html

 

[Petard]

Thanks MCG
I suspected my approach was going to be seen as too coarse

At anyrate, g'bye straw-man

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Have we all forgotten the military basics.

The Infantry is still the backbone and pointy end of the stick as far as i know. Your basic training trained you to be a soldeir first.

The support trades are there to support and augment the infantry not the other way around, boots on the ground win wars and everything else is there to support the grunts who fight those wars.

And as for being reclassed to the combat arms. My old Seargeant Major always drilled into our heads that once we signed the dotted line they can put your A**** anywhere they please and if you were lucky enough to remuster to a trade from the comat arms it was a gift, not a given. If the BPSO said you could go fine, if he/she said you were staying in your present MOC, you weren't going anywhere. If the big guy says your going infantry, thats were your going, period. Some may have to switch from the blues and whites to green and cam, but i'm sure there are many brave trademen and women who will step up and volunteer on their own.

As for the problem of the instructor shortage, reactivate some of the older Snr Nco's & NCO's, Cpl's MCpl's that have retired over the past several years, give them a sign up bonus. i'm sure many will return. After all we all signed a clause that stated we could be called back within 5 years if you were released or retired. Hell i'd come back in a heart beat if they could find a uniform to fit me. XXL "LOL"

 

[Link]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/22/afganistan.html

The Canadian military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six, a general told soldiers gathered in Edmonton on Saturday.

Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore spoke after a change of command ceremony that put him in charge of army forces in Western Canada.

The career soldier from London, Ont., took over the job from Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant, who will become commander of Task Force Afghanistan for six months.

"If you're a member of the Canadian military, particularly a soldier with a skill set that's required in Afghanistan, and you haven't been yet, I think chances are very good that the opportunity is going to be there to serve," Skidmore told the assembled troops at the Jefferson Armouries.

Also appearing before the committee, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor proposed limiting combat troops to one rotation in Afghanistan, if possible.

'Sailors into soldiers'

CBC News has since learned that no branch of the military would be exempt from serving in Afghanistan, and that any decision on the matter would be made by generals, not politicians.

Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, said talk of turning sailors into soldiers has surfaced because the Conservative government has extended the Afghan mission.

"If your mission is only for one year, you have enough soldiers for the rotation. If your mission is for three years, you need more soldiers who can fight," Dosanjh said. "It's that simple."

Last May, members of Parliament voted to approve an extension of the military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. The vote, which passed with the support of 30 Liberal MPs, means Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan two years longer than previously planned.

Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died and more than 168 have been wounded in the struggle against resurgent Taliban fighters.


On Wednesday, Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces will be looking outside combat units to find troops.

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," he told the Commons defence committee.

 

[George Wallace]

Have we all forgotten the military basics.
The support trades are there to support and augment the infantry not the other way around, boots on the ground win wars and everything else is there to support the grunts who fight those wars.

I am sure that many here follow the same sentiments, but there is a flaw in that statement.  If there are no Trades left to support the Infantry, they are in the shyte-locker.  The Infantry need the support of many Trades in this war.  They need the Armour Crewmen, who are also in short supply.  They need the Engineers and Artillerymen.  They need the Sigs, the EW, the INT, the Air Force, etc. to give them timely support.  They need the Sup Techs, the RMS Clerks, the Doctors and Medics, the Traffic Techs, Electricians, Wpns Techs, FCS Techs, Veh Techs, Cooks, etc.    All of whom are in Trades that a crying for personnel.  Unless we ever get into a war that is only one day long, the Infantry are screwed without this support. 

That is the flaw with this decision - we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.  It may be a quick fix for tomorrow, but the next day we will have a much larger problem.

 

[McG]

Have we all forgotten the military basics.

The Infantry is still the backbone and pointy end of the stick as far as i know. Your basic training trained you to be a soldeir first.

There is also a matter of using the right tool for the job.  If we need infantry, why would we not use infantry?

 

[armyvern]

Have we all forgotten the military basics...

Well as a point, the infantry are indeed the back-bone of the Army and the support trades in the Army are indeed roled to support them. Indeed we are soldiers first.

Just as the ships are the back-bone of the Navy and the support trades there are roled to support them. Indeed they learn that they are sailors first...as for the Air Force...the planes are the "pointy end" and thus their support trades roled accordingly as well.

The Canadian Forces IS a TEAM effort...and all must exist and perform their respective roles if we are to succeed, and we all must be adaptable and evolve to performing other functions in both defense and offense in service to this country if that is what the situation dictates.

 

[Fabius]

Aside from the significant cbc liberal bias, the article raises an interesting question on the lenght of tours. I am not sure as to the rational behind the 6 month roto. I can speculate that it was related to quality of life concerns. However I believe a very valid case can be made for longer tours from a tactical and operational persepctive. It is generally accepted and proven that a force suffers a higher casaulty rate in the first third of its tour due to the inexperiance with the terrain, tactics, and general nature of the conflict (experianced troops will mitigate this to a degree yes) longer tours also minimise the amount of confusion and relative ineffectiveness that results for a brief period during a change over. Longer tours allow the units to maitain local relationships with intel sources such as local villagers somewhat more effectivley in my opinion. On the down side the troops will possibly face more significant problems of burnout while in theater which may be a trade off in favor of less overall burn out among the whole army. Although I am not sure how much a 3 month extension of the tours will really affect the turn around times in the Canadian  Army due the relatively small number of deployable combat units.

 

[McG]

I used to think that 9 months tours were the way to go.  That may still be true for theatres like Cyprus & Bosnia in their later years.  However, I think we would burn-out far too many soldiers in places like Kandahar.

In fact, I think a lot of the solutions we are looking at for Op ATHENA (longer tours and re-rolling complete sub-units to infantry) are fully appropriate to Bosnia in 2001 but questionable solutions for combat operations.

 

[GAP]

I used to think that 9 months tours were the way to go.  That may still be true for theatres like Cyprus & Bosnia in their later years.  However, I think we would burn-out far too many soldiers in places like Kandahar.

In fact, I think a lot of the solutions we are looking at for Op ATHENA (longer tours and re-rolling complete sub-units to infantry) are fully appropriate to Bosnia in 2001 but questionable solutions for combat operations.

By the time a 6 month tour is up, the men have just got up to speed about month 3 or 4 and are finally being effective. They know the ground, the people, the normal indicators of enemy activity, and are able to spot abnormalities. 2 months later they are sent home and the next set has to learn the same stuff.

We had a 13 month tour. Write off the first month, we weren't good for shyte nor were we acclimated. Month 2, 3 & 4  got you into the zone, allowed you to learn from the salts most that you needed to know, and gave you enough contact to determine what you did and did not know.

You were reasonably effective for the next 9 months, and because we did not rotate units, but rather men, there was a constant flux of people coming and going passing on "lessons learned".

Burnout...if you know you go home at month 6, then if you stay longer you start burning out. If you know you are there for 9, 10 or 11 months, then you are just as anxious to go home as you would have been at the 6 month mark. It a mental state, not a physical one.

 

[McG]

It a mental state, not a physical one.

It is a mental burn-out that I am talking about.

 

[GAP]

It is a mental burn-out that I am talking about.

It is the expectation that you start with that counts....