Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[MilEME09]

As much as I am a huge believer in Army Aviation, as you note the CA doesn’t have a proven track record with adulting where Aviation is concerned.

My concern is they will be the first to go when a budget or PY cap comes in - as the CA is notoriously miserly at saving anything outside 9 Infantry BN’s (or at least the line companies -and LtCol roles for 9) then everyone else gets to stand in line.

Administratively the brigade will still belong to the RCAF, tactically they will be under army command. So PY is more a RCAF issue, as will be the budget

 

[FJAG]

My concern is they will be the first to go when a budget or PY cap comes in - as the CA is notoriously miserly at saving anything outside 9 Infantry BN’s (or at least the line companies -and LtCol roles for 9) then everyone else gets to stand in line.

By now you'll know that while a born cynic, I'm eternally optimistic. I'm seeing some positive changes in culture - for example that artillery matters and we need some and that it's bounced to the top of the priorities list.

OTOH, my research for WAFGs has brought out the realization that true advances that moved the goalposts for the army happened more because of serendipity or the efforts of a few dedicated individuals who just happened to be in the right place at the right time than through corporate foresight and vision.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that our senior leadership isn't stupid and that many of the decisions made were as a result of severe financial constraint imposed a) by government funding, and b) bureaucratic somnambulance. But still . . . and with admitted 20/20 hindsight . . . many of those decisions were just plain wrong.

Administratively the brigade will still belong to the RCAF, tactically they will be under army command. So PY is more a RCAF issue, as will be the budget

My gut reaction to that is: Ahhh! The worst of both worlds - a Titanic deckchair shuffle.

 

[MilEME09]

My gut reaction to that is: Ahhh! The worst of both worlds - a Titanic deckchair shuffle.

and we wouldn't have it any other way....cause CAF

 

[Kilted]

You do read correctly a full aviation brigade, ive seen detailed break downs of it, and the need for this brigade is really driving NTac discussions

Are we talking full Mel Gibson style here?

 

[MilEME09]

Are we talking full Mel Gibson style here?

No, but each regiment would have the flexibility of including all parts of NTac from recce/firesupport to heavy lift

 

[daftandbarmy]

As much as I am a huge believer in Army Aviation, as you note the CA doesn’t have a proven track record with adulting where Aviation is concerned.

My concern is they will be the first to go when a budget or PY cap comes in - as the CA is notoriously miserly at saving anything outside 9 Infantry BN’s (or at least the line companies -and LtCol roles for 9) then everyone else gets to stand in line.

Did you leave out ‘Naval Aviation’ on purpose?

 

[KevinB]

Did you leave out ‘Naval Aviation’ on purpose?

Yes: for two reasons
1) Maritime Helo is something I know next to nothing about. My experience with Helo’s over water has to been use either as an overwatch platform for boardings, or to rope out or for a boarding.

2) I am trying to stay (for once) on topic and MH isn’t germane to the CA at this point in time. Additionally unless the CAF is buying some sort of Assault Ship, and investing in a slew of CH-53K King Stallions to support Air Assault from the Sea, I doubt it ever will.

 

[ArmyRick]

Funniest shit I have heard in awhile.

Two Dragoon Corporals I spoke to at work yesterday, I asked them what they thought the Cavalry regiment means and they both blurted out immediately "No one has a fucking clue"

I had to have a chuckle at that. It made me think, these are both experienced crewman with more than ten years service each, they are pretty up to speed and the fact they don't know what is coming down the pipe for the future of the armour corps should be something to consider.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Funniest shit I have heard in awhile.

Two Dragoon Corporals I spoke to at work yesterday, I asked them what they thought the Cavalry regiment means and they both blurted out immediately "No one has a fucking clue"

I had to have a chuckle at that. It made me think, these are both experienced crewman with more than ten years service each, they are pretty up to speed and the fact they don't know what is coming down the pipe for the future of the armour corps should be something to consider.

So in other words nothings changed since the cold war then.....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Funniest shit I have heard in awhile.

Two Dragoon Corporals I spoke to at work yesterday, I asked them what they thought the Cavalry regiment means and they both blurted out immediately "No one has a fucking clue"

I had to have a chuckle at that. It made me think, these are both experienced crewman with more than ten years service each, they are pretty up to speed and the fact they don't know what is coming down the pipe for the future of the armour corps should be something to consider.

Thank Gawd for honest Corporals

 

[Kirkhill]

Would it be too much to have the Armoured Corps focus on armoured warfare and the Infantry Corps focus on being infantry?

Add panzertruppen to the panzer troops.

Give the infantry protected transport.

Three regiments of tanks, AFVs and assault troops.

Make them as big as you like and organize them tactically.

9 battalions of transport independent infantry.

 

[Kilted]

Funniest shit I have heard in awhile.

Two Dragoon Corporals I spoke to at work yesterday, I asked them what they thought the Cavalry regiment means and they both blurted out immediately "No one has a fucking clue"

I had to have a chuckle at that. It made me think, these are both experienced crewman with more than ten years service each, they are pretty up to speed and the fact they don't know what is coming down the pipe for the future of the armour corps should be something to consider.

I remember when some units switched to calling themselves Calvary as opposed to Armoured Recce. No one could actually tell me what that meant.

 

[Kirkhill]

I remember when some units switched to calling themselves Calvary as opposed to Armoured Recce. No one could actually tell me what that meant.

Evangelicals were they?

 

[GK .Dundas]

I remember when some units switched to calling themselves Calvary as opposed to Armoured Recce. No one could actually tell me what that meant.

Actually that could actually be helpful at times.

 

[PrairieFella]

I remember when some units switched to calling themselves Calvary as opposed to Armoured Recce. No one could actually tell me what that meant.

We know what it means and how to do it, we're just underresourced to do it. Its actually a pretty simple concept once you understand the tasks and how they overlap between light, medium and heavy cav. Getting doctrine explanations from corporals tends to be a bit of a stretch haha.

 

[Kilted]

We know what it means and how to do it, we're just underresourced to do it. Its actually a pretty simple concept once you understand the tasks and how they overlap between light, medium and heavy cav. Getting doctrine explanations from corporals tends to be a bit of a stretch haha.

So what is it then?

 

[PrairieFella]

So what is it then?

Overreaching - the cavalry regiment are the masters of maneouvre warfare within the combat team. The infantry close with and destroy and the cavalry supports that with superior firepower and superior tactical mobility for the ultimate goal of shock action. That said, types of regiments can have direct effects based on the different capabilites they bring.

A light cavalry per the new doctrine cant compete firepower wise in direct engagements at the front but they can enable the heavier guys by acting as sensors. Conducting recces, screens, flank security, things like that. FIND tasks. They can also be used to FIX. Ex: Guards. Even some lighter offensive ops like raids or spoiling attacks. Finally they can be used in rear areas to carry out the traditional TACSEC tasks recce regiments used to do. VCPs. Convoy escorts. RAS. Etc. Think light horse regiments in the age of horse cavalry. Lighter on armour and firepower. Heavier on sensing capability and mobility. This will be further enhanced with the planned proliferation of enablers to LCav units like drones, LMs, mortars and assault troopers.

Heavy cavalry is less about FIND and FIX (though they can do that through enabling ops like the advance to contact) and all about the STRIKE. Pretty self explanatory and wont insult your intelligence by getting into it. Tank go boom.

Medium cavalry kinda splits the difference between the two and currently does not exist within the types of equipment we have. Im thr shakiest here since it doesnt actually exist in our army outside of the book that was just rewritten. Think Div recce which specializes in the deep fight that can FIND and FIX but also STRIKE as necessary to attrite the enemy, disrupt C2 nodes, disrupt supply lines, trade space for time on the delay, etc. Tracked. Heavy autocannon. Missiles. Decent armour. Lots of enablers like the LCav but heavier. Think Bradley squadrons as a modern example.

Dont worry - the image and my musings are open sourced. I dont want to get too deep into specifics but thats kind of an overview. An example of the continuum of cav tasks. Bear in mind its not absolute. A tank can conduct a GUARD task. A LCav AFV can conduct a BLOCK against lightly armed enemy. But I dont want to get too deep into the what-ifs.

 

[ArmyRick]

Overreaching - the cavalry regiment are the masters of maneouvre warfare within the combat team. The infantry close with and destroy and the cavalry supports that with superior firepower and superior tactical mobility for the ultimate goal of shock action. That said, types of regiments can have direct effects based on the different capabilites they bring.

A light cavalry per the new doctrine cant compete firepower wise in direct engagements at the front but they can enable the heavier guys by acting as sensors. Conducting recces, screens, flank security, things like that. FIND tasks. They can also be used to FIX. Ex: Guards. Even some lighter offensive ops like raids or spoiling attacks. Finally they can be used in rear areas to carry out the traditional TACSEC tasks recce regiments used to do. VCPs. Convoy escorts. RAS. Etc. Think light horse regiments in the age of horse cavalry. Lighter on armour and firepower. Heavier on sensing capability and mobility. This will be further enhanced with the planned proliferation of enablers to LCav units like drones, LMs, mortars and assault troopers.

Heavy cavalry is less about FIND and FIX (though they can do that through enabling ops like the advance to contact) and all about the STRIKE. Pretty self explanatory and wont insult your intelligence by getting into it. Tank go boom.

Medium cavalry kinda splits the difference between the two and currently does not exist within the types of equipment we have. Im thr shakiest here since it doesnt actually exist in our army outside of the book that was just rewritten. Think Div recce which specializes in the deep fight that can FIND and FIX but also STRIKE as necessary to attrite the enemy, disrupt C2 nodes, disrupt supply lines, trade space for time on the delay, etc. Tracked. Heavy autocannon. Missiles. Decent armour. Lots of enablers like the LCav but heavier. Think Bradley squadrons as a modern example.

Dont worry - the image and my musings are open sourced. I dont want to get too deep into specifics but thats kind of an overview. An example of the continuum of cav tasks. Bear in mind its not absolute. A tank can conduct a GUARD task. A LCav AFV can conduct a BLOCK against lightly armed enemy. But I dont want to get too deep into the what-ifs.

View attachment 100588

Now its important to get the ones like the 2 RCD corporals to understand that. They will be doing the job.

 

[KevinB]

Now its important to get the ones like the 2 RCD corporals to understand that. They will be doing the job.

I’d argue that a glossy PowerPoint slide doesn’t actually depict very much. The biggest issue with “cavalry“ is it it’s very abstract in people’s thoughts of what a light medium or heavy is a lot of it also doesn’t seem to have looked listened or growing from understandings of what uncrewed systems and sensor advancement can offer, as well as what what the enemy usage of same creates for problem sets.

I’d argue that to do any of the tasks in the above slide requires a combined arms formation that currently doesn’t fully exist.

 

[PrairieFella]

I’d argue that a glossy PowerPoint slide doesn’t actually depict very much.

Its just a visualisation of a task matrix. It aint that deep.

The biggest issue with “cavalry“ is it it’s very abstract in people’s thoughts of what a light medium or heavy is a lot of it also doesn’t seem to have looked listened or growing from understandings of what uncrewed systems and sensor advancement can offer, as well as what what the enemy usage of same creates for problem sets.

Heavy and light are pretty clearly defined in our doctrine and pretty well fleshed out in TTPs. Medium is certainly an abstraction as we havent operated at Div levels for decades. Its going to need to be relearned. Without getting into specifics, drones and LMs are most certainly being battle labbed and integrated into armoured formations.

I’d argue that to do any of the tasks in the above slide requires a combined arms formation that currently doesn’t fully exist.

You certainly can argue that, but it doesnt mean youre right.

Also - combat teams. Tanks arent doing a Sqn deliberate attack without some crunchies and a fires plan.