# Light Cavalry



## TangoTwoBravo (1 Mar 2005)

Here is a slightly cleaned-up version of my submission to a Light Forces working group regarding the possible uses of Armoured Reconnaissance with the newly envisioned Light Forces.   It is fairly hasty and is primarily an attempt to float some "trial ballons" to see which way the wind is blowing.

I would be interested in fielding a Light Armoured Cavalry (or just call it Light Recce) equipped with a small vehicle along the lines of a VBL, modified G-Wagon, HMMVW or even a Fenneck.  It would be equipped with either C6, CASW (automatic grenade launcher) or an ALAWs such as Javelin.  Pehaps it could work in pairs or "threes" with all three systems.  It would also have a roof mounted FLIR with zoom.  

The Light Cavalry would be intended to support Light Forces such as the model that is slowly evolving in Canada. It would be intended to complement the Light Infantry recce Platoon and support weapon platoons and not replace them.  It would offer a mobile and wide-ranging intelligence gathering and security force to the Task Force commander.  In addition to reconnaissance and screens it could act as a "fire brigade" in a pinch, although this would be for situations in extremis (which Light Forces may find themselves in frequently).  It could also help protect the CSS elements of the Light Forces.

I would field Tps consisting of ten vehicles with up to three Tps in the Sqn.  I'd like to add some kind of dedicated fire support element but the size and weight restrictions may preclude this.  For the dedicated fire support piece I'd be interested in something like the old South African Eland-90.   

I'm not trying to mow the infantry's lawn, but I do feel that if a particular element is intended to perform the majority of its combat duties "mounted" then perhaps this could be an Armoured task.   I've taken a little inspiration from the old 1 Tp Para idea, although I do not see a parachute capability here.   As usual, I've also taken a page from my Cav training down South.

My own experience with Light Forces is limited to a mountain warfare exercise with a USMC battalion, a two-week exercise as a Iltis Tp Leader supporting a "Light Infantry Battalion" in the Reserves and working with 3 RCR as an observer and on operations.

I would see anything from a Tp up to a Sqn supporting a Light Task Force, with the composition of the force depending on lift availability and the nature of the terrain.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I tried to attach the document directly but I garbled it.  The reader's digest version is above.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

Ten vehicles....eh!

Mixture sounds good.   Three two car patrols in VBL/GWagen/HMMVW and one patrol in Fenneck.   Tp Ldr and one C/S also in Fenneck.   Have 4 Serv Ops, one in each Fenneck with short Masts.   Keep Tp Ldr Patrol down to three or four man crews and maintain lots of 'empty space' for extra kit or DP supplies.   Have two car Fenneck ptl as an Assault/Scout Section/plt.   Assault/Scout section size would depend on how much kit you want and how many pers the Fenneck will carry if it has a Surv Suite.   This would give four Masts in the troop for Surv Ops.   If room is available, put one remote Surv kit in each of the three other patrols, for use in OPs.

I believe, from what I have heard, that the Mast on the Fenneck can be put into operation quickly and may even be a benifit on the move.

GW


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

George if you could keep the vehicle weight down to the 4-6 tonne range it would sure increase the deployment options.  A Cormorant can lift 5443 kg externally while a Cyclone (Utility version) is at about 4500 kg.

Even if the vehicle had to be transported empty and with a light scale of armour.

Fennek competed against an Alvis product, the Scarab, I don't know if this is true of the Fennek but the Scarab can weigh anything from 6 tonnes to 11 tonnes depending on armour and payload (up to 2.5 tonnes).  The base vehicle is proof against 7 kg mines, I don't know about ballistic protection.  Seeing as how the Fennek competed against the Scarab it might be a reasonable supposition that it too can be supplied with various scales of armour and maybe up-armoured in theatre or according to task. As purchased by the Dutch and Germans it weighs about 11 tonnes. 

http://www.alvisvickers.co.uk/default.html  - here's a link.

MOWAG Eagle version of the Hummer might be interesting too, don't you think?

At the other end of things, does the vehicle have to be armoured?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

Was just using 2B's examples.

I don't really think that armoured vehicles would be necessary for all missions.  If it is a luxury that we can not afford, then jeeps would suffice.  Many on this site, however, think that we should offer our troops more protection.  Mines and suicide bombers have had their effect, and there are small armoured vehicles out there that would work.

The MOWAG Eagle and the Dutch variant are both interesting vehicles.  I do not like the 'enclosed' aspect of many of these vehicles, as I place a lot of importance on being able to use my ears, as well as have 360 unobstructed vision.

GW


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2005)

The Fennick and armoured versions of the HMMVW are very limited in the ability to carry troops, so these "light" formations will have a big disadvantage when trying to get a foot patrol into or out of a tight spot. The French VBL has a larger cousin which has the attributes of the VBL, and enough room for a couple of dismounts in the back. The Turkish Otokar family is similarly versatile.

The 10 tonne weight of these armoured vehicles does limit the cross country mobility, so the ability to carry dismounts (even if in half the patrols) is probably a "must have". Shorty masts don't have to be a disadvantage, the US Stryker recce has an elaborate sight head in place of a weapon in the OWS station.

For George, don't forget the CC can always pop the hatch and stick his head out.... ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2005)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/eagle/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma/

These two vehicles have the advantage that they can both be lifted by a CH149 Cormorant externally and actually will fit inside the bird as well.  They weigh 5.5 and 5.7 tonnes respectively combat loaded and the Eagle weighs 4.1 tonnes empty.

The Eagle carries 4 while the Puma carries up to 7 (Dvr +6).

The C27J and the CASA295 can carry 2 vehicles into an 1800 foot strip.

The CH-148 might be able to lift one externally empty but can't carry either one internally.

And George, the Puma has no windshields,  on the other hand it is made by IVECO ;D


----------



## George Wallace (2 Mar 2005)

Are there two Pumas on the market?  I thought that the Germans were also building a tracked AFV and calling it Puma.

GW


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2005)

Yes, unfortunately there are.  The Italians have their light - 4-8 tonne - wheeled APC (4x4 and 6x6, available for Infantry and Cavalry (the 6x6 is apparently to be deployed with the Centauro but I have seen other articles that say the 4x4 is used there as well)) while the Germans have their 30 to 40 tonne tracked beast.

I am trying to get pictures but all I can turn up so far are bitmap images that I can't post here.

Try these links.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/


----------



## Zipper (2 Mar 2005)

Going back to 2B's proposal. Are we trying to find a vehicle that will fit? Or are we looking at 2B's ideas and then going with what we know we'll have (Gwagon) and coming up with ideas as to how well it will work?

As much as I like to dream (we all know how much...) but I doubt that they'll be even looking at many of those excellent platforms.

2B - considering how large our force is that usually deploy's (especially at first), do you think we would ever go with anything larger then one of your 10 car trps? Or do you think GW's ideas are a little more workable? I agree that you would need a little more firepower in some situations. how to do that is the question.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2005)

Since a G Wagon troop would be eaten alive, it is very much in our interest to push for more effective kit.

Sadly, the G Wagon is it for the forseeable future, but this is the testing ground for doctrine, and when a new line of utility vehicles arrive, it would be well worth looking at adapting the basic mechanicals to make a "real" light recce vehicle on the lines of the Cobra or Eagle.


----------



## Zipper (2 Mar 2005)

True enough.

As much as I like the looks and capabilities of the Puma and Cobra. The Eagle would probably be the choice for political reasons, and since it is already build here.


----------



## McG (6 Mar 2005)

According to the Light Forces Working Group light forces are principally foot borne forces optimized for military operations in complex environment, rapidly deployable through a variety of means, yet *not tied to any one platform*.   This definition should be remembered when defining the LCAV.   However, we could define two or three platforms that the LCav would stay current with.   I propose a standard 3 man crew and the we maintain a very light (unarmoured but with GPMG and HMG or AGL) and a light (light armour may have turret) platform.   Here are four options that go from very light to least light:


----------



## TCBF (6 Mar 2005)

As a Ptl Comd in 1 Tp (Para) on RV 87, I had the honour of waiting around for a Cdn Chinook to try and lift my Lynx into an OP base.   No-go, too hot out.   No lift.

I recall gradding from TQ3 in the spring of 77 in Pet.   A Sqn was Ferret, and B Sqn was Lynx.   My half of the TQ3 went Lynx, the others Ferret, then 5 of those onto Centurians in Gagetown.

I would say, consider the Weasel, Fennek and VBL.

The French used the VBL on Boeselager 1992.

As for the org.   We started with three seven car troops.   That was dropped to three five car troops because of manpower.   We geared up for a seven car troop for Kandahar, then two seven car troops, then were told "12 coyotes" and went with two five car troops/OC/BC.

So, we can doctrine ourselves to death, but a Roto is whatever pops out of someone's mouth during a news conference.

Time to drive back to Wainwright.

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2005)

TCBF

I would agree with you on the Wiesel and the VBL but you might want to stay away from the Fennek.

Fennek weighs approximately 10 tonnes. Maybe a bit more.

Scimitar weighs 8 tonnes.   

VBL weighs 3.5 tonnes and Wiesel weighs 2.8 tonnes.

Both the VBL and the Wiesel are in the lift weights at sea level of the Cyclone and the Cormorant ( Roughly 3-5 tonnes).


----------



## Lenn Wilson (20 Mar 2005)

Do we need this? I may be wrong but I imagine such a thing would only be used in actual all out war situations, that kind of fire power just not neccesary for most operations that our forces are sent out on. 

   But I may be wrong.


----------



## McG (20 Mar 2005)

Lenn Wilson said:
			
		

> But I may be wrong.


I'm going to support this hypothesis.

Our forces do need the limited firepower that these platforms could offer, and our light forces would have the most to gain from it.  Even in peacekeeping operations our forces have needed to employ lethal force to protect themselves or accomplish the mission (do a search for Medak).  You should also be aware that UN missions have only been a small minority of the missions we have been involved in over the last decade, and peacekeeping has taken a back seat now too.

You are likely familiar with the movie (or the book) Blackhawk Down and the real events that it is about.  Light armour could have made a world of difference in that incident.  As it is, the Rangers had a ground force that is comparable or heavier that what we are talking about for the lighter end of the light cavalry spectrum.


----------



## Lenn Wilson (21 Mar 2005)

I have only seen the movie once, but wasnt the problem that they completely underestimated what they were up against? and they did have hummers, with mounted machine guns...


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2005)

Lenn Wilson said:
			
		

> Do we need this? I may be wrong but I imagine such a thing would only be used in actual all out war situations, that kind of fire power just not neccesary for most operations that our forces are sent out on.
> 
> But I may be wrong.



You have lost me with these comments.  What do you mean here?

As Soldiers we train and equip for WAR.  Peacekeeping is something that we do because we are most qualified to do so.  If a Peacekeeping task goes to hell in a handbasket like it did in Cyprus in 1974 for the Airborne Regiment (3 KIA) or in Bosnia at the Medak Pocket, we are equipped and trained to stay alive.  Canada is like the village, who hadn't had a fire in twenty years, so due to budget restraints, has decided to sell the Fire Truck.  If our Firemen don't train and equip for the worse case scenario then they will be ineffective when the time comes to fight that fire.  The same goes for our Police, Paramedics and Military.  In time of emergency (or all out war), we will not find the Equipment, nor Trained People, instantly to react; unless of course you happen to have a Magic Wand in you hip pocket and can conger up some?

GW


----------



## Zipper (23 Mar 2005)

This is more a question for all those guys (MCG, 2Bravo, Infanteer, etc) contributing to the various journals. When are they out? And have you submitted your great ideas on Cavalry and such?

Thanks


----------



## Lenn Wilson (23 Mar 2005)

I completely agree canada is the village that hast had a fire in 20 years.  But we still have to look at our current situation and our plans for the future. Buying new firetrucks isnt going to be helpful when its been raining for 20 years and  our roofs are starting to leak


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2005)

Well Lenn; those firetrucks don't only pump water onto fires, they have pumps that can pump water out of that flooded basement of yours.  Of course, you wouldn't be able to do that without those pumps, so hurry up and down that Coke, you've got a lot of bailing to do.....

GW


----------



## Lenn Wilson (23 Mar 2005)

Nice.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2005)

Protection comes at a price:

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTATRIT.HTM



> March 21, 2005: The U.S. Army in Iraq is faced with a dramatic growth in the number of deaths from accidents involving Humvees (â Å“hummersâ ?). Last year, some 39 soldiers died in such accidents. But the rate of accidental deaths from these accidents has doubled in the last four months. That's about five percent of all deaths. Most of the accidents involve new hummers, the ones with armor installed at the factory. The hummer was always considered a safe vehicle, because it had a low center of gravity, and it's width made is less prone to rollovers. But now there are more rollovers, and they appear to be caused by the increased weight of the armor, and the higher speeds troops use to avoid, or get away from, ambushes. Combat casualties have been falling sharply over the past three months, and part of that has to do with the high speed driving tactics adopted by troops using hummers. Such tactics have evolved over the last two years. But all that hot roding comes at the cost of more fatal accidents. The army is studying the situation, and will probably come up with new driving techniques to minimize the dangers.



This may also become a problem if CSS vehicles (G-wagons, Milcots, MLVWs) are uparmoured to serve in placees like Afghanistan or Bosnia (or whatever future deployments are on the horizon). In the short term, upgraded suspensions are needed, while when selecting future platforms we need to keep things like this in mind as well. (See the CV 90 fan page for some ideas. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679.30.html)


----------

