Canadian LAVIII Coys

[Kingtiger]

I guess I have already sorted it by luck in the briefing as I replaced "niner" with "one-niner". So that leaves the LAV OC in command of this rag-tag canadian bunch :sonic:

[12Alfa]

I guess I have already sorted it by luck in the briefing as I replaced "niner" with "one-niner". So that leaves the LAV OC in command of this rag-tag canadian bunch :sonic:

I protest!!!:)

Also , the fact that the Inf can't resupply the tank Sqn however the tank Sqn can resupply the Inf Coy is sometimes a tactical factor. The Inf Coy's just don't have the lift for that many vehicles even in LAVIII Coy's.

Just a thought.

[Gibsonm]

Always good to arrive at the CQ's vehicle and ask for say ten thousand litres of diesel and watch the colour drain from his face.

Or 125mm ammo when he's used to carrying 5.56 and 7.62 around.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Gibsonm

[Kingtiger]

I protest!!!:)

Also , the fact that the Inf can't resupply the tank Sqn however the tank Sqn can resupply the Inf Coy is sometimes a tactical factor. The Inf Coy's just don't have the lift for that many vehicles even in LAVIII Coy's.

Just a thought.

Well, won't both COY and SQNs echelons continue its work as usual? so despite being under a LAV OC the tanks get their ammo and fuel from the SQN logistics and the LAVs from the LAV Coys logistics?

[Gibsonm]

In this case yes as the two outfits appear to have been merged to form one CT with two Majors.

However normally the unit you get attached to has a variable responsibility for administration.

So (using older terminology) if my Tk Tp is "under command" your Inf Coy, I just turn up with my Tk Tp (no echelon) and the CQMS has to feed, fuel, arm and repair me.

That's when the guy used to looking after 100 or so blokes with his 4x4 and trailer has a heart attack when I ask for say 1500l of diesel, 80 rounds of various 120mm natures and a M1 power pack.

This is the "simplest" option but usually not enforced.

If my Tk Tp is "under command, less admin" your Inf Coy, then I turn up with my Tk Tp and a "slice" of my parent unit's echelon and that ecehelon works with the CQMS.

If my Tk Tp is "in location" with your Inf Coy, then I need to look after my self but your Coy can't tell me what to do.

These terms have now been replaced with OPCON, TACON, and a bunch of others that I wont bore you with.

The point 12A was making was a Tk ech can easily cope with the CSS needs of an Inf Coy being added to it, whereas an Inf ech has "issues" if a Tk Sqn is added to it.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Gibsonm

[Kingtiger]

Ah I see. We (sweden) don't have the issues as our Mech Bn have 2 Tk COY (YES COY! ) and 2 CV90 Coys, so our Echelons are organised to supply both tk and CV, so we only need to report back that we got tks resupplying with us and it runs as usual. So these problems are new to me

So I get that a Tk Echelon can POL and water/food up a LAV Coy, but the ammo for the 25mm must come from the LAV Coys Echelon? Doubt a Tk Echelon humps 25mm around? So there must always be some kind of cross-matching regarding Echelons when Tk/LAV merges as a fighting unit anyway?

[12Alfa]

Ah I see. We (sweden) don't have the issues as our Mech Bn have 2 Tk COY (YES COY! ) and 2 CV90 Coys, so our Echelons are organised to supply both tk and CV, so we only need to report back that we got tks resupplying with us and it runs as usual. So these problems are new to me

So I get that a Tk Echelon can POL and water/food up a LAV Coy, but the ammo for the 25mm must come from the LAV Coys Echelon? Doubt a Tk Echelon humps 25mm around? So there must always be some kind of cross-matching regarding Echelons when Tk/LAV merges as a fighting unit anyway?

Tank Regt in which a tank Sqn will be from has a 8 AFV Coyote troop ad they have the 25mm bushmaster. So yes we have 25mm in the ech.:cul:

[Kingtiger]

ah right, so the Coyotes belongs to the Tk Regt! I assumed it was a brigade or battle-group asset handed out as needed. well then they should have a few 25mm rounds yes

Well, guess I have to change so its the Tk OC (three-niner) that's in charge of this circus instead of the LAV OC (One-niner), so I can be confident the supply organisation works as intended :biggrin:

[12Alfa]

ah right, so the Coyotes belongs to the Tk Regt! I assumed it was a brigade or battle-group asset handed out as needed. well then they should have a few 25mm rounds yes

Well, guess I have to change so its the Tk OC (three-niner) that's in charge of this circus instead of the LAV OC (One-niner), so I can be confident the supply organisation works as intended :biggrin:

We have Regt's, some are all tank, and some have both tank and Coyotes.

This is still changing as the Leo2 are now coming into service, where we will end up is anyone's guess.

So to say we have pure tank regt's would be false if you get my drift.:biggrin:

[Gibsonm]

Slightly OT but our Armoured Regt (at least for the time being) has a recce Tp too.

The idea being that they "prove the route" for atks or C-Atks so when launched the Tk Regt can have confidence that they can just "go" and not have to waste time / slow down sorting out how to get to the required location.

[12Alfa]

Yes this is one of our tasks also.

However I would think in light of the IED threat that the engineers or AFV's with rollers would be better suited to "Proof" a route.:redface:

[Gibsonm]

Agreed, but then proving the route for a Regt sized pure Tk C-ATK force implies that we aren't in "IED land" anymore Toto.

[Gibsonm]

Moved as requested.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Gibsonm

[Kingtiger]

Tweaked the call sign template.

First Troop selected is "10" to reflect SHQ / CHQ

So fighting sub units need to be the second and subsequent units created (or the person renames them after creation).

Currently with some UK contacts before I submit it for upload as a "Commonwealth" standard (or near enough).

Good news I belive, but wouldn't it be better to have it posted in a bit more correct thread? Like: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=15954&page=7 ?

[RecceDG]

In this case yes as the two outfits appear to have been merged to form one CT with two Majors.

Yes. The "by the book" square combat team is an infantry coy, a tank sqn, a FOO, and an engineer field section. The tank sqn brings its echelon, the inf coy brings its CP (Queen Mary)

This is one of those formations developed the hard way during WW2. It allows cycling though fresh coys and sqns and keeping up the momentum depending on how the situation is developing. We kept it through the Cold War and it is still the primary combined arms building block.

In theory. In practice you do what you need to do (for example, the three car recce patrols used in Afghanistan vice the doctrinal two-car patrols) to get the job done. But the basic construct is the square combat team.

The book says either the inf coy OC or the tank sqn OC can be in charge. The way we were taught and practiced was with the inf coy OC as the combat team commander. My Corps prejudices notwithstanding, this is probably the right choice: the actual quick attack tends to have two phases to it (not in terms of orders phases, but in the way it plays out) You have the tank fight, which starts with the initial contact and plays through the establishment of the firebase, the obstacle line breach, and the assault, and then you have the infantry fight, which starts with the dismount and ends with the objective secure and the position consolidated. You can lead the tank fight from a LAV, but you can't lead the dismounted infantry fight from a tank.

That being said, much depends on the personalities and skill levels of the two majors involved, plus the nature of the enemy and ground.

And nothing is graven in stone either. If the attack was on a prepared position with a particularly tricky obstacle belt to breach, it is conceivable that the engineer resources would be beefed up and maybe an engineer major takes command of the combat team for that specific assault (to ensure the engineer bits come off correctly). Combat Teams are not fixed formations; they are functional groupings.

By the book, a Canadian Armoured Regiment has 4 tank squadrons and a regimental recce troop (C/S 60) In the 80s and 90s (maybe even earlier) partially because there weren't enough tanks to go around, and partially because there weren't any Div recce regiments to keep the recce skillset and personnel deep enough, an armoured regiment had 3 tank squadrons (A-C) and a recce sqn (D) plus the regimental recce troop (60)

Then as we thought we were going to phase out the tanks, all regiments converted to recce entire less the Strats who kept a rump tank sqn, and 60 was converted to zero strength.

And now the tanks are coming back on, and the plan for how they are going to be distributed is still in the works.

So we've gone from tank heavy, to recce heavy, and we're moving to something in-between.

So where the recce force comes from that screens the square combat team is anybodies guess.

A reasonable assumption is that you have a battle group consisting of an infantry Bn and an armoured regt with 3 tank sqns and a recce sqn, plus a battery of guns and an engineer troop. That gives you enough moving parts to have a combat team in the fight and two in reserve, plus enough recce resources to screen everything.

DG

[AKM]

Good reading here, thanks for the input DG and 12Alfa.

Minor technical nitpick: Doesn't the Cadillac-Gage 1M turret (with the 12.7 and the 7.62 MGs) have partial stabilization and power traverse but no power elevation? I recall reading something about that, but I'm pretty sure it was on CASR.ca and they might have had a 'durp' moment with it.

[RecceDG]

No stab, power traverse (but it is kinda coarse - it's a toggle switch) manual elevation/traverse.

I'd use the power traverse to scan and to slew onto target, but actual shooting used the hand cranks.

It's a good turret for recce because the highest part of the vehicle is the sight box. A proper turret-down exposes a shoebox-sized box and that's it. And the optics are nice and clear.

But shoot on the move? Hells no.

DG

[AKM]

Good data, thanks. I've never heard anyone talk about the 1M turret's optics or its sight arrangement before: little surprised that the 1M is so sensible with regards to its optics arrangement, to be able to do that in a turret down position. I'll have to wait for CASR.ca to go up again to be sure, but if I remember right they were saying partial stab (horizontal plane only) with power traverse and manual elevation... not quite the whole picture, clearly. Thanks again.

[RecceDG]

Here's a student learning what "tracks up to the world" means, as seen through the daysight of the 1m turret on a TLAV.

Camera phone picture through the sight so not super high quality, but enough to get the idea.

DG

[Trekker]

The new Swedish mechbtn consists of three cv9040 companies, tanks are independent coys today. Althou the tank coys are in peacetime tied to one of the mechbtns.