Yeomanry Regts & loss of CVR(T)

G'day All

I posted a few months ago in the Multinational forum: Aussie RAAC - loss of 'A' vehicles

I was wondering what has been the effect of the loss of CVR(T) on the Yeomanry Regiments - recruitment, retention, worth of training, etc.

I am in the early stages of the 'Part Time First Appointment Course' (ie training to become an ARes Officer) and while a return to a Bn of the RAInf regiment I joined as a private soldier years ago is probable, I am also interested in the Lancers (1/15 RNSWL & 12/16 HRL).

The Australian ARes RAAC regiments have recently lost their armour and I'm concerned that joining the RAAC would be a pointless exercise.

What are your experiencese in the new Land Rover recce role?


I was in a squadron that re-roled from CVR to "Light Recce" in the early 90's. (Its gone back since - as you were!)

Cons :(

1 Loss of street cred
2 Hits retention of very armour minded individuals or with specific skills
3 Reduction in public profile damages recruitment
4 Reduction in permanent staff
5 Danger of morale slump - "why should we be bothered" etc

Pros :D

1 Far less time track bashing etc. Time for maint of armour had always been a real issue with 35 odd tracked and wheeled armoured vehicles, never mind all the 'B' stuff. Imagine all the cfts to do and you've got 20 blokes in on a wet Wednesday evening.
2 Fewer special-to-arm courses to do
3 Easier / quicker to arrange local training

At the time we thought it was going to be a disaster. In fact it worked out pretty well. A lot more training got done, general military AND recce skills improved greatly as there was time to work on them. More time on the ground and more fun.

We had to work harder at recruitment, but after an initial period retention improved.

What could have been better:

Mainly the attitude to what was being done with the land rovers. At the time offical policy for the Home Defence Yeomanry regiments was very low profile ie no stripped down land rovers, no camoflage (just plain green), no mounted weapons, no vehicle intercom etc etc etc. We ignored a lot of that and just got on with it (brave CO & a lot of kit stripped out of hard targets on ranges), and for the most got away with it - that helped a lot.

It would have helped if there had been a proper weapon mounted on the vehicles (eg .5 Browning) as one could have maintained a good mix of trades and the basic crew structure. We were winning that argument (as it would mean that conversion training to CVR for indivdual reinforements or crews would be easier) when we got re-roled again!

All-in-all it can work if you are prepared to try to make it work.
can't the Yeomanry pretend that their Land Rovers are CVRTs? We in the Infantry had to pretend that 4 Tonners were helicopters for years! :wink:
Interesting, I'm thinking of transferring to a unit in the 'light recce' role, and was wondering if anyone could give me the low-down on what the job is like?

Any pros or cons I should know before I make the move?
No Yeomanry unit actually has a light recce role anymore.

Regts are all either trained to support regular CR2, FR, or CBRN units.

Unfortunately the 'one army' concept never made it as far as any real kit, so the Yeomanry make do with the oldest 90/110 Rovers in existence, with which to practice drills.

These have been renamed STV (Surrogate Training Vehicles), due to the well established principle of war of using aggressive terminolgy to make up for lack of any moral, physical or conceptual component of fighting power.

Hence in true Yeomanry fashion, the Regiments just pretend to be light recce anyway...! :wink:

I am too cynical?
That would explain the fact that out of the four CVR(T) in our hanger only one of them has TNTLS & E-Spire!

We have problems providing trained crews for the vehicles, then, when the boys are trained it's always the same 6-7 doing all the maintainence on the damn things.

They are great for recuiting as you can't miss the things when they're on the road, but retention kinda sucks due to the time taken to be trained up on even a single trade let alone a full crewman(all three trades).

I don't even know how many trained commanders, we have, most have left, are on deployment or have been promoted out of the job.

When we were light roled, we had loads of vehicles, more than enough crews, the maint was easy, even if we had clapped out Series 3s they ran well due to the hard work by all in the unit.

We had retention, commtment, a can do attitude & great fun. Now with CVR(T)......
Light Recce can be a fun role but the old Rovers don't realy 'cut it' as recce vehicles and are pointless for recruiting. WMIKs would be, but the Paras get them. So would something like the Light Strike Vehicle which the Yanks have.

The RY recently did a demo of All Terrain Vehicles on Camp for the headshed. Not sure how far that idea will go. Even though they have good cross country mobility they offer no protection and are not fitted with weapon mounts like the WMIK or LSV.

As for doing grunt stuff, most TA units concentrate on Infantry Minor Tactics anyway, so regardless of what unit you go to, you will never really get away from it, or vehicle maintenance for that matter!
Lighthorseman said:
The RY recently did a demo of All Terrain Vehicles on Camp for the headshed. Not sure how far that idea will go. Even though they have good cross country mobility they offer no protection and are not fitted with weapon mounts like the WMIK or LSV.
Those quad bike things which were regulary seen with the CO/RSM going woohooooo! I assume? *said with tongue in cheek*

Seriously thought, they did seem pretty handy but I'd assume like most recce vehicles you'd have to hope not to use any weapons as even in CVR(T) you'd be pretty buggered in a firefight with something bigger than a landie.
Thye German Weasle would be a good recce vehicle, small, fast & quiet,
well armed, 20mm cannon all the way up to Milan.
It would be nice to have something other than 110 Landrovers, something that looked a bit sexier and had a gun that made a decent bang. However, this tends to come at a financial cost (which is something the TA just doesn't seem to have at the moment) and a training cost (Maint and training before you can use them).

So it looks like the 110 it is then, but I think the advantages of Landrovers far out weighs the disadvantages. The 110 is a medium on which to learn RAC core skills. These are then transferable to any other vehicle with a small amount of vehicle specific training. Those core skills are;
1. Leadership and command.
2. Navigation
3. Driver training
4. Communications
5. Living in the field off a veh.

All these core skills that you would expect a RAC crewman be it OR, NCO or Offr can be practised without the use of armour and tracks. If anything it makes the learning environment harder as route selection with a 110 needs to be far better than if you have tracks, which can go over ground that the wheel can not. The 110 also means you can go on exercise in other places than just SPTA.

It can seem a bit Mickey mouse having a number of Landrovers driving around on exercise 'pretending to be tanks', and this is something that should not be attempted, everybody thinks it gash. This is why the Recce medium is by far the better medium in which to teach these core RAC skills. The question then remains do you practice formation or close recce, both of which are pretty specialist skills. Well I think you have to mix and match and merge the two inorder to keep the interest factor up - which means dismounting on a regular basis and doing foot work as well as mounted work

The German and the Israeli army have both trained tank crews in this manner when funds were tight. Funds are tight for the RAC Yeomanry, so if its good enough for them, its probably good enough for us. It is also strange that very few Yeomen when deployed on Telic went in a tank, most were in Landrovers of various descriptions doing just the type of tasks we used to pactice in the 90s when Home defence recce. Strange how it all comes around.

Similar threads

Latest Threads