Oh I know - Im talking doctrinally that seems to be where MCAV fits within the framework in the Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle. The second tank regiment cant come quick enough, we could probably use a third one too with the growth plans coming down the pipe.
Reading the new armoured doctrine pub I think its pretty safe to say MCAV occupies a Div recce type role. Not too dissimilar to the employment of DIVCAV Bradleys in the US Armoured Divisions.
Whats the plan for recovery assets in the DoC Div? ERC or is there nothing on the books? Repair and recovery is one of the most glaringly deficient basic capabilities in the MO.
Youre preaching to the choir dawg. We've been asking for motor pooled kit for years so at least our kit doesnt sit at an air force base for a half decade awaiting repairs.
The problem with modern tanks in this context is theyre less big guns on tracks and more massive computers on tracks which happen to have big guns. A leo can smack targets on the move kilometres out, long before the enemy could even see them...but that means the FCS and associated electronics...
Ive been hearing theres serious talk to either mechanize or motorize the majority ARes RCIC units with COTS or OTS light APCs that are low-maintenance. Seems like a pretty clear use-case for Senators to me. Do we have any doctrine or TTPs on the employment of MRAPs/PMVs in our inf units? Cant be...
In your opinion if we had an AOPS-sized drone carrier supporting normal AOPS patrolling that are capable of launching and guiding LUCAS-style drones or ISTAR drones that could be beneficial to navy operations, especially in the North?
This just in: Americans can be war criminals too. The world would be a far better place if leaders and senior officials were held accountable for their crimes.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.