Topic: Canadian Armoured Cavalry

[Chris Pook]

I would support the introduction of long range missiles as long as it does not mean that the Armoured Cavalry is now expected to fight "the main event."  The role of this force is to get information and stop the enemy getting the same.

Personally that is the reason I am in favour of the system, especially the Brimstone missile.  The Brimstone uses a similar Microwave Radar Sensor and Algorithm to the Swedish Stryx 120mm mortar round.  Once launched over the target area it searches the ground, locates targets, identifies them by comparing to "pictures" of friendly and enemy forces then attacks.  All autonomously.

This means that a recce element on discovering a target need not do anything but burst a fire order and grid to the launch point and have the requisite number of missiles on the way.  It need never disclose its position, not even with a laser designator, never move and maintain "eyes on". 

I've being thinking about the urban piece and can grudgingly see a role for the MGS in those environments.  The MGS could have certain advantages over missiles in that environment (no minimum range and much better explosive effect on buildings), although I am worried about its vulnerability to RPGs etc.  If it was brought up after the enemy was defined and with a close escort of infantry it could have role to play.  All this being said, I would include an MGS Tp in the LAV Company along with LAV TOW.  This would still not make the Company a Combat Team, however, and its role would still be confined to collapsing the enemy's security screen in offensive operations and destroying enemy recce identified by the Recce Squadron in defensive operations.

My sense from seeing some videos of Fallujah, Baghdad and Basra is that in Urban warfare in Iraq the Tank has been used less to back up assaults on individual buildings than it has been used to rush in, grab a commanding position on a main route with reasonable lines of site and thus carve the area under assault into isolated sectors.  They then dominate the "cut-line", usually a highway by fire to prevent insurgents entering or leaving the sector.  Redeployable pill boxes etc.  There is very little footage, none that I have seen, and little documentary evidence of Tanks doing the Stalingrad thing of pushing over walls and poking their guns through. 

While the issue of Armour protection is always critical, it appears that the Slat Armour is making the Stryker troops happy.  I posted on another thread yesterday, (already forgotten where - too many related threads)  a link to an article where a Stryker Brigade commander said that something like 50% of his vehicles had been "tagged" by RPGs and IEDs but that vehicle availability was always over 90% and that IIRC nobody had died while under armour. 

Having said that, I see your position and can agree that a Light Armoured unit is not ideal for urban warfare and it would be a waste of a good recce capability.  On the other hand it would be unwise to simply right off a Light Armoured mech team as having no value in the urban fight.

Perhaps in true Canadian fashion I should say, urban if necessary but not necessarily urban.

By the way I think that the MMEV could also contribute to the urban fight.  Anything that can deliver a 20lb shaped charge to a target of my choice, on target on time without me having to carry it, and with lots more where that came from would seem to me to be a good thing.

Fly the package in on 30 secs notice rather than having to carry it in on my back or drive it in under armour.

[Chris Pook]

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2588955,00.html

Here is the link to the LAV and its survivability.   Official US army position.   Take it for what its worth.

Lt. Colonel Gordy Flowers, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, said more than 50 percent of his Strykers were tagged by roadside or car bombs or hit with rocket-propelled grenades.

No soldiers in his battalion were killed in such attacks, Flowers said.

My comments on >90% availability of equipment came from a number of other open sources.

Some other interesting quotes from the article

On Employment

The Strykers not only delivered his soldiers to the edge of the battlefield, but gave them up-to-date information on the location of the enemy, giving his troops the ability to strike decisively

On Mobility

The vehicles also have a tendency to get bogged down in mud. Santos said tire pressure had to be increased to handle the increased weight from the armor.

"We have tires that are over-inflated," he said. "We're trying to lighten the system."

"It's fast, it's quiet and it tracks incredibly well on the snow," said Col. Michael Shields, commander of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Wainwright. "Soldiers have total confidence in the weapon system. It's incredibly accurate and lethal. It works very well in the Arctic environment."

This unit has also had previous experience with the Bv206 I believe.   I remember seeing a compound full of them at an armoury in Anchorage.

By the way Alaskan snow isn't like New Brunswick snow.  It is more like Prairie snow, sparse, packed and dry.  Not deep, soft, HEAVY and WET - Lord how I remember HEAVY and WET.

Gagetown, it must be the only place in the world where the swamps are on top of the ruddy hills.



On Tanks vs Light Armour.

"If you want to destroy everything in an urban environment, completely level it, then the M1 tank would be the perfect suited weapon or system," said Lt. Col. Karl Reed, battalion commander with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which returned to Fort Lewis in October after spending a year deployed to Iraq. "This particular war is about balance. This particular war is about insurgents that mix with friendly forces and I think the precision is what's necessary in order to win this type of conflict and the Stryker gives you that."

Cheers.

[Recce41]

2B
 The idea of 8 cars would be setup like this. 3x scout ptls, 1 UAV/Anti Armr ptl. The tpie would have the UAV, the Snr Sgt would own the the other. A Lav Coy would be over kill. A fully manned 54 pers assault tp would work. 90% of my time was Recce and I like mud recce when required. It is the most versitile type you can have. Its fast, mobile, easy to hide, and damn right fun. The problem I find is soldiers coming on the DP3CC and DP3 TpWO depend on that damn Surv gear. Well thats just me and a few of us from the Recce Tp. We wrote the SOPs and TTPs. And they seem to cover all.
 Hope to be back next yr. I believe we at the school can bring back ideas. For our ideas are not from just us but from 12 RBC and LdSH also.

 E mail me. Would like to get so new from the Regt.

[Thucydides]

LAV-BRIMESTONE is a hypothetical way of getting around a lot of the problems with the current "troika" fire support concept without getting into science fiction or impossible (for financial or political reasons) ideas. If it takes the place of LAV-TOW in this Cavalry concept, it provides a balance of direct and indirect firepower, with the balance leaning towards indirect fire cues by the forward elements. I would not really characterize it as Artillery, even though it could serve in that role.

I think in this context a mounted Infantry Coy would give the commander more options than an Assault Troop, which is really a platoon of Black Hat Infantry. Given the size of the AO the Coyotes can cover, a lot of boots will be needed on the ground to investigate, cover, clear and piquet all the things which will be turned up. A single assault troop would be running around like mad to do all the jobs.

MGS might have some utility in the close battle, but in its current form I would suggest leaving it attached to Infantry units as their bunker busters. (I would actually suggest not having it at all). In Urban OPs, the LAV BRIMESTONES would provide "virtual" thunder runs by electronically laying on an area to be cut off, rather than physically sitting at an intersection. This might not have the same effect on morale initially, but 20Kg warheads taking out strong points do have a certain effect on people as well.

[Recce41]

a-m
 Assault troop is more than Inf, they are Engs, Arty also. When I was in Dog Troop. We had more than most Inf Companies. We did Bridge Recces, Ambushes, Counter Recce, Demo/Mine tasks, Mortor support even though it was just a 60. We would get the 80 if need be.
 That is a true Assault Troop. Not just a Inf Ptl.
 A true Assault Troop would have between 50-60+ pers alone. a HQ Section, 5 complete sections of M113s+Doser/Grizzlies/E Lavs, 2 x HLVWs full of Mines and Demo store, a LSVW and MLVW as the Adm sec.
 It was the best troop to be in next to Jump Troop (Airborne!).

[Chris Pook]

If we consider a KFOR mission or even a base of support for a series of PRTs could we not consider this:

2Bravo's Recce Squadron with Recceguys 54 man AssltTp for screening ops for patrolling and area dominance

Add on 3 infantry companies (truck mounted, bog standard infantry as being described in the Future Infantry thread) for urban dominance

Add on 2Bravo's LAV Company as a Quick Reaction Force to support the BattleGroup commander, (it could be broken into deployed troops if need be to support independent inf coys)

Add on 1 arty battery (with sensors deployed but tubes stowed in SeaCans in case the weather changes) primarily responsible for base security (guarding the guns if you will)

Add on 1 Troop of MMEV (LAV-Brimstone) as a long-range precision fire support asset (either arty or armd)

Add on 1 sqn of Engrs

Add on necessary Forward and Rear Service Support elements.

That results in a deployable, self contained Task Force/Battle Group/Field Force with 7 F Echelon / Cbt Arms sub-units and adequate Command Control and Service Support, numbering something on the order of 1500 bodies all told.

Maybe we could add on a mixed flight of CH146s/CH148s or CH149s (4+2)?

If we organized to keep 2 such units in the Field with and operational tempo of 4:1 that would mean that we would have to find 70 Cbt Arms sub-units and about 15,000 F-Echelon troops.

Could we do this by getting rid of some of the "UNIT HQ Sub-Units"? eg a Brigade currently has about 9 HQ and Adm Sub Units, if we fielded 10 of these task forces then 1 Brigade could supply enough headsheds to outfit the entire army.

I think that within the numbers that we have, plus the 5000 or so that PM may supply, then we could create three brigades with two task forces described above, along with a LAV Brigade and a Light Brigade.

We would have 6 ready task forces (two deployed) and the Light and LAV brigades might supply troops, subunits or even units to form Ad Hoc task forces on 18 -24 months notice while still maintaining core capabilities. 

Rambling off topic..... but one point is critical here  - Scenario Based Planning

What do we think you might be asked to do, what do you think you can do, how would you do it and what do you need to do it.  What do we have on hand that we can work with an put up a creditable showing internationally.

[MCG]

I think in this context a mounted Infantry Coy would give the commander more options than an Assault Troop, which is really a platoon of Black Hat Infantry.

Assault troop is more than Inf, they are Engs, Arty also.

Based on my recollection of the Doctrinal Assault Tp, it sounded more like a pioneer platoon (not engineer) with a TUA section (which I do not believe was ever part of a real Assault Tp).   How were the mortars incorporated?

If you are looking to the Cavalry unit BG to be stand alone when deployed (and not part of a higher Canadian Bde), then I would suggest a rifle company (or two) and an engineer squadron.   Alternately if you are just looking to establish integral Cbt Sp for a Cavalry unit that will operate as part of an all arms brigade, then a Cbt Sp Sqn (like the Cbt Sp Coy once found in the infantry) would be the way to go for force generation.

I've been thinking about the engineers and I now believe that a Sqn would certainly be required for the "three block war" that the Armoured Cavalry might be deployed to.

I was starting to wonder if you would find this site after the fall of the official BB.   I agree with your assessment of engineer requirements and greater details cannot really be predicted without tailoring to specific missions.   On the small end, the squadron could consist of a Fd Tp and a Sp Tp.   On the larger end, the Sqn could consist of 2 x Fd Tp, 1 x Cbt Sp Tp, and 1 x Sp Tp.

[Tango2Bravo]

Recce41,

I've sent you an e-mail, but I am pretty inept at e-mail outside my office.  I'll try and send one from work tomorrow if the one I just sent didn't get through.

MCG,

Good points on the force generation aspect.  The Armoured Cavarly Task Force would be task-tailored for each mission, and you offer two ways to go about it.

Here is a summary of my thoughts so far (refined in light of feedback here).

The role of the Armoured Cavalry Task Force is to obtain information for the Commander while denying the same to the enemy.  It performs the Sense function while impairing the same function for the enemy.

The structure is not fixed, but would have the following at a minimum:

    a.  RHQ (robust and including as ISTAR CC and an FSCC - FOOS are imbedded in Recce and Inf sub-units)

    b.  1 x Recce Sqn (3 x Coyote Tps plus 1 x LAV TOW Tp in warfighting scenarios)

    c.  1 x LAV III Infantry Company (with integral LAV TOW and possible MGS)

    d.  1 x ISTAR Sqn (EW Tp and HUMINT Tp at a minimum)

    e.  1 x Engineer Sqn (number of Tps dependent on mission)

    f.  1 x CSS Sqn (call it HQ Sqn for now)

Depending on the threat and nature of the mission the following could be added

   a.  1 x Fire Support Battery (guns or mortars)

   b.  1 x long Range AT Tp (MMEVs)

   c.  Additional Recce Sqn or Inf Companies

   d.  Additional ISTAR Tps (CBR, TUAV)

I am concerned that I have made this force too big (span of control issue).  Six is the maximum number of sub-units and this might even be too big.  Perhaps the Engineers, TOW and Guns/Mortars could be roled into one Combat Support Sqn?

This Task Force could provide a Cavalry role for a higher Coalition formation (Recce, Flank Security, RAS).  It could perform an excellent Screen task (including the destruction of enemy recce) and could arguably conduct the Guard task.

In a peace support operation it could either have an AO of its own or be a Commander's Reserve.  I kind of like the latter due to the Task Force's mobility.  I think that this force could fight the "three block war" quite well, although it would have to be careful in the "high intensity" part.

Thanks to all for the feedback and please keep it coming!

Cheers,

2B

[George Wallace]

A couple of questions on your Recce Task Force.  It looks to me to be a bit light on the actual "Recce" side.  Do you plan the 1 X Recce Sqn to concentrate solely on Recce and then have the 1 X ISTAR Sqn provide the combined Surv and EW posns?   Would the ISTAR Sqn have its Troops divided up into three car patrols (2 X Surv and 1 X EW C/Ss)? 

For MCG, the Assault Troop carries SEV kits, Demolition stores, and 60mm mortars.  This gives them a fair amount of flexibility, and negates the requirement for the attachment of Engr resources in most scenarios freeing them up for 'hard' Engr tasks.  I would take the Engr Sqn in a Recce Regt, but think it would be a bit of overkill in a Task Force such as discussed so far.  In a Recce Regt I could see the Engr and Inf Coy each attaching out to each of the Recce Sqns an Engr Tp and Inf platoon and maintaining their HQs, Support troops, and Echelons.  The Recce Regt would then consist of at least Three Cbt Teams.  There would also be the ability to 'call back' the attachments and form an Inf Cbt team or conduct and Engr heavy task.  If we were to reinstitute the Assault Tp, this would all change and then free up the Inf and Engr assets to remain basically intact in Coy and Sqn orgs.

GW

[Chris Pook]

2B

If you are concerned about span of control with more than 3 or 4 sub-units then might not a formation structure of something like your Cavalry Unit under a LCol, Future Infantry Unit also under a LCol and both those plus engrs, arty, comms, svc elms be grouped into a Field Force under a Col (something like a French Demi-Brigade) with 2 Field Forces being combined into a Brigade under a Brigadier.

This isn't too different from where we were and are but with this difference, the Field Force, not the unit would be the core administrative element.  Other FFs could detach units and sub-units to work with a FF but no unit could deploy independently.  As I suggested perhaps we could consider converting the 3 existing Brigades to this structure.

At the same time perhaps we could form the Light Brigade and a LAV Brigade (or Cav Brigade if you like).  The Light Brigade would be organized and trained to fight sub-unit and unit actions and be able to form 2 or 3 ad hoc FFs while the Cav Brigade would train and organize for a Brigade deployment and be capable of forming an additional 2 or 3 FFs.

[Infanteer]

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23652.0.html

I thought this article would be an interesting read considering the fact that we're discussing a "light and flexible" force....

Cheers,

Infanteer

[Chris Pook]

Good Read Infanteer.

In some cases, a slower, more methodical attack, one that allows U.S. troops to stabilize one area and hold it up as an example of what is possible for the rest of the country, could produce better results, according to emerging Army thinking.

Would this lead to the following?

Under Responsibility to Protect UN supplies Canada with authorization to establish a safe haven adjacent to an area of conflict. It could be across a national border, as in a safe haven in Chad for Darfur refugees, or it could be within national borders in an "open" area, ie in the Western Desert of Iraq or the Southern Marshes or in the Deserts of Sudan, away from the centers of conflict.

Quickly establish a defensive perimeter along with a refugee/medical facility.

Wait for refugees to show up.

Wait for offending government to either start killing its own people trying to reach the camp or try to evict the camp.

Apply heavy US type force to destroy government forces.

Make friends amongst refugees

Establish new government having won hearts and minds of local citizenry.

Bugger the blighters in charge.

UN and World's Press kept on side.

This implies light, reactive forces with strong defensive capabilities and integral abilities to meet humanitarian needs.   It also implies the need for heavy forces to deal with heavily armed and organized opponents through defensive measures and COUNTER-STRIKE capabilities (Tanks Guns Rockets and Bombs) to defend the Refuge.

A significant risk to early deployed forces unless heavy forces (air support) are on immediate call and heavy ground forces are available in very short order. eg even a battery Guns/Missiles and a Squadron of Tanks would cause the enemy government forces to take time to organize a more comprehensive attempt to dislodge the UN force.

The UN force would not have to be in close proximity to source of refugees. Some refugees are walking hundreds of miles to reach safety.

Attempts by the government to stop the movement would be justification to start dropping bombs on government forces and leadership.

Distance would buy the UN/Allied force time to set up a useful defensive perimeter.

EDIT  

Note to self: Must remember to read article thoroughly and in its entirety before spouting off.

Next year, the Army will re-fight the same war-game scenario. For their hypothetical attack, U.S. commanders are planning a slower approach. They will seize a section of the country, stabilize it and begin reconstruction. "We can use the region as an example of what is possible in the rest of the country," Gen. Fastabend says.

[MCG]

I am concerned that I have made this force too big (span of control issue). Six is the maximum number of sub-units and this might even be too big. Perhaps the Engineers, TOW and Guns/Mortars could be roled into one Combat Support Sqn?

The old Infantry battalions managed with six sub-units (4 x rifle companies, 1 x cbt sp coy, and 1 x admin coy) plus anything else added to form a BG.

I would be concerned that pushing more assets into larger sub-units would only move the problem of span of control.  The option you have not explored is to expand the unit staff.

[Thucydides]

If you are thinking of creating a "souped up" Armoured Regiment to do the Armoured Cavalry task, you may be running into span of command and interoperability issues. If an Armoured Regiment was configured with enough mounted recce, Surveillance, and ISTAR elements, and augmented with a company of mech infantry (the sort of "demi brigade idea alluded to above) as part of a larger task force organization, then I think you are closing in on the objective.

I would like to short circuit the fire support issue by suggesting the LAV BRIMESTONE is the ONLY organic PGM fire support element, so if it is close enough for a direct shot, fine, but it can also support from a distance as well. No TOW, MGS or MMEV, just the one vehicle and ammunition nature dished out at a rate of at least one troop/sqn. If possible, there could be a commander's reserve, so if we go with a BRIMESTONE Sqn in the regiment, and can create three CAV squadrons out of the Coyotes, G-Wagons and assault troopies, then a BRIMESTONE troop is attached for organic support and the last troop can support unexpected situations, back up the Infantry and so on. (do we have "pure" squadrons broken up to create Cav teams, or is each squadron a mixed formation?)

Some of the early posts seemed to have Armoured Cavalry as a BG level formation, which also made sense, since we can now easily integrate all the other goodies like Artillery, AD and Engineers into the Cavalry formation, and all working off the same Cavalry play-book

[Tango2Bravo]

George,

You are right that one Recce Sqn makes for a rather small Recce Task Force, but it could have more depending on the mission.   I see Cavalry as a mixture of systems that included the ability to find the enemy in addition to destroying his recce.   The minimum would be one of each sub-unit (Recce and Inf), with the smaller TF having the advantage of being somewhat easier to generate, deploy and sustain.   I would base the number of Recce Sqns in the Armoured Cavalry Task Force (ACTF?) on the size of the formation being supported.   If we are supporting a Coalition Brigade then one Sqn and one LAV Coy may suffice.   If we were supporting a Coalition Division then I would definitely want at least two Recce Sqns along with at least one LAV Coy.   Without harping on the span of control issue, I would suggest that the total combination of Recce and Inf sub-units not exceed four.   In addition, since we only have six Recce Sqns in the Regular Force right now, kicking out more than two at one time will be a huge effort (and very difficult to sustain).

With respect to the ISTAR Squadron (or Company), I would see this sub-unit as the home for the dedicated ISTAR assets.   While the Coyotes in the Recce Sqn(s) will feed info to the ISTAR Coordination Centre at RHQ, they are more than pure ISTAR assets.   EW and HUMINT would be my two mandatory ISTAR Sqn assets, with TUAVs and CBRs added in a possibles.   The ISTAR guys would use their specialized sensors to augment the collection abilities of the Coyotes in the Recce Squadron.   I see the EW and TUAVs as being particularly useful once we have hit a main defensive area or a high threat area.   On exercise we tend to lose most of our Recce when they are pushed past the enemy defences to gain an appreciation of the enemy's depth.   This would be the best time to use the TUAVs and EW to gain definition without risking lives.   EW and Humint would also be critical in stability and peace support operations.   I have separated them from the Recce Sqns to simplify the work of the Recce Sqn CP(s), while retaining the option to push specific assets down for specific operations.   TUAVs might need to be a sub-unit of their own due to their specialized planning and sustainment requirements.

MCG,

You are correct in stating that making a huge Combat Support Company is only hiding the span of control problem.   Perhaps you are on the right track with beefing up the RHQ if required.   If we truly need 2 x Recce Sqns, 2 x LAV Coys, 1 x Gun Bty, 1 x Eng Sqn and 1 x ISTAR Sqn for an operation perhaps we just give the CO the staff tools to handle it.

Kirkhill,

You provide another viable solution in splitting the Task Force into two or more units (perhaps one Manoeuvre and one Combat Support).    I'd rather rely on the support formation for the fire support in this case, but this might not be possible for some operations.

The "stripped down" Armoured Cavalry Task Force would be more suitable for operations in support of a higher Coalition formation, while the larger multi-unit Task Force would perhaps be more suited to independent operations (like a UN force where Canada has the lead).   The all singing and dancing Task Force looks less like Cavalry and more like a Battle Group or mini-CMBG, however, and might have a different role.

There may be operations where 3 light companies are more suitable than an Armoured Cavalry Task Force.   I do not see the ACTF as the only possible force employment model for the CF, but rather as my idealized commitment to a Coalition mechanized war.   The ACTF also has utility in a stability operation, although other constructs may be more suitable.   The ACTF could be seen as our "entry force" during high intensity operations (albeit in a Cavalry role for someone else's heavy forces) and then taking care of the transition to stability operations at the cease of organized conventional resistance.

A Majoor,

A Troop of super AT weapons would be welcome as long as we don't have to clear their fires through an ASCC or higher level HQ.  I'm also a little nervous about automated weapons flying overhead...My fear is that these weapons will be the Ross Rifle of the next war.  Great on proving range but not so great on operations.  Call me a skeptic, but I'll stick with TOW for now...

My vision of the Armoured Cavalry Task Force is neither an Armoured Regiment nor a Recce Regiment nor an Infantry Regiment but rather a combined arms team with the Cavalry role (getting info and stopping the enemy's efforts to gain the same).  It would not necessarily exist as a formed unit in Canada but would rather be force generated with formed sub-units.  They would train together in that role prior to operations (hopefully for a BTE or similar event).  If there was a radical realignment of MOCs in the Army then perhaps they could all be the same Cavalry MOC (Achtung! Tangent Alert! Tangent Alert!), but it could work with our current structure.

It would be a Battalion-level Task Force, with an RHQ from an Armoured Regiment or possibly a Mech Infantry Regiment.  The question of having mixed sub-units or pure sub-units is one that I am debating and am very interested in having feedback on.  Having pure sub-units would allow the Recce Sqn to focus on finding the enemy recce and the Infantry Coy to focus on killing it, but I see a benefit in having mixed sub-units.  Perhaps train to allow for cross-attachment to suit the situation?

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I might be goinig in circles right now, but eventually I will make it out of the hide and get to the attack position!   Once I'm on leave I probably won't be able to post very much, so I am trying to strike now while the iron is hot (so to speak).   My apologies to all if I am starting to ramble.

[Infanteer]

(Achtung! Tangent Alert! Tangent Alert!)

That's what we do best here.   

Methinks a new thread is on the horizon.  Where to put it - Infantry, Armour?!?  The possibilities are endless!!!

[George Wallace]

That's what we do best here.

Methinks a new thread is on the horizon. Where to put it - Infantry, Armour?!? The possibilities are endless!!!

We could compromise and start up a New Catagory in the Field:  The Combat Team.

GW

[Thucydides]

Didn't we have a "Combat Team of Tomorrow" thread?

A Troop of super AT weapons would be welcome as long as we don't have to clear their fires through an ASCC or higher level HQ.   I'm also a little nervous about automated weapons flying overhead...My fear is that these weapons will be the Ross Rifle of the next war.   Great on proving range but not so great on operations.   Call me a skeptic, but I'll stick with TOW for now...

I think the follow-on generations of weapons like "Net Fire", which are supposed to loiter over the battlefield seeking targets on their own might really make you squeamish. My guess is weapons which can cover 8-10 km should be considered organic to the combat team or formation, and higher level doctrine should envision a large manoeuvre box around the elements. I have used BRIMESTONE as the example in this thread since it has many virtues, including supersonic speed so you don't have to wait, and a smart seeker head so the forward elements do not have to be committed to painting targets. (A supersonic Hellfire is on the way when you suddenly discover your hand held laser rangefinder-target designator's batteries died....).

Man in the loop weapons like FOG-M have the virtue of being under control all the way to impact, but are usually subsonic in speed, and because a man must be in the loop, can only be fired one at a time. Autonomous weapons can be "ripple fired" for a time on target effect (imagine taking out all the firing positions along one side of the street when breaking an ambush), so BRIMESTONE, LOSAT or similar follow on weapons are prefferable for that reason. We could always go for a mixed battery of missiles.

A scenario to illustrate:

"Elements of the Canadian Forces Humanitarian Intervention Protection Field Force (CF HUFINPFF), the peacekeeping brigade announceded by Paul Martin during the 2004 election, were engaged in Dafur today while securing a refugee camp. While elements of HUFINPFF and the CF DART team were securing the camp, a convoy of up to seven pickup trucks armed with machine guns and carrying dozens of fighters approached. A HMMVW-LOSAT on "temporary loan" to the force was in a position on a nearby hilltop to observe. Radioing a warning to the troops in the camp below, the HMMVW fired its four missiles as one volley into the convoy, destroying the first four vehicles in a matter of seconds and causing the others to flee the scene. The soldiers in the camp had sufficient warning to dismount from their trucks and move into positions to defend the camp.

A team from the JAG office is leaving for Dafur tonight to investigate how the HMMV-LOSAT came to be in the hands of the Canadian troops."

[Tango2Bravo]

Infanteer,

I finally read through the article you posted in detail. It is very good and raises some excellent points.  Without dereailing this thread, I found myself agreeing with the points raised.  We are good at teaching our people to count road wheels to tell one tank from another, but we often neglect the "human" side.  I learned in theatre that it was useful to look around the compound or vehicle and see whose picture was being displayed.  Good interpreters are extremely valuable and Canadian soldiers with language skills are a tremendous force multiplier.  I have included a HUMINT Tp in the Cavlary Regt ISTAR Sqn for this reason, and I prioritize them ahead of UAVs!  As an aside, on certain tasks our Coyote Patrol Commanders got more information by having tea (well, chai) with local commanders (assisted by an interpreter) rather than spying on them at long range with surveillance gear.  In addition to collecting information the HUMINT Tp would help train the soldiers in the Task Force in how to best relate with local leaders and people.  Our guys are pretty good as it is, but a little more training and finesse in these critical skills never hurt anyone.

A Majoor,

The Armoured Cavalry Task Force could indeed set up a humanitarian relief centre and couild protect it quite well (with or without the super-weapons of the future).  The Coyotes can set up a pretty good outer screen while the LAV Company could chew up a convoy of technicals pretty effectively with 25mm, TOW and 105mm (if the MGS gets online).  Dedicated humanitarian assistance operations would, perhaps, be more suitable for a more traditional Infantry BattleGroup like we normally deploy.  I envision the Armoured Cavalry Task Force conducting these types of operations as a secondary duty during transitional phases in the conflict or as an economy of force task until more task-tailored forces arrive.  Once the Task Force is more concerned with the Act function than Sense function it is changing into a traditional BG (in my opinion).

Cheers,

2B

[Thucydides]

A lot of the tangents are being caused by (perhaps) a lack of definition. Will the Cavalry be primarily tasked for screening, counter recce and flank protection? Then having access to some hard hitting weapons systems is a must. Will the gathering of information be by technical means to allow the broadest coverage (or least manpower bill)? Then Surveillance vehicles and UAVs will have primacy. Will the Cavalry be doing HUMINT? Then dismounts (either "Cavalry Dragoons" or attached Infantry) will be the key element.

All these jobs are important, but (obviously) not all can or will be done at once. The Cavalry organization will have to change and adapt as the situation changes, from "Three Block War" scenarios and PSO's to warfighting.

Given that, I am inclined to support "pure" squadrons/companies which can be mixed and matched as required. In extreme cases, you could go in "pure" (i.e. a G-Wagon squadron to do HUMINT in a secure/low threat AO), but more likely you will need to bulk up with attachments for various tasks. Having a Coyote troop supplying surveillance overwatch for the G-Wagons and an Infantry Platoon and Fire Support troop standing by on QRF might be a more normal state of affairs.

The need for additional Infantry and IF assets would make the Cavalry a "demi-brigade" formation rather than an actual unit under our current organization. Perhaps the only permanent Cavalry unit would be the "RHQ" (actually a subset of the Battlegroup HQ), which brings the ISTAR CC to the AOR and "plugs in" the appropriate sub units. [I am actually not a big fan of this idea, being big on unit cohesion and esprit de corps, but this actually is in line with the current CF doctrine.] If manoevure warfare doctrine is fully developed to support Cavalry, then we should look to creating permanent Cavalry units in our ORBAT.

[Tango2Bravo]

While I am flexible in how the Cavalry are organized and equipped, I have always envisioned their role as obtaining information for commander while denying the same to the enemy.  Perhaps this could be summed as "providing security for a supported formation", in that the Commander knows what the enemy is doing and has his own actions protected from detection.  I envision this force as the best way for Canada to provide troops to a future "mounted" warfighting scenario.  We would focusing on a role that we are good at with modern equipment.  In addition, it is a role that is in demand from our potential Coalition partners. 

The Cavalry would conduct recce for an advancing formation while also collapsing the enemy's security zone.  While a traditional Recce Sqn could conduct the recce, it would have difficultly destroying the enemy's recce assets and was also somewhat vulnerable.  Putting LAV TOW in the Recce Sqn gives it the ability to engage enemy armour if required to allow the Recce vehs to carry out their information gathering task.  By adding a LAV Company (with some integral combat support) we can now fight the "counter-recce" battle without compromising our own recce.  The LAV Company would be the home of the "heavy hitting weapons" such as TOW and MGS.  If super weapons come on line in the future then they could also be included but the role of the Cavarly would not change.

The Armoured Cavarly would also excel at flank screens and guards.  It could find and destroy enemy recce (thus protecting the supported force) while also defining the main enemy approach.  These are all traditional war-fighting scearios, and I think that the role of the Cavalry is clear in those situations.  In stability operations, however, the role might begin to merge with a traditional "battle group" that we see deployed on operations. 

I believe that the Armoured Cavalry can conduct a wide range of information gathering operations due to the flexibility of the component sub-units and the ability to add sensors to the ISTAR Sqn based on the mission.  Does this mean that the Armoured Cavalry will be a "jack of all trades and master of none" when it comes to getting information?  Perhaps.

I think that the Coyotes and LAVs can collect "HUMINT" during warfighting operations as long as there is linguistic support and the crews are willing to dismount and talk to the local population.  The proposed HUMINT Tp in the ISTAR Sqn would still be the cornerstone of that capability, but they would be assisted by the Tps in contact with the local population.  The HUMINT Tp would be "vectored" by the soldiers on the ground just like UAVs, EW and other specialized assets can be.  The process works in reverse as well and the ISTAR CC at RHQ plays the key role of "quarterback" or "offensive coordinator" of this process.

I envision the Armoured Cavalry Task Force as being force-generated for specific operations.  This is the reality of our force-employment model.  As long as the components of the Task Force are cohesive (formed sub-units) and the RHQ is a permanent HQ then I think we can still achieve the required esprit de corps.   The ISTAR Company that I belonged to was an extremely composite group, but it was based on a cohesive centre that had trained together for over a year and the component Tps arrived as formed units.

Cheers,

2B

[Acorn]

Sorry, I had to skim this thread, but the intro of HUMINT into the discussion caught my eye. I'd like to offer a couple of observations on HUMINT, which may be a bit outside the topic.

First, HUMINT is part of the job of every soldier. Every pair of eyes and ears is a sensor.
Second: HUMINT as a specialty is in a different league than presence patrolling or CIMIC. The latter ops provide HUMINT, but are a component of the whole package.

It would be an abuse of limited resources to use HUMINT trained pers to use them to provide training to the line troops. They are also a national asset, with defined arcs and strict controls. They really cannot be a battlegroup asset, nor an ISTAR asset, despite the value of their input. The ASIC should be the point of contact between dedicated HUMINT assests and the BG. The separation is necessary for the protection of both source and HUMINT operative.

Anyway, I'll leave it there, as this is well outside the Armoured Cavalry lane, and discussions of HUMINT may well be best kept to professional publications outside the Internet.

Acorn

[Tango2Bravo]

Acorn,

Your expertise is more than welcome on this and I agree completely with your first and second observations.  I concur that we do not need to go further here and your points are certainly taken.

Cheers,

2B

[Thucydides]

The DFS Regt & other Future Armoured Regiment ideas http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23061.30.html covers some of the ground we are looking at, at least on the more conventional warfighting and screening tasks.

Combat Team of Tomorrow http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22245.0.html approaches mounted warfare from a slightly different angle.

A few different angles to look at the Armoured Cavalry idea in the conventional role. I'm sure we can find more threads dealing with the proposed recce/dismounted patrolling and ISTAR tasks as well.         

[Le Adder Noir]

I hesitated to tread in this thread as i am a newcomer to the forums and PBI as well, but Brother Majoor has suggested I do so.

I would humbly suggest an org similar to this:

Armoured Cav (or Amd Recce) Regiment.

RHQ SQN with IUAV TROOP, ISTAR TROOP


ASSAULT SQUADRON. Org and trained as a LAV III Mech Rifle COY but manned by Black Hats. The Amd Troops would be trained to the INF BTS and healthy doses of recce trg.
3 asslt troops and a pioneer troop

Aslt SQN ROLE: Support the Other Sqns.

HEAVY RECCE SQN    DFSV and COYOTE . (A heavy amd recce sub-unit with substanial ability to look after itself)

CLOSE RECCE SQN    4 troops of light recce veh (VBL's or similar plus Rovers with MG Kits etc) plus a heavy troop with DFSV

The soldiers of the regiment would all be Armored Corps troops. Troops selected for ASLT SQN would be trained inititally by INF but as time goes on by Armoured Assault OFFR and NCO's  to a common Mech INF BTS


This allows for greater cohesion within the Regiment as all troops are RCAC.

this would work for the INF crews manning the INF regiments DFSV and LAVS as well.

Trained to common standards but retaining their unit identities.


Am I thinking along the wrong lines?