Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
I had a response all typed up and I lost it.
The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.
Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.
That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.
|
At the end of the day tactically you're right. Canada also doesn't have a great deal of capability in terms of combined arms theory.
If you're going to use LAV's then you'd better have a lot of artillery to keep the enemies heads down and disrupt them. You'd better have air capability to be able to provide battlefield support and tanks to take care of tanks and other armored threats from a distance.
And I agree with what you're saying, I kind of mispoke of the differences between AFV and troop transports.
Its amazing the amount of chaos a small anti-armor missile team can throw out on the battlefield.
Canada right now I believe lacks in strong scouting capabilities. We have the coyote recon vehicles. We lack a strong air borne recon platform though.
I'm not sure what our drone capability is like.