Should SAF be Brigade-based or Division-based?
-
Well yea they are.....But if you want to up the firepower of the light infantry wont it be easier to simply mechanized them??Oh and a mechanised division is not really different in the way they conduct training.It's just that the mechanised division it just like what you said....they have more firepower and overall faster.However they arent exactly good for fast deployment.So that is where the light infantry comes in.The light infantry can also bunch out into more specialized roles like being easily converted into "airborne" troops.Originally posted by gary1910:I am not advocating a full mechanised div at all.
Actually what I am adovcating to have at least one light infantry Bde with slightly better firepower & mobility in the Div.
They r not meant to fight like the Mechanised Bde, what I am suggesting is more like fire supporting role for the wheeled AFV rather than a cohensive mechanised assault which are totally different tactics.
Armour Infantry & light infantry r trained employing different tactics to achieve their objectives. So having a few fire support vehicles attached to your units does not change from light infantry to be armour infantry just like that.
Anyway what you are saying now is being done by the supporting SAB in the division itself.Since our SAB's arent really real heavy armoured but more like supporting....
What you are saying is still making the division an overall mechanized division.
A light infantry division is usually like this:2-4 infantry bde,1 armour bde or armoured infantry,1 arty bde or reg and support troops(logistics and engineers..etc)(around 8k-10k soldiers)
A Mechanised division is like this:1-4 armoured infantry bde,1-4 armoured bde,1 arty bde...etc etc(10k-14k soldiers)
An Armoured division is usually like this:3-4 armoured reg,1-2 infantry bde plus support and hq troops(6k-10k troops) -
I really dun know what you r proposing, at first you said we need Iight infantry bde in our div, then you said it well be too expensive to have so many AFV to convert the light infantry bde to "mechanised" bde, now you saying it is much easy to convert them to mechanised bde from what I have proposed to have something like ASU for fire support & Bronco for transport for our light Infantry Bde.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well yea they are.....But if you want to up the firepower of the light infantry wont it be easier to simply mechanized them??Oh and a mechanised division is not really different in the way they conduct training.It's just that the mechanised division it just like what you said....they have more firepower and overall faster.However they arent exactly good for fast deployment.So that is where the light infantry comes in.The light infantry can also bunch out into more specialized roles like being easily converted into "airborne" troops.
Anyway what you are saying now is being done by the supporting SAB in the division itself.Since our SAB's arent really real heavy armoured but more like supporting....
What you are saying is still making the division an overall mechanized division.
A light infantry division is usually like this:2-4 infantry bde,1 armour bde or armoured infantry,1 arty bde or reg and support troops(logistics and engineers..etc)(around 8k-10k soldiers)
A Mechanised division is like this:1-4 armoured infantry bde,1-4 armoured bde,1 arty bde...etc etc(10k-14k soldiers)
An Armoured division is usually like this:3-4 armoured reg,1-2 infantry bde plus support and hq troops(6k-10k troops)
B4 we go any further, do you know what is Armour Battle Group in the SAF?
Do you know that this ABGs conduct their exercise in Australia annually & why they do so there?
If you could answer them then you will know why mechanised infantry & the light infantry have different roles and using different tactics in warfare. -
Ahhh ok ok let me explain.Originally posted by gary1910:I really dun know what you r proposing, at first you said we need Iight infantry bde in our div, then you said it well be too expensive to have so many AFV to convert the light infantry bde to "mechanised" bde, now you saying it is much easy to convert them to mechanised bde from what I have proposed to have something like ASU for fire support & Bronco for transport for our light Infantry Bde.
B4 we go any further, do know what is Armour Battle Group in the SAF?
Do you that this ABG conduct their exercise in Australia annually & why they do so there?
If you could answer them then you will know why mechanised infantry & the light infantry have different roles and using different tactics in warfare.
What i am saying is personally i think it would be too expansive to have a totally mech infantry.However i agree with you we need the added firepower and the best kind of division overall is a mech division which frm what i'm seeing is what we are progressing to and which in this present structure we can easily convert to.I also see the need for light infantry if we do go for the full mech option and i see the Guard units fufilling this role perfectly.
Basically i'm saying is that we can either keep this current formation of having light infantry bde being supported by an armoured bde which does fufill what you are advocating we change to by adding an extra armoured unit of any size to our infantry.Or we can change to a fully mechanized infantry division using the guards as our light infantry and if they need support have that spare SAB provide it.
At this present time this structure provides a good way to form battlegroups(think along the lines of German KG's)when and where it is needed while still being able to concentrate our armour for an armoured punch.Instead of what you are proposing of having armour units and an armoured bde in the same division.Kinds of makes things messier i guess which i personally think is not a good idea. -
Actually what I am proposing is to have more addition arms in the support coy in our infantry unit.Originally posted by |-|05|:Ahhh ok ok let me explain.
What i am saying is personally i think it would be too expansive to have a totally mech infantry.However i agree with you we need the added firepower and the best kind of division overall is a mech division which frm what i'm seeing is what we are progressing to and which in this present structure we can easily convert to.I also see the need for light infantry if we do go for the full mech option and i see the Guard units fufilling this role perfectly.
Basically i'm saying is that we can either keep this current formation of having light infantry bde being supported by an armoured bde which does fufill what you are advocating we change to by adding an extra armoured unit of any size to our infantry.Or we can change to a fully mechanized infantry division using the guards as our light infantry and if they need support have that spare SAB provide it.
At this present time this structure provides a good way to form battlegroups(think along the lines of German KG's)when and where it is needed while still being able to concentrate our armour for an armoured punch.Instead of what you are proposing of having armour units and an armoured bde in the same division.Kinds of makes things messier i guess which i personally think is not a good idea.
You see the support coy in the infantry unit now has infantry pioneer, scout, snipers, 81mm mortar & Milan/Spike. And since at time the infantry need addition firepower , they get it from the attached units from the SAB. Why we dun simply have them incorporated into the support coy by having 3-4 fire support AFV.
We used to have some 106RCL guns which is now replaced by the Spike/Milan for anti tank purpose, they r actually good point fire support asset as well. Since they been withdrawn from most infantry units , we have lost a cheap, effective point fire support asset.
Another proposal is the ASU to be under the control of Infantry Bde HQ to be attached to infantry when necessary.
Why am I proposing all this is not to split up any component of SAB which is actually term as the Armour Battle Group in the Armour units. The ABG is suppose to be core formation of our Armour units and will be the most effective when operating in this manner. That is why the armour formation has their annual exercise in Australia, purely armour units ABG. By losing some component to the infantry , u r reducing the effectiveness of our ABG. -
As for the Guards to fulfil the roles of light infantry & have all the Infantry Bde converted to Mechanised Bde, I think it is a bad idea.
Our Guard units r trained to be in RDF, the 21 Div and have a different role. Therefore we still need the infantry Bde in the CAD. -
Yes a different role in the opening stages of the war...at which point the light infantry is not really needed.Later on in the war when things get more spread out and speed is not as essential they can thus fufill the roles.Originally posted by gary1910:As for the Guards to fulfil the roles of light infantry & have all the Infantry Bde converted to Mechanised Bde, I think it is a bad idea.
Our Guard units r trained to be in RDF, the 21 Div and have a different role. Therefore we still need the infantry Bde in the CAD.
Ahh and you're proposing putting fire support(mobile guns like the XM
into the support corp ar?I think it'd be better to put for logitiscs and command wise to maybe put a small regiment into our current SAB but attach it to the infantry rather then support arms....This increases both the firepower of the armour and infantry unit which are more frontline then the support which doesnt need the mobile guns anyway
And not i'm saying we should dilute our SAB be mixing it up with the infantry.I'm saying that when the added firepower is need the SAB can spilt off units to help to infantry.It is however still an armoured core that can and should be used in a punch.Besides as you all have said..our SAB aint really heavy enough to be used in the same way MBT's are used in war.(Our centrions aside ofcause)
Oh and 1 more thingA motorised infantry is term used by the Russian where the troops are transport by truck thus the term motorised.
Taken frm page 1.The Russian motoried rifle regiment is the same as a mechanized bde.EXACTLY the same.However a Russian motorised rifle division is very different from a western mechanised division.The main difference being in it's support arms.Apart from the usual arty,engineers etc etc the Russian motorised rifle division also has it's own Air defence and surface to surface missles(read short range cruise missles and MRLS).In western mechanised forces the air defence is separate commond but attached to the division.While it doesnt have it's own missiles.They however have An aviation group unlike us.
Mine envision of "motorised" infantry is between the Russian version & that of western standard mechnised infantry with light armour Bronco to -
This assuming you r fighting in one front, what happen if you need to open the second front in the west?Originally posted by |-|05|:Yes a different role in the opening stages of the war...at which point the light infantry is not really needed.Later on in the war when things get more spread out and speed is not as essential they can thus fufill the roles.
Yes ,logistically in the initial stage especially if both the amour & infantry r using the same type of veh. But what if the infantry's ASU use a wheeled veh say Terrex which the Armour does not use then that is no advantage. Good example is our V200 AFV, all of them have channeled to SADA & PDF.They trained & operate all by themselves.Initially training might be conducted by SOA, after some time ,they will conduct their own training.Another example is our Armour pioneer that operate the M113s, the trainees went thru training in 38SCE not in SOA.Originally posted by |-|05|:Ahh and you're proposing putting fire support(mobile guns like the XM into the support corp ar?I think it'd be better to put for logitiscs and command wise to maybe put a small regiment into our current SAB but attach it to the infantry rather then support arms....This increases both the firepower of the armour and infantry unit which are more frontline then the support which doesnt need the mobile guns anyway
As for command is always good to have asset you need directly under your command, especially during war time.
It true that our ABG is lightly armed & armour as compare to the western standard.Originally posted by |-|05|:And not i'm saying we should dilute our SAB be mixing it up with the infantry.I'm saying that when the added firepower is need the SAB can spilt off units to help to infantry.It is however still an armoured core that can and should be used in a punch.Besides as you all have said..our SAB aint really heavy enough to be used in the same way MBT's are used in war.(Our centrions aside ofcause)
But there is still a debate whether a 40+ ton MBT is really effective in the terrain that we most likely to encounter. -
I thought I once read that the Russian has this special light infantry with truck to improve the mobility of basic light infantry, afterall Russia is on one big place,maybe they have been upgraded since the 60s.Originally posted by |-|05|:Taken frm page 1.The Russian motoried rifle regiment is the same as a mechanized bde.EXACTLY the same.However a Russian motorised rifle division is very different from a western mechanised division.The main difference being in it's support arms.Apart from the usual arty,engineers etc etc the Russian motorised rifle division also has it's own Air defence and surface to surface missles(read short range cruise missles and MRLS).In western mechanised forces the air defence is separate commond but attached to the division.While it doesnt have it's own missiles.They however have An aviation group unlike us.
So tell us the link or tell us what they now have for mobility & firepower for this div?
Also if you could you tell us the AFV that is been used for the Russian armoured , or any type of Russian div currently in Russain army? -
Hi |-|05|, I see that you tends to argue your points based on how other armies structured their Div, that is not the blueprint for the SAF or any other armies in the world. That is why there are many variation of structure of a div in all the army.
How one structured his Div is based on numbers of factors:
1.What is the most likely threats that this Div will encounter?Eg. The PT-91 with ERA, therefore you get Spikes tendam missile.
2.What is most likely terrains that this Div is going to operate?
Eg. Jungle & Urban enviroment, therefore you need light as well as mechaised force.
3.What roles is this div is going to undertake?
Eg, RDF, they need special light weight equipment.
This is what the army wants but not necessary what they get based on other factors like technological, budget & even political constraints.
That is why all armies do not structured it the same way and evolve as factors changes.
Therefore you should based your arguement on these factors, not how other armies structured their Div & treat it like Bible. -
Yes ,logistically in the initial stage especially if both the amour & infantry r using the same type of veh. But what if the infantry's ASU use a wheeled veh say Terrex which the Armour does not use then that is no advantage. Good example is our V200 AFV, all of them have channeled to SADA & PDF.They trained & operate all by themselves.Initially training might be conducted by SOA, after some time ,they will conduct their own training.Another example is our Armour pioneer that operate the M113s, the trainees went thru training in 38SCE not in SOA.
Logistics can also mean things like ammo,technicians,fuel...etc etc etc.
As for command is always good to have asset you need directly under your command, especially during war time.
And they are all still under "your" command.Division HQ my friend.....division HQ.Besides no difference frm you wanting to place them in support.It true that our ABG is lightly armed & armour as compare to the western standard.
So it would be a debate if the tactics of an armoured grouping punch would work.So let's set all that aside.
But there is still a debate whether a 40+ ton MBT is really effective in the terrain that we most likely to encounter.I thought I once read that the Russian has this special light infantry with truck to improve the mobility of basic light infantry, afterall Russia is on one big place,maybe they have been upgraded since the 60s.
http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/soviet-union/soviet-union470.html
So tell us the link or tell us what they now have for mobility & firepower for this div?
Also if you could you tell us the AFV that is been used for the Russian armoured , or any type of Russian div currently in Russain army?
The Motorized Rifle Troops have been mechanized infantry since 1957. The Soviet Union has fielded a new model of armored personnel carrier (APC) every decade since the late 1950s, and in 1967 it deployed the world's first infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Similar to an APC, the tactically innovative IFV had much greater firepower, in the form of a 73mm main gun, an antitank missile launcher, a heavy machine gun, and firing ports that allowed troops to fire their individual weapons from inside the vehicle. In 1989 the Soviet Union had an inventory of over 65,000 APCs and IFVs, with the latter accounting for almost half of this inventory.
Looks like your info is older then you thought.As far as i remember reading in other places also the Russians like most nations have switched to transporting all their infantry by trucks at least.
Though i admit my data is old(1989)
The Soviet army uses a mix of BMP-2's and BMP-3's IFV's.They are slow to replace them since the their economy is in the dumps.They also use BTR-60's, BTR-70's and BTR-80's APC's
Can find an OOB herehttp://199.221.15.210/rusmil/UnitRegister.html But it wont do you much good since they do not put out types of equipement.But you can see how their army is organized
Oh and the Russians has special trucks to transport things around around the snow....these had tracks instead of wheels.Anyway most of the Russian infantry is transported by truck to a rail station before being railed wherever.They then load up on trucks and get transported nearer to the lines where they walk.Like all soldiers. -
Logistics can also mean things like ammo,technicians,fuel...etc etc etc.
Logistical supply is control in Div level during war time so there is no problem at all.That how the the SAF CAD operate currently.
And they are all still under "your" command.Division HQ my friend.....division HQ.Besides no difference frm you wanting to place them in support.
Under Divisional HQ command , not directly under your infantry Bde HQ command , that still a difference! -
Division will still send them to the armour bde.Unless you want to have a separate logistics supply line and technicians in the infantry bde which would increase the size of the bde or reduce it's fighting power depending on if you want to increase number of soldiers or increase the logisitics number without touching soldiers numbersOriginally posted by gary1910:Logistical supply is control in Div level during war time so there is problem at all.
Under Divisional HQ command , not directly under your infantry Bde HQ command , that still a difference! -
Originally posted by gary1910:
I have based my arguement on a number of factors other then how other armies are structured.If you read carefully you would notice i keep leaving out the aviation bde of practically all western armies.I'm also just simply explaining how we are and should be operating at a division level.And because of that we would be fine keeping our current structure since each division still has it's own armour element to provide the extra punch when needed.Making our divisions overall well rounded.Sure it'd be good to switch completely to an mechanized infantry force since those guys do train for jungle warfare(limited but still they do) and we unlike the US do not need to fast depoly troops so we do not need that many light infantry units.(2 bde would be fine)And mechanised forces are still overall the best balanced force.However they are expensive and i wont really trust part-timers too use those equpiment.
Hi |-|05|, I see that you tends to argue your points based on how other armies structured their Div, that is [b]not the blueprint for the SAF or any other armies in the world. That is why there are many variation of structure of a div in all the army.
How one structured his Div is based on numbers of factors:
1.What is the most likely threats that this Div will encounter?Eg. The PT-91 with ERA, therefore you get Spikes tendam missile.
2.What is most likely terrains that this Div is going to operate?
Eg. Jungle & Urban enviroment, therefore you need light as well as mechaised force.
3.What roles is this div is going to undertake?
Eg, RDF, they need special light weight equipment.
This is what the army wants but not necessary what they get based on other factors like technological, budget & even political constraints.
That is why all armies do not structured it the same way and evolve as factors changes.
Therefore you should based your arguement on these factors, not how other armies structured their Div & treat it like Bible.
[/b]
And i also think i've been misleading you sorry 
So i'll state my stand now.I personally think the division as it is,is totally fine.We have the right mix of everything.Infantry and armour.When the infantry needs more firepower the armour can provide it depending on where alone the line needs it.While the armour can reform and be used in an attack.In and attack anyway there will be only 2 kinds i believe.An armour spearhead with infantry follow through in urban areas and plains.Or an infantry assualt thourgh the forests of this reigon whereby the use of armour is limited.1 former needing the armour to be bunched up while the infantry would not need the extra firepower since the tanks are suppose to hit 1st.The latter will not see a big role being played by the tanks so they can be spread out to whoever needs the extra firepower.
In defence having the armour separated allows you to have them move between the different infantry bde when needed in whatever numbers instead of having say a company of not being used by it's infantry while another bde needs 2 companies of armour while it only has 1 and needs to get the other frm HQ(read the SAB here).
So i see no need in changing the structure currentl since the main unit of the army the Division has both armour and infantry and they can be moved around by division HQ.Also at this present structure we can easily convert any of the divisions to a mechanised force easily by simply retraining and giving the units new equipment.Instead of having to do all that PLUS either disband,move or absorb a unit of armour. -
I really want to laughOriginally posted by |-|05|:Division will still send them to the armour bde.Unless you want to have a separate logistics supply line and technicians in the infantry bde which would increase the size of the bde or reduce it's fighting power depending on if you want to increase number of soldiers or increase the logisitics number without touching soldiers numbers
Logistics supply is to be sent to where it will be needed , not under which command, For example like say the Armour Bde is about 100km where the attached ASU is , you still send them to the armour bde is it!. You send directly to the ASU.
War is such that the amour bde maybe attacking Point A, and at the same time the Infantry Bde might be fighting in Point B with the attached ASU which could be 100km away.
And maybe another ASU with the other Infantry Bde in Point C say 200Km away from Point A.
The point is (wah so many points ) that the CAD must be nimble and mobile too fight in many locations to be effective therefore the logistics must be as well. that the reality of war!!! -
I respect what you u believe. So just leave it as that .Originally posted by |-|05|:I have based my arguement on a number of factors other then how other armies are structured.If you read carefully you would notice i keep leaving out the aviation bde of practically all western armies.I'm also just simply explaining how we are and should be operating at a division level.And because of that we would be fine keeping our current structure since each division still has it's own armour element to provide the extra punch when needed.Making our divisions overall well rounded.Sure it'd be good to switch completely to an mechanized infantry force since those guys do train for jungle warfare(limited but still they do) and we unlike the US do not need to fast depoly troops so we do not need that many light infantry units.(2 bde would be fine)And mechanised forces are still overall the best balanced force.However they are expensive and i wont really trust part-timers too use those equpiment. And i also think i've been misleading you sorry
So i'll state my stand now.I personally think the division as it is,is totally fine.We have the right mix of everything.Infantry and armour.When the infantry needs more firepower the armour can provide it depending on where alone the line needs it.While the armour can reform and be used in an attack.In and attack anyway there will be only 2 kinds i believe.An armour spearhead with infantry follow through in urban areas and plains.Or an infantry assualt thourgh the forests of this reigon whereby the use of armour is limited.1 former needing the armour to be bunched up while the infantry would not need the extra firepower since the tanks are suppose to hit 1st.The latter will not see a big role being played by the tanks so they can be spread out to whoever needs the extra firepower.
In defence having the armour separated allows you to have them move between the different infantry bde when needed in whatever numbers instead of having say a company of not being used by it's infantry while another bde needs 2 companies of armour while it only has 1 and needs to get the other frm HQ(read the SAB here).
So i see no need in changing the structure currentl since the main unit of the army the Division has both armour and infantry and they can be moved around by division HQ.Also at this present structure we can easily convert any of the divisions to a mechanised force easily by simply retraining and giving the units new equipment.Instead of having to do all that PLUS either disband,move or absorb a unit of armour.
But I just to point out the converting the current Infantry into Mechanised one is not so easy as you think.The AI need to be trained as IFV driver which is one course by itself, since they r now multi roles, some drivers r also trained as technician as well as. You need to know how to maintain your veh as well as able to fight along the side of it. The fighting is different as compare with basic infantry, you need to train them to fight by itself then by Coy then all the way to BDE level.
Just like the Infantry, you need train them to fight in group level, section level, platoon level , coy level etc.
If they r not well trained, they r not effective.
And about the tankees, is it completely different training by itself. -
Uh huh i agree.But like i said it'd be damn messy loh.Having inside the infantry all the support that the ASU needs when the armour can already do it.And like you said.CAD....and inside it is the armour bde that will take care of all the ASU's needs!!Originally posted by gary1910:I really want to laugh
Logistics supply is to be sent to where it will be needed , not under which command, For example like say the Armour Bde is about 100km where the attached ASU is , you still send them to the armour bde is it!. You send directly to the ASU.
War is such that the amour bde maybe attacking Point A, and at the same time the Infantry Bde might be fighting in Point B with the attached ASU which could be 100km away.
And maybe another ASU with the other Infantry Bde in Point C say 200Km away from Point A.
The point is (wah so many points ) that the CAD must be nimble and mobile too fight in many locations to be effective therefore the logistics must be as well. that the reality of war!!!
err...aint this thread abt opinions?It was never a debate....heck i agree with most of you're point apart from how you'd rather have them inbuded into the infantry rather then i prefering to have them in the armourOriginally posted by gary1910:I respect what you u believe. So just leave it as that .
But I just to point out the converting the current Infantry into Mechanised one is not so easy as you think.The AI need to be trained as IFV driver which is one course by itself, since they r now multi roles, some drivers r also trained as technician as well as. You need to know how to maintain your veh as well as able to fight along the side of it. The fighting is different as compare with basic infantry, you need to train them to fight by itself then by Coy then all the way to BDE level.
Just like the Infantry, you need train them to fight in group level, section level, platoon level , coy level etc.
If they r not well trained, they r not effective.
And about the tankees, is it completely different training by itself.
Anyway enough about us....how abt the rest? -
OTTAWA --- The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence, with Lieutenant-General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Land Staff, announced today that the Government of Canada has approved the acquisition of a mobile gun system for the Canadian Forces.
It seem that the Canadian is converting their armoured forces to infantry wif a new direct fire support system. My guess is most probably a wheeled 8x8 wif a gun of at least 105mm for fire support & tank destroyer roles.
“The acquisition of a mobile gun system is an important project that will take Canada’s Army further down the path of transformation,” said Minister McCallum. “It is part of our commitment to modernize the Canadian Forces by re-investing in capital projects that provide the capabilities Canada needs in the emerging international security environment.”
A mobile gun system will provide the Army with a direct-fire capability consistent with its vision to transform into a medium-weight, information age force as outlined in the Army Strategy.
“Transformation is our means of implementing the Army Strategy and our soldiers will see concrete evidence that we are moving forward—with real, state of the art kit and real, positive change,” said Lieutenant-General Rick Hillier. “A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada’s Army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations.”
Acquisition of a mobile gun system will allow us to replace the current fleet of Leopard tanks and continue to maintain direct fire capability.
I believe that they think there will not b any threat in term a large armoured forces invading their country & at the same time increase their speed of deployment oversea.(Re-evaluation of threats & roles) -
The MGS they are getting refers to the Stryker MGS which America is getting soon......
-
i thought the US army had to cancal the MGS?so they are getting them huh?got pics?Originally posted by YourFather:The MGS they are getting refers to the Stryker MGS which America is getting soon...... -
This MGS refers to the Stryker MGS which is currently undergoing tests right now.... Search for Stryker MGS on Google for pics... Better still, check General Dynamics Land Systems webpage for the pics... Latest news is that they are paying 459 million for 66 of them....
-
not bad....they took exisiting systems and just combined them...better then the XM8 MGS