Canadian Armoured Cavalry

[George Wallace]

It is not so much a traditional armoured asset as it is an arty asset.   A troop could function with respect to a LAV Sqn/Regt much as the Mortar Platoon and TUA Platoons functioned for the Mech Inf Battalion.   Depth fire on-hand with the added benefit of precision targeting of weapons capable of defeating all known mobile battlefield threats and many fixed threats (like bunkers).

This really isn't true.  In WW II the RCD (1st Armoured Car Regiment) did in fact have indirect fire capabilities.  In thier Support Sqn they had 75 mm Howitzers mounted in M3 White Halftracks.  This resourse was lost after the war, probably due to the same reasons as today, Budget cuts and downsizing.  It is comparable to saying that Mortars are an Arty asset, not an Infantry one.

GW

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry George I had forgotten about those.  Another relative of mine served in Dingos with the Blues and Royals in those days.  He would not be best pleased at me forgetting that.

You are right.  I guess what I was meaning to suggest, using today's buzz words of effects and capabilities that the mortars supplied the infantry commander an "arty-type" indirect fire capability.  Likewise the Half-track 75 in the Support Troop supplied the recce commander a similar capability.  Just as the Assault Troop supplied him with an "Infantry-type" capability.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I thought I'd bring back my little analogy on "force density" and capabilities - which I liked to the rock-paper-scissors game:

A medium force (the scissor) can effectively control an area with a smaller footprint then its heavier brethren.   It is light, mobile, and contains the necessary equipment and doctrine to allow it to overpower any ragtag, second rate militias and the like (paper).   However, a medium force would dash itself to pieces against a heavy force (rock) which possesses far greater tactical maneuverability, firepower, and survivability.

A heavy force (the rock) is the powerhouse formation that is can destroy the enemy in direct combat.   It is more then a match for most other forms of enemies (scissors) and yet, heavy forces can find themselves rendered helpless if they are not careful when confronting asymmetrical, irregular forces (paper).

Light forces (paper) attempt to maintain the three central aspects of tactical maneuverability, firepower, and survivability through a variety of other means such as diffusion, use of adverse terrain, and application of small-scale hit and run tactics to avoid enemy concentrations of power (rock).   However, they must be careful to not become fixed and engaged by a foe, especially one with any sort of armoured assets (scissors), as this deprives them of their main forms of tactical and operational advantages and allows the enemy to use their "light" nature against them.

Now, the reason I am biting at 2Alpha's Cavalry concept is that it is a perfect husbanding of resources at the "Scissor" level.   Ideally, this force would be complimented by a Heavy Force (Rock) - perhaps as defined in the "Ideal Tank Concept" thread (I really dig a Canadian version of the CV) - while the Light Force (Paper) can be covered by the evolving Light Infantry Doctrine.

----


As well, 2Bravo, do you think that Tac Hel can be included in the concept.   If it were to be based upon the Griffon, do you think that the constraints of the Griffon in a Cavalry role would not make the added footprint of Tac Hel maintenance worthwhile for such a formation?

 

[Recce41]

Well Fellas
2Bravo. Just email me through my civie email (Recce41@aol.com). I believe I know who you are?
But as one of the Recce SMEs here at the school, heres the brake down as of now. We are using the old way of Recce. RAPZ and OPs. If it works DON"T CHANGE. Yes the Coyote is a big veh, but Recce is not platform dependent. The way iit will/would. Is that the LVSW would do the sneak and peak stuff. The Coyote would follow up. Depending on who/what and where the Coyote patrol could be tasked to confirm it. Call in Air/Arty, never never commit a Combat team if you don't have to.
From there Regt Recce may follow up and secure LDs, FBs, picket the contact, if requied. The CB team should only be deployed if a large force, is evident. We don't have the equipment to Bash on though. Cav was tryed in 98 and it sucked. C Sqn RCD. People complain about the Coyote but we used Cougars for recce from 92-now. It did worked, but was limited. If we just keep a full Recce Sqn we would not have to change.
A Recce Sqn had Scout troops, Anti Amr, Engs (AssTp), and Arty 60-80mm mortor.

The CAV concept is from having all those Generals that are down in Hood.  :evil: :tank:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Infanteer,

Tactical helicopters would definately help an Armoured Cavalry Task Force, but you hit the nail on the head by mentioning the maintenance footprint.  Something like the OH58D would be outstanding.  US Divsional Cavalry Squadrons (battalion sized) have two Troops (eight ships each) of Kiowas Warriors.  That being said, I'm not sure if our aviation is really suitable for that role with their current equipment.  Certainly something to strive towards (although would the force have both TUAVs (tactical unammared aerial vehicles) and helicopters?  I worry that this little agile force might start to get too big.

Recce41,

I'm not fixed on platform, although I am a believer in Coyote as a Recce vehicle.  Perhaps I should clarify my vision for the Recce Squadron that is in the Armoured Cavalry Task Force.  It is a three Troop Coyote Squadron that conducts OPs and RAPZ as normal except that I have added at LAV TOW Tp.  The LAV Infantry Company following up is not really a combat team that engages the main enemy, but rather like a huge Assault Troop that can assist the Recce Squadron in getting on with its mission when confronted by enemy security elements. If all goes well the Recce Tps will not fire a shot of 25mm.

As an aside, is there a thread here on the 8 car Tp?  I'm interested in your perspective on that one.  We are getting bits and pieces but no firm details yet (perhaps when our current DP3A guys get back).

I am not a fan of jeep recce, as it works great in peacetime but would not work so great when bullets are flying (in my opinion).  I have heard that the Cavalry Squadrons tried out a couple of years ago were not a success (I was in Meaford at the time, so I have no first hand experience).  My Cavalry Task Force is a bit different as it is the combination of a Recce Squadron with an Infantry Company under a robust RHQ.  You are on track with the Fort Hood bit, and I will sheepishly admit that many of my ideas were formed while in Fort Knox!  Maybe I just want to wear the hat!

Kirkhill/ A Majoor,

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. 

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.

All,

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'm going to "suck back" a little here and rethink the structure to try and keep the span of control reasonable for the CO.  More to follow...

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

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. ;D

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

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!).

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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/threads/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

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

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

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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.