Canada's tanks

[PrairieFella]

Those are both jobs that our enemies and allies employ MBT to achieve. Canada’s cavalry doctrine was spawned to make sense when CA had armour regiments rolling in TAPV. Then Medium Cavalry became the hope CoA to get those regiments into something more capable when we did not expect we would really get to 2% (let alone 3%) GDP toward direct defence expenditure.

Now CA is rushing forward on half its armour as MBT and half as MCav. Nothing is being specifically tagged to prepare for the roll of Div Recce. If that is the intention, there will still be one brigade supported by the wrong type of armour and no unit that has focused its collective training for the division level fight.

Remember - only one reg div now. The med cav concept is basically div recce. If youre using MBTs for screens a flank guards is frankly a waste of tanks. I do think its a mistake that the tank regiments wont be supported by med cav regiments. Should be one of each in each bde.

Read the new Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle. The task matrix for med cav roughly lines up with our allied div recce tasks. Add some mortars like theyre talking, a proper assault troop that theyre training (which should br at Sqn level imo) and drones and a CV90 med cav regiment could accomplish everything a Bradley squadron can do and more.

 

[KevinB]

Remember - only one reg div now. The med cav concept is basically div recce. If youre using MBTs for screens a flank guards is frankly a waste of tanks.

Unless you all of sudden need that screen to pivot into something else.

I do think it's a mistake that the tank regiments wont be supported by med cav regiments. Should be one of each in each bde.

I really want someone to explain to me what a "Med Cav Regiment" is, and why it ,makes any sense in this day and age.

Read the new Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle. The task matrix for med cav roughly lines up with our allied div recce tasks. Add some mortars like theyre talking, a proper assault troop that theyre training (which should br at Sqn level imo) and drones and a CV90 med cav regiment could accomplish everything a Bradley squadron can do and more.

Given the way that the RCAC has approached so many things since the 70's my faith in them is at an all time low.
Down here Bradleys have Abrams to rely on in Cav formations. IMHO it would make more sense to me for Canada to opt for a mixed combined arms formation for a Recce Squadron/Regiment - using MBT's and mixed Armour and Infantry (as well as Engineer) CV-90's (providing BAE would build a plant in Canada), but a 40mm CV-90 not some cockeyed 105 or 120mm setup.

 

[PrairieFella]

Unless you all of sudden need that screen to pivot into something else.

If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

I really want someone to explain to me what a "Med Cav Regiment" is, and why it ,makes any sense in this day and age.

Divisional recce. Med cav just muddies the water but the doctrine pretty clearly identifies an ISTAR element that can come into contact and kill the enemy during enabling ops (ATC, delay, etc) and can conduct limited independent offensive operations such as raids, etc.

Given the way that the RCAC has approached so many things since the 70's my faith in them is at an all time low.

Fair

Down here Bradleys have Abrams to rely on in Cav formations. IMHO it would make more sense to me for Canada to opt for a mixed combined arms formation for a Recce Squadron/Regiment - using MBT's and mixed Armour and Infantry (as well as Engineer) CV-90's (providing BAE would build a plant in Canada), but a 40mm CV-90 not some cockeyed 105 or 120mm setup.

Practically, we dont have enough tanks to use them for recces, nor would we want to.

Doctrinally, this isnt the Second World War anymore, we dont need tanks for internal DFS at the regimental level in recce formations. Missiles do that just fine. Layer in heavy mortars, drones and assault troopers and I personally think we're cooking with gas.

If you ever encounter one, ask an RCAC Admin Sgt what the logistical requirements for one DOS is for a single tank squadron - once you get that answer you'll see right away why perhaps it isnt the wisest to use tanks 10km past the FEBA for days on end.

 

[Fabius]

There is no unit tasked as Div Recce. The CMBGs all retain their armoured regiments.

 

[PrairieFella]

There is no unit tasked as Div Recce. The CMBGs all retain their armoured regiments.

Thats a major problem from the reform Im seeing. The new doctrine reads div recce.

The CAMO reforms read "wannabee tanks" in 2 and 5 CMBG. Its stupid af and I hope that is identified at higher levels.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The "medium cavalry" discussion often starts to sound like a "tank destroyer" discussion. They are both fundamentally about particular kinds of fights. The general overview suggests the particular tasks, which suggest particular capabilities and tactics, which suggest organization and equipment, which sometimes suggests bespoke equipment. The last part is often a step too far.

There is a security zone battle, which either defensively or offensively is different from (for example) a main defence or an assault. It isn't necessarily a "lighter" version of the latter two. Winning it probably sets the conditions for success of the main battle much more often than not.

"In the case of measuring mission accomplishment, we are left to conclude that only the defender's knowledge of the attacker's situation is critical to the results of the battle." (p 117 of "War By Numbers"). That suggests it is most important for the attacker to deny the defender knowledge, which means fighting to deny it, along with disposing of forces in ways that don't provide a host of early indicators where the main effort is going (or not going).

 

[FJAG]

There is no unit tasked as Div Recce. The CMBGs all retain their armoured regiments.

Which, IMHO, is a doctrinal mistake and is most probably caused by us continuing to think that a brigade is the biggest thing we'll ever deploy and therefore needs to be a mini-division with all the attached bells and whistles.

Personally I think the problem comes with throwing all of our eggs into one massive regular force division rather than two leaner and meaner ones. The way things are looking - from the little that I can gather - we'll have a massive schizophrenic entity which will be torn between its force generating v. deployable entity natures.

I haven't seen the new manuals on cavalry, but while I can see a role for tanks in the divisional cavalry regiment, I don't think that they need to be there or should be there as any tanks the div owns would be better served in the brigades' tank regiments. I'm not even sure if the terms "screen" and "guard" are relevant anymore with the concept of the division's deep battle. Div cavalry strikes me as a whole new type of beast working off long-range sensors and long-range precision strike capabilities (augmented by close in defence capabilities including against air). These are tools we didn't have in the 70s/80s and they allow a crossover between screen and guard functions within one properly configured cavalry regiment.

I'm not a great fan of the UK Deep Recce Strike Brigade as its formed, but I do see the concept and I do see a robust sensor-heavy cavalry regiment intimately tied to the division's artillery - tube, loitering munitions, rockets - and with its organic air defence, anti-armour, engineer and even a bit of infantry. Basically a form of battle group. Basically its engagement of the enemy should start with, and run for as much as possible, with weapons delivered from a distance rather than its own direct fire resources (which should be held back for in extremis situations)

I see the brigades' "tank" regiments as basically tank units with no brigade recce role. One point. In my mind an armoured brigade has just three units. One or two of tanks and two or one of infantry which are easily formed into combined arms units (and yes @KevinB you could start with combined arms battalions in the first place). What, IMHO, is critical is that if you do keep separate tank regiments and infantry battalions like Canada does then its critical that the tank regiment have a combat support squadron identical to an infantry battalion's combat support company - a recce troop (just enough for the regt/bn's own need), an anti-armour troop, a mortar troop, a UAV/loitering munitions troop and an air defence troop. Only if a tank regiment has such a squadron can you form three equally capable battle groups within the brigade.