NATO Module - Canadian ORBATS

[SD Smack]

But I don't know what you mean about Canadian Army budget cuts. I mean, they still have money enough to train guys to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=lgwF8mdQwlw&feature=player_embeddedd

Steve

Steve we need this! I feel that CMSF is fundamentally broken without it....

Steve

[RecceDG]

- Not sure what the fuss is about, I just assembled a square cbt team in the editor. Yes I had to live with BG HQ and CS HQ but stick them in the back (where they would be in RL anyway).

In RL they wouldn't be anywhere on the map at this scale.

It's a question of convenience (get a full combat team all laid out with a single click, vice having to assemble one by carving it out of a battle group) and getting the proper command relationships from the get-go.

I imagine the internal representation of the ORBAT is a fairly straightforward file or data structure; it's not like this takes much work to implement. Why force scenario designers to carve one out of a higher formation and deal with incorrect command relationships and spurious units when they don't have to?

Not perfect but until the editor allows the player to tinker with C2 linkages it is the best we can hope for right now and not totally unrealistic.

Au contraire. "Perfect" is easily doable by adding the SCT to the list of allowable ORBATS. Problem solved. Why argue against it?

I don't think we ever formed a full one in AFG.

We did.

Pushing it as a static TO&E element in CMSF is a mistake in my opinion as it does not reflect current reality.

Ah, you see, that's the hangup here - that word static.

The ORBATs in CM-SF need not represent static, administrative groupings, because at the end of the day, what is their purpose?

To provide scenario designers with the tools to build scenarios. They are not there to teach ORBATs as a function of doctrine, nor are they there to serve as an ORBAT reference. Instead, they provide commonly-used FUNCTIONAL groupings in order to make it easy for a scenario designer to grab the units he needs all at once, and (because it is the only way to get them using the current editor program) with all the proper command elements in place.

And as a FUNCTIONAL grouping, the SQT is both actual doctrine (it is what we teach at the Tactics school) and realistic (we have deployed these in actual fights in recent history)

Just because you'll never be able to visit the "First Canadian Combat Team orderly room" doesn't mean it is any less valid as an ORBAT selection in CM-SF.

Why not a Tango heavy Cbt team? Infantry heavy? Hell in AFG we had an "Engr Cbt team" at one point building rte Summit.

Indeed, why not?

All those are legitimate functional groupings, and therefore legitimate potential CM-SF ORBATs. Why not have them set up as built in ORBATS; after all, there's no way to get the command relationships right any other way.

- The BG is a functional grouping but we deploy them as mission elements. Given the scope of the game this makes the BG and Bn the primary element in a CMSF ORBAT. Picking a specific sub-unit grouping only situates the player and reduces flexibility, not enhance it.

Uhh... I'm not advocating that the BG be eliminated; only that the SQT be added. I can't see how adding something reduces flexibility.

And to date, no deployed BG (since Korea at least) has ever fought as a BG. BG subunits are used as lines of operation, either entire or functionally grouped into combat teams based on the current mission.

- Re: assault troops. Here we have to be very careful. We did stick a lot of "what would we do here" in the game but quickly training assault troops is a little too far for a snap deployment to Syria in my mind.

Depends on what you mean by "Assault Troops".

In the Germany days, Assault Troops were Pioneers, no question. They got all the gucci demo training, the chainsaw course, built abitis and other obstacles, and in most ways served as Recce-flavoured pioneers.

Later though, as the Pioneer-style tasks (and more importantly, courses) started bleeding down and the experience started leeching out of the Sqn, Assault Troop started to be a great place to put young guys who had CAP but not DP1. They couldn't drive an AFV or gun or whatever, but they could do a section attack, and they could man an OP.

When you are doing advance to contact, the key concept is "piquet and bypass". But as the Troop has to drop a Patrol each time a contact is piqueted, pretty soon you lose the ability to move forward because everybody is tied up piqueting.

Assault Troop gives the squadron commander the ability to either take out a contact on his own, or to assume a piquet (it only takes two dudes and a radio to man a short term OP) with a reserve force and free up that badly needed Coyote patrol.

If we were to go into Syria in 2008, we'd need to pull in a bunch of manpower in a hurry. Armoured Reservists rarely get cross-trained on Coyote, and the School can only handle so many courses. It is entirely within the realm of likelihood that the Corps would have access to a ton of guys trained as soldiers (CAP) or troopers (DP1-DP2 but not on Coyote) that would not be eligible for employment in a Coyote troop.

The natural place for these guys would be to re-form the assault troops. They wouldn't be "proper" assault troopers because they categorically would not be pioneers, but they could serve as the next link in a contact handover - and in a high-intensity fight, that is a badly needed capability.

But also as I stated earlier, I would not to choose to die on my sword on this argument. Getting the proper tank squadron ORBAT and getting the dismount(s) for the cars in the recce troops are WAY higher priority.

Multi-national Ops. Ooo boy, do we really have to open up this can of worms? As you point out we do it in theatre because we have to.

And how would a theoretical Syria be any different?

We do it if - and when - we have to. We don't want to do it. Given our druthers, we'd NEVER do it . But circumstances routinely FORCE us to do it. Why pretend otherwise?

Realistically there should be no need, in a Syrian setting, for a Canadian Mech Infantry Company to suddenly need Dutch Engineers to clear a path for it. Because if the Dutch Engineers were doing that for the Canadians, then who would be clearing the path for the Dutch Mech Infantry? The Germans? Then who would be doing the engineering work for the Germans? So on and so forth.

On Day 1, you're right.

But what if the Duch Mech Infantry got mauled and were reconstituting? Or they are on flank guard and temporarily don't need their engineers? Or a session of OPP has determined a serious operation requirement for those engineers on thismission, and with a general lack of engineers in theatre, mission success requires the temporary re-tasking of the Dutch engineers elsewhere?

Yeah, the Dutch staff would raise hell, but ultimately the higher ranked staff wins. Operational necessity makes strange bedfellows.

Yes, this would be unusual, not "normal" (although I can find plenty of examples in WW2 Free Poles anyone) If I were the admissions judge at Battlefront for which scenarios are considered "canon", I'd be very wary of mixed-nationality scenarios and I'd expect there to be some pretty solid justification going on before I'd consider the scenario "valid".

But why limit the player's options? It is, after all, HIS game.

DG

[Battlefront.com]

It's very, very easy for end users to not understand the coding issues that come along with free and flexible ORBAT creation. It would be a rare end user who thought otherwise, so I'm not singling RecceDG out here. Doable? Sure, but thousands of things people ask for are doable and yet we can't do everything so lots of things will remain undone for at least the time being.

As I have said many times now, the intention is to allow people to make/break C2 links as they see fit. But that functionality is time consuming to add and so we haven't added it. Until then players can create their own ORBATs with some potential C2 issues. By and large the C2 problems created by making an ad-hoc force are limited to speed of calling in artillery and air strikes, which might not be all that unreasonable for some situations.

The TO&E is not a flat file that can be played around with by the end user. It's a complicated relational database containing many thousands of inter connected entries. I have a hard enough time working with it in an external database program (complete with it's own custom made TO&E UI that I made) governing the data I myself put into the system. Could an end user to mess around with the output files? Not something I would wish on my worst enemy even if it were practical. Which it isn't.

The chances of working with the files and not having the game crash because of violating various code restrictions are about nil. I designed the system and have been working with it for more than 4 years and I still stuff the game up occasionally. Especially during Beta testing, as the testers are painfully aware of

The primary technical reason (putting aside philosophical ones) end users can't tweak TO&E is because already built scenarios read from the TO&E files during load time. If the TO&E files are significantly different than what is in the scenarios it is highly likely that the scenarios will crash the game during loading or simply unbalance things because of stuff being added/removed that the original designer intended on being there. The reason the TO&E is checked fresh each time the scenario is loaded is so that fixes to the TO&E, such as adjusting uniforms, ranks, weapons, ammo counts, internal headcounts, etc. do not require remaking older scenarios to get the fixes. The thought of having potentially dozens of different versions of the TO&E out there is a non-starter as we would have endless technical support issues to deal with.

To sum up:

1. Adding the ingame functionality of customized OBs is something we want to add, but we can't snap our fingers and have it implemented. Normandy moves it forward a bit, but it will be the game Family after that which fully addresses the issues.

2. Giving the user access to the raw TO&E data will not work, either technically or practically. So that's flat out not going to happen. Ever.

Is what we have now perfect? Absolutely not. I'd have a better chance of finding a pot of gold under a rainbow before any of you found a perfect wargame CMx2 will improve in many ways over many years, and flexible ORBATs is one of those improvements which has a fair amount of priority.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

RecceDG,

But what if the Duch Mech Infantry got mauled and were reconstituting? Or they are on flank guard and temporarily don't need their engineers? Or a session of OPP has determined a serious operation requirement for those engineers on thismission, and with a general lack of engineers in theatre, mission success requires the temporary re-tasking of the Dutch engineers elsewhere?

Yeah, the Dutch staff would raise hell, but ultimately the higher ranked staff wins. Operational necessity makes strange bedfellows.

Which can be done in the game right now, though lacking a formal chain of command. Which, given these types of situations, would not have a lot of relevance in the real world. Meaning, the C2 in the game represents a smooth working relationship and clear channels of communication between the units involved. Tasking a Dutch Engineer Platoon to a Canadian Mech Infantry centric force on-the-fly would not be smooth, I'm sure. Probably not a disaster, I'm sure of that too. So in this case the C2 connections would have to be "content sensitive" and give the Dutch very little in the way of tangible benefit from the Canadian C2 arrangement. Which is pretty much the way it is now.

So while I agree with the desirability to have flexible ORBATs and have (as stated repeatedly) the intention of getting that into the game, in the case of cross attaching multi-national forces I think the game effectively simulates this sort of thing quite well as it is right now. Put another way... even with a flexible ORBAT system I don't think the game behavior would be significantly different than what it is right now and so I see this as a non-issue to be concerned about.

Steve

[The_Capt]

Hey Recce DG, I think we are agreeing more than not. Steve has pretty much answered a lot of your questions.

I will field one more and then we can perhaps meet again for CMSF II "The Re-Deadening". In CMSF's current form, a SCT does limit flexibility if you want to reinforce it. Shrinking it is not a problem with the delete function but where do you draw the line on the SCT? What if you want a full TUA platoon attached but not a section? You would have to dig into the BG and pull it out. I much prefer taking the BG as the baseline and deleting to whatever Cbt team you want. Accepting the C2 asspain.

I have played the Cdns a fair amount and have gotten very good performance out of them. I took on Bil, who had an armoured US Cbt team, with a reinforce light infantry Coy and fought him to a draw. Many players have stated the Cdn campaign as their favorite. If our ORBAT was so far out of whack the results would show serious problems. The BFC guys must have gotten something right.

Your wishlist is as long as mine but at the end of the day the BFC guys have to stay up until 3 am and try and get this thing working and out the door. They constantly have to make design decisions which always cut something out...that always has someone saying it was critical.

As for multi-national integrated ops. In my mind this is damn hard in RL and should be damn hard in game. Anything can and will happen. I have had Brits, Jamaicans and Romanians under my command. We made it work but it was painful particularly at the beginning. The C2 relationships in CMSF reflect that well in my opinion.

[Infanteer]

Evening all.

Quick intro - Canadian Infantry Officer; have been in 10 years (some time in the ranks) and have done 2 tours; last was in Afghanistan as a Platoon Commander. I'm a fan of Battlefront games and the Combat Missions system specfically; it rivals, in my opinion, many of the simulated training software that the military uses.

Just bought NATO and am having fun reliving my days as a platoon commander. Noticed a few things and thought I'd bring them up here, understanding that some stuff is covered already. Some of these issues may be campaign specific as I understand that it isn't affected by patches:

1. Canadian Mech Companies: 15 LAVs, all are usually forward in the battle. Company Commander (Maj) has a LAV, Company 2IC (Captain) has a LAV - he hangs back as he is the "CP" link to higher. LAV Captain (Captain) has a LAV - he's a crew commander and generally won't dismount as it is his job to control all the LAVs when the Major gets out of his and starts doing his infantry thing. Each Platoon has its 4 LAVs.

2. Canadian Army Officer Ranks: Majors command companies. Captains as 2IC/LAV Captain and Lieutenants/Captains as Platoon Commanders (just use the Lt image to keep things simple). For some reason, the campaign has some of the Platoon commanders as Majors.

3. Canadian Army NCO Ranks. Platoon 2ICs are Warrant Officers (WO). However, the campaign has Platoon 2IC dets (the second little 2-man team) with what looks to be a CWO insignia - this is an Regimental Sergeant Major, the senior "enlisted" man within a battalion. A Warrant Officer's rank insignia is a crown. As well, Sections are commanded by Sergeants, who's insignia is 3 chevrons and a leaf. The campaign has sections commanded by Master Corporals, who are their 2ICs in the section.

4. LAV Infantry Sections. Canadian LAV III Infantry Section Carriers (with the 25mm Delco Turret) have 3 crew and 7 dismounts. Crew Commanders only dismount in extremis (ie: to do something if dismounts aren't around). It is not doctrine, nor is it ever taught, to dismount a crew commander for any tactical activity. This is because a gunner's place is in his sight. The commander is heads up or in the periscopes to provide direction to both the gunner and the driver. The gunner cannot command the driver unless he quits gunning. I don't know where the talk of dismounting a Crew Commander comes from; I can guarantee you after fighting and living in a LAV for 7 months that I never saw it.

ISC LAVs have 7 dismounts; you cannot cram additional personnel for anything over 10 except, again, in extremis situations. Once the soldiers in the back have all their fighting gear on, it is nearly physically impossible to fit any more people in the back - definately not tactically sound.

So, in reality and in "Syria 2008" mech sections are 3 crew and 7 dismounts. Dismount commander is the Sergeant and the Crew Commander is, most commonly, the 2IC Master Corporal.

5. Now, with all that said, there are other varients of the LAV such as the Engineer LAV and the RWS LAV. These have remote weapon stations and are crewed by 2 with 8 dismounts. You'll see Engineer Field sections with this layout.

TOW LAVs have been the poor step-child of the Army. They used to belong to the Infantry, moved to the Armoured Corps and now sit dormant; they`re excellent to include with the Armoured Recce Squadron as I am positive we`d take them to a fight that featured conventional enemy armoured formations.

6. Armoured Squadrons. Recce DG has already layed out the Orbat of the Armoured Squadron and Recce Squadron quite well. I worked a lot with tanks while in Afghanistan and they kick ass. However, I noticed I always had a junky Leo C2 in the campaign. By 2008 in Afghanistan and "Syria 2008", the Leo C2 has largely been phased out - I only saw one outside the wire once and most of the time they were used for things like a reinforcement to the front gate. Armoured Troops would be more realistic with 4 Leo 2A6s.

7. Breaching. One of the things I noticed was never really done by CM - Canadian tanks breach; it's doctrine - with big rollers on the front; usually one tank per troop will have these bad-boys on. As well, I've never seen tanks without Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEVs or "Engineer Tanks") - the Badger; these things assist with the breach. I've seen most IEDs "defeated" by the roller-tank/Badger combination and I wish CM could have included the "breach" capability as opposed to just rolling down roads and hitting IEDs.

8. "Pioneers" - Canadians don't have pioneers anymore. We lost them in 2002/2003; but I saw pioneers in the scenario. All pioneer functions were taken up by the Combat Engineers. "Pioneer Platoons" should be renamed "Engineer Troops" from the Battle Group's attached Engr Squadron.

9. Artillery - M777s, not M109s.

10. Battle Group Organization. A battle-group can be organized in various ways, but there is a baseline that we use. Unfortunately, as some have already commented, Canadian doctrine is usually found in Land Staff power point slides as opposed to doctrine modules.

The "default" Battle Group organization, and the one I could see being sent to "Syria 2008", would be:

- 3 x Infantry Companies (2 will be mech, and the third will be likely be meched up as well)

- 1 x Combat Support Company (Recce Platoon, Sniper Platoon, Sigs Platoon)

- 1 x Tank Squadron (doctrinally 19 tanks, but we don't really give them 4 Troops anymore, just 3 so they'll deploy with 15 tanks)

- 1 x Armoured Recce Squadron (2-3 Troops of 8 Coyotes with HQ)

- 1 x Artillery Battery (6 M777)

- 1 x Engineer Squadron (2-3 Field Troops with LAV sections and Badger AEVs and some heavy equipment for building stuff)

- BG Tac HQ (4 LAVs: Infantry CO/Infantry RSM/Battery Commander and Engineer Squadron Commander)

- BG Main HQ (DCO has LAV in the rear with the HQ and support elements)

The big question is the 3rd Infantry Company. In a "Syria 2008" scenario, all three companies would be LAV based mech simply due to the type of fighting. Companies will be motorized if the situation warrants it - ie: peacekeeping or COIN scenarios which, as discussed, this game is not meant to simulate. Even in a COIN scenario, we rapidly "mech-ed up" the motorized company in 2006 because we found it didn't have the sauce to keep up in the fighting.

The scenario features a "Light Company" that is motorized with Nyalas and G-Wagons that, I am almost positive, would not have been deployed to a "Syria 2008" scenario as it would have got shot up fast. Air mobile operations would have been done by dismounts who married up with their LAVs later.

11. Finally, the campaign had some goofy Battle Group nomenclature - the British Mod did much better part of accurately depicting a Commonwealth BG (Cdn and Brit doctrine is very similar). The Battle Group was called the "PPCLI Battle Group", but all battle groups are formed around battalions, so it should have been 1, or 2 or 3 PPCLI Battle Group. On top of that, Battalions have A, B and C Companies (and sometimes D Company) as Rifle Companies - except for The RCR whos 2 and 3 Battalions keep going with letters, much like the Marines, so you see G Coy and M Coy. Point being, there is no E and F Company, 1 PPCLI with 14 Platoon and the like. Anyways, all the recce and snipers are part of Combat Support Company, not A and B Company. The Armoured Recce would be part of a Recce Squadron (for example - Recce Squadron, RCD) and the same with the Armoured Squadron; the scenario has them labeled as B and F Squadron, PPCLI, which isn't accurate at all. So, to make the Battle Group more accurate to acutal nomenclature of what the Canadians would have conceivably deployed in "Syria 2008", it should probably look like this:

1 PPCLI Battle Group:

- A Company, 1 PPCLI (1, 2, 3 Platoons - no Wpns Pl; they just have a small Wpns Det)

- B Company, 1 PPCLI (4, 5, 6 Platoons)

- C Company, 1 PPCLI (7, 8, 9 Platoons)

- Recce Squadron, Lord Strathcona's Horse (1 and 2 Troop witt 8 x Coyote each and a TOW troop of, I believe, 8 vehicles)

- A Squadron, Lord Strathcona's Horse (1, 2, 3 Troop - 15 Leo 2A6 in total)

- A Battery, 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (6 M777 and 4 x FOO-FAC LAVs pushed out to the Infantry and Armour)

- 11 Field Squadron (pronounced one-one, not eleven), 1 Combat Engineer Regiment (2 x Field Troops of 4 LAVs, 1 x armoured troop of 4 x Badgers)

- BG Tac HQ which has the Tac itself (4 x LAVs mentioned above) which has direct control of Infantry Recce Platoon and Sniper Platoon, sending them where they need to be.

Well, that's the notes I compiled. Again the game is awesome; these are just some details that'd bring the Canadian part of the game to a more realistic level.

Let me know if you have any further questions or comments,

Cheers,

Infanteer

[Battlefront.com]

Welcome Infanteer and thanks for the detailed post! Each nation in NATO gave us a different set of challenges to overcome:

Dutch - transitioning some equipment and organizational doctrine

Germans - believe in capital punishment for anybody who even talks about TO&E

Canadians - in a perpetual state of reorganization and equipment flux for many years now

On top of that there were the challenges of doing research on three military cultures, ranks, etc. all concurrent with everything else normal to CM (equipment, weapons effects, etc.).

Of the three I must say I was most surprised by how difficult it was to pin down the Canadian stuff. The basics fell into place very easily. But the details were much harder to nail down because of all the contradictory information and gaps in our research. Quite a challenge for us who had no prior experience with the Canadian military (well, except for my Canadian Army uniform collection ).

We had quite a lot of debate about what to do with the dismounts prior to finalizing the TO&E. Generally most AFVs have the Commander be a dual role position with the Gunner taking over the duties of the Commander when he dismounts. But as discussed here in this thread, it would seem that this isn't the way it works with the Canadians for a variety of reasons we overlooked during the debate.

The rank issues are mostly due to the confusing way things look in the code. It's a boring thing to explain, but suffice to say that the system wasn't well designed for non-equivalent rank structures. As a result it introduces a lot of sources of error into the system that doesn't need to be there.

The good news is most of the issues you pointed out are fairly easily addressed with the next patch. Some of the changes will not backdate to the Campaign or existing scenarios, but many of them will. That includes the headcount reduction of the LAV dismounts.

Thanks again!

Steve

[Sequoia]

Evening all.

9. Artillery - M777s, not M109s.

Let me know if you have any further questions or comments,

Cheers,

Infanteer

Here is a note from The Capt who was the inside man for Module.

Gents,

An overall comment on the Cdn TO&E; we never have gone anywhere with the exact force elements our doctrine said we should have.

The question on the table was; if Canada went to war (and here we are talking a symetrical steel on steel stand up fight) in 2008 what could we reasonably take with us? We reviewed the Afghanistan TO&E and then added some leaps of logic and outright fiction to try and come up with a plausable answer.

So we know we have the M777 and the 105mm now but if it was a serious fight would we unmothball the M109 (or quickly get some from the US). Considering we still have a fair amount of people trained on the system we went with yes. Consider that we actually took 40mm Bofors guns out of a museum and mounted them on a destroyer back in '91, I would vote that bringing back the big ol M109 is plausible. Plus it gave added firepower to the Canadians, which is sorely needed due in large part to the fact that our LAVs were not designed for a heavy close combat role (ah the peacekeeping days of yore).

Hope this helps with some of the questions. I am not totally sure (or more probably recall) all of the small stuff, like 8 dismounts versus 7 or where that second M203 went (I think that was a simpleoversight).

[akd]

4. LAV Infantry Sections. Canadian LAV III Infantry Section Carriers (with the 25mm Delco Turret) have 3 crew and 7 dismounts. Crew Commanders only dismount in extremis (ie: to do something if dismounts aren't around). It is not doctrine, nor is it ever taught, to dismount a crew commander for any tactical activity. This is because a gunner's place is in his sight. The commander is heads up or in the periscopes to provide direction to both the gunner and the driver. The gunner cannot command the driver unless he quits gunning. I don't know where the talk of dismounting a Crew Commander comes from; I can guarantee you after fighting and living in a LAV for 7 months that I never saw it.

This came up before in detail in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93556

Another unresolved question from that thread that you might be able to shed some light on would be what to do with the Carl Gustafs (SRAAW(M)s). Currently we have two CG launchers in every LAV and Nyala with only 1 round of HE each. This strikes me as both not plausible and nonsensical, but I'm sure it has some basis in doctrine.

Thanks for contributing your expertise!

[The_Capt]

Ok, I am going to leave most of this stuff as Infanteer is correct but I will challenge a few key points:

Dismounts....odd one as something crossed my desk today that zeroed right in on this one. LAV Upgrade Project ($1.3B project btw) is aiming to replace current turrets with RWS or single man turrets...why? So we can get the extra dismount back (a la Engineers). Infanteer is correct, we do not dismount the sect commander today in Afghanistan..well the infantry don't...I did but we had fewer people in a different type of job.

Syria would see a LOT of high intensity symmetrical close combat. Something the LAV III was never designed for...ever. In a fictional 2008 scenario we would take it because we have it and are stuck with it...thank you Liberal government.

Now if we were going into close urban assaults against a player who could really dance...would we want a 7 or 8 man section? And here we are talking room-to-room and trench clearing and a lot of it.

My solution is to cram an extra troop into the LAV (it can be done, not comfy but you can do it, particularly if it is on an assault) and get the best of both worlds. But the BFC solution was to dismount the section commander...no problem. Not doctrine but a solution none-the-less.

I just played an all infantry game with the Dutch and their squads are specifically designed to fight with the CV and it shows. Their squads are 6 or 7 and it really hurts when you are doing the dirty grunt work. The LAV III is no dutch CV (and here no one is going to disagree).

Trust me on this one...it is something we would learn in blood but any BG commander would rob the freakin kitchen to get the extra dismount in a Cdn section, in Syria.

In game it will really hurt the Cdns in my opinion (and I have played them a lot) to pull the extra dismount for the sake of current Afghanistan doctrine/tactics...which are a bad fit for a Syrian scenario..and we are spending money (a lot of money) to fix.

In game we lose the extra firepower on the ground for better targetting on a fragile vehicle with a relatively weak gun that was never designed to do the work that is asked of it in a Syrian scenario (we have another project to replace the LAV btw). We do it in Afghanistan because it is a very different environ and even there the VanDoos were deploying sections of 12 in '09 because with 3 man crews, HLTA and casualties they were down to 4-5 dismounts in previous rotos.

I have read (and been part of) the Lesson's Learned process and the common complaint it we simply never have enough infantry. In Syria this problem would get worse not better. In-game I propose it risks throwing the Canadians off-balance. There has to be a better way to address this.

Quick word on TOW. I have it in the Direct Fire Support Sqn (ie Tank Sqn) as per current floppy doctrine. The Army wants to get rid of it actually. In old doctrine they were in the Cbt Sp Coy..with the pioneers. Pioneers are coming back btw...TOW, well who knows. Not sure they would ride with Recce but based on the fact we really don't know where they would go, we can stick them anywhere. In Syria they would probably take on the flank security role in the offence...just like the old days.

M777..yes what we are using now but the TB don't have counter-battery..well in the traditional sense. I think we would take the ole M109 out of mothballs if we were facing an opponent who could shoot back. Of course the reality is we need an off-board 155mm indirect fire support no matter what we call it.

Lighy Coy. Who knows? Would this be a CSOR type-beast or an on the books (such as they are) Light Coy. They would most likely be airmobile. Doctrine actually had the entire Coy in G-wagons, BFC went with Nyalas...why not? I think we could deploy a Light element (whether or not we would is a total guess) and it does add a nice spice to the game.

Infanteer...have you done AOC yet? I would be interested to see if it matches what the CTC gave me.

[Carbon-14]

Infanteer is correct, we do not dismount the sect commander today in Afghanistan..well the infantry don't...I did but we had fewer people in a different type of job.

I think you meant crew commander (a MCpl) because infantry do dismount the section commander (the Sgt). I was with the 3-09 BG that replaced the Vandoos and we were deploying 12 man sections patrols as well. But mostly because our AO was so small that it didn't make sense to drive anywhere. When the vehicles did drive out, the crew commander would never dismount to join the ptl.

we have another project to replace the LAV btw

Are you talking about the CCV? My understand was that its not replacing the LAV, just displacing it. I'm, admittedly, out of my lane of expertise though.

[Infanteer]

Another unresolved question from that thread that you might be able to shed some light on would be what to do with the Carl Gustafs (SRAAW(M)s). Currently we have two CG launchers in every LAV and Nyala with only 1 round of HE each. This strikes me as both not plausible and nonsensical, but I'm sure it has some basis in doctrine.

LAV III ISCs are designed with a Carl G mount so theoretically every section could have one in the car. However, tables of equipment and orbat only gives 1 to the platoon. We'd store it in the HQ LAV with the weapons det and put about 8-10 rounds. Weapons det would deploy with your choice of GPMG, Carl G or 60 mm mortar, depending on what the Pl Comd needed.

Dismounts....odd one as something crossed my desk today that zeroed right in on this one. LAV Upgrade Project ($1.3B project btw) is aiming to replace current turrets with RWS or single man turrets...why? So we can get the extra dismount back (a la Engineers).

I know of no such upgrade to the turrets - upgraded LAVs in theater had 25mm turrets. Upgrade project, from what I understand, will purchase new RWS turrets for the LAV hulls that were slated for the MGS project and to replace the TOW turrets which are likely to be mothballed.

From a brief by the previous CLS, I understood that the RWS desire never had anything to do with getting additional dismounts - it was a force protection concern for guys in the turret (especially the Comd) were vulnerable to IEDs and rollovers.

Again, I've never seen any desire within the Infantry to squeeze an 8th man in the back of the car. It is illegal to do in training (MSE safety) and it is almost physically impossible to do when the 10 men who already have seats have filled the thing with ammo, water, rats and their supplies. In my professional opinion, any discussion on cramming in an 8th dismount is fantasy.

Syria would see a LOT of high intensity symmetrical close combat. Something the LAV III was never designed for...ever. In a fictional 2008 scenario we would take it because we have it and are stuck with it...thank you Liberal government.

The LAV III, in Canadian specs, was designed to act as an infantry fighting vehicle to fight as part of a combined arms team. One would have to dig out the contract requirements to determine what exactly was specified, but as far as I am aware the thing wasn't designed by either GM Diesel or request by Canada for peacekeeping.

Infantry Doctrine for the LAV since day 1 has also been for a high-intensity environment. Don't let the COIN bruh-haha of Afghanistan fool you; most of the TTPs we employ there are bread and butter tactics that you'd see in a conventional environment and the idea of "COIN tactics" is, in my opinion, false (there are two types of tactics, good ones and bad ones). When I did a combat breach as part of a Battle Group Op in Afghanistan, you could have pulled the plan from a "conventional" warfighting scenario.

I also wouldn't begrudge the LAV as a wimpy vehicle - a friend of mine limped his into KAF after taking numerous RPG strikes. It is a resiliant vehicle. It suffers from the same characteristic as all medium-weight Infantry vehicles like the Bradley and the Warrior do; it isn't as armoured as an MBT and would be easy pickings for heavier anti-armour weapons. Arguing between a LAV III or a CV-90 in a conventional fight is like arguing between a Suzuki Swift or a Smart Car for a demolition derby. Only the Israelis, with the Namer, have really figured this out.

Trust me on this one...it is something we would learn in blood but any BG commander would rob the freakin kitchen to get the extra dismount in a Cdn section, in Syria.

Sorry, but I've never heard any BG Commander or Infantry CO say "if we were going to a conventional war we'd need an extra guy in the vehicle or else!". Nowhere in any of the service schools or at the Infantry School is this put forth as a "just in case" plan. No force employment concept I've seen ever shows anything more than a 40-man (10/sect) rifle platoon.

What we would be desperate for was some form of anti-armour system. With TOW and Eryx being phased out and the Javelin contract cancelled, the Infantry basically have no ability to repel anything heavier than a BTR. Which is why I like CM with realistic ORBATs - it can tell you when things are pretty bad.

Quick word on TOW. I have it in the Direct Fire Support Sqn (ie Tank Sqn) as per current floppy doctrine. The Army wants to get rid of it actually.

Yes, unfortunately. They were sent to the DFS squadron but that project died a horrible, well-deserved death. They were then retained by that single armoured unit which tried to fit them into their recce units. Last I heard there was a plan to have a Troop/Regiment but, with the Armoured Regiments now looking to the Leo 2 and TAPV as the future, I think it is on its way to obscurity. I say give 'em back to the Infantry.

Pioneers are coming back btw...

No. The Infantry has been trying to bring back some pioneer skillsets to embed in the platoons (basic demo, breaching) - this has been in the works for some time but I've yet to see it materialize.

M777..yes what we are using now but the TB don't have counter-battery..well in the traditional sense. I think we would take the ole M109 out of mothballs if we were facing an opponent who could shoot back. Of course the reality is we need an off-board 155mm indirect fire support no matter what we call it.

I'd have to ask my buddy in the Guns for his opinion, but I am still doubtful that we'd pull the M-109s out of mothballs when we have perfectly good (and superior) M777s. Marines used towed-artillery in the invasion of Iraq and it worked fine.

Infanteer...have you done AOC yet? I would be interested to see if it matches what the CTC gave me.

CTC and the Staff College still use the 4 CMBG model, a blue force model which is starting to show its age.

[The_Capt]

Ok...it appears that we are about to have a good old fashion Canadian Hockey fight

On dismounts:

From the LAV Upgrade Project SOR (UNCLASS)

"The LAV Upgrade must be capable of carrying an infantry section consisting of 10 soldiers. A minimum of seven personnel must be available to conduct dismounted operations while

maintaining a minimum crew of two personnel (gunner and driver) which are integral to the

vehicle. If three crew members are required to operate the vehicle, the commander must be able to dismount from the back of the vehicle and may be included as one of the eight dismounted personnel."

You can see where we are going. We are going to spend a lot of money to free up an extra dismount while maintaining effectiveness and lethality off the platform. And for a very good reason...we have needed...and will always need...more boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of infantry, they have saved my ass more than once. I would opt for sections of 12-15 if I were Army Comd but hey you live within your means.

I totally get your point on how we do things in Afg and we do so for very good reasons over there. I am arguing that we may have a different perspective if it was Syria. The TB don't have BMPs or ATGMs.

My favorite solution is one posed by Steve; let the player decide and have a variable dismount option. Then we can PBEM and see who is right

LAV III...gather round children whislt the old Capt tells a long and sordid tale: In the early 90s we had a Cold War Army designed specifically to fight steel on steel in Europe against those pesky Ruskies. The Conservative Government under Brian Mulrony developed a white Paper in '86, I believe, to modernize the CF with a view on Continuation of the Cold War. New tanks, APCs, nuclear submarines were all on the table...oh they were heady days indeed.

Then we won the Cold War and Uncle Jean got elected. All that snazzy kit disappeared..along with anything representing Strategic Defence policy. Enter the Peacekeeping Age. The only silver lining, at least expeditionary, of the Dark 90s was our peacekeeping efforts. The public supported and it was nice and Canadian.

At the same time the CF was being gutted. We bled a generation of officers white with Force Reduction Plan and the ECSs essentially went broke. Any capital project had to show its relationship to hard peacekeeping/making in the New World Order in order to get funding. The Army was never going to sell a M113 replacement...the Bradley dream was dead as the Cold War. Enter the LAV. A fast and effective platform diesgned for Ch 6 & 7 work but in a pinch could give us some punch in a fight....not the first choice mind you but we had to take what we could get. We dressed it up, planned MGS and accepted our fate.

Wheel comes around, 9/11 and Afghanistan. We still are not likely to go into a high-intensity conflict. The LAV III is ok in a mid-intensity (even with the over 65 we lost in Afghanistan) but now that the funding tap is turned back on, what is at the top of the Army's list? Tanks and Close Combat Vehicle. If the LAV is all we need, why are we spending over $2B for a CCV fleet?...I would argue a Syrian-like scenario is why. In reality it is remote in the extreme but in-game it is because the LAV is not an IFV or CCV it is an Infantry Section Vehicle...a battle truck and a good one. But in high intensity it would not last or not very long, particularly on a close assault.

As to BG COs and TFK Comds on extra troops;....they already did say it. That is why they are deploying with 12 now. See Carbon-14s post. We did it for Afghanistan and we would do some serious thinking before "Syria". We squoze 8 in the back all the time over there. 3 on each side on the benches and 2 in the air sentry holes. I were all fully loaded for bear. Not optimal in the least but what are you going to do?

TOW is probably dead, I agree. It is on the divestment plan but in 2008 there would have been a troop in the LdSH so it was rolled into CMSF. I agree, give em back to the infantry.

As I understood it they were going to run Pioneer courses again and get that capability back up and running. Could be OBE, on this one I would really have to ask around to see if it is still on the boks. It is Cbt Engrs in reality and most likely would be in Syria...change the label and add demo charges.

M777 versus M109: Not one I am hard over on to be honest. Iraq is a bad example as almost all of the Iraqi arty was gone by the time the ground forces went in...maybe Syria would be the same. The purpose of the M109 was to give the ability to fire and move, under armour in the face of capable counter-battery and air. Hard to argue this would be a factor in Syria...but it is a game afterall.

On that and ORBATs. To my mind BFC did a great thing in putting Cdn troops in the game. In my opinion what is important is that Cdns as a module are well balanced and fun to play. Indications are that the average player finds them challenging and interesting. We tried to extrapolate as best as possible doctrine, current ORBATs in Afghanistan and plain guess-work in order to deliver an interesting-to-play force. This is not a military simulator or tactical research tool. It could be..but that is another topic entirely. I am not a fan in the least of creating CM:Kandahar if it means that Canadians become no fun to play. In CMx1 I am shamed to say we were boring. Basically British with a different coloured flag. In CMSF we are unique and fun to play.

I am not saying 7 man dismounts are wrong or a lot of the other points that have been brought up (in fact many are spot on). I am, however, afraid of tinkering with the play balance IF we can come up with some reasonable justifications. I really like how the Canadians are played right now.

BTW, it would be impolite not to post credentials of some sort. 23 yrs in. Army Engr by trade, field time in 1 CER and in the West. Afghanistan in '09, OC of an unconventional venture outside the wire but that is another story altogether. Currently in Force Development in Ottawa, tracking current Army and SOF projects wrt overall CF capability.

[Erwin]

Thanks for your informative post. Always a pleasure to be educated by someone who's been there.

[dan/california]

Now if only the being there wasn't so *I%%$$##I( unpleasant!

[The_Capt]

I think you meant crew commander (a MCpl) because infantry do dismount the section commander (the Sgt). I was with the 3-09 BG that replaced the Vandoos and we were deploying 12 man sections patrols as well. But mostly because our AO was so small that it didn't make sense to drive anywhere. When the vehicles did drive out, the crew commander would never dismount to join the ptl.

Are you talking about the CCV? My understand was that its not replacing the LAV, just displacing it. I'm, admittedly, out of my lane of expertise though.

Another thing to keep in mind here is the environment, In Syria we are talking symetric advance most times in Cbt Team or even a full BG, with other BGs to our left and right. You would definitely sacrifice targetting capability in the current LAV (as I have posted they are actually trying to fix this in the upgrade) but your arcs of fire would be much narrower than in Afghanistan where we are in a real 360 degree environ often in platoon sized elements, where that 25mm and full targetting functionality are much more important.

At the end of the day I think it would be a judgement call, because the flip-side is BMPs and enemy armour need to spotted very quickly. I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer to be honest and it is a fictional scenario. I would favour more dismounts but some may disagree, I would really like it if BFC could set that up, but they are pretty busy guys. If they do go with 7 it is not the end of the world but it may hurt Cdn firepower because I am not sure we gain as much with the LAV as we would with more boots on the ground, especially in heavy urban terrain. And having played Cdns a bit, those LAVs blow up pretty damn quick..of course that could just be me.

As to CCV, sorry I should have been more clear, the CCV is aimed at replacing the LAV...in a Syrian scenario. The LAV III will be the backbone of the Army fighting fleet for at least 10-20 yrs. This has more to do with the fact that crappy-little wars like Afghanistan are far more likely than steel-on-steel and the LAV is a solid platform for this kind of work. The Army is buying enough to outfit a BG though and if they went to Syria in 2018 we would probably see them shouldering the bulk of the load.

Interesting on dismounted in Afghanistan. The AO did shrink but this is not the first time I have heard this. Some rotos have done it for a variety of reasons. Some because they felt the LAVs were too easily targetted/bullet-IED magnets. Some because they wanted greater interaction with the locals and bigger dimounted sections seemed to work better.

I think this is a very interesting issue and lies at the heart of a very big question...what did we actually do right and wrong in Afghanistan? What worked and what didn't? The knee jerk answers is "my roto did nothing wrong" but we all know that isn't true. At the Strat level a lot of mistakes were made. Another reason to use Afghanistan as a foundation but not the DS solution. I saw this in the 90s. We went to the Balkans during a shooting war and how we did things there became "the way" things should be done. Then we went to Afghanistan without tanks and arty...whoops. UAVs, C-IED, CLPs, helicopters and real Cbt First Aid, these are all capabilities we initially missed the boat on.

I'd bet my poor old shriveled liver we would make similar mistakes in Syria...damn we need that TOW and M109s (well maybe) back. Crap, we simply do not have enough infantry to get in there and get dirty (an LL btw from WWI and WWII). Airmobile and Airborne. who knows?

[Infanteer]

From the LAV Upgrade Project SOR (UNCLASS)

"The LAV Upgrade must be capable of carrying an infantry section consisting of 10 soldiers. A minimum of seven personnel must be available to conduct dismounted operations while maintaining a minimum crew of two personnel (gunner and driver) which are integral to the vehicle. If three crew members are required to operate the vehicle, the commander must be able to dismount from the back of the vehicle and may be included as one of the eight dismounted personnel."

A lot of "ifs"; allowing the CC to dismount obviously refers to an RWS varient, where the gunner's responsibilities are significantly fewer. Again, I've heard of no plans to get rid of the 25mm turret and change doctrine for the Infantry from 7/3 for an ISC.

You can see where we are going. We are going to spend a lot of money to free up an extra dismount while maintaining effectiveness and lethality off the platform. And for a very good reason...we have needed...and will always need...more boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of infantry, they have saved my ass more than once. I would opt for sections of 12-15 if I were Army Comd but hey you live within your means.

To be honest, the difference between 7 and 8 isn't really signficant - a well-trained 7 man section will kill a poorly trained 12 man section everytime. In reality, you use what you got - I employed every size of tactical grouping from 4 men to 15 based off of the mission; TO&Es are largely administrative anyways - the commander tasks tailors forces as he needs them.

The only reason I brought it up was for the sake of accuracy because I've never seen 8 with 2 crew, ever. We did squeeze in a terp though!

The LAV III is ok in a mid-intensity (even with the over 65 we lost in Afghanistan) but now that the funding tap is turned back on, what is at the top of the Army's list? Tanks and Close Combat Vehicle. If the LAV is all we need, why are we spending over $2B for a CCV fleet?...I would argue a Syrian-like scenario is why.

The CCV is actually a big question mark for the Infantry; in talks with fellow Infantry Officers we cannot figure out why buying a new fleet (with all the intendant costs) to make mish-mash battalions but, in the end, offering no real advantage over the LAV. The CCV, as another medium-weight vehicle, isn't likely to be significantly more survivable than a LAV; a true "close combat vehicle" would be something akin to the Israeli Namer. The big question is why this significant chunk of change isn't being reinvested into the LAV fleet - a tried and tested medium weight vehicle - to properly outfit all the battalions. How many upgraded LAVs could we get for 2B?!? I suspect we haven't seen the last of this....

As to BG COs and TFK Comds on extra troops;....they already did say it. That is why they are deploying with 12 now. See Carbon-14s post.

The 12-troop section thing was a one off, it was dropped by the following ROTO as it it was impractible. It was a purely admin measure designed to reduce the strain of HLTA that was put forward by higher without considering tactical implications ("uh, where do you stick the guys?") - that problem was addressed better by sticking with 40-man platoons and simply using section HLTA vice individual leave.

[Battlefront.com]

Good discussion! You guys are playing virtual Hockey there's not enough senseless violence for it to be NHL at least

One quick comment about the M777s. At the time of the CM:SF setting there were exactly 4 of these guns in inventory IIRC. 3 were pushed into Afghanistan and one was left back in Canukistan to make sure gunners didn't show up in theater, take a look at the M777, and go "what's this thing, eh?". So we decided that given a push to a shove, the M109s would likely come out of mothballs because we didn't think the timeline for getting the Coalition forces into position would allow for new procurement.

When Gulf War 1 was in its various prep stages the US Navy had to take WW2 era supply ships out of long term mothball docks. WW2 ships. Big boats with lots of moving bits and no experienced crews already familiar with them. I bet if anybody had been asked a few months before Saddam went into Kuwait if this would ever happen, the answer would have been "not unless WW3 starts".

My point here is that we don't know because it's all speculation from any point of view. But my guess, based on previous times when militaries are caught unprepared for large scale warfare, is that many things that were unlikely to happen would happen. And things likely to happen would not happen. All because The Big Picture would demand it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

A lot of "ifs"; allowing the CC to dismount obviously refers to an RWS varient, where the gunner's responsibilities are significantly fewer. Again, I've heard of no plans to get rid of the 25mm turret and change doctrine for the Infantry from 7/3 for an ISC.

To be honest, the difference between 7 and 8 isn't really signficant - a well-trained 7 man section will kill a poorly trained 12 man section everytime. In reality, you use what you got - I employed every size of tactical grouping from 4 men to 15 based off of the mission; TO&Es are largely administrative anyways - the commander tasks tailors forces as he needs them.

The only reason I brought it up was for the sake of accuracy because I've never seen 8 with 2 crew, ever. We did squeeze in a terp though!

The CCV is actually a big question mark for the Infantry; in talks with fellow Infantry Officers we cannot figure out why buying a new fleet (with all the intendant costs) to make mish-mash battalions but, in the end, offering no real advantage over the LAV. The CCV, as another medium-weight vehicle, isn't likely to be significantly more survivable than a LAV; a true "close combat vehicle" would be something akin to the Israeli Namer. The big question is why this significant chunk of change isn't being reinvested into the LAV fleet - a tried and tested medium weight vehicle - to properly outfit all the battalions. How many upgraded LAVs could we get for 2B?!? I suspect we haven't seen the last of this....

The 12-troop section thing was a one off, it was dropped by the following ROTO as it it was impractible. It was a purely admin measure designed to reduce the strain of HLTA that was put forward by higher without considering tactical implications ("uh, where do you stick the guys?") - that problem was addressed better by sticking with 40-man platoons and simply using section HLTA vice individual leave.

A lot of "ifs" indeed but then again the whole "what would we do in Syria" question is full of a lot of "ifs". This was the real challenge and I simply could not recommend to BFC that what we sent to Afghanistan in a COIN environment would be exactly the same as to what we would send to a high-intensity war.

The SOR cleary states the "min dismount" is 7 and alludes to an 8 man dismount. Not surprised it was not used in Afghanistan or in the units today as there is no reason to change. Heading into a FIBUA situation against an enemy with ATGMs, BMPs and a semi-modern and trained military may be that reason...at least in my mind.

I totally agree that we go with what we have. I think the difference between 7 and 8 in-game has a definite difference and it may have a difference in reality as it has been a constant complaint in LL circles. I think in sustained high-intensity fights it would be a factor. I would really like an option to try it out in-game actually.

I am with you, stuff an extra guy in where the terp sat and call it an 11 man section. My first tour as a young TC, I rolled with 10 men sections instead of 8 (which is what doctrine said). We play with these numbers all the time.

Your point on 12 men (it was at least two rotos btw, 7 & 8, not sure what 9 did but a lot of other factors kicked in, like a shrinking AOR) really supports my point. You are exactly correct we expanded the infantry section to 12 for admin reasons. Now why wouldn't we for operational reasons in Syria? I will bet you a double-double that if you went to your CO during morning PT and said:

"Hey sir if we went to war in a CMSF-type scenario (assuming you explained what that was) and the Bde Comd told you he had gotten an extra 2 men per section for the infantry in the BG because we are expecting very heavy urban fighting and casualties..what would you think?"

His answer is not going to be "well I would inform the boss that doctrine clearly says we should only have 10 men sections and I would be force to refuse the extra troops". It is that kind of "ifs" we are talking about in a Syrian scenario.

CCV. Oh don't get me started. The CCV is ONLY good in a Syrian-or-worse scenario but this is our most unlikely employment scenario...hell it is absolutely remote probablity. The only reason to spend this kind of money is for a serious mechanized fight...which we are not likely to see in out lifetime. A lot of questions are being asked up here about the project as well as it is almost a 3rd of the entire Army fleet upgrade budget. The LAV will be the workhorse for us for at least 10 years and she is a good pony, don't get me wrong.

They have not made a final selection on the CCV, the SOR is a "preliminary SOR" which was really a parting shot by the outgoing Army Comd. Quick snipet (UNCLASS):

"In all functions and tactical missions, the CCV has three main roles, which

are as follows:

2.5.1.0-1.0-1(SOR-1317) a. to provide protected transportation for the infantry to get them as close as possible to their objective;

2.5.1.0-1.0-2(SOR-1318) b. to provide accurate and high-volume direct fire and other mounted support to dismounted infantry; and

2.5.1.0-1.0-3(SOR-1319) c. to defeat(DESTROY, NEUTRALIZE and/or SUPPRESS) enemy

mounted and dismounted threats."

The main justification is that the LAV III is unsuitable for close assault...their words not mine. There is a lot more but I am not going to put it on a public forum.

I think they are aiming at a CV-type vehicle with a heavy +30mm gun. You are probably correct on the continuing debate...I actually have to go to a meeting this morning with Army Force Development on it...I'll let you know how it goes.

[Sequoia]

My point here is that we don't know because it's all speculation from any point of view. But my guess, based on previous times when militaries are caught unprepared for large scale warfare, is that many things that were unlikely to happen would happen. And things likely to happen would not happen. All because The Big Picture would demand it.

Steve

Is that how the Dutch Airforce got Tornados?

[Carbon-14]

I have to rescind my comment of 12 man sections on roto 8. I don't know why I wrote that. We did not reorganize into 12 man sections. Out to me.