NATO: Some questions on TO&E-now in prime time.

[akd]

Yes, thanks very much Steve. I agree that some of the lessons learned articles I posted were divergent in their conclusions and mainly applicable to low-intensity COIN/urban patrolling. However, I think the experience of 1 PPCLI and 1 RCR in 2006 falls somewhere in between low-intensity COIN and conventional operations, with RPGs and recoilless rifles at that time just as much, if not more, of a threat to the LAVs.

The Canadian battlegroup operations around the "white schoolhouse" in Panjawi, for example, were pretty much straight up assaults on a known enemy fortified position. If you haven't seen this three-part series of articles, it is definitely worth a read:

Operation Medusa - The Battle for Panjawi

They had trained for counter-insurgency warfare, but what they found was a lot closer to conventional war.

What they found was the battle of Panjwai. It was force-on-force battle against an enemy that employed a classic Soviet tactical defence. It was 16 weeks of pitched battles, air strikes and bloodshed.

The real point was that neither conventional operations doctrine nor actual practice in Afghanistan point to leaving the LAV without a full crew of three in any combat situation. I hope you are convinced!

And a thought on the AT weapons dilemma, the platoon AT capabilities could perhaps be upped a bit by pulling the Carl Gustafs and their tiny allotment of HE rounds from the section vehicles to be replaced by an equal or greater number of LAWs, then adding more ammo for the Platoon weapons section Carl Gustaf, including some AT rounds.

[Lethaface]

Since this thread is in the lights now, is there any news regarding the disappearing/lacking Radio's for German mech and Dutch mech troops?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Since this thread is in the lights now, is there any news regarding the disappearing/lacking Radio's for German mech and Dutch mech troops?

Steve in post #20 just above.

4. Some issues with low level radio allocation have been fixed.

[Erik Springelkamp]

> 4. Some issues with low level radio allocation have been fixed.

>

> Steve

I took that for a confirmation on the Dutch radio problem

[Lethaface]

Ah cheers! Totally missed that one. Gonna wait for the patch and restart the campaign, having some fun with single battles now.

[Allan Wotherspoon]

If the lack of HEAT rounds for the Carl Gustav's could be fixed, that would be great.

[Allan Wotherspoon]

And a thought on the AT weapons dilemma, the platoon AT capabilities could perhaps be upped a bit by pulling the Carl Gustafs and their tiny allotment of HE rounds from the section vehicles to be replaced by an equal or greater number of LAWs, then adding more ammo for the Platoon weapons section Carl Gustaf, including some AT rounds.

I second this.

[The_Capt]

"The Canadian battlegroup operations around the "white schoolhouse" in Panjawi, for example, were pretty much straight up assaults on a known enemy fortified position. If you haven't seen this three-part series of articles, it is definitely worth a read:

Operation Medusa - The Battle for Panjawi

The real point was that neither conventional operations doctrine nor actual practice in Afghanistan point to leaving the LAV without a full crew of three in any combat situation. I hope you are convinced!"

I for one am not totally convinced on this one for a couple reasons:

1. Medusa and the PPCLI actions were still relatively small conventional actions (basically cbt team) in terrain where the other team had full freedom of movement. This continued to drive a reqr to fight the LAVs 360 degrees and have a 3 man crew.

2. In both of these cases there was a disctinct lack of direct firepower support. the PPCLI did not have tanks and I will have to dig but I am not sure we had them for Medusa either. This meant that against every warning we gave in the 90s the LAV became a close assault support vehicle AND a direct fire support vehicle reqr full attention of a 3 man crew.

3. Lesson's Learned from each of these actions all pointed to the simple fact that our infantry sections were too damn small. Add in casualties, leave etc and we were getting down to 5 man sects. Later rotations actually built on this and depl 12 man sections.

My druthers is to build 11 man sections and keep the 8 dismounts or sacrifice a pair of eyes in the vehicle and put another set of boots with the dismounts in an urban-heavy campaign. Syria is our worst day in Afghanistan, everyday. We would be pulling troops from everywhere to maintain our dismounted cbt power or risk becoming totally ineffective.

On the Carl Gs. Every section has one, this is doctrine and with no real reason to change it. I do agree on more LAWs and 84mm HEAT rounds though.

[akd]

"The Canadian battlegroup operations around the "white schoolhouse" in Panjawi, for example, were pretty much straight up assaults on a known enemy fortified position. If you haven't seen this three-part series of articles, it is definitely worth a read:

Operation Medusa - The Battle for Panjawi

The real point was that neither conventional operations doctrine nor actual practice in Afghanistan point to leaving the LAV without a full crew of three in any combat situation. I hope you are convinced!"

I for one am not totally convinced on this one for a couple reasons:

1. Medusa and the PPCLI actions were still relatively small conventional actions (basically cbt team) in terrain where the other team had full freedom of movement. This continued to drive a reqr to fight the LAVs 360 degrees and have a 3 man crew.

2. In both of these cases there was a disctinct lack of direct firepower support. the PPCLI did not have tanks and I will have to dig but I am not sure we had them for Medusa either. This meant that against every warning we gave in the 90s the LAV became a close assault support vehicle AND a direct fire support vehicle reqr full attention of a 3 man crew.

3. Lesson's Learned from each of these actions all pointed to the simple fact that our infantry sections were too damn small. Add in casualties, leave etc and we were getting down to 5 man sects. Later rotations actually built on this and depl 12 man sections.

My druthers is to build 11 man sections and keep the 8 dismounts or sacrifice a pair of eyes in the vehicle and put another set of boots with the dismounts in an urban-heavy campaign. Syria is our worst day in Afghanistan, everyday. We would be pulling troops from everywhere to maintain our dismounted cbt power or risk becoming totally ineffective.

We can assume that leave would not be factor in the Syria scenario, so on day one of the invasion, full crews and full strength (or over strength depending on the source) sections seems plausible.

And yes, no tanks for Medusa (I think the first Leopards arrived in November '06). But then I can't find any other apparent account of other ops during that time where the LAVs were left short of crew for dismounted actions, including ones where the LAVs were acting as long-range support or simply as highway transport.

Even if we hypothesize that the particular nature of the Syria campaign would drive the Canadians to de-crew LAVs to beef up dismounted sections, I have several problems with forcing this on the player:

1. All types of operations from full-on conventional to high-intensity counter-insurgency are possible in CMSF. The flexibility of the editor in scenario design is wonderful, but the lack of flexibility in the order of battle unfortunately is not. Forcing this decision on the player is questionable.

2. Removing the crew commander from the LAV has to be reconciled with practice in the other forces participating in the same campaign. All the other infantry section vehicles with multi-crew turrets in the game maintain a full vehicle crew when the section dismounts, including Marine LAVs, Bradleys, Brit Warriors, Dutch CV9035s, etc.

3. It is not completely clear to me how the LAV would fight at all without a vehicle/crew commander, especially on CMSF size maps? How could it even backup blind like that or change positions in a hurry under fire?

On the Carl Gs. Every section has one, this is doctrine and with no real reason to change it. I do agree on more LAWs and 84mm HEAT rounds though.

There seems to be contradictory information on this even in doctrine, but that seems perfectly reasonable as well. It's just the 2 CGs per vehicle with just 2 HE rounds and no additional AT weapons that makes no sense.

[Battlefront.com]

We can assume that leave would not be factor in the Syria scenario, so on day one of the invasion, full crews and full strength (or over strength depending on the source) sections seems plausible.

Sure, at least from the start of the ops. However, even light wounds in a fast tempo operation are going to add up to significant manpower drainage. The_Capt's point about the importance of maintaing maximum dismounts is, therefore, still valid.

One of the interesting things that CMx2 shows, even more so than CMx1, is the combat effective tipping point of a Rifle Squad. Losing 2 soldiers from a 9 man Squad doesn't affect how I use my Squads. Losing 2 soldiers from a 7 man Squad does. Big time. Which is why I really dislike BW PzGrens with their starting strength of 6 men.

1. All types of operations from full-on conventional to high-intensity counter-insurgency are possible in CMSF. The flexibility of the editor in scenario design is wonderful, but the lack of flexibility in the order of battle unfortunately is not. Forcing this decision on the player is questionable.

Yes, this is a problem which we don't yet have a full solution for. That's because it's quite the "ugly" problem for us to deal with since it touches on many different facets of the game as a system. However, with the new unit purchase UI (starting with Normandy) there is some relief for the question of dismounting "swing" members. It's an even bigger issue in Normandy as Halftracks only have organic drivers, with gunners being either mounted or dismounted depending on circumstances.

2. Removing the crew commander from the LAV has to be reconciled with practice in the other forces participating in the same campaign. All the other infantry section vehicles with multi-crew turrets in the game maintain a full vehicle crew when the section dismounts, including Marine LAVs, Bradleys, Brit Warriors, Dutch CV9035s, etc.

True in some cases. However, there are plenty of vehicles where the Commander dismounts. Strykers and Bradleys included.

3. It is not completely clear to me how the LAV would fight at all without a vehicle/crew commander, especially on CMSF size maps? How could it even backup blind like that or change positions in a hurry under fire?

The choice of having the LAV Commander in the dismount role is definitely not the right choice. The Gunner is the better pick for this. I don't know how the LAV III is setup in terms of slaving the Gunner's responsibilities to the Commander's position.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve- the last three posts are a great reminder of how much research and thought go into CM. Thanks for the insight.

NATO has been a real challenge from this standpoint. The Germans treat their TO&E as a state secret, the Dutch don't publish their info in the amount of detail we need, and the Canadians are... well... very confused even within their own ranks All three of these forces are in a pretty significant cycle of equipment and organizational changes, which makes the basic information shortage all the more difficult to deal with. Because when we do see something specific we have to check the date very carefully and also make sure it isn't theory talking instead of reality.

Whatever mistakes we have, I bet they are a lot fewer and further inbetween than any other modern wargame out there

Steve

[akd]

Sure, at least from the start of the ops. However, even light wounds in a fast tempo operation are going to add up to significant manpower drainage. The_Capt's point about the importance of maintaing maximum dismounts is, therefore, still valid.

I agree, I just don't think it would be done by removing crew from the LAV. I can't find any examples of it even being considered.

One of the interesting things that CMx2 shows, even more so than CMx1, is the combat effective tipping point of a Rifle Squad. Losing 2 soldiers from a 9 man Squad doesn't affect how I use my Squads. Losing 2 soldiers from a 7 man Squad does. Big time. Which is why I really dislike BW PzGrens with their starting strength of 6 men.

Yes, but losing the LAV because it is blind can also be a big combat effective tipping point.

Yes, this is a problem which we don't yet have a full solution for. That's because it's quite the "ugly" problem for us to deal with since it touches on many different facets of the game as a system. However, with the new unit purchase UI (starting with Normandy) there is some relief for the question of dismounting "swing" members. It's an even bigger issue in Normandy as Halftracks only have organic drivers, with gunners being either mounted or dismounted depending on circumstances.

True in some cases. However, there are plenty of vehicles where the Commander dismounts. Strykers and Bradleys included.

The Bradley CFV commander dismounts (and by the way, shouldn't he have a crew helmet?), but I understand this for a recon-tasked vehicle, and I think most other recon vehicles in the game work the same way.

However, Bradleys IFVs in the game retain a three-man crew, including gunner and vehicle commander when the squad dismounts, and there is no seat swapping.

The Stryker, of course, has an RWS and the vehicle commander doubles as the gunner. I know the squad leader can unbutton, but I don't think he has specific crew duties when mounted, i.e. he is the commander of the vehicle and the squad, but not the vehicle commander. There is, of course, no seat swapping when he dismounts. The other mech infantry section vehicle in the game with an RWS, the Brit Bulldog Enforcer, seems to work the same (but the SL can't even unbutton there).

As it stands, the only other outlier is the LAV-25, which is a recon-tasked vehicle that retains full crew when the team dismounts.

The choice of having the LAV Commander in the dismount role is definitely not the right choice. The Gunner is the better pick for this. I don't know how the LAV III is setup in terms of slaving the Gunner's responsibilities to the Commander's position.

Steve

I can't find any examples of this sort of seat swapping happening in combat.

Found an interesting thread here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,57654.0.html

Seems that even though CF is starting to use some LAV IIIs with RWS, the crew commander still remains with the vehicle.

I am currently in the middle of the LAV III RWS Train the Trainer gunners course, so I might be able to help out a little with any questions.

In regards to the weapons, the weapon station itself is mounted in front of the gunners hole, slightly off of centre. Makes learning about inhibit zones fun! The station itself accepts C6, M2 or C9. There is a platts mount on the front right of the commanders hatch that will fit a C6 or a C9.

The veh is being crewed as per normal, the numbers do not change. I can not say what the rest of the forces are doing, but there has been nothing mentioned about the CC [Crew Commander] dismounting with the sect [section]. I can't imagine it would be done either, especially not at 2RCR.

We have 2 (sort of) at the armour school right now for this course. There are five others that are doing the "circus show" as the WO likes to call it, travelling from base to base to get the troops qualified on. As far as I know they are in Shilo at the moment slowly making their way to gagtown.

As for the deployment schedule, I am not 100% sure what info is open source and what isn't. Needless to say they will be showing up in theatre in the not so distant future. If you want more of the where and when details you can shoot me an email from a DIN email address and I will point you in the direction of the SME who would know better than me what we are allowed to say and what we aren't. Sorry for the cop out, but anyone who knows me knows I am not huge on the secretive for no reason song and dance, its just the system is so new I do not want to mark time on my organ. And as well for those who know me, pictures of the high resolution, on the move and firing kind are on the way as soon as I can get them cleared by the Chain o' Command. Any request for angles or what not and I will see what I can do. Any questions I will try my best to answer, I am by no means an expert but I am working for them right now and probably have more hands on time than the majority of people out there at the moment.

You can PM any questions or to find my DIN email address. I am not exactly incognito though, you should be able to find me fairly easily in the address book.

- EDIT -

I should add in a little about the intent. From the crew who are teaching this course, the LAV III RWS is NOT a replacement for the LAV III with the 25mm turret. It is going to augment the fleet in much the same way the nyala does. Low intensity things like convoys and QRF, not full on kinetic ops. The weight savings from the turret is being spent in up armouring and mine proofing the vehicle. Everyone can stop screaming bloody murder about the 25mm being taken away, aside from the 30-ish hulls with no turrets that are being converted, there isn't a plan to downgrade the 650 some odd lavs to this standard. If you would like to have a chat about the cost of developing the system, prototyping and building them and retraining crews vice just buying 30 turrets, I have some ideas on that, but you can unbunch the panties, the LAV III 25 (as it is now being referred to around coy lines to my great dismay) is here to stay.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

I can't remember if it is one or two of the Stryker Rifle Platoon's Commanders are sometimes dismounts. One for sure, but I think it's sometimes two. Early in Beta testing testers constantly complained about some of their Strykers refusing to target anything. Turns out those were the Strykers with its Commanders dismounted. So we permanently changed the personnel allocation so that the Strykers always maintained 2 crew. This is because without 2 crew the vehicle can not fire.

On the other hand, the LAV III is fully combat capable with the gunner dismounted since the gunner's position can be slaved to the commander. The way we have it in the game now, with the commander dismounting and the gunner remaining, is definitely not right. So any arguments about the commander not dismounting are acknowledged as valid and is easy fixed on our end. But the gunner could still dismount and not inhibit the LAV's performance too much. Remember, crew are assigned non-combat responsibilities so there is a reason to have a gunner in the crew even if he does dismount.

But let's put all this aside because it's not relevant (i.e. we know the commander shouldn't be dismounting). It is also not relevant what the US Army, Marines, British, or anybody else does or may do. The only question is what would the Canadians do and how would they go about it.

The Capt is a combat experienced Canadian officer who has spent some fun filled time in Afghanistan. It's his opinion that in a conventional war that the forces would be reorganized to not only have 8 men dismount but to have as many as 9 dismount AND still have 2 crewing the LAV (crammed passenger area, but he's done it and therefore it's possible). In fact, he cited examples to me where the entire Rifle Section dismounts and goes on patrol with the LAV being left behind unmaned.

The frustrating thing about this is nobody can be sure of what the Canadian forces would look like in a Syrian setting. From what I gather this is because the existing TO&E is largely seen as obsolete and/or not applicable. While this is true for pretty much any force at war, it seems that for the Canadians it is more than usual.

For example, the official Canadian doctrine has the Light Infantry Platoon's Weapons Section using only ONE weapon at a time. Either the MMG or the Carl Gustav or the 60mm Mortar. That is completely impractical, of course, so it is highly unlikely that's the way it would work in real life. Which is why we don't have it organized that way in the game.

What this means is there is no "right" answer to how Canadian forces would be organized for a full up, high intensity offensive conventional war. Using either strict TO&E or the COIN Afghanistan environment as a guideline is useful, but neither one provides definitive answers.

Steve

[akd]

Obviously I don't have access to anything beyond what is available in the public domain, so I must defer to the Capt. Sounds like the "problem" is pretty much solved anyways.

I understand this is an ugly issue going forward. For units that crew their vehicles with members of the squad, would it be possible to simply change the squad size if the vehicles are deleted from the TO&E in the editor? For example, if you remove the panzergrenadiers' halftracks in the editor, the dismounted squad is increased by two (or one if we assume that someone would stay off-map with the halftrack)? This would also cover the Capt's scenario where a whole LAV company fights without their LAVs.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

You're absolutely right that this isn't an easy problem to make go away. The truth is that tactical flexibility is a standard part of all militaries, either by design or by necessity. However, wargames generally don't allow this sort of flexibility because players generally don't have the expertise to know how to handle the choices. Therefore, it is usually a good thing to pretty much stick with "common usage" TO&E instead of exotic customized stuff.

The dismounting issue, however, is more common than uncommon. It is as pervasive in WW2 as it is modern warfare, as it turns out. For example, the Panzergrenadier Squad mans the SPW251's MG. The Platoon or Squad Leader decides whether a man should be left behind in the halftrack (i.e. the halftrack is designated as a support vehicle) or dismounts with the rest of the Squad (i.e. the halftrack is just a ride and not a part of the battle).

We are working on a better solution for the next game, but for now Normandy does have some fixes available to players who want to have one size or the other. It's not automated (that's messy), but it is more flexible than the way we have now.

Steve

[akd]

AKD,

On the other hand, the LAV III is fully combat capable with the gunner dismounted since the gunner's position can be slaved to the commander. The way we have it in the game now, with the commander dismounting and the gunner remaining, is definitely not right. So any arguments about the commander not dismounting are acknowledged as valid and is easy fixed on our end. But the gunner could still dismount and not inhibit the LAV's performance too much. Remember, crew are assigned non-combat responsibilities so there is a reason to have a gunner in the crew even if he does dismount.

This doesn't seem to have made it into 1.31. Should we expect it for 1.32? Having LAVs blind once their section dismounts is still a bit of a problem.