- Reaction score
- 8,064
- Points
- 1,160
I seem to recall reading that article..... once or twice.
I don't, and didn't, disagree with the premise. I can see that organization as being functional for many situations. Many, not all. I do disagree with the notion that a unit needs a permanent organization as described. I like to keep things as simple as possible and then adjust to suit the situation.
I like the idea of putting the LAVs etc back in the hands of the Armour, the helos in the hands of the RCAF (Green), and vehicles like the BVs and MLVWs in the hands of the Svc Bn.
And, as you know, I too am a fan of the Bv206 and agree that it needs to be part of the toolkit (ahem - moreso than a CCV - ahem).
I don't, and didn't, disagree with the premise. I can see that organization as being functional for many situations. Many, not all. I do disagree with the notion that a unit needs a permanent organization as described. I like to keep things as simple as possible and then adjust to suit the situation.
I like the idea of putting the LAVs etc back in the hands of the Armour, the helos in the hands of the RCAF (Green), and vehicles like the BVs and MLVWs in the hands of the Svc Bn.
And, as you know, I too am a fan of the Bv206 and agree that it needs to be part of the toolkit (ahem - moreso than a CCV - ahem).