"Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?"

[KevinB]

But if you are getting into jealousy in the Army remember its a two way street. There are those of us who want to see the Jump cabability gone for good and those in the Jump companies who would like to see every one jump qualified. Both sides have good arguments for debate, which is kind of hard to tell on this forum as it seems there are more pro para people on this site than in the Army.

Please raise a good reason for not having everyone jump qualified?
Soldiers being fat lazy or scared dont count as one reason (let alone three) BTW.

I can raise a thousand more reasons to sink the LAV's off a Pier for an artifical reef.

We would be best served by giving the Armour the LAV and letting them command them - and if necessary they be used to Taxi the Infantry.  The fact is you cannot be both a good infantryman and a good crewman - there is not enough time in the calendar - FULL STOP.

We as an Army do not have the MONEY to properly TRAIN, EQUIP and SUPPORT any Jump capability in a combat role. If we did then the Para Companies would be Para Battalions with dedicated aircraft that could drop in the battalion in one lift.

FACT: We cant properly do that with a LAV Mech Battalion either - maybe we should disband the Army - its costs to much to do right... :

 

[claybot]

Training all the infantry for a function that will never be used is a waste of money and training. We do not have the capability to jump a sizeable fighting force and support them in combat, that is a fact of life in the Canadian army unless you count flying there and walking off the aircraft as a successful jump.

Yes I know the US drops in battalions at a time, but they are able to support them once they are on the ground with Fast Air and Attack Helicopters plus an unbelievable amount of Artillery. Putting a C9 on a Griffon does not make it an Attack Helicopter

We would get a better bang for our buck to have all our Infantry trained in Airmobile Ops/dismounted  using the LAV's as a delivery system which is entirely feasible in todays Army. You could incorporate all the physical fitness standards from the para/jump companies.

As for giving the LAVs to the Armour I fully support that idea, as I have stated in other threads.

If the forces ever got around to implementing a good physical fitness program that was followed properly by the leadership the Fat,Lazy part could be solved.

As for scared troops we all have our fears if you have none then you are either fooling yourself or haven't experienced much as a soldier I know what mine are and how to deal with them! Do you know what yours are?

 

[Jungle]

After 9/11 the Light Infantry Battalions were on the chopping block and from what I recall 3rd VanDoo was already beginning to disband when OP APOLLO came around. Many believe that the mission should have gone to Mech Battalion such as 2 PPCLI as they were back from Bosnia and still had a lot of troops. Instead 3 PPCLI an understrength battalion was sent and had to be augmented by the entire C Company 2 PPCLI as well as pers from Sniper, Recce and other organizations.
This in turn resurrected the Light Infantry Battalion.
I view this mission a failure for the Light Infantry Concept as it proved that mech forces could do Light missions without a problem. If this mission were a true LIB mission then the extra company/manpower should have been drawn from one of the other two Light Infantry Battalions either RCR or VanDoo.
For OP ATHENA missions all the LIBs were using LAV and Iltis/G-Wagon. If LAV's were required then it is a Mech mission not a Light mission.[/i]

You don't seem to understand the concept of modern (CDN) deployments: the TFs will deploy with a combination of Light and LAV Coys to give the TF Comd flexibility.

But if you are getting into jealousy in the Army remember its a two way street. There are those of us who want to see the Jump cabability gone for good and those in the Jump companies who would like to see every one jump qualified. Both sides have good arguments for debate, which is kind of hard to tell on this forum as it seems there are more pro para people on this site than in the Army.

I never advocated the qualification of the whole Infantry Corps in Parachuting. I believe we need both Light/ Para and Mech forces.

There are a lot of posts through out this site talking about successful jumps in the last few years like Afghanistan. But the US has the capability to support those troops once they hit the ground we do not.

We do not have the airlift to resupply or the use of supporting Attack Helicopters and Fast Air to aid any forces we drop in.

We do have the airlift capability for small-scale ops. One Para Coy-group could be dropped from 4 C-130s with enought supplies to last 72 hours. They could be resupplied after 48 hours by 2 C-130s, or extracted by 4 C-130s hours after the drop (As was done in Kandahar by a Coy of Rangers in Oct 2001)

Are we going to allow our Para Companies to Jump into battle without support. Most Airborne forces are only good for 72 hours without resupply and in this day and age its more like 24 hours before they cease to exist as a fighting formation. Is this what the supporters of our Airborne forces want?
Are our jump companies willing to be an expendable force?

I have not heard of any modern-day Airborne Force ceasing to exist after 24 hours... care to expand on this one ?? Any type of Force can cease to exist in extreme circumstances... so you support KevinBs proposal, to disband the whole Army, because some units may cease to exist as a result of combat ??

We as an Army do not have the MONEY to properly TRAIN, EQUIP and SUPPORT any Jump capability in a combat role. If we did then the Para Companies would be Para Battalions with dedicated aircraft that could drop in the battalion in one lift.

That is the opinion of a Cpl; apparently some people in the C of C think otherwise; people who have been trained in Command and Staff procedures, and who have worked in multi-national HQs during ops. Are you saying that people like Gens Hillier, Leslie and McKenzie are out to lunch ?? That's a pretty bold statement...

If we have to re-equip every LIB with LAV's to every time they go on a mission then they might as well train as a Mech Force.

Reread my first note in this post...

Yes rambling on again.............

Yes, I noticed...  :
But there is one thing you can do (or maybe should have done ??  ) Attend Leadership courses, make your way up the ranks and change things you are able to at every step... get to a position where you have influence and can make decisions. This way you'll have less time to ramble.
Trust me, it works...  8)

 

[KevinB]

Claybot,  I would hardly use Op Athena as an example of modern combat doctrine...


3VP deployed using US avation for Op Apollo,  would you suggest this was a BAD idea and we should not have deployed forces?


Jungle covered the more salient points about supporting oursevles.

 

[claybot]

Jungle

Yes I understand Modern Canadian Deployments But instead of deploying a mix of Light and Lav split it down the middle and deploy Infantry capable of both.

And where to you plan on getting the C130's once a mission has started the AirForce will be using those C130s for resupply not for Para drops. And assuming you can get them what are you going to do about Air defense. We lose a couple of planes half of your company is gone and there is no resupply. Comparing a para company in the CF to a Ranger Company backed up by the entire US Army is pointless.

I was talking about Airborne forces and existing after 24 hours. The modern army consumes a lot of ammunition which means a lot of weight to carry. Yes I know the Para soldier is conditioned for this but you can only carry so much equipment. After two or three engagements you will have exhausted all your ammunition. With out resupply you will cease to exist as a fighting force. As for this happening to a modern day Airborne force, how many times have Units jumped into battle and met stiff resistance that lasted longer than 24-72 hours none that I know of. But you may recall that during WW2 the Allies conducted a massive Airborne drop that ended in disaster as the follow on forces bumped into two panzer divisions and were unable to link up with the Airborne forces who had run out of supplies. Sure they lasted longer than 24 hours but the modern day Airborne consumes a lot more supplies than the ones from WW2.
Yes it was successful in D-Day but the Airborne were able to link up with the main force. Without that link up the Airborne cannot survive.

Yes that is my opinion, I'm allowed to have an opinion, And nowhere did I say anyone was out to lunch

As for this statement
But there is one thing you can do (or maybe should have done ??  ) Attend Leadership courses, make your way up the ranks and change things you are able to at every step... get to a position where you have influence and can make decisions. This way you'll have less time to ramble.

You do not have to attend leadership courses or move up the ranks to learn about the Canadian Forces and how it works or to even change things. Thats a myth.

I don't recall seeing you at Strategic Planning Session 7 in Cornwall November 2003. I was there along with my Co-author as a special guest invited by the CLS at the time you may know him he is now the CDS. During the opening breifing I even questioned the CLS on the future of Canadian Missile Systems.

If you have your own ideas then put them to paper and submit it for publishing if you want I can even send you the name of the editor who will take your article into consideration

Our detailed report was published in The CF and in newspapers across Canada and according to the officers I know, it is still referred to today, and the two of us did that as Corporals.

KevinB
Wouldn't your comment conflict with Jungle's Comment
Kevin B said
I would hardly use Op Athena as an example of modern combat doctrine...
Jungle said
You don't seem to understand the concept of modern (CDN) deployments: the TFs will deploy with a combination of Light and LAV Coys to give the TF Comd flexibility.

3VP used US Aviation... my point exactly US not Canadian thank you for making my point clearer. And if you recall that Aviation was Helicpoter which means airmobile not airborne.

 

[George Wallace]

claybot

Don't let your head get too swollen....I have read the "Cpl's Report" and am sure I kept a copy on file.   It is great that such a paper received such a reception throughout the CF.   It was another case of Jnr NCO's having their work published and taken seriously.   I too have submitted to the Armour Bulletin and received some praise for certain comments, but that is in the past.   When I read the "Cpls Report" there were many things that I found to be right out to lunch and surprised that two Cpls with some Int trg had made such mistakes.   Comments in reference to the Armour Corps, and such, by two PPCLI Cpls were so completely out of touch with the realities of the trade and role that I was truly pissed, but in the end I must admit someone listened to what was being presented and that proved that anyone could contribute.   Unfortunately, inexperience in certain areas and people following advice in those matters, can, and probably did, cause some harm.

 

[KevinB]

Claybot - Combat Doctrine - versus recent deployments - two different things.
Secondly to get LAV's into theatre we needed foreign avation assets, I do not understand why you think that supporting an Airborne operations with avation assets are anything different that aviation assets for other operations...

 

[Jungle]

Claybot, face the facts honestly... the Army can hardly do anything on it's own these days. We rely on Allies for ALL deployments overseas. During the next decade, we will have to hitch rides on Allies planes, helos and ships to go anywhere... why is it so dramatic when it is done to support a Parachute operation ??
I believe you are viscerally anti-Airborne, and there is nothing we can say to convince you that there is a place for Parachute Troops in our Army. I don't know the reason for this opposition, but I can imagine a few... 
Anyway, I am done with you in this conversation.  8)

 

[SeanNewman]

To get back to the original point...

To be Light Infantry does not mean sans-vehicles;  It means you don't use your vehicles as part of the battle.  I can jump out of a Herc, be inserted by helicopter (or ML-icopter), patrol in a LUVW (G Wagon), etc.  Yes, we can walk from afar, too.

The LAV3 is a fantastic vehicle, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all answer to everything, nor is anything that flexible.  It's fast, has great protection, and massive firepower from 2km+.

HOWEVER...

What are you going to do when the enemy is in mountains?  In cities with tight streets?  In the woods? 
What are you going to do when the enemy is looking and listening for you?
What are you going to do when you're trying to calm a crowd without driving up in what a civie sees as a tank?

Light and mech forces both have their pros and cons.  The ideal thing would be to work together in support of eachother.  A LAV is an extra tool in the toolbox, and it sure is a good tool.  It's good for what it's made for, but battlecraft skills are bound to suffer.

 

[McG]

To be Light Infantry does not mean sans-vehicles;  It means you don't use your vehicles as part of the battle. 

I like the official definition better:

According to the Light Forces Working Group light forces are principally foot borne forces optimized for military operations in complex environment, rapidly deployable through a variety of means, yet not tied to any one platform. [November 2004]

 

[JackD]

Hello and happy new year: I've been following this interesting thread and, never being para-qualified and being... must admit it - old and out of date perhaps my contribution  ain't worth a grain of salt but one thing that isn't mentioned in this thread is one of the reasons the Canadian Airborne Regiment came into existence - northern sovereignty (if i have my information correct)  - the Airborne Regiment was an organized task force that could be relatively rapidly transported into remote regions of Canada. This was practiced wasn't it? Now the necessity of this is remote - especially since the end of the Cold War, but the geo-political necessity of this role being  able to be fullfilled - is more necessary in view of the claims and border disputes that are occurring. So the need for a para-deployable organized task force is still there - isn't it - especially since many of the assets that ensure transportability in the north are being discarded - like the Twin Otters.

One question - or a start to a new thread; What should a light infantry or/and  para-force be equipped with in terms of transport (ATVs? light trucks - what type, what numbers - are these new geo-wagons air-droppable)?), weaponry (60 mm mortars - perhaps up to specialised 81 mm mortars? and what numbers?). Thank-you in advnce for your replies.

 

[GO!!!]

Jack,

Other than the para coys, I am unaware of any army unit able to be deployed to a remote part of northern Canada in a timely manner, with the exception of our very capable Rangers.

The transport question is a big one, and there are no quick answers. I would support heavy (6 wheel) ATVs and snowmobiles (enough for the whole TF) as an air droppable solution, but in reality, nearly every wheeled vehicle, and even some tracked ones, can be air dropped, it is just a question of having enough planes to get them there! Our neighbours to the south regularly jump bulldozers, various logistics vehicles, Humvees, artillery and mortars, so it is not impossible.

I am unaware of a G-Wagen being jumped in Canada yet, but seeing as it fits in the back of a CC-130, and is not overly heavy, I would say it is just a matter of time.

 

[JackD]

Thanks for your timely reply. It seems to me that the key to what ever shape the army will be, is what ever shape the transport arm of the airforce would be. Which I guess calls into question stategic planning within - I assume NDHQ - in other words is there any - has there been any? The loss of the Chinooks limited northern transportation. The fleet down-sizing and eventual loss of the Twin Otters  does the same. I used to work, after leaving the CAF, as a Forest and Geologist technologist and most areas of the north are accessable most of the time by bushplane. It seems to me that use of these means has never been practised by the armed forces (except the Rangers) in the 'modern" era (post 80's).Perhaps some imaginative individual can start considering  the use of bush planes and bush pilots on exercises in the north and perhaps sovereignity of our northern area can be enhanced by enrolling many of these fellows into air reserve units and subsidising their bush plane companies for time and expense - "Air-rangers?"?