Canadian Armoured Cavalry
- Thread starter TangoTwoBravo
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Infanteer said:
We could compromise and start up a New Catagory in the Field: The Combat Team.
GW
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Didn't we have a "Combat Team of Tomorrow" thread?
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."
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."
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,792
- Points
- 1,110
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
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
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
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.
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.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,792
- Points
- 1,110
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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
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
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,792
- Points
- 1,110
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
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
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The DFS Regt & other Future Armoured Regiment ideas http://army.ca/forums/threads/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/threads/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.
Combat Team of Tomorrow http://army.ca/forums/threads/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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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?
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?
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,370
- Points
- 1,160
While your comment is well intentioned, it sounds a little like building an empire. I think the way of the future is for regiments to include both manoeuvre arms. This idea is explored in the thread on regimental formations.Steel Badger said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I would humbly disagree.
I think my suggestion neatly covers the inclusion of both mounted and dismouted troops in one battalion and gives them a common identity without losing Units. The regimental loyalty is focussed on the regimental identity while the regiments members can conduct tasks once traditonally held for other arms, rather than attempting to create ad-hoc mixtures of (for the sake of example) a few RCR rifle COys and RCD Squadrons.
Do we need to creat "new units" or simply give new tasks (re-roll) and re-equip our existing structures.
The infantry battalions would remain focussed with on closing with and destroying the enemy (Strengthened by the return of the 4th Rifle COy and a re-inforced Combat Support Coy including a DFSV Platoon, PNR and MOR PL)
I don't see it as Empire building, but simply using the flexibilibilty of the regimental system to provide us with multi-role combat capable units.
My model , out of interest, is loosely based on the Late War German Panzer Aufklarungs Abteilung (Amd Recce Bn). These units performed traditinal infamtry and armour roles yet wore the same badge.
I think my suggestion neatly covers the inclusion of both mounted and dismouted troops in one battalion and gives them a common identity without losing Units. The regimental loyalty is focussed on the regimental identity while the regiments members can conduct tasks once traditonally held for other arms, rather than attempting to create ad-hoc mixtures of (for the sake of example) a few RCR rifle COys and RCD Squadrons.
Do we need to creat "new units" or simply give new tasks (re-roll) and re-equip our existing structures.
The infantry battalions would remain focussed with on closing with and destroying the enemy (Strengthened by the return of the 4th Rifle COy and a re-inforced Combat Support Coy including a DFSV Platoon, PNR and MOR PL)
I don't see it as Empire building, but simply using the flexibilibilty of the regimental system to provide us with multi-role combat capable units.
My model , out of interest, is loosely based on the Late War German Panzer Aufklarungs Abteilung (Amd Recce Bn). These units performed traditinal infamtry and armour roles yet wore the same badge.
- Reaction score
- 9,235
- Points
- 1,260
If we are going to discuss doing things that contribute to greater cohesion in the Regiment (which I fundamentally agree with) then perhaps we need to look at the Regiment as something different then a Trade Union. How about defining our Regiments (Identities, Organization, etc, etc) by how we do things (air assault, cavalry screen, close combat) rather then what we do (drive a tank, shoot a rifle, fill out paperwork)....
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,792
- Points
- 1,110
A Majoor,
I've been through the two threads you mentioned, and they are partly the reason I started this thread. I have accepted that the tank is disappearing from the Canadian inventory and I strongly believe that this means we cannot currently fight the "close battle" in a mounted environment. It could have been argued that the Leopard C2 was not suited for that battle either, but I'd rather not re-open that battle.
Basically I see the Canadian Army as having two types of forces right now:
a. Light forces (need some doctrine and perhaps some new kit); and
b. Mounted forces that cannot truly fight the close battle (in the sense of Combat Teams and Battlegroups seizing Objective TOTALIZE etc) even if super-missiles come on line for the CF.
I can envision two possible roles for our mounted forces:
a. Cavalry style operations in warfighting scenarios (supporting a coalition formation); and
b. Stability operations such as Bosnia and Afghanistan (and perhaps a post Apr 03 Iraq style war with certain caveats).
I think that our Coyotes and LAVs can do a good job of finding the enemy in a warfighting scenario, but the only "Act" function that we can realisticallly take on is the destruction of enemy recce/security forces. I am not wrapped in the name or lead capbadge/beret colour of the force (although I like Armoured Cavalry), as long as the role of a mounted task force is confined to Cavalry style operations I would be happy (not that making me happy should be the Army's main concern right now!)
Steel Badger,
Welcome to the thread! I think that your organizational lines are sensible, although it does introduce the issue of capbades. Beret colour and MOCs that might be better off on other threads. My Cavarly proposal is somewhat inspired by the German Panzer Division Recon Battalions (I used to play a fair number of microarmour wargames and I always liked the Aukflarungs Battalions). I'm not sure that our mechanized infantry battalions can still close and destroy the enemy. Ironically, I think that the LAV III battalions will feel the loss of the tanks as much if not more than the Armoured Regiments. The best that I can see a LAV III (with TOW and MGS) Coy doing is destroying enemy OPs and isolated security outposts. This is still an important task and one that our potential Coalition partners would be very happy to have on board.
All,
I think that composite task forces will be the norm for the time being. When you are wearing either helmets or floppy hats the capbade and beret colour issue can fade somewhat. As for the future of the Armoured Corps and its relation to the Infantry, this has been covered in other threads. The Armoured Cavarly role allows both branches to work together in a realistic mission that takes advantage of their current equipment and skills. As long as the Recce Sqns and LAV Companies work together on exercise (CMTC) before deploying I think that we can mitigate the problems of unit cohesion.
Cheers,
2B
I've been through the two threads you mentioned, and they are partly the reason I started this thread. I have accepted that the tank is disappearing from the Canadian inventory and I strongly believe that this means we cannot currently fight the "close battle" in a mounted environment. It could have been argued that the Leopard C2 was not suited for that battle either, but I'd rather not re-open that battle.
Basically I see the Canadian Army as having two types of forces right now:
a. Light forces (need some doctrine and perhaps some new kit); and
b. Mounted forces that cannot truly fight the close battle (in the sense of Combat Teams and Battlegroups seizing Objective TOTALIZE etc) even if super-missiles come on line for the CF.
I can envision two possible roles for our mounted forces:
a. Cavalry style operations in warfighting scenarios (supporting a coalition formation); and
b. Stability operations such as Bosnia and Afghanistan (and perhaps a post Apr 03 Iraq style war with certain caveats).
I think that our Coyotes and LAVs can do a good job of finding the enemy in a warfighting scenario, but the only "Act" function that we can realisticallly take on is the destruction of enemy recce/security forces. I am not wrapped in the name or lead capbadge/beret colour of the force (although I like Armoured Cavalry), as long as the role of a mounted task force is confined to Cavalry style operations I would be happy (not that making me happy should be the Army's main concern right now!)
Steel Badger,
Welcome to the thread! I think that your organizational lines are sensible, although it does introduce the issue of capbades. Beret colour and MOCs that might be better off on other threads. My Cavarly proposal is somewhat inspired by the German Panzer Division Recon Battalions (I used to play a fair number of microarmour wargames and I always liked the Aukflarungs Battalions). I'm not sure that our mechanized infantry battalions can still close and destroy the enemy. Ironically, I think that the LAV III battalions will feel the loss of the tanks as much if not more than the Armoured Regiments. The best that I can see a LAV III (with TOW and MGS) Coy doing is destroying enemy OPs and isolated security outposts. This is still an important task and one that our potential Coalition partners would be very happy to have on board.
All,
I think that composite task forces will be the norm for the time being. When you are wearing either helmets or floppy hats the capbade and beret colour issue can fade somewhat. As for the future of the Armoured Corps and its relation to the Infantry, this has been covered in other threads. The Armoured Cavarly role allows both branches to work together in a realistic mission that takes advantage of their current equipment and skills. As long as the Recce Sqns and LAV Companies work together on exercise (CMTC) before deploying I think that we can mitigate the problems of unit cohesion.
Cheers,
2B
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
There is an issue of "scale" to be considered. If we are thinking of a Cavalry screen for PSO's or small deployments, then maybe all we need is a "fellowship". Bigger deployments of BG size might need up to a "Demi Brigade", while some posts allude to the idea that Cav is all we will be able to do, and so we can convert entire brigades into "Cavalry Regiments".
Each scenario will require a slightly different organizational slant. The "Fellowship of the Cav" model is ideal for mix and match organizations, with the advantages of almost unlimited flexibility, but the disadvantage of lack of corporate identity, corporate memory and unit cohesion. A "Demi Brigade" will have more utility, since there are more "boots" available for the various tasks, bigger and more capable sub units, and the component sub-units will have internal cohesion by virtue of living and working together even prior to standing up and deploying as a "demi-brigade". Cavalry Regiments on the US model are efficient all arms formations (although they also are structured to employ organic aviation and heavy elements as well). A CF "Mechanized Cavalry Brigade" will have the most flexibility due to its self contained nature, and can undertake virtually all of the patrolling, screening, flanking and rear area security tasks a Cavalry unit may be asked to perform.
My only caveat in all these scenarios is even if the doctrinal role is to perform the screening, flanking, economy of force etc. measures, the unit may well be faced with a situation that requires it to fight, either "fight in" (to destroy an enemy recce force, or secure a "Safe haven" area in a PSO, for example), or "fight out" (breaking contact, counter ambush, defending an AOR in a PSO scenario [OP STORM in Croatia comes to mind). Planning to have the allies deal with these situations could set us up for disaster if help is not coordinated properly or cannot arrive in time (a scenario our enemies will work hard to set up), and at the least, it allows the enemy to control the pace of the operation and gives him the initiative.
The Canadian Mounted Rifles come to mind, since their role was to have effective dismounted fire and be able to seize key terrain. They performed Cavalry-like missions in South Africa (screening, route security and "convoy escort") as part of their tasks, but had the ability to deal with various opponents through both fire and manoeuvre. Like our "tankless" configuration, the CMR was not able, nor expected to charge against the enemy to deliver the "Arme Blanche", but used mobility to get to good fire positions. This is the analogy I like since it is probably closer to the sort of actions envisioned at the beginning of the thread. Converting battalions into combined arms formations able to do this is probably the best way to go.
Each scenario will require a slightly different organizational slant. The "Fellowship of the Cav" model is ideal for mix and match organizations, with the advantages of almost unlimited flexibility, but the disadvantage of lack of corporate identity, corporate memory and unit cohesion. A "Demi Brigade" will have more utility, since there are more "boots" available for the various tasks, bigger and more capable sub units, and the component sub-units will have internal cohesion by virtue of living and working together even prior to standing up and deploying as a "demi-brigade". Cavalry Regiments on the US model are efficient all arms formations (although they also are structured to employ organic aviation and heavy elements as well). A CF "Mechanized Cavalry Brigade" will have the most flexibility due to its self contained nature, and can undertake virtually all of the patrolling, screening, flanking and rear area security tasks a Cavalry unit may be asked to perform.
My only caveat in all these scenarios is even if the doctrinal role is to perform the screening, flanking, economy of force etc. measures, the unit may well be faced with a situation that requires it to fight, either "fight in" (to destroy an enemy recce force, or secure a "Safe haven" area in a PSO, for example), or "fight out" (breaking contact, counter ambush, defending an AOR in a PSO scenario [OP STORM in Croatia comes to mind). Planning to have the allies deal with these situations could set us up for disaster if help is not coordinated properly or cannot arrive in time (a scenario our enemies will work hard to set up), and at the least, it allows the enemy to control the pace of the operation and gives him the initiative.
The Canadian Mounted Rifles come to mind, since their role was to have effective dismounted fire and be able to seize key terrain. They performed Cavalry-like missions in South Africa (screening, route security and "convoy escort") as part of their tasks, but had the ability to deal with various opponents through both fire and manoeuvre. Like our "tankless" configuration, the CMR was not able, nor expected to charge against the enemy to deliver the "Arme Blanche", but used mobility to get to good fire positions. This is the analogy I like since it is probably closer to the sort of actions envisioned at the beginning of the thread. Converting battalions into combined arms formations able to do this is probably the best way to go.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Herr Panzer-Aufklarer Offizier.....
I am like the Pz-Auf orbat as well, seems quite applicable....
As for the Inf Bns......perhaps we can restore forward mobility by restoring Combat SUpport Coy, adding ATGM to the INF lavs and a DFSV Platoon of 8 DFSV to CBt SUP Coy,
If heavy armour is required, use a Pz Ko from our armoured Regiment. (Since we are talking "should be-couldbe" our Army will retain a heavy Panzer unit right?) ;D
As for Capbadge, I dont know why the RCD's for example could be re-rolled as an Amd Cav / Pz AUf unit. Enroll more Dragoons and train an Assault Squadron. All bases coverd and no Capbadge issues.
Just as, for the sake of an example, 1 RCR's new DFSV Pl would be manned by Inf Pers trained to Armoured BTS. All wearing the RCR badge.
Both units benefit from combined arms; better cohesion; and no units are lost.
(Man, with all this "should be" stuff I nearly used 1 RHRofC as my example inf unit >
, I MUST be dreaming)
We could focus our regular force combat units as follows:
1 Armoured Regt
2-3 Amd Cav / Pz-Auf Regts
6 Mech Inf Bn
3 Air Assault Bn
3 deployable Bdes w/ 1 Amd Cav Regt and 2 Mech Inf Bns + 1 Arty Regt
And 1 Amd regt + 3 air assault Bns as "Div Troops"
By the By Sir,
Just obtained a great book which takes an indepth look at WW2 and Modern German Armour small unit tactics: seems very comprehensive.
PANZERTAKTIK, german Small-unit Armour Tactics by Wolfgang Schnieder.
JJ Fedorowicz Publishing, 2000 www.jjfpub.mb.ca is the publisher's web site.
I am like the Pz-Auf orbat as well, seems quite applicable....
As for the Inf Bns......perhaps we can restore forward mobility by restoring Combat SUpport Coy, adding ATGM to the INF lavs and a DFSV Platoon of 8 DFSV to CBt SUP Coy,
If heavy armour is required, use a Pz Ko from our armoured Regiment. (Since we are talking "should be-couldbe" our Army will retain a heavy Panzer unit right?) ;D
As for Capbadge, I dont know why the RCD's for example could be re-rolled as an Amd Cav / Pz AUf unit. Enroll more Dragoons and train an Assault Squadron. All bases coverd and no Capbadge issues.
Just as, for the sake of an example, 1 RCR's new DFSV Pl would be manned by Inf Pers trained to Armoured BTS. All wearing the RCR badge.
Both units benefit from combined arms; better cohesion; and no units are lost.
(Man, with all this "should be" stuff I nearly used 1 RHRofC as my example inf unit >
, I MUST be dreaming)We could focus our regular force combat units as follows:
1 Armoured Regt
2-3 Amd Cav / Pz-Auf Regts
6 Mech Inf Bn
3 Air Assault Bn
3 deployable Bdes w/ 1 Amd Cav Regt and 2 Mech Inf Bns + 1 Arty Regt
And 1 Amd regt + 3 air assault Bns as "Div Troops"
By the By Sir,
Just obtained a great book which takes an indepth look at WW2 and Modern German Armour small unit tactics: seems very comprehensive.
PANZERTAKTIK, german Small-unit Armour Tactics by Wolfgang Schnieder.
JJ Fedorowicz Publishing, 2000 www.jjfpub.mb.ca is the publisher's web site.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,370
- Points
- 1,160
Steel Badger,
Have a look at these talks on the regimental system: http://army.ca/forums/threads/23656.0.html
They propose a system where regiment is no longer tied to infantry or armour (but rather to both). An infantry soldier could spend a full career as an RCD or a cavalry soldier could spend a full career as PPCLI.
Have a look at these talks on the regimental system: http://army.ca/forums/threads/23656.0.html
They propose a system where regiment is no longer tied to infantry or armour (but rather to both). An infantry soldier could spend a full career as an RCD or a cavalry soldier could spend a full career as PPCLI.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ja anke Herr MCG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
First off
An Armour Assault Sqn would not require Inf training. An Assault troop course covers this. As an Assault trooper (Snr NCO), I am qualified, Adv Demo, Inf section/ptl to level 4, defence to level 4, patrol to platoon level ambushes, etc,etc. The full basic course is 3 months long. Not counting the extra training for Eryx or bridging. When we went to Bosnia as the D$S troop. We were # 2,3,5 for section and 2 for platoon level evaluation.
Also the Inf want to give up there LAVs to crewman. Crewman are mounted SMEs. Only Inf Adv Recce covers mounted tasks. The Regt/trade system works. That is why the US Army is looking at our system. There is pride as a Crewman, Inf, Arty, Eng. Not as just a soldier.
An Armour Assault Sqn would not require Inf training. An Assault troop course covers this. As an Assault trooper (Snr NCO), I am qualified, Adv Demo, Inf section/ptl to level 4, defence to level 4, patrol to platoon level ambushes, etc,etc. The full basic course is 3 months long. Not counting the extra training for Eryx or bridging. When we went to Bosnia as the D$S troop. We were # 2,3,5 for section and 2 for platoon level evaluation.
Also the Inf want to give up there LAVs to crewman. Crewman are mounted SMEs. Only Inf Adv Recce covers mounted tasks. The Regt/trade system works. That is why the US Army is looking at our system. There is pride as a Crewman, Inf, Arty, Eng. Not as just a soldier.
