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

LAV III Integration Within the Infantry

T

the patriot

Guest
Hello All,

Just wondering as to what everyone is thinking in regards to the Coyote? Is it being used effectively? Will it turn into a white elephant? Has it been properly integrated into an infantry section‘s battle capability (functionally that is)? Some very interesting points of discussion indeed. This piece of kit is supposed to protect us during battle but at the same time add to our mobile defensive capability. Thoughts, questions, complaints. Lend me your ears!!!!

-the patriot-
 
I think this was dealt with awhile back (it may be worth a check through the old war diary).

The Coyote is a recce veh, not for the infantry sections. The infantry will get the LAV III which is a completely different vehicle (the next generation).

The Coyote will be used by Recce Sqns and Infantry Recce Pls.
The LAV III and its variants will be issued to the infantry section, Mortars, Pioneers, Anti Armour, and FOOs in the Arty.
As an interium vehicle it will also be used for one or two sqns within each armd regt until the ACV project comes on line in 2010 (one sqn will remain with the tank until at least 2010).

I‘m going to still some of Mike O‘Leary‘s thunder and suggest you check out his website at http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/ to get his comments on the new LAV III and its integration into Canada‘s Infantry Section.

My own comment is we don‘t have any experience at all with a vehicle with the LAV IIIs capability and it will be interesting to see how badly the infantry bungles the job .... ;)
 
Although the originator of this thread intended to ask about the LAVIII, the questions still apply about the Coyote, the surveillance vehicle.

Does this piece of kit (with the surveillance suite) belong in the Infantry Battalion?

A battalion commander tends to be very interested in what may be coming up the coulee in the middle of his battalion area or in the best route from theier present positions to the LD for the assault element companies in a battalion attack. Information on these things is not only valuable to the battalion commander, but also is something he actually can act on. Further, if the recce experts in the battalion are busy manning high-tech equipment scanning for long-range threats, tasks like these will have to be done by rifle company personnel, reducing the numbers available for rifle company main tasks and using generally less skilled individuals for recce tasks.

The equipment itself is capable of generating information about enemy activity far beyond the battalion commander‘s ability to deal with it. For instance, the Visible Spectrum Camera can detect targets out to 12km while the battalion mortars can only reach out to 4.5km.

Even training is a significant issue, with the Coyote creating a huge impact on number of courses and course durations for Infantry recce personnel.

I would suggest that a resource as valuable as the Coyote should be placed at the level where the commander actually owns resources (Artillery and Air) to deal with the the targets identified. Doctrinally, this means Division and Corps level although in our peacetime regular force it could be Brigade Group and/or Joint Task Force.

Since it is possible for an independant Canadian Battle Group to deploy with Artillery, our regular Brigade Group resources should be able to deploy slices of themselves to support this. Similarly, in the real world, the Coyote could be an extremely useful piece of kit on many peacekeeping missions. The ability to deploy slices could also support this if needed.

To this end, it might be most useful to create RISTA (Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition) (including Coyote) sub-units in each regular and reserve Brigade Group, one regular unit for Div or JTF operations and two reserve RISTA units and one reserve RISTA formation for ultimate mobilization and sustainment.

I believe that these RISTA organizations would be more economical and more effective in really using the abilities of the Coyote than would parceling them out to all Mech Infantry or Armoured Reconnaissance (more like Cavalry) units.

Of course, those Coyotes without surveillance suites are usable for Infantry and Armoured recce.
 
I‘ve heard mixed reviews from the guys using Coyote.
One of the biggest drawbacks alluded to is the length of time it takes to deploy the "mast" with the camera, etc., attached. I think about ten minutes was mentioned as the average time, so "pop-ups" are not possible with this kit as many believe. Also, I am told the ground has to be somewhat level for reasonable deployment. Personally, I think a tracked vehicle would be superior (though more costly).

RM
 
It’s an old thread (and possibly covering a different topic) but it has the right title.

Previously (the 90s), when deployed on dispersed operations in a mechanized infantry platoon, it was not uncommon to be tasked out to a position, or a section house, or on a patrol, with only the one vehicle; whereas in an anti-armour platoon, it was always in a 2 vehicle section.

I always felt that the single vehicle violated the principles of mutual support (plus it bit if you needed a jump), and much preferred the 2 vehicle section of anti-armour.


Tied in with this is the observation that, when infantry dismount, you end up with fewer dismounts than you would have had, historically, in a non-mechanized infantry section.


Would there be any advantage, in a LAV III platoon, with having sections consisting of 2 vehicles?

Caveats:
- Ignoring how doubling the size of a platoon fits in with everything else (or for the reductionists – halving a company)
- Ignoring what rank anyone would be
 

 
I’ve seen USA Bradley orbats that, in a 4 vehicle platoon, have the platoon’s senior NCO in a separate vehicle than the platoon’s officer – so that, if working in vehicle pairs, they would each take one of the other vehicles with them (though I’ve never asked if this is actually how it is done).

However, in previous conversations on this topic, most Canadian platoons would seem to prefer having the platoon commander and the platoon WO working together rather than apart. So, increasing the number of vehicles would avoid that kind of symmetrical split (and perhaps add a whole vehicle for a weapon’s section – vice detachment).
 
Iterator said:
However, in previous conversations on this topic, most Canadian platoons would seem to prefer having the platoon commander and the platoon WO working together rather than apart. So, increasing the number of vehicles would avoid that kind of symmetrical split (and perhaps add a whole vehicle for a weapon’s section – vice detachment).

Since Canada has no real LAV doctrine yet (it's all labelled "interim"), every battalion does what it feels works.  Guys fresh off Phase IV noted that "the way" was dependent on what the background of the assessor was.

AFAIK, the Platoon WO is in the Charlie vehicle while the platoon commander is with the LAV Sgt in the Bravo vehicle.  So technically if you wanted to split them up into "demi-platoons" around 2 LAV's, it is pretty easy.  You don't even need this engraved in stone to succeed - the Platoon 2ic can simply take 2 callsigns with him if he is detached for something.  Hell, throw in some other assets and we see the start of the "minimum mass" idea taking shape.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/Publications/journal/AAJ_Autumn05/AAJ_Autumn05_krause_9.pdf
 
Infanteer said:
...
...So technically if you wanted to split them up into "demi-platoons" around 2 LAV's, it is pretty easy....
...

That would make splitting a 4 vehicle platoon easier; on the other hand, is a 2 vehicle assignment really in need of an officer?



Infanteer said:
Since Canada has no real LAV doctrine yet (it's all labelled "interim")...
...

Interim - wonder if that’s from lack of agreement, or from lack of need.




Infanteer said:
...
...Hell, throw in some other assets and we see the start of the "minimum mass" idea taking shape.
...

No argument on that one. The ability to smoothly form a combat team at as low a level as possible would be an asset.

 
Would there be any advantage, in a LAV III platoon, with having sections consisting of 2 vehicles?...

...Ignoring how doubling the size of a platoon fits in with everything else

Well, no. There is no advantage. You can't ignore the fact that you'd either be doubling the size of the platoon, or having no dismounts. The dismounts are what make us infantry and doubling the size of the platoon would become too unwieldy for a single PL COMD and 2IC. A 4 LAV platoon can be split into two x2 veh fireteams and no single LAV ever goes very far by itself. That's a good balance of dismounts and armour with a reasonable ratio of chiefs and Indians, so why mess with it? If you need more firepower, task a company.

on the other hand, is a 2 vehicle assignment really in need of an officer?

Yes, because its not a just 2 veh assignment. Its an infantry platoon that just happens to be split in two at the time.
 
Wonderbread said:
...
...doubling the size of the platoon would become too unwieldy for a single PL COMD and 2IC.
...
A 4 LAV platoon can be split into two x2 veh fireteams....That's a good balance of dismounts and armour with a reasonable ratio of chiefs and Indians...
...

Other infantry platoons were larger than a rifle platoon: Recce, AAP, Mortars; admittedly those platoons were led much differently than a rifle platoon. But how unwieldy would a rifle platoon’s command team (or a modified version of one) find it to control 3 pairs of rifle section vehicles instead of 3 rifle section vehicles?



Wonderbread said:
...
...If you need more firepower, task a company.
...
>on the other hand, is a 2 vehicle assignment really in need of an officer?

Yes, because its not a just 2 veh assignment. Its an infantry platoon that just happens to be split in two at the time.

Yes, every task needs the right amount of assets assigned to it. But the LAV III is more than just an APC, and it is not uncommon for fighting vehicles to work in pairs - so how does 4 vehicles become the magic number?



Wonderbread said:
...you'd either be doubling the size of the platoon, or having no dismounts.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding – I was only talking about doubling, not adding an empty vehicle.
 
But how unwieldy would a rifle platoon’s command team (or a modified version of one) find it to control 3 pairs of rifle section vehicles instead of 3 rifle section vehicles?

So you're talking about 6 Section Vehs, plus a 7th PL HQ LAV? You've just doubled the supply, admin, and tactical issues and only gained one more LAV fireteam. It's the point on diminishing returns. You could of course add an 8th LAV to be the PL Comd's wingman, but then you'd just have two platoons as we know them today with only half the leadership.

Yes, every task needs the right amount of assets assigned to it. But the LAV III is more than just an APC, and it is not uncommon for fighting vehicles to work in pairs - so how does 4 vehicles become the magic number?

Because 4 is flexible. Its the smallest number you can make two fireteams out of and therfore the smallest element that can cover and move with at the same time. Its the "two guns is one and one gun is none" theory applied to LAVs. Its maximum firepower in the smallest package - no dead weight.
 
Wonderbread said:
...Because 4 is flexible. Its the smallest number you can make two fireteams out of and therfore the smallest element that can cover and move with at the same time.....

It would be a 2 vehicle formation that is the smallest element that can cover and move at the same time. And, once you’ve established a vehicle pair as the base unit, then it would give the officer more flexibility to have 3 or 4 of these base units to command.


Wonderbread said:
...You've just doubled the supply, admin, and tactical issues ...
...you'd just have two platoons as we know them today with only half the leadership....

As a percentage, the actual leadership numbers wouldn’t be too different.


Wonderbread said:
...So you're talking about 6 Section Vehs, plus a 7th PL HQ LAV? ...You could of course add an 8th LAV to be the PL Comd's wingman, ...

I’d keep the 8th vehicle; maybe for a larger weapon’s det, possibly put some DM teams in with the platoon commander (plenty of options).
 
We're going around in circles here.

As a percentage, the actual leadership numbers wouldn’t be too different.

Yeah, but the actual percentage doesn't mean shit. The Batt CO is only a small percentage of the Batt's leadership. But he's the CO and his job is one of (if not the) most important. The same applies at the Pl level. A Pl Comd is only one guy, but its such an influential position that you don't want to give him more then he can chew. Yes, he has NCOs to help him, but in the end he is in charge and he needs to have a grip on his slice of the pie.

I’d keep the 8th vehicle; maybe for a larger weapon’s det, possibly put some DM teams in with the platoon commander (plenty of options).

Whats the point in having one x8veh platoon instead of two x4veh platoons? The only difference is you've given an individual platoon Comd and his WO an extra 40 guys to keep track of. Quite frankly, its retarded.

This thread is really starting to frustrate me. In my mind, this is all pretty simple stuff. We have a system that works well, so why mess with it?
 
Wonderbread said:
Whats the point in having one x8veh platoon instead of two x4veh platoons? The only difference is you've given an individual platoon Comd and his WO an extra 40 guys to keep track of. Quite frankly, its retarded.

This thread is really starting to frustrate me. In my mind, this is all pretty simple stuff. We have a system that works well, so why mess with it?

Yep.  Simple span of control measure; a platoon commander has alot on his plate when he's responsible for 4 vehicles plus the dismounts.  Why increase the work load when we have a system that's worked for decades?  ???
 
Infanteer said:
Yep.  Simple span of control measure; a platoon commander has alot on his plate when he's responsible for 4 vehicles plus the dismounts.  Why increase the work load when we have a system that's worked for decades?   ???

Pl Comd's in todays current operations can find themselves in charge of a hell of a lot of enabelers and resources.  Engineers, tanks, MEWT(mobile electronic warfare team, RCP(route clearance package), Pys-Ops, Cimic, MPs etc etc.  They usually all come with their own vehicles.  Pl patrols can quickly number above ten and can hit over twenty vehicles.  You reach a point of dimishing returns when you start fudging around with the number of vehicles a Pl has.

If the task requires more than a Pl, well during the estimate process it should be ID'd and additional forces attached.  No need to mess around with trying to reinvent the wheel when the addition of another Pl or the usage of a Coy would solve the problem quickly and easily.
 
Infanteer said:
Why increase the work load when we have a system that's worked for decades?  ???

I'll tell you why.  For the exact same reason that we got rid of support platoons in the infantry: advancing with purpose  [/sarcasm]

Oh, as for the mortars going to the arty so that they could maintain that role (eg: arty capbadges firing mortars in support of battle groups), I ask you: why then are the 81s being used for direct fire "support" for the gun lines?  WTF?


(Nothing against the guns: they only have so many guys, and from all accounts, that saying still holds loud and true: "THE GUNS!  THE GUNS!  THANK GOD, THE GUNS!")
 
D Arty and D Engr were quite clear on the Pioneer and Mortars tasks:

Thanks for the task.  But without resources (read PYs), don't expect anything.
 
dapaterson said:
D Arty and D Engr were quite clear on the Pioneer and Mortars tasks:

Thanks for the task.  But without resources (read PYs), don't expect anything.

Which is my point.  If PYs are an issue, then give the task to someone who can fill it.  I could care less if the Postal Clerks were given the mortar task, so long as they can "provide and guarantee intimate indirect fire support to the battle group in all phases of war", then I'd be happy.
 
Back
Top