Canadian Armoured Cavalry

[TangoTwoBravo]

Some of the things that I will discuss here have been touched on in other threads, but I wanted to put some ideas out there for feedback, criticism and a healthy reality check.  I posted similar threads in the now defunct CF forum about a year ago, so forgive me if I repeat some things.

My aim is to propose a force employment model based on current equipment or that which is planned to enter service soon in Canada.  I am proposing that we employ our "mounted" forces (think primarily LAV IIIs and Coyotes) as Cavalry and not as wheeled Battle Group that tries to conduct business as usual with MGS/MMEV substituted for tanks.  I borrow heavily from US doctrine but I have tried to make it suitable for Canada.

My assumptions are that we do not retain out tanks or buy new ones (something that I am admittedly not happy about), that we continue to deploy roughly battalion sized contingents and that we will continue to face a threat spectrum ranging from terrorists/insurgents to organized if outdated conventional forces.  I believe that a force equipped solely with LAVs, Coyotes, LAV TOW and even the MMEV (ADATS) and MGS cannot try to function as a normal "heavy" mechanized battlegroup.  It cannot manoeuvre in the face of the enemy and cannot conduct breaches or mounted assaults against prepared defences without sustaining heavy casualties.  US and UK forces can take hits from enemy anti-tank fire with a much more reduced chance of fatalities than a force with only LAVs.  With the tank gone we must adapt and find a role that we can do with our mounted forces.

The role of this proposed Cavalry Task Force (or Battlegroup etc) would be to provide security for higher level formations.  This would include the obtaining of information regarding the enemy and terrain while denying the same to the enemy.  It could support allied Brigades, Divisions or even Corps.  It could perform economy of force tasks and would be very suitable for stability operations and "peacekeeping."

The Task Force would be centred around a robust Regimental HQ and would include as a minimum a Reconnaissance Squadron equipped with Coyote and a Mechanized Infantry Company equipped with LAV IIIs.  Each of these sub-units would include a LAV TOW Platoon/Troop if the force is deployed to an Area of Operations containing threat armour (virtually anywhere).  The task of the Reconnaissance Squadron would be to answer the questions posed by the supported Commander (usually finding the enemy and assessing terrain) while the task of the Infantry Company would be to enable the Reconnaissance Squadron to complete its task.  Depending on the threat environment an indirect fire battery (guns or mortars) could be added to give integral fire support.  The task of this battery would not be to destroy the enemy but rather to give the Recce Sqn freedom of manoeuvre (and bail it out of tight spots!).  Depending on the size of the supported formation additional Recce Sqns and/or Infantry Companies could be added, but I suggest that a combined total of of four would be the maximum.

The HQ would be based on a Battlegroup Headquarters but would include at a minimum an FSCC (with or without a battery) and a robust ISTAR CC.  I believe that either an Armoured or Infantry HQ could do the job, but I would suggest that an Armoured RHQ would be more suited for supporting a formation and that an Inf HQ would be more suited to assuming an independent AO in a stability operation.  The Task Force would be supported by a CSS subunit that would in turn be supported by the NSE.  An ISTAR Company/Squadron could also be added with Electronic Warfare, Counter Battery Radar and UAVs.  I include UAVs with some trepidation, and these may well belong at a higher level as a independent sub-unit of their own.

In offensive operations covering the advance of a higher formation the Task Force would advance with its Coyotes leading.  The Infantry company(ies) would be used to either neutralize enemy Pl sized security elements as well as clearing out enemy OPs (but not combat team quick attacks).  The indirect fire support battery (if included) would give suppressive fires to allow the Recce and Infantry elements to manoeuvre.  The Task Force would have a two-fold mission of both finding the main enemy defences and also finding and neutralizing enemy security/recce forces.  RHQ would coordinate this while the integral ISTAR CC would collect and analyse the information before passing it back to the supported formation.  The Cavalry Task Force would avoid pitched battle, and would not attempt to breach enemy defences or assault defended positions.  Once the main enemy defences were found (bypass no longer possible) they would be fully described by the Task Force and then handed-off to follow on heavy forces (US or UK).  It could also be used to exploit breakthroughs and gaps in the enemy's defences.

In defensive operations (perhaps a stability or peacekeeping operation gone bad), the Coyotes would identify the enemy's recce and main body forces.  The infantry would destroy the enemy recce and could conduct delay operations (although lacking tanks I would advise against this).  TOW is included in both sub-units to give the Coyotes protection against armoured threats and give the Infantry Companies the ability to destroy enemy tanks (I know that the 25mm is powerful, but let's not count on it to destroy tanks if we do not have too).

EW would have a key role in any operation by both collecting information about the enemy as well as interfering the enemy's ability to pass back information.  Tactical UAVs and CBRs would bring excellent Surveillance and Target Acquisition capabilities, although they also entail logistical problems that may preclude them keeping pace in a mobile battle.

I do not wish to discuss cap badges here, but obviously this Cavalry Task Force would contain many MOCs.  It would not have to be a formed unit (although I would like it to be), but it could be built with formed sub-units.  I have also avoided discussing the Mobile Gun System and MMEVs here, since they are not on line yet and I have doubts about their ability to support a mobile force.  If pressed, I would put an MGS Tp in each Company and keep a MMEV Tp as an RHQ asset (but the air defence capabilities would be hard to integrate/coordinate at this level without a large increase in the size of the HQ.

This proposal (admittedly not radically original by any stretch) would enable Canada to deploy a force capable of fulfilling an important role in support of our coalition partners while not committing our forces to battles they cannot win.  I believe that our days of combat team quick attacks are coming to a close as the tanks disappear and that we need to focus on tasks that we could  successfully accomplish.

Thanks for reading my rather long-winded post and I look forward to having some holes (sabot, bayonet or otherwise) being poked through it!

Cheers

 

[a_majoor]

In offensive operations covering the advance of a higher formation the Task Force would advance with its Coyotes leading. The Infantry company(ies) would be used to either neutralize enemy Pl sized security elements as well as clearing out enemy OPs (but not combat team quick attacks). The indirect fire support battery (if included) would give suppressive fires to allow the Recce and Infantry elements to manoeuvre. The Task Force would have a two-fold mission of both finding the main enemy defences and also finding and neutralizing enemy security/recce forces. RHQ would coordinate this while the integral ISTAR CC would collect and analyse the information before passing it back to the supported formation. The Cavalry Task Force would avoid pitched battle, and would not attempt to breach enemy defences or assault defended positions. Once the main enemy defences were found (bypass no longer possible) they would be fully described by the Task Force and then handed-off to follow on heavy forces (US or UK). It could also be used to exploit breakthroughs and gaps in the enemy's defences.

In defensive operations (perhaps a stability or peacekeeping operation gone bad), the Coyotes would identify the enemy's recce and main body forces. The infantry would destroy the enemy recce and could conduct delay operations (although lacking tanks I would advise against this). TOW is included in both sub-units to give the Coyotes protection against armoured threats and give the Infantry Companies the ability to destroy enemy tanks (I know that the 25mm is powerful, but let's not count on it to destroy tanks if we do not have too).

This actually sounds like the idealized BG we are evolving towards, but with the MGS/LAV-TOW and MMEV providing the fire support rather than just the LAV TOW in your vision. I like the rather clean layout of this Cavalry unit, even if it is a composite unit there should not be a lot of "grinding gears" to get things going.

Question (and this is also imported from other threads), would it make a difference if a more effective fire support vehicle or system was added to the mix? I am thinking (for the sake of a simple example) of a hypothetical LAV-HELLFIRE or LAV-BRIMESTONE, DFSV's which can reach out over 8km, fire direct or indirect (Coyotes or Infantry patrols marking the target for the shooter), has an even greater terminal effect than TOW, and can potentially be fired on the move. This would give you the hitting power of a tank, but not the protection or mobility.

My other question is how do you seeing this formation dealing with enemies in complex terrain? Do we simply stay outside and keep them "bottled up" until the heavies arrive; throw in additional Infantry companies to dismount and go get them, or are there other solutions a Cavalry unit could implement?

 

[DOOG]

Greetings 2Bravo..
I like it.
Goes right along with the idea of the "Cavalry Corps".
It also would allow for even more vehiclular flexibility, depending on the task. Down the road MGS, newer more appropriate Recce vehicles and other stuff could be employed as they come on line.

 

[Horse_Soldier]

Excellent dissertation.  Glad to see I'm not the only black hat heretic thinking "Cavalry" and living under the threat of exorcism by the MBT crowd.

A little massaging and it would make a good submission to the Canadian Military Journal - think about it.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I agree, excellent dissertation.

I think that the only major problem I have with it is that the Coyotes pretty much suck at recce.   Excellent surveillance platforms, however.   To be decent at reconnaissance, I think that a vehicle would have to be able to get out of where the enemy can monitor and/or kill you.   To stay out of his observation/kill zones, superb cross country mobility is a necessity.  

Yes, I know, route recce may require tracking the route, but the search for the bad guys should be done as much as possible by "sneak", not by being forced to follow the ground the vehicle is capable of crossing.   One reason why the Lynx, despite its low speed, and lack of armour and armament, still made a pretty darn good recce vehicle.   It could go just about anywhere, in any season.

The coyote is a superb vehicle for providing overwatch (in the offense) and detecting the enemy (in the defense).   Maybe each Coyote should be teamed with a patrol or two of Armour Reserve soldiers in the Gelandewagen?   The Gelandewagen isn't great for recce, but is much cheaper and smaller than the Coyote, the Coyote could use its surveillance capabilities to provide the overwatch and direct the patrol(s) into areas the sensors cannot see.   Advance could be done using leapfrog, one Coyote handing over its duties to another, who would take over direction of the patrols.

Heck, I dunno.   If I was King of Canada, we'd have the Weisel for the Reserves to do recce in, not the Gelandewagen.   But we'll never get them, their tracked.  

Speaking of which, I wonder when we'll have to park all of the snowmobiles and trade them in for ATV's?   Tracks are bad.......

 

[a_majoor]

The ONT R got in trouble for using ATV's; thinking outside of the box is bad....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The ONT R got in trouble for using ATV's; thinking outside of the box is bad....

The Ont R ATV thing is a sanctioned trial, under the auspices of DND. Last year was the mobility and serviceabilty trials and this year they're supposed to be developing tactics and doctrine from the last I heard, while working with them this summer. I'm sure one of the Ont R's here can fill in or correct.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Thanks to all who have responded so far (I think I recognize some people from the old CF board)!

The issue of Coyote and its suitability for Recce is a good one (is there a separate thread for that?).  While admittedly my background is tank, I do believe that the Coyote is a good recce platform.  I grant that it is large and noisy, but it does have excellent optics (both in the turret and the surveillance suite) and good firepower and protection for a recce vehicle.  The whole wheels thing is an issue, and this is partly why I think that the days of combat team advances etc are over.  All this being said, my focus is on the role and organization, and a different recce vehicle could be substituted for the Coyote as long as it retained the optics (in my opinion).  Likewise, the Infantry Companies in the Cavalry Task Force (or BG) could be mounted on any vehicle as long as it had some protection and mobility.  I guess what I am saying is that you can substitute different vehicles as long as the Armoured Cavalry Task Force is a mixture of Recce and Inf with (hopefully) some integral fire support.  Once again, however, the aim of the Armoured Cavalry is go obtain information for the commander while denying the same to the enemy.  I believe that the Coyote and LAV III are suited to this task, but I agree that there are limitations for both vehicles.

A Majoor,

Even with the addition of 8 km missiles linked to the sensors in the Coyotes I would still be reluctant to try to fight against the enemy's main defensive area.  To be able to maneouvre in the face of the enemy (a requisite for fighting the close battle), our force must have protection.  A tank is not simply a big gun but rather a combat system that can manouevre in the face of the enemy and win due to its protection, mobility and firepower.  All three must exist in a system if we are to be able to fight the mounted close fight.  A force with M1s and Challengers can take a few hits (which will be inevitable) while my Armoured Cavarly would not.  The TOW imbedded in the Recce Sqns and LAV Companies are there to give the ability to take out enemy recce vehicles at long range as well as giving the force some protection against a determined enemy armoured thrust.  Longer range missiles would be welcome, of course, as long as they were on mobile platforms and did not need clearance from higher to employ.

Regarding complex terrain (such as cities), the Armoured Cavalry would definately face some constraints.  In a conventional war setting (such as OIF from Feb to Apr 04) this force could operate in towns and cities but the pace would probably slow down.  Keeping with the Cavarly role, the main battle would be accomplished by follow-on forces.  I do not see this force clearing the enemy house by house and block by block.  The infantry component would give it some enhanced urban capabilities, and that is one reason why I want the Recce Sqns backed up by Infantry Companies.  The Armoured Cavalry could advance into an urban area to identify either the main defensive line or at least the main "pockets", but once again follow-on forces would conduct the main battle based on the information gained by the Cavalry.



In an attempt to illustrate this idea, I will lay out a little scenario.  Our Armoured Cavalry Task Force is supporting a UK Armoured Brigade against a second world army and the Brigade is advancing.  It consists of a Rece Sqn, a LAV Infantry company, an FSCC and several FOO parties, and an EW Troop.  The Coyotes lead and come across an enemy security detachment consisting of two BRDMs.  The option would exist to bring up the integral TOW Tp from the Sqn or the Infantry Company could come forward to destroy the OP with their TOW and then sweep the position with a LAV Platoon.  The advance continues until the Recce Tps detect a platoon of BMPs and a T55 moving down a road in response the last report from the destroyed enemy OP.  The integral Sqn TOW react to destroy the platoon while the Infantry Company moves up to block if that fails.  The Coyotes then detect a platoon sized defensive position that dominates the main avenue of approach.  The Infantry Company destroys the Platoon after the vehicles are destroyed by either long range direct fires or precison fire support (problably from higher but coordinated through the Task Force FSCC and directed by integral FOO/FACs.  The Coyotes then resume the recce until they detect company sized position that appears to be part of a main defensive line.  The Coyotes attempt to gain eyes on across the frontage (perhaps using the Surveillane Suites) while the ISTAR CC processes and passes back this information.  TUAVs if deployed could be employed to see the depth of the position.  The infantry would be prepared to act as guides for the oncoming UK main elements who would breach the position (if indeed there was no viable bypass).  The enemy commander has been blinded by the actions of Armoured Cavalry destroying his screen (along with EW) and is unaware of the main attack until it has already happened.  This is a hasty example, but hopefully serves as a guide to how I envision the employment of this force.

Thanks again to all for the feedback so far and I welcome other ideas/suggestions!

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I have not included Engineers as I not envision us breaching.  I think, however, that at least a Tp should be included.  I do not want to make the force bigger, but perhaps it has too be.  The Engineer Tp could be an RHQ controlled asset used to give the force enough mobility to overcome simple obstacles as well as conducting engineer recce.  Thoughts?

 

[Recce41]

A lil off but as a fella Dragoon, 2Bravo. WHO ARE YOU? Email me. 

 

[a_majoor]

Since we are losing the tanks, we need to think of a way to do business without them. I am suggesting a "bigger/better" weapons system that TOW, but still acceptable to our political masters (it has wheels, after all), might give a Cavalry formation a few more options. Granted, a direct assault on a position is not going to be possible except in the most desperate of circumstances, but maybe LAV-HELLFIRE/LAV- BRIMESTONE could allow the force commander to "snipe" the enemy, or force a passage by fire if the enemy isn't set up or concentrated?

The Coyotes lead and come across an enemy security detachment consisting of two BRDMs.  The option would exist to bring up the integral TOW Tp from the Sqn or the Infantry Company could come forward to destroy the OP with their TOW and then sweep the position with a LAV Platoon.  The advance continues until the Recce Tps detect a platoon of BMPs and a T55 moving down a road in response the last report from the destroyed enemy OP.  The integral Sqn TOW react to destroy the platoon while the Infantry Company moves up to block if that fails.  The Coyotes then detect a platoon sized defensive position that dominates the main avenue of approach.  The Infantry Company destroys the Platoon after the vehicles are destroyed by either long range direct fires or precison fire support (problably from higher but coordinated through the Task Force FSCC and directed by integral FOO/FACs.

The same scenario can be completed more quickly with integral assets, allowing the recce elements to move farther ahead and giving the formation commander more time to formulate his plan and make his moves.

Just some considerations

 

[12alfa]

The Coyotes lead and come across an enemy security detachment consisting of two BRDMs.  The option would exist to bring up the integral TOW Tp from the Sqn or the Infantry Company could come forward to destroy the OP with their TOW and then sweep the position with a LAV Platoon.  The advance continues until the Recce Tps detect a platoon of BMPs and a T55 moving down a road in response the last report from the destroyed enemy OP.


This leads me to belive we are fighting the commie's again Not going to happen, look at what is now happening. Coyote moves down road, ied triggered, no more coyote, Next ptl moves forward to find out what happened, Lets say for a good example a MGS, rpg fired from hidden positions, no more MGS. Call in a g-wagon, a 14.5 mg opens up from a cam'ed position, no more G-wagon.

Does this sound more real?

The commie's stopped playing, we need to get over it.
Even the US has stopped the cold war missions, they are into what they find now, and it ain't no security sec followed by the main force or what ever.

Did they use hummers, lav's in Faluga? Don't see it anywhere, they used ARMOUR, ie tanks and uparmoured Brads! Maybe they know something we don't?

 

[a_majoor]

Such a scenario could have happened in Former Yugoslavia, so I would not discount it totally.

Coyote moves down road, ied triggered, no more coyote, Next ptl moves forward to find out what happened, Lets say for a good example a MGS, rpg fired from hidden positions, no more MGS. Call in a g-wagon, a 14.5 mg opens up from a cam'ed position, no more G-wagon.

Counter example: G Wagon moves forward to investigate suspicious contact from Coyote, gets whacked by IED. Coyote moves up to cover the extraction of surviving crewmen, but has cued a LAV-BRIMESTONE standing back 5km. RPG and HMG positions unmask to get a shot at the Coyote (which is standing far enough back to use its cannon to cover the G-Wagon), LAV-BRIMESTONE launches a two missile "ripple" volley which arrive on target in under a minute. The Coyote is disabled by the HMG (such is life), but the seeker heads on the BRIMESTONES have identified the targets and lock on, destroying them. The Cavalry commander orders the LAV-BRIMESTONE to maintain coverage on the area, while sending a mounted infantry element forward to extract the two crews, and do a dismounted sweep of the area.

We will have to adjust our tactics and doctrine to make best use of what we've got. Calling the unit Cavalry might be sending the wrong signal, though. I can visualize a US Cavalry unit from the "Indian wars" patiently tracking across miles of prarie, and using its mounted mobility to get into a firing position (or a CMR squadron roaming the veldt doing the same thing), but Cavalry connotates the dashing charge with lances or sabres flashing in the sun...

 

[Infanteer]

"Dashing" is the key.  Horse-mounted Cavalry had to change their roles as defined by the enemy approach to fighting demanded.  A foe with a rapid-firing rifle with a minnie-ball ammunition would wipe out a cavalry charge.  So what did the Cav do, they turned into a screening and flanking force.

I think the word has the perfect connotations for what 2Alpha has proposed.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Thanks again to all for the feedback.  Keeping in mind the proposed role of the Armoured Cavalry, I am interested in your comments on the following:

  a.   should there always be integral fire support (guns and mortars) in the Task Force?

  b.   should there be integral engineers and if so at what level?

  c.   should the sub-units be pure recce and pure LAV infantry or have each sub-unit be a mixture of both?

A Majoor,

Stangely enough I kind of have the old school US Cavalry and the Canadian Mounted Rifles in mind.  They were at there best when operating as scouts and covering larger forces, and not when charging with sabres flashing etc.  I see this force a bit like Buford's bunch.  It does not fight the main action but does cover the deployment of the main body (boy, I'm really slipping back here).  I attended the US Army's Cavalry Leader's Course at Fort Knox as a young Lt and perhaps I was warped by the experience.  At the time they had two forces; one with M1s and M2s and the other with HUMMVWs.  They were a bit envious of the Coyote and several were proposing an organization based on the Coyote instead of the HMMVW (but not as a replacement of the Heavy version).

I would like to make the Recce Sqn as self-contained as possible without ballooning its size.  I'm not sure if this is what you were talking about (two mixed sub-units instead of two "pure" sub-units).  Again, I see the Recce Sqn as peforming the lion share of the Sense funtion, with the Infantry company in support to facilitate that (Act, but only in support of Sense).  I would envision, however, all direct fire assets being integral to the Armoured Cavalry Task Force.  What could come from outside would be the fire support (artillery, PGMs etc).  Integral fire support would be very useful in high intensity operations and this is standard in US Cavalry organizations.  While the Army seems to pinning its hopes on the MMEV (the mutated son of ADATS), I am not so sure that we can achieve the 8 km shots so often quoted.  I doubt that terrain will always allow this.  No doubt the ADATS folks on the board will jump on me, but I hate to have our tactics based on its ability to kill all the enemy armour from standoff range.  I also like dealing in the realm of the probable, so I am sticking with TOW for the moment.  

p.s. How's it going?  I think the last time we talked was in Meaford three summers ago.  If you're not the A Majoor I had in mind please forgive me!

12A,

Believe me when I say that I am a tanker (although all I have now is an LSVW).  I agree completely that heavy armour is needed to go in and destroy the enemy in most situations.  That is why I am advocating that we move to a Cavalry role.  This means that we will not be going in to destroy the enemy.

My scenario did have a certain cold war feel to it, but it is based on operations such as the initial moves into Iraq and potential hostilities in peace support/ stability operations gone very sour.  The worst case scenario for my Armoured Cavalry would be to go into a heavily defended city with the task of clearing it out and I honestly don't believe that it would be used in such a manner.  This may seem like I am selling out, but I only trying to be realistic and devise organizations and tasks that fit our means.  The Army seems intent on maintaining that we can continue to conduct the mounted close battle with tanks replaced by wonder weapons that are not tanks, but I believe that this is not so.  If we are not going to have tanks we should realize that our Army has changed fundamentally (at least the mounted part) and that we should adapt accordingly.

Please note that I do not like the idea of using G-Wagons for recce.  I want all the mounted scouts behind armour, even if that means that they are in a big vehicle.  While I never had to test it for real, the Coyote and LAV do offer protection against IEDs (although IEDs have been employed in urban environments that can even destroy tanks).  I might agree to a VBL style vehicle if it had similar sensors as found on the Coyote.  I am not a fan of he Stryker MGS, although I must admit that I have not been on it.  My wife does say that I am stubborn (must be the Scots in me).

I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree with you, but I am trying to find a way to adapt to an Army without tanks.

Recce41,

I will try to send you a message once I figure out how to do it!  I'm in HQ Sqn at the Regt right now.  My previous two years were in Recce Sqn (aka ISTAR Company) and B Sqn (where I went to Wainwright with a tank and came home with an LSVW).  Before that I was in Meaford for three years and my Troop Leading time was also in B Sqn (97-99).  I was in the 1st Hussars during and after school before transferring to the Regular Force.  My MPRR is a bit of a mess!  My hands-on recce experience is pretty thin (I commanded an Iltis Recce Tp for a MILCON but that is about it), and as such I am very interested in having the details of the Recce Tp hammered out by others.

Bold and Swift!

p.s. My apologies to all for rambling so long.

 

[Franko]

I know who he is.....and isn't he supposed to be in the field right now? 

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

I know who he is.....and isn't he supposed to be in the field right now?

Regards

Sounds familiar....Franko.  What were you doing a few months back?

GW

 

[George Wallace]

Back on subject.  I have to side with Lance in the opinion that the Coyote is not a Recce Vehicle and had written a letter in the Armour Bulletin years ago prior to its' purchase denouncing it as a replacement for the Lynx.  It is a good Surveillance Vehicle, but not a good Recce Vehicle.  It is too big, too noisy, and lacks good cross country mobility in all terrain.  I'd almost say we should take a step backwards and invest in newer models of the Ferret or its' bigger brother the Fox.  The only large vehicle, similar to a Coyote/LAV III that I would accept for Recce would be the German Luchs, but it is fairly dated now.  We have discussed the flexibility of a vehicle like the German Wiesel, but unfortunately it is "Tracked" and not PC in our "new Army".

On the subject of Urban Areas.  I would hesitate to say that a Recce Sqn in an advance would most likely bypass any Built up area with a population of over 1,000.  I would advocate an Infantry Coy per Sqn in your Cav Org, but also include an Engr Tp per Sqn (not per Reg't). 

From previous experience with US Scouts and ITVs, I have found that they like to shoot at the first thing they see and not observe and report.  Too aggressive for our style of Sneak and Peek.  We have to remember that our Recce resources are our eyes and ears and good Comms.  We are not fighting for info, unless in self-defence.  Our best weapon is our radio and Golf C/S's.  The life expectancy of a Recce soldier crossing the Start Line in combat is approx seven seconds.

As we become more dependant on 'High Tech' we land up loosing some of our more basic skills, may come back to haunt us with the first EM burst. 

I am an advocate of the Seven Car Troop and believe it to be the smallest effective size of a Recce Troop.  60 would of course be a large organization as it is also D&S for RHQ. Types of vehicles have been debated in other threads. 

GW

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Franko,

Busted.  As an Observer/Controller for the exercise, however, I have a certain amount of flexibility.   Have a great weekend and you guys deserve it!

George,

Your points are taken on the limitations of the Coyote, but I'd like to avoid a Coyote vs Lynx/Wiesel debate within this thread.  I would say, however, that the US Scouts are not quite as "shooty" as we make them out to be.  They do use sneak and peek with the HMMVWs and M3s (although perhaps not to our extent).  What I like about their scouts is that every vehicle has two Scouts in the back who can dismount.  There vehicle remains able to function fully while the dismounted Scouts (who are Cavalrymen) check out the woodline or blind corner.  Still, I echo your comments that we must possess "basic" skills in addition to our more high tech gadgets.

Cheers and have a good weekend.

2B

 

[a_majoor]

For the recce arm of the Cavalry (and I am thinking in terms of a composite battlegroup doing the Cavalry role), the squadron should be mad up of at least one troop of surveillance vehicles (Coyotes today), and at least two troops of smaller mounted scouts, along with an assault troop for local protection. This would be somewhat bigger than a recce squadron today, but not really unwieldy.

I have discussed this at some length with local armoured officers, and the "ideal" troop we evolved would actually consist of 10 cars (VBL, MOWAG EAGLE or Fennick sized) arranged in 3X3car patrols, plus a troop leader's car. One car would be a dismount vehicle, carrying the scouts, one would be a support car with an HMG and AGL to break contact, and one would have a very small sensor suite. The sensor car belongs to the patrol commander, who can scan the local area and guide the dismounted patrol to examine areas of  interest. The support car would stand watch over the scouts and surveillance cars. There are lots of permutations and variations possible; if the Cavalry is equipped with long range firepower like the LAV-BRIMESTONE, then two cars could be devoted to dismounts and the sensor car can cue the weapons platform.

In the larger Cavalry formation, there are several ways to arrange things, either having combat teams made from several units and branches, or evolving composite units with a mix of mounted and dismounted assets. As long the command and control is arranged to minimize friction, this should be all right.

Engineers I would hold as a centralized asset for the Cavalry formation commander to employ according to the situation. He might just have the Cavalry screen one area while he devotes the bulk of the engineer resources in a different direction, according to the situation. Same goes for long range IF assets.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just to clarify something here, when a_majoor talks about the Hellfire and Brimstone LAV as an MMEV he is effectively not describing the Direct Fire MMEV as described in CF literature that derives from the ADATS system.  He is instead describing an INDIRECT Fire Support system with Area, Precision and Direct Fire Capabilities.

McG put up an image of such a Notional MMEV some time back.  It was armed not just with the ADATs missile but also with Hellfire/Brimstone missiles as well as pods of 70mm Artillery Rockets.

Hellfire and its Brimstone variants can be fired directly at a line-of-sight target, indirectly in volley and laser designated or self-designated.  The 70mm can be fired directly, indirectly against area targets or equipped with bolt-on guidance packages and be precision guided by laser designation.

It is not so much a traditional armoured asset as it is an arty asset.  A troop could function with respect to a LAV Sqn/Regt much as the Mortar Platoon and TUA Platoons functioned for the Mech Inf Battalion.  Depth fire on-hand with the added benefit of precision targeting of weapons capable of defeating all known mobile battlefield threats and many fixed threats (like bunkers).

For what its worth......

Cheers.


Sorry to steal your thunder a_majoor.  Interested to see where this thread heads.