The Manouvre Officer: Combining MOCs 21 and 23

[McG]

-Note these Threads have just been Merged -

It's been four and a half years since we last had this discussion.  Has our experience in Kandahar changed any of the opinions or arguments?  Has the change from MOC to MOSID offered new possibilities as to how such an amalgamation could be done?

I have a few ideas, but unfortunately, they will have to wait. 

 

[Rowshambow]

Speaking as an Armoured Officer working as a LAV Capt with an Infantry Company, I can say that I think having Armoured crew the veh's and Infantry do dismounted is a great idea. Don't get me wrong I have some amazing Infantry crew commanders. When I go back to my Regiment I would like to take them with me haha. Most of the drivers and gunners don't want to be there though, they want to be the boots on the ground, doing infantry work. Some of the Platoon Commanders also need to realize the importance of the vehicle and crew cohesion and not keep changing out drivers and gunners just because they think Pte smith might make a better rifleman than driver. The only real issue is different tactics, but with some short training and studying it works itself out.
I know if they asked for Armoured pers to crew the vehicles, I would def stay with the Bn, as my experiences have been awesome. I love my Regiment I just think the vehicle specialist should be in the vehicles and the dismounted specialist should be dismounted or ready to!
As for counting, when my gunner and I put our fingers together, we can make 20 without having to take our boots off, (most times)!!

 

[vonGarvin]

Speaking as an Armoured Officer working as a LAV Capt with an Infantry Company, I can say that I think having Armoured crew the veh's and Infantry do dismounted is a great idea. Don't get me wrong I have some amazing Infantry crew commanders. When I go back to my Regiment I would like to take them with me haha. Most of the drivers and gunners don't want to be there though, they want to be the boots on the ground, doing infantry work. Some of the Platoon Commanders also need to realize the importance of the vehicle and crew cohesion and not keep changing out drivers and gunners just because they think Pte smith might make a better rifleman than driver. The only real issue is different tactics, but with some short training and studying it works itself out.
I know if they asked for Armoured pers to crew the vehicles, I would def stay with the Bn, as my experiences have been awesome. I love my Regiment I just think the vehicle specialist should be in the vehicles and the dismounted specialist should be dismounted or ready to!
As for counting, when my gunner and I put our fingers together, we can make 20 without having to take our boots off, (most times)!!

I could not agree more re: armoured crewing infantry vehicles.  (Note: this is not about combining 21 and 23.)  Take an example from our very recent military past, specifically, operations in Afghanistan.  Without getting into specifics, there were many occassions when the infantry companies would go on an op, and the drivers, gunners et al deployed dismounted.  So, you simply cannot take an armoured crewman, put him or her in a LAV III APC as a "crewman", and leave him or her there.  Our drivers and gunners are infantrymen first, just like our machine gunners, recce patrolmen, signallers (eg: Pl signallers, not the Jimmy tradesmen) and so forth.  Being infantry is more than walking everywhere.  I mean, f*ck, we gave mortars to artillery, pioneers to engineers and you armour dudes now have the anti tank (which should have went to artillery, but I digress).  Now take our crews from us?  What's next: we carry your small arms for you?
Fuck That.  (Not "fuck you", but "fuck that idea")


Note: I have a wealth of experience, which includes advanced mortarman, advanced small arms and I'm also an IG (not the arty kind, but the direct-fire kind).  Each of our trades (NCMs) bring the technical expertise that is required of that MOC/MOSID.

21/23 merge?  Maybe after platoon commanding/troop leading.  EG: LAV Captain/Battle Captian could be an armour or infantry officer with the proper technical (eg: crew commanding) training. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

Small point.  The Infantry didn't give Jacques Merde to the Engineers, it always was our job.  You just gave up an interesting side gig and left the professionals to their job, not the same thing.

 

[George Wallace]

I could not agree more re: armoured crewing infantry vehicles.  (Note: this is not about combining 21 and 23.)  Take an example from our very recent military past, specifically, operations in Afghanistan.  Without getting into specifics, there were many occassions when the infantry companies would go on an op, and the drivers, gunners et al deployed dismounted.  So, you simply cannot take an armoured crewman, put him or her in a LAV III APC as a "crewman", and leave him or her there.  Our drivers and gunners are infantrymen first, just like our machine gunners, recce patrolmen, signallers (eg: Pl signallers, not the Jimmy tradesmen) and so forth.  Being infantry is more than walking everywhere.  I mean, f*ck, we gave mortars to artillery, pioneers to engineers and you armour dudes now have the anti tank (which should have went to artillery, but I digress).  Now take our crews from us?  What's next: we carry your small arms for you?
Fuck That.  (Not "fuck you", but "fuck that idea")


Note: I have a wealth of experience, which includes advanced mortarman, advanced small arms and I'm also an IG (not the arty kind, but the direct-fire kind).  Each of our trades (NCMs) bring the technical expertise that is required of that MOC/MOSID.

21/23 merge?  Maybe after platoon commanding/troop leading.  EG: LAV Captain/Battle Captian could be an armour or infantry officer with the proper technical (eg: crew commanding) training.

I got a little lost in your narrative.  I'm not sure if you agree, then disagreed, then agreed, then......

Whatever.  It is a moot point. 

There is more to this than simply merging 21 and 23 Occupations.  I would say that there are problems enough within the Armour Corps, without them merging with another Trade.  I would say that only 1/3 of the Armour Corps pers are comfortable doing either Tanks or Recce.  The other 2/3's are equally divided between being comfortable doing Tanks or Recce, but not both.

 

[Infanteer]

Fuck That.  (Not "fuck you", but "fuck that idea")

Agree - having 2-3 rifleman qualfied driver/gunner means we can swap out crew - which is awesome if you're in the vehicle for more than 12 hours.  Leave, casualties, etc, etc; all these things mean the section can operate if it loses its driver and/or gunner.  Having only one qualified driver when the driver goes down (I've had one do so) can make for a rough day in a pinch.

The LAV III, like the 60mm mortar or the PVS-14, is a tool that rifleman use.

 

[dapaterson]

TANGENT alert:  If we are to maintain HLTA, rotate out platoons whole.  None of this "two from each section at a time" crap.

I now relinquish my soapbox...

 

[Rowshambow]

"Agree - having 2-3 rifleman qualified driver/gunner means we can swap out crew - which is awesome if you're in the vehicle for more than 12 hours.  Leave, casualties, etc, etc; all these things mean the section can operate if it loses its driver and/or gunner.  Having only one qualified driver when the driver goes down (I've had one do so) can make for a rough day in a pinch."

So what does Armoured do when they loose a driver,gunner or Commander???
The echelon is there for a reason, which includes spares if needed.

 

[vonGarvin]

I got a little lost in your narrative.  I'm not sure if you agree, then disagreed, then agreed, then......

Looking over my post again, I can see why.
As for the MOC 21/23 merge, I agree (in principle) that they could possible be merged some point after troop leader/platoon commander.
As for 011 crewmen driving, gunning and commanding LAV APCs, I disagree for the reasons stated.

 

[Infanteer]

So what does Armoured do when they loose a driver,gunner or Commander???
The echelon is there for a reason, which includes spares if needed.

Good question?  If we were to go with armoured crews for the Infantry vehicles, then I guess we'd need an armoured Echelon as well.

 

[George Wallace]

Would that be a bad thing?  They carry more Bullets, Fuel and Food.  They bring along the Gun Plumbers, FCS, LCIS and other Techs.  Sounds good to me.

 

[Infanteer]

...sure - if you advocate the Armoured Corps providing 9 Rifle Companies with echelons (that's raising an extra Regiment's strength of crewman).  Working with this, we start to realize what a tall order providing the Infantry battalions with Armoured Crewman for the LAV IIIs becomes.  As well, following the principle of Crewman crewing, should the Armour take up the LAVs of the Engineers and the Artillery as well?  As we see, this rapidly approaches infeasibility.

The other option is to do what the Aussies do - provide a few of their Armoured units with the vehicles and basically turn them into "Taxi Battalions".  I'm not a fan of this - first, our armoured units have enough on their plate.  Second, I don't think any of our fine armoured regiments would be keen on being relegated to a taxi service for everyone else.  Third, that would most likely not leave enough "taxi battalions" to serve the rest of the combat arms, leaving battalions to seek their own transport and crews....bringing us back to where we started.

There is probably a reason units own their vehicles and find their crews from their own ranks - it is the easiest and most effective way of doing so.

On the topic of echelons, an Echelon in itself is not a bad thing - look at the Combat Team PAM; our doctrine (at least the "going on 5-years interim" doctrine) points to a Coy Echelon roughly similar to that of an Armoured Squadron and something I wish we'd actually be given instead of a couple trucks.

PS - this is an obvious thread divergence to be split - where to?

 

[McG]

A little more fuel for the fire.  There are many other branches in which a single officer occupation oversees several non-commissioned occupations.  You can see examples of this in the EME, Signals, and Log worlds.  In the CME, there are two officer occupations and several different non-commissioned occupations.  There is no cosmic rule requiring an officer occupation for every non-commissioned occupation, nor vice-versa.

Converging of branches would not require converging of non-commissioned occupations, and you could still have distinct sub-units (or even units) of infantry an armoured.  The upside is that this discussion need not get bogged down into the weeds of who will crew which vehicles.

 

[ArmyRick]

I am putting on my body armour and helmet because when ever I speak, I endure barrages of fire. But I like to throw out wild ideas and see what people think.

(1) The armour as taxi battalion is not really feasible
(2) We are supposed to be getting CCV soon or in the near future. My understanding is these will escort tanks into battle (combat team). What about having armour crew the CCV completely (fron and back). Ducking now because first barrage probably fire.

Why not have Infantry crew the LAV IIIs as their medium weight, fast and moderately armed vehicle.

(3) My next step, I would desinate one armour regiment to be the "heavy regiment". They would be organized into squadrons combined with both MBT and CCV. I would then have the other two armour regiments be armour reconnaissance. Kind of an idea I got from how brits do things.

I realize there will be arguments for, agaisnt, who gets the tanks, etc, etc. However I beleive there is no perfect COA, but look for the 80% solution.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have several arguments why I would do this
-Deployments from armour these days is on a squadron basis, correct? The idea that an actual armour BG will deploy in the contemporary operational enviroment is slim.

-I had an armour crewman 2IC for 2 courses when I used to instruct on DP1 infantry and he did very well. He had no problem understanding the basics of infantry. The CCV will not likely be used for mountainous, amphibious or airmobile ops. These troops (in my opinion) would be similar to the old school "Assault Troops" except there would be more of these troops.

-This would keep the "heavy" armour sub units organic to their own. I beleive this would better develop the true armour combat team capability to its maximum potential

-This by no means makes the LAVIII irrelevant. Their are plenty of task that require infantry operationally but have no requiremnt for heavy armour. It does not mean this new armour squadron and the LAV companies would never work together. The mission would dictate what happens.

 

[Journeyman]

So, if I understand your argument, you want to recreate the Assault Troop, only as a battalion-sized Assault Regiment. This would necessitate retraining all armour MOCs to do infantry tasks (except the Heavy Armour, I guess), notwithstanding the fact that we have a bunch of people already trained in infantry tasks -- for discussion purposes, lets call them....oh I dunno, how about "infantry."

And your rationale for this change is that:
1) otherwise we're unlikely to deploy "an actual armour BG," and
2) you had a course 2IC who was a 011 Crewman, and he was OK.

when ever I speak, I endure barrages of fire

I can understand that.

 

[a_majoor]

I seem to recall this argument was played out in one of the Infantry threads as well, with various arguments for separating "light" from "mech" infantry (and devolving into the sub sub genres of mech infantry; should they be dragoons tied to the vehicles, Panzergrenadiers, or even Hamippos?)

I suspect there is a very good case for "mech" infantry to be a separate genre from other classes of infantry, because they have the ability to use their vehicles as extremely powerful firebases  for tactical manoeuvres and have far more protected mobility than anyone else, but I doubt the argument has been (or can be) resolved.

Based on that argument, however, the case for Infantry to man and crew IFV's or APC's is very clear: these vehicles provide the firebase and intimate support for the dismounted troops, while Tanks are attachments and can be flexibly employed in various other roles as well.

 

[George Wallace]

Armour as "Taxi" Bns is not a new idea, but one that was used in the Second World War.  The 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment, "The Kangaroo Regiment" was created for this sole purpose.

 

[vonGarvin]

Armour as "Taxi" Bns is not a new idea, but one that was used in the Second World War.  The 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment, "The Kangaroo Regiment" was created for this sole purpose.

Of course, at that time, we had no experience in mechanised warfare, and didn't have doctrine, or the time, to train up infantrymen to be drivers, etc.  Now that we have a (draft!!!) doctrine and (some?) time, I believe it would be a non-starter to "suddenly" inform the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps that they need to crew xxx LAV APCs in addition to their standing tasks.

 

[George Wallace]

Of course, at that time, we had no experience in mechanised warfare, and didn't have doctrine, or the time, to train up infantrymen to be drivers, etc.  Now that we have a (draft!!!) doctrine and (some?) time, I believe it would be a non-starter to "suddenly" inform the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps that they need to crew xxx LAV APCs in addition to their standing tasks.

True.  Following the lines of this discussion, however, it may lead to the creation of that as a trade, or perhaps do as the Brits did with the Saxons, and create a Armoured MSE OP Trade to transport the troops from the Rear to the Fwd locations to transfer to LAVs.......Guess that would be just outside of this discussion.