Canadian Armoured Cavalry

[Kirkhill]

2B

In the Falklands 3 RM Brigade was reinforced with a Troop (maybe 2 Troops?) of Scimitars (the 30mm Rarden version of the Lt Recce Vehicle).  It came from one of the Recce Squadrons of the Household Cavalry Regiment.  These vehicles were used as DFS vehicles in various assaults. (Big Bad John can clarify and correct here)

If we were, as I previously suggested, to remove all turrets from the Infantry and hand them over to the Cavalry the Infantry, on a mission-dependent basis, would require Cavalry support.  With that in mind, and assuming an Independent Squadron formulation, each Regiment supplying 3 Squadrons to act in support of a Task Force how would that influence your basic structure?

For instance, if your Squadron is strictly to be used for patrols and recce then combining all capabilities at the Troop level could make sense to me.  On the other hand, if only part of the job is of that nature, and another part is to supply mobile fire support (guns and missiles) or even a quick reaction force (guns, missiles and troops) might it not make more sense to keep the "close-combat" fire-support elements separate from the observation and surveillance elements so that they might be parcelled out?

Back to the notion of 3-5 Sabre Troops, with or without dismounts, fire support elements either integral to the Troops or Squadron assets, and Surveillance elements - again grouped at Squadron level.

For instance if you think you can get the job done with 3 Surv elms, a Sabre elm (Assault Troop), and a Fire Support elm, how about adding 2-3 more Sabre elms and an additional Fire Support elm to the structure that could be detached to offer direct support to the Infantry.

Many small Troops with discrete functions in the Squadron rather than a few, large, multi-function Troops.

Could that be made to fly?

 

[big bad john]

@ Troops, one used as Armoured recee the other used dismounted.  They were not used in the DFS role.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the correction Big Bad John.   I thought I recalled reading that they had added some weight of fire to some of the final assaults, either to one of yours or perhaps to 3 Para's fire plan.   Sorry for getting it wrong again.

Cheers.

 

[McG]

I'd heard that the Scorpion was used in DFS to sp the Paras.

 

[big bad john]

4 of them did give DFS in one instance.  There were 2 Scimitars and 2 Scorpions for the whole campaign.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

Do you mean that the Coyotes have been shown to be effective for defending our camps/bases overseas?  They can certainly do that but that is rarely their task.  Coyotes are usually out and about, although they have been used to protect fixed high value targets.  Their surveillance gear is only usable when static but the turret optics are also important.  I agree that the Coyote is big and noisy but, as my signature says, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you'll get what you need.  

With the inclusion of TOW and some form of indirect fire support asset a Cavalry Task force could perform the range of tasks.  Having tanks would certainly make it more robust. but I think that this Cavalry force could certainly screen and would also perform a credible guard.  I think that it would be quite welcome in Iraq (and not necessarily needing the TOW and indirect fire for that task).

Kirkhill,

Centralization does have the advantage of being able to task-tailor the force "on the fly."  It is easier to have a Tp or Sqn of support elements that is used to being pushed down than trying to pull bits out of a lower level sub-unit.  The Cavalry battle, however, may require a closer sense of affiliation and teamwork.  In addition, the wide dispersion of the force could make ad-hoc attachments hard to implement in time.  Perhaps the lowest we should "devolve" is to the Sqn level.  We've been doing some JCATS work here and it is really driving home to me that we need some integral anti-armour in our Recce Sqns as well as a mobile indirect fire support system for anything except chasing insurgents.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. The Scorpian was a nice little vehicle wasn't it...Must...resist...tangent... ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Try and stay on track 2B....

How about you start from the premise that you are going to create a Cavalry Squadron (complete with LAV-AT and LAV-AMOS (my personal favourite)) but that the Squadron be structured so that it can hive off 2 or 3 Infantry Support Troops and yet still perform its Cavalry Role.  This may mean a 7-10 Troop Squadron but with some of those detached and some in support.  The Squadron Commander would still only be fighting 3-5 elements.

 

[a_majoor]

Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
Reply #41 on: November 15, 2004, 13:08:58 »

LOSAT and FOG-M are potentially as destabilizing as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnaught was to the capital fleets of the world in the early part of the last century. The biggest problems right now is there isn't a doctrine or organizational structure in place to take full advantage of the capabilities these systems can offer. If we go in too early without thinking about how they can best be used, we might end up like the British navy in WW I; armed with very impressive looking "Battlecruisers", which were fatally flawed in concept and operation.

This author looks at the idea of tanks being technologically obsolete, but once again we are left with the question of how do you replace those functions without using a tank? http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja97/4lastmbt.pdf. The modified Bradley pictured in the article represents a "best guess" look at a quickly available LOSAT platform, and there is no reason the same vehicle couldn't carry FOG-M or even a mixed battery of missiles. Close protection would have to come from accompanying infantry, and long range target data will have to be available to the vehicle crew to use the weapons to their best effect. Using this as the baseline, and assuming we can purchase Bradley's as the US forces does a draw down, we can build the Combat Team of Tomorrow with the following:

"Kodiak" section carriers. The M-2 turret is removed and replaced by a low profile weapons mount for survivability.
"Cheetah" fire support vehicles carrying FOG-M, LOSAT or mix as the tactical situation dictates (as in illustration)
"Fox" recce and surveillance vehicles. Similar to the Kodiak, the Fox -A have a mast mounted sensor suites (surveillance, FOO/FAC/MFC vehicles), while the Fox-B carries the dismounted recce section. The mast is quick raising and lowering, and robust enough to use on the move. Think of a submarine periscope rather than the current Coyote mast.
"Kodiak mortar carrier", using the 120 mm mortar for area coverage (HE/smoke/illum). Cheetahs use the PGM's to take out point and hard targets.

A combat team would cover a lot of ground, with a Fox recce troop operating ahead, Kodiak's and Cheetahs one or two bounds back and the Mortar carriers a bound in the rear.

In principle, a new series of LAV based vehicles could also be built to take on these roles (LAV 3.5), but they would have lower cross country mobility and armour protection compared to the M-2 baseline. Given the decades of use and development in the Canadian Army, we probably could make a LAV 3.5 which addresses some of the mobility and protection issues in a wheeled platform.

Although I pulled this from the Combat team of Tomorrow? thread, the layout of vehicles and equipment transposed onto a LAV III or improved derivatives (LAV 3.5) seems to be suitable for a "Cavalry Team" as well. Slot an Admin troop with high mobility trucks or LAV III logistics attached to each Cavalry team, and I think we are getting closer to the end result. In garrison, the recce vehicles and troops would be pooled (Recce/Surveillance Squadron) for administrative support, but each troop would belong to one of the teams in practice.

This is bringing the idea back towards a "Cavalry Regiment", although with the Recce Squadron, two Cavalry squadrons, a CSS squadron and a Headquarters squadron holding the ISTAR CC, it would be at least as big as a mechanized Infantry battalion of old.

 

[Zipper]

Do you mean that the Coyotes have been shown to be effective for defending our camps/bases overseas?   They can certainly do that but that is rarely their task.   Coyotes are usually out and about, although they have been used to protect fixed high value targets.   Their surveillance gear is only usable when static but the turret optics are also important.   I agree that the Coyote is big and noisy but, as my signature says, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you'll get what you need.  

With the inclusion of TOW and some form of indirect fire support asset a Cavalry Task force could perform the range of tasks.   Having tanks would certainly make it more robust. but I think that this Cavalry force could certainly screen and would also perform a credible guard.   I think that it would be quite welcome in Iraq (and not necessarily needing the TOW and indirect fire for that task).

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. And I guess the reference to not getting what  you want, but what you need is why I asked about how effective we will be in helping out our allies in various operations. Yes they ask for us quite a bit. But I believe it is more for political reasons then for our glowing military personalities or capabilities.

I was reading a book on US armour tonight, and they said in it specifically that the Stryker forces (SBCT) are only meant for low intensity operations on their own, unless directly attached to a larger force. So in other words in going that direction as a whole military ourselves, we have limited ourselves to low intensity situations unless we back up (or are invited into) larger countries operations. So I guess I am asking how effective we'll be for our allies given the fact that we are limiting ourselves to such a small degree. In other words, we have lost our ability to fight a war, but not our ability to support the after math.

Now a question on Majoor's topic. I haven't been personally in a coyote in many years, or in anything newer. I cannot remember if they have manual over rides for their turrets or not?

As well, I was reading in the same book about the fact that these US SBCT's will be heavily reliant on LOSAT to look ahead of them before they move, so that they don't get into heavier situations then they can handle. I can only guess that is what we will be attempting to buy into as well?

Considering the reliability of the technology to date, as well as any technologies ability to take real combat conditions. I wonder if it is wise to so heavily rely on it? Its sounds like the Americans are betting quite a bit on it.

Otherwise, I think the chances of us ever getting back into track (in the next ten years) and thus the bradley is pretty far removed.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

I admit up front that for better or for worse we are moving towards being a niche army.   With regards to your question about the Coyote, what do you mean about manual override (power traverse vs by hand or for the crew commander?)

AMajoor,

The Combat Team of Tomorrow is a feasible Cav structure, although I'd like to increase the "recce" at the expense of the "infantry" if we are going with mixed sub-units.   The aim of the recce in that Combat Team seems to be to find enemy for the rest of the team to kill, which is more like our traditional combat teams (with tanks).   Perhaps a 1:1 ratio with missiles on each vehicle.   Perhaps "pure" sub-units is the way to go but have the option to cross-attach.   Integral mortars to the sub-unit are a good idea for warfighting scenarios and if they have direct fire capabililites then even better!

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

Try and stay on track 2B....

How about you start from the premise that you are going to create a Cavalry Squadron (complete with LAV-AT and LAV-AMOS (my personal favourite)) but that the Squadron be structured so that it can hive off 2 or 3 Infantry Support Troops and yet still perform its Cavalry Role. This may mean a 7-10 Troop Squadron but with some of those detached and some in support. The Squadron Commander would still only be fighting 3-5 elements.

Sorry if in my haste I may have missed something, but the solution would likely look like this:

5 or 6 Troops per Sqn, and 4 to 5 Sqns per Cav Regt each being a step up from the former.   Three or four Recce/Cav Sqns, a Cbt Support Sqn (Mortars, TOW, MGS), a HQ Sqn (Maint & Log), and a RHQ with a eleven car Recce Troop and D&S Platoon.

GW


[EDIT:  Sorry a_majoor just noticed your take on the same lines.]

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Kirkhill,

If we are going to have Light Forces then I'd like to have specialized Sqns to support them (based on a lighter chassis).  I've been participating with some of the Light Forces development work up here and I think that we need a different fleet to do the job justice.  Light Forces would have a different role than the LAV based Armoured Cavalry and I would not see the two necessarily working together.  Terrain and the need for rapid deployment should drive the selection of forces.  Perhaps a Light Cavalry Sqn and some form of fire support Tp would be in order to support a Light Task Force.  Maybe I'll start a new thread...

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

Piqued my interest 2B, maybe time for a different thread.

Can I presume you are thinking about something in the 5 tonne range that could be lifted by a Medium Helicopter like the EH-101 or a light Tactical Airlifter like the C27J?   4.5 Tonnes per would be nice number.   1 per EH-101 and 2 per C27J or even 4 per C130H.

That would put the following vehicles on the table, assuming a desire for an armoured vehicle:

The MOWAG armoured Hummer - the Eagle II and III
The Turkish armoured Hummer - the Cobra
The Anglo-Italian armoured Iveco - the FCLV/MLV (more like an armoured Staff Car IMHO)
The French armoured G-Wagen - the VBL

It could also include the lightest of the Wheeled APCs - the Italian PUMA 4x4 (think Lynx on Wheels)

In the future it could also include the Shadow RST-V hybrid diesel-electric being developed for the USMC

And if you were willing to invest 20 minutes at each end, hooking and unhooking, as well as loading up, it could also include Hagglunds Bv206s or the larger brother the BVS10.

These can all, with the exception of the VAB, be seen at http://www.army-technology.com/projects/


Of course this all brings us right the way back around to - The Best "Mud Recce" Vehicle.   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24398.0.html

Cheers.

Or perhaps we just say 15 tonnes and over = Cavalry, 5 tonnes and under = Infantry.  Arty, Engineers and everybody else, adjust to suit.

 

[Zipper]

Zipper,

I admit up front that for better or for worse we are moving towards being a niche army.   With regards to your question about the Coyote, what do you mean about manual override (power traverse vs by hand or for the crew commander?)

Yes, I mean power traverse vs by hand for the gunner. Like in the Cougar. I think it would be a mistake for us to lose the ability to traverse by hand if needed. Electronics break down, and was one of our strengths over the Americans when we could still fight regarless of whether our power systems went down or not.

If we are going to have Light Forces then I'd like to have specialized Sqns to support them (based on a lighter chassis). I've been participating with some of the Light Forces development work up here and I think that we need a different fleet to do the job justice. Light Forces would have a different role than the LAV based Armoured Cavalry and I would not see the two necessarily working together. Terrain and the need for rapid deployment should drive the selection of forces. Perhaps a Light Cavalry Sqn and some form of fire support Tp would be in order to support a Light Task Force. Maybe I'll start a new thread...

Ok. Now I am REALLY confused. What the hell do you guys consider light? I don't know about you, but I consider the LAV light. If we went any lighter, we'd be walking. Even the Americans are saying that their SBCT's are light forces. So why are considering them medium? Becasue it sounds better in parliment? Lets look at it for what it is. We're going niche, we're going light (mobile), and we don't want to admit that we could not defend this country for longer then a few hours at best, nor fight our own battles as our own separate force.

I guess this is what is truely behind my asking if we would contribute anything to any of our allies when we are pigeon holing ourselves into such a "light" task.

As to us going more recce as opposed to Infantry. Isn't that what the LOSAT system is supposed to do? Do much of the recce for us using technology (awacs, sattelite, etc.) instead of commiting people to the job? Granted, we have none of those capabilities without being part of a larger force, but isn't that what it is there for?

Now. Besides doing what I have been doing in wishing beyond hope that we get track again. Does any of this "cavalry" stuff have a hope in hell of happening? Or have the decisions already been made (RCD as recce, Strats as DFS), and this is all just pipe dreaming? If it isn't pipe dreaming, then I may still have a hope in glory that the Armoured Corp doesn't end up in the dust bin with the vets.

ARGH!! ;D

 

[a_majoor]

I think breathing into a paper bag will help.

Light forces are "foot mobile" Infantry. They have a low logistics overhead, can operate in complex terrain without help and are adaptable to being inserted by many different means (everything from marching in to HAHO drops from airplanes to submarine insertion). Light forces carry limited supplies, and their fighting power is basically hand held and man portable weapons.

Medium forces have some extra elements to increase their fighting power, but also accept a larger logistics overhead. They can be used in most types of terrain and in most military situations ("Full Spectrum"), with limitations. In WWII and for a while after there was a beast known as a "Motor Batallion" in the British army, which was basically an infantry battalion with organic troop lift via Bedford trucks. A Motor Battalion could move much faster over the transport net, carry more supplies for the troops and heavier weapons (Towed Anti-Tank guns were a common addition to a Motor Battalion, if memory serves). Surprise: this is the 1950 era version of a LAV battalion!

Heavy forces transfer the fighting power to the platforms, have a huge punch and a correspondingly large logistics footprint. Heavy forces are tactically decisive, but operationally and strategically limited (you have to be able to get to the action in time). Heavy forces also have limited utility in complex terrain.

LOSAT is an experimental anti tank missile which moves to the target at Mach 5, and the launcher can be cued to track 4 separate targets and do a volley launch against all four. One HMMVW with a LOSAT rack on the roof can take out a tank platoon in a matter of seconds.

What 2Bravo is saying is the Cavalry team needs to be weighted more towards "recce" and less towards "fighting", perhaps our only major point of contention. I will say the manoeuvre elements of the Cavalry team provide alternative and "local" recce, while the scout/recce/surveillance vehicles and systems would feed to the higher HQ, and cue the manoeuvre elements to take a closer look with dismounted Infantry patrols or scan with the missile launcher's sight head.

Is Cavalry in the books? Not at the moment, but since 2Bravo is about to submit a dazzling staff paper (hint), he will become the "Star" of the Armoured world and rise rapidly through the ranks so he can command the first Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Canada..... ;D

 

[Zipper]

Ok, with paper bag in hand...

Thanks Majoor.

So I guess our LAV units will be on the lighter side of medium? Since it was my impression that units like the marines with M2's and even some M1 capability would be considered medium. In other words, Heavy to me is a Armoued Division. Medium is a Infantry division with armoured units attached.

I guess we have to look at these things differently.

Also, I guess I am mistaking LOSAT for ISTAR?

What 2Bravo is saying is the Cavalry team needs to be weighted more towards "recce" and less towards "fighting", perhaps our only major point of contention. I will say the manoeuvre elements of the Cavalry team provide alternative and "local" recce, while the scout/recce/surveillance vehicles and systems would feed to the higher HQ, and cue the manoeuvre elements to take a closer look with dismounted Infantry patrols or scan with the missile launcher's sight head.

Would we be able to field your translation of Cavalry Majoor? It seems yours is geared to a larger formation? Or am I off base again?

Is Cavalry in the books? Not at the moment, but since 2Bravo is about to submit a dazzling staff paper (hint), he will become the "Star" of the Armoured world and rise rapidly through the ranks so he can command the first Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Canada..... ;D

While I doubt we will ever have "armoured" cavalry here. I can only hope that 2B can write his paper with the idea of giving us some punch, instead of how we all seem to be headed towards base protection services and escort duty on the supply chain. And what publication is this likely to show up in? Anything that is public access?

And what is it that 2B does that enables him to influnce these things?

 

[George Wallace]

If we told you; we'd have to kill you....  ;D

As you use your GGHG hatbadge, he uses his.

Publication would probably be into the Armour Bulletin or the Army Journal.  One or both are accessable online. 

Armour Bulletin is at:  http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Armour_school/bulletin/index_e.asp

GW

 

[Zipper]

Thanks GW.

Oh. One other thing. What is the website for the Association?

Thanks

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

AMajoor,

Work proceeds...Maybe completed draft next week...Perhaps I have to leave these means to finish!  Maybe I need to remember my first Regiment's motto!

Zipper,

I'm not a 25mm Gunnery guy, but the Coyote does have manual traverse.

ISTAR stands for Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisiton and Reconnaissance.  It is one of our newest buzz-words and I think that the hopes of our Army have been pinned on it.  I was in an ISTAR Company but to me it is a process and not necessarily a unit.  Basically it is a process by which "sensors" are tasked to answer the questions posed by the Int staff.  Sensors can be anything from Coyotes to UAVs to EW to infantry patrols.  The ISTAR Coordination Centre (ISTAR CC) is a fairly new beast and I do think that it has promise.  I've seen it as a part of the G3 branch (operations) and forming the link between the "brain" and the "senses" in both directions.  It has been an "all-arms" cell in my limited experience with officers and NCOs who have some expertise with the various sensors.  The "book" has it in the G2 but again my experience has it in the G3.

When ISTAR is working well the many sensors will be looking at the right spots for the right things at the right time.  It can also help speed up the flow of information and the linking of sensor to shooter.  The guns are big fans of ISTAR for obvious reasons.  I'd like to keep branch turf-wars out of ISTAR and keep it as broad as possible.

I see ISTAR as a postive step but it is not a replacement for combat power.  Done properly it is a powerful tool but I think that the Canadian army is somewhat over-optimistic in its belief about being able to get perfect situational awareness about the enemy.  Our army seems to think now that we can do away with advancing to contact because we will have perfect SA. Perhaps a new thread (after my paper is done!)

Your assessment of our LAV forces being on the lighter side of medium is accurate.  For "stand-up combat" I would prefer to use either heavy or light forces using terrain as the deciding factor.  Even a heavy/light mix works well.  This is the driving idea behind my little Cavalry thought experiment.  To me, the LAV infantry battalions will actuallly feel the loss of the tanks as much if not more than the armoured corps.  LAV IIIs on their own cannot work as "combat teams" in a warfighting environment.

All,

As I alluded to earlier we are doing some JCATS work right now (the new improved JANUS) and I really want some TOW or even MGS up with the Recce Sqns (and therefore integral to my Cav).  Using harsh language against T-62s is not very effective... I've also seen the benefits of having some integral mortars or guns.  We do not have any and I hate to rely on someone else's toys.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Zipper]

I'm not a 25mm Gunnery guy, but the Coyote does have manual traverse.

Thank God. As much as I like the new toy's. I am a firm believer in being able to do things with your own two hands. Which relates to ISTAR.

I see ISTAR as a positive step but it is not a replacement for combat power. Done properly it is a powerful tool but I think that the Canadian army is somewhat over-optimistic in its belief about being able to get perfect situational awareness about the enemy. Our army seems to think now that we can do away with advancing to contact because we will have perfect SA. Perhaps a new thread (after my paper is done!)

Hear hear! This is exactly what I am afraid of with our downgrading of capabilities, and even that of the US's similar emphasis on this technology to "lighten" its forces. As above. Even with the toys, ALL fighting eventually boils down to an Infanteer getting into a bad situation with a knife in the dark.

Technology is great. It makes information easier to communicate and faster to process. But it is also much easier to to break. How many of us have been in exercises with the US in the good ol' days when their lovely new technology broke down and they were left to sit there while we carried on with our ol' hand cranked jellopies? When ours did break down, we got out and with a hammer and duct tape, made it work again. Thank God for hand cranked turrets.

I just hope that our reliance on ISTAR doesn't take over for common sense and just plain and simple combat drill.

I read the Bulletin, thanks to GW, and I found it interesting in the article on the MGS...

All of our TTPs and tactical formations are based upon a Cold War orientation.   Recent experience has taught us that the current threat is much more complex than previously imagined.

So if it more complex, then why are you downgrading your capability? To use that argument and similar ones is to walk into that justification that we should only train for peacekeeping or similar missions. Why we do not is because as we all know, training for war and then doing peacekeeping is easier then the reverse. So then why are we equipping for peacekeeping and other similar low intensity conflicts?

I say make up TTPs for the situation and then use them. Are we unable to have different TTPs?

I think you cavalry ideas and the TTPs that would be following are a great idea. But the fact that they are "trashing" the old TTP's (and equipment/capabilities) just because they have not been relevent for the recent situations is rather short sighted.

I know, I know. Budget. It saddens, frustrates, and scares me all at the same time.

As I alluded to earlier we are doing some JCATS work right now (the new improved JANUS) and I really want some TOW or even MGS up with the Recce Sqns (and therefore integral to my Cav). Using harsh language against T-62s is not very effective... I've also seen the benefits of having some integral mortars or guns. We do not have any and I hate to rely on someone else's toys.

I agree with you. We should get those capabilities where they would be of the most use. Including mortar carriers.

I am looking forward to your paper 2B. I think it will be quite insightful.