Canadian Armoured Cavalry

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm afraid I hadn't had my coffee yet this morning when I posted and I overstated the ADATs range against ground targets (although it will outrange most AT missile).  Mea culpa!  :-[ Regardless, LOS is an issue.  If you can see everything then everything can see you. Parked up on a hill it will make a good artillery target.

That being said, long range missile fire can tip a battle.  On one of the student-run JANUS exercises I participated on in Ft Knox we got smoked by the OPFOR (Soviet style) in a defensive battle set at the NTC (open terrain).  We were pretty much defending at 1:1 odds and were pretty confident.  One of the instructors was that the OPFORs missiles outranged our own for the simulation but we weren't too worried (we almost felt sorry for the bad guys).  During the battle the OPFOR MRR moved in column until its recon identified our line of M1s and M2s across a wide, open valley.  He fanned out into line just past our max range (they had professional operators while we were just learning the system).  One "volley fire" of AT-5s from the two battalions of BMP2s and our "thin blue line" vanished.  Perhaps not realistic but it did show the advantage of range standoff if you can achieve it (tactical lesson learned: seeing farther than you can shoot is not necessarily a good idea for your combat systems).  Our arty could have pounded the stationary line of BMPs but by the time the guns were laid on the battle was over.

The MMEV (basically a LAV III with ADATs) would be a good system in certain places.  I can't see it filling a tank's role, but in wide open spaces it could be like the Africa Corps' 88mm guns.  Perhaps the trials out West will demonstrate the potential.  If it does get LAV mobility it could have a place in a Cavalry organization, but again, it would face challenges in complex terrain.  Guess we'll see.

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

Just a quick point Zipper:  The ADATs was originally designed for AA, but its secondary function was a limited (ammo) Anti-Armour capability.

GW

 

[a_majoor]

My understanding is ADATS is a "beam rider" and thus LOS; not a big deal when shooting at a marauding MiG, but a real problem when trees etc. get in the way....

 

[Zipper]

My understanding is ADATS is a "beam rider" and thus LOS; not a big deal when shooting at a marauding MiG, but a real problem when trees etc. get in the way....

I was going to say. Unless you have a FOO to operate another "beam" to ride. It is a LOS weapon and thus not something you want to be riding if in close hostile territory. It just seems to me that alot of our "new" layered approach is working in distances that are considered ideal, as opposed to realistic.

Another problem I have about the ADATS as opposed to keeping our MBT's or getting new ones (ideal). Is that the fact that the ADATS is a fairly large expensive missile. The fact that you would have to launch at least 10 if not 20 to 30 to really get proficiant and to keep in practise means that for the same money, you could probably afford to buy and maintain an MBT. And an MBT will cost less in human lives when used in a typical distance (less then 3000m) hostile situation.

Sigh

 

[a_majoor]

I think we need an SME to weigh in here, by beam rider, I think the ADATS needs to maintain contact with the beam from the launch platform, rather than to "pick up" a beam from an external observer. This means ADATS is totally LOS, and there is no way for the MMEV to take advantage of the full 8km range without exposing itself.

 

[Zipper]

ARGH! Even worse. :crybaby:

Kirk? Can I sigh here again? ;D

Sigh.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just check your pulse from time to time Zipper and notify someone who cares. ;D

 

[Zipper]

Well that is obviously not you Kirk. You heartless... :rage:

:-*

 

[Kirkhill]

Bye Sailor

 

[big bad john]

Gentlemen please.

 

[George Wallace]

BBJ

Was that "Last Call"?

GW

 

[big bad john]

Of course!  LOL  It is what I say before I ask my RSM to go in, knock their heads together and proclaim "let there be peace".

 

[Kirkhill]

Starting to feel the noose tighten here.....

 

[Zipper]

Tell me about it...

So if that is the case? How about we get this thing going again?

Do you see cavalry bring a realistic option?

OR!

As I think may happen. The MGS, ADAT's, and possible the TOW will be brought into service and will then be religated to a training only vehicle like many others in the past, and only the Coyotes and LAV III's will see any deployment what so ever.

Why?

Because we'll soon realize that the MGS is useless and a death trap, and will end up like the LUVW's. And the cost of firing the TOW's and ADAT's will make them to valuable to put into harms way and thus they will not want to "waste" money on deploying them.

Hee hee...

Just my take.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Well, I hope that what happens at a minimum is that LAV TOW gets online and we can deploy the Coyote, LAV III and LAV TOW in Cavalry Task Forces.  MGS and MMEV could be included but are not, IMHO, lynchpins to the Cavalry.  The Coyote/LAV team would suffice for many stability operations (if you are facing insurgents, terrorists or armed gangs then TOW is more of a surveillance system than a weapons system).  Escorting convoys and partrolling would be excellent Coyote/LAV tasks.

We have pretty good gear right now as long as it is employed the right way.  Here are two pictures that show the Coyote performing two different tasks as part of the same operation.  One shows it in a surveillance role protecting a vital facillity (protection is a Cavalry task), while the other shows a Coyote about to perform a VIP convoy escort.  Our vehicles and crews are flexible and this is a big part of being Cavalry.

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

A couple of items I just recieved in the mail from the RCAC Assoc.:

Rangers Equipped With Strykers

A battalion of American Rangers headed for duty in Afghanistan, is taking 16 Stryker armored vehicles with them. Normally, the Strykers are only used in mechanized infantry brigades. But since the rangers will be moving around a lot in Afghanistan, and not always by helicopter or on foot, it was thought that the Strykers would be a useful vehicle for that kind of work. The Strykers are equipped with satellite communications equipment and remote control (from inside the vehicle) gun turrets. The regular infantry who have been using Strykers in Iraq have been very satisfied with the vehicles.

Normally, the rangers are â Å“light infantryâ ?, and are trained to use helicopters or parachutes to arrive at the combat zone. In previous trips to Afghanistan, the rangers have used hummers to get around on the ground.




Last U.S. Cavalry Regiment to Disappear

The U.S. Army has only one armored cavalry regiment left, and it is scheduled to be converted to one of the new UA (units of action) brigades next year. That event has triggered a debate in the army over whether the traditional concept of, â Å“fighting for informationâ ? is still valid.   This approach involves using small units of tanks and other armored vehicles to fight your way into enemy territory, grab prisoners, documents or whatever, and bring it back. Along with your observations, photographs or whatever, you get a good sense of what the enemy is up to. The technique was developed by the Germans during World War II, and adopted by the other armies by the end of the war. The alternative, which is more frequently used, is called "sneak and peek". This means UAVs, aircraft and people on the ground who stay out of the way and just watch.  

But the success of "fighting for information" caused the German â Å“armored reconnaissance battalionâ ? to become the model for most current reconnaissance battalions. The "fighting for information" technique has been used many times since World War II, but the current reorganization of the army's brigades has left the fate of the â Å“armored cavalryâ ? in doubt. The current divisions have a conventional armored cavalry squadron (what the cavalry people call a battalion) based on the World War II model. That means a mixed unit, with tanks, infantry fighting (armored) vehicles (IFVs), hummers, and lots of communications gear. The armored cavalry sends small teams, often a few guys in a hummer, out to scout, and especially check out things already spotted from the air (by helicopter scouts, UAVs, or even satellites.) These scouting teams are backed up by heavier teams of tanks and IFVs. If the scouts, on the ground or in the air, find a situation that needs a little muscle, in order to get the needed info, the heavy stuff can go in and do it. This was the genius of the original German concept. There were simply times when you had to fight for valuable information. But the new recon battalion will be called a Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA) Battalion, and is currently designed to have no tanks or IFVs. But lots of UAVs and scouts in armored hummers.

The current armored cavalry regiment has 5,200 troops, 123 M1A2 tanks, 125 M3A2 Bradley IFVs, 16 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, 24 OH-58D Kiowa scout helicopters, 15 UH-60L transport choppers, plus self-propelled artillery and lots of other gear. It's a small army, with supply and maintenance capabilities. The new RSTA brigades will have the supply and maintenance support, but no armor. Lots of UAVs and Internet access, but limited ability to fight for information.

There's no indication that the â Å“fighting reconnaissanceâ ? is no longer useful. American armored cavalry was used with great success as recently as 2003, and the 3rd Armored Cav is going back to Iraq for a year, before returning for conversion to a RSTA brigade. What is still undecided is whether the RSTA brigade will drop the heavy armor. The reason for that is weight. The RSTA brigades are meant to be more portable, and without armor they can be flown half way around the world. While tanks and Bradleys can, in theory, be flown long distances, in practice it is rarely done. Takes up too many aircraft.

So over the next year, the debate will rage, trying to put a value on â Å“fighting for informationâ ?, and the wisdom of leaving at least some of the recon battalions with their armored vehicles. UAVs and helicopters can see, but only guys in a tank can go anywhere, reach out, and touch someone.



GW

 

[a_majoor]

The 2nd Cav was/is converted to a SBCT, which sounds like a reasonable compromise between the "Heavy Metal" model and the light RSTA Battalion. The discussions about Canadian Armoured Cavalry seem to be orbiting around some of these ideas as well.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Along the lines of what AMajoor has said, I might argue that what has really happened is that the SBCTs have turned into Cavarly units with an infantry component.  In addition, the purpose of US Cavalry was to support Divisions and Corps.  As the Div and Corps concept changes there they may have to shift their "cavalry" in turn.  ACRs may disappear as they move away from Corps operations, but Cavalry Squadrons (battalion sized but never called that) should continue to have a role.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

What would be the effect on this Cavalry Concept if the following was done?

Get rid of the Fire Support Vehicle - Gun (MGS or MBT) entirely.

Replace the ADATS/TUA combination of Fire Support Vehicles - Missile with a_majoor's Hellfire and Brimstone MMEV.

Upgun the LAVIIIs and Coyotes to something in the 35-60mm range.

Convert and upgrade All the Coyotes to a new, more easily deployed, Mast system

Assign all the LAVIIIs and Coyotes to the Cavalry

Reorganize the Armoured Regiments into independently deployable Squadrons based on the LAVIII-35(for example) with a Coyote Troop - or better yet move the Coyote surveillance system into LAVIII-35s as well.

Assign an Assault Troop to each Squadron with each LAVIII to carry a 4-man dismount team in the back.

The net effect as far as I am concerned is to increase the stand-off distance of the Squadron - allowing it to defend itself against lightly armed forces at longer ranges (even those that might have a small quantity of heavy support), and discourage commanders from thinking they still have a "tank-like" capability.



At the same time the infantry should be relieved of any vehicle that has a turret on it.  I agree with those that say that the LAV is not a vehicle for the close fight.  Sticking a turret with a short range weapon on it encourages people to try and bring it into the fight.  Not a good idea.  

It is an APC (armoured personnel carrier), it may even be an AWC (armoured weapons carrier), it is not an AFV (armoured FIGHTING vehicle).


I have borrowed some concepts from others on this one - but my central notion is Get rid of the 105s and upgun the LAVIIIs and turn them ALL over to the Cavalry.  Then find suitable carriers for the infantry.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Kirkhill,

I think that something along those lines would work, although I do not know if we would actually gain anything replacing the 25mm.  There is a 30mm Bushmaster but I don't think that we could put it in without getting a new turret.  Might be a cost/benefit thing.  I'd rather get a quieter engine for the Coyote.

An imporved mast for the Coyote would be great.  I think thay many believe that the mast works like a U-Boat periscope allowing the crew commande to quickly pop-up and look around.  Cutting down the time and requirement to get out and assemble it would be awesome.

I'd be happy with any anti-tank system as long as it had mobility.  I'll take TOW but the other missiles look interesting.

I'd like to try having a Cav Sqn with 2 Coyote Tps and 2 LAV Tps (or command versions of the Coyote).  Having two Tps of "scouts" would work well for many roles.  The scouts would dismount and clear woods/defiles etc. 

Basically I like the sound of it.  It resembles a USMC LAR Coy in some respects (although they do not have the surv gear to my knowledge but I could be wrong.  Its been a several years since I was down South).

Cheers and have a good weekend,

2B