• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Infantry Vehicles

PrairieFella said:
Square peg, meet round hole.

The LAV is not a good RCAC vehicle. We don't need to carry a section of dismounts, we need firepower, armour and mobility. Adding room for 8 dudes lessens all 3 of those. We use the LAV as a crutch in the RCAC since we're so low on turreted platforms however that doesn't mean we want them. What we want is tanks and an actual cavalry vehicle, not a glorified APC with a 25mm that cannot deal with anything heavier than a BMP.

We'd be better off replacing all the RCAC LAVs in the medium context (minus LAVs for the new assault troop programme) with something like a Jaguar, Booker, M3 Bradley, etc.

Tldr: room for a section is a waste of room in any RCAC vehicle that would be better served for ammo and armour.
Click to expand...

George C Scott America GIF by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
 
FJAG said:
Speaking of over rated. El Alamein was the battle only Monty could have lost.

How did Market Garden work out for him?

;)
Click to expand...
Not Monty's fault the 101st didn't do their job and secure the Wilhelmina Canal bridge. That slowed up the relief force and the tanks something fierce. So did the 82nd failure to capture the railway bridge in Nijmegen, which slowed them down another 36 hours. All that said, Gen Browning was a Putz to give the Brits their share of the blame but a 100 mile advance and the securing dozens of towns and cities and some V2 sites is not an abject failure.
 
PrairieFella said:
Not Monty's fault the 101st didn't do their job and secure the Wilhelmina Canal bridge. That slowed up the relief force and the tanks something fierce. So did the 82nd failure to capture the railway bridge in Nijmegen, which slowed them down another 36 hours. All that said, Gen Browning was a Putz to give the Brits their share of the blame but a 100 mile advance and the securing dozens of towns and cities and some V2 sites is not an abject failure.
Click to expand...
Not to mention all of the Panzer Divisions were in front of Monty, not Patton.
 
PrairieFella said:
Not Monty's fault the 101st didn't do their job and secure the Wilhelmina Canal bridge. That slowed up the relief force and the tanks something fierce. So did the 82nd failure to capture the railway bridge in Nijmegen, which slowed them down another 36 hours. All that said, Gen Browning was a Putz to give the Brits their share of the blame but a 100 mile advance and the securing dozens of towns and cities and some V2 sites is not an abject failure.
Click to expand...
Colin Parkinson said:
Not to mention all of the Panzer Divisions were in front of Monty, not Patton.
Click to expand...
Someone is channeling Monty.

:giggle:
 
PrairieFella said:
Not Monty's fault the 101st didn't do their job and secure the Wilhelmina Canal bridge. That slowed up the relief force and the tanks something fierce. So did the 82nd failure to capture the railway bridge in Nijmegen, which slowed them down another 36 hours. All that said, Gen Browning was a Putz to give the Brits their share of the blame but a 100 mile advance and the securing dozens of towns and cities and some V2 sites is not an abject failure.
Click to expand...
We've had endless "Monty" debates on other threads, but for M-G the bottom line is the Allies should have made taking Antwerp and its approaches the main effort during that period. M-G was a risky plan, and the risks happened. "We expect to take a whole string of bridges intact and on time, because we have to." Really?

I favour structuring modern cavalry as a force with units composed of combined arms (meaning: established, not task-organized). Infantry vehicles are necessarily part of that mix, and cavalry missions and employment tend not to require heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
 
Brad Sallows said:
I favour structuring modern cavalry as a force with units composed of combined arms (meaning: established, not task-organized). Infantry vehicles are necessarily part of that mix, and cavalry missions and employment tend not to require heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
Click to expand...
That's what the assault troop is for. If a cavalry organization needs infantry, they can be bolted on on a platoon basis. Dismounts for recces, OPs, security, etc are internal to Cav vehicles. If we assume 1 dismount per car, in the current 4 car troop, you get 16-20 dismounts per squadron and the assault troop can be sent to assist that squadron if the task requires it.

In terms of manning the aslt tp, we're still gaming that out in the RCAC but I've seen a few COAs. Needless to say, a Cav light or medium Cav squadron will have plenty of begrudging ground pounders if the need comes up and from what I've seen of the training and PT regimen they're running the pilot assault troops through in Gagetown (at least on paper) they'll be just fine at carrying out those mobility/counter-mobility/enabling tasks.
 
PrairieFella said:
That's what the assault troop is for. If a cavalry organization needs infantry, they can be bolted on on a platoon basis. Dismounts for recces, OPs, security, etc are internal to Cav vehicles. If we assume 1 dismount per car, in the current 4 car troop, you get 16-20 dismounts per squadron and the assault troop can be sent to assist that squadron if the task requires it.

In terms of manning the aslt tp, we're still gaming that out in the RCAC but I've seen a few COAs. Needless to say, a Cav light or medium Cav squadron will have plenty of begrudging ground pounders if the need comes up and from what I've seen of the training and PT regimen they're running the pilot assault troops through in Gagetown (at least on paper) they'll be just fine at carrying out those mobility/counter-mobility/enabling tasks.
Click to expand...
"Cavalry" means more than "recce". I envision at least one infantry company per unit; I'd probably start gaming the missions and tasks with a square unit of two armour squadrons and two infantry companies. The point is combined arms, not "enabling".
 
Brad Sallows said:
"Cavalry" means more than "recce". I envision at least one infantry company per unit; I'd probably start gaming the missions and tasks with a square unit of two armour squadrons and two infantry companies. The point is combined arms, not "enabling".
Click to expand...
So a battlegroup? I think you're confusing the role of cavalry and tanks. Tanks fight and slug it out in support of the infantry. The (relatively new) cavalry regiment is supposed to do those traditional cavalry tasks, fixing, guards, delays, recce by force, etc. You're basically just making a shittier battlegroup by bolting on infantry to a Cav squadron. Why would you even want that, they bring nothing that a traditional battlegroup wouldn't bring in a superior fashion. I guess it could be useful against a lighted armed enemy but any sort of heavy opposition and they'd be turbofucked. Better to keep them moving and disrupting, shaping, etc.
 
PrairieFella said:
So a battlegroup? I think you're confusing the role of cavalry and tanks.
Click to expand...
No. My understanding of what "cavalry" should do is informed by US doctrine and employment going back at least as far as their civil war and including their air cavalry, and Soviet employment during WW II. Ideas descended from British Commonwealth WW II armour and recce organizations and employment are not what I have in mind. A cavalry unit isn't a sh!ttier battle group unless it's being misused by a myopic commander.
 
So
Brad Sallows said:
No. My understanding of what "cavalry" should do is informed by US doctrine and employment going back at least as far as their civil war and including their air cavalry, and Soviet employment during WW II. Ideas descended from British Commonwealth WW II armour and recce organizations and employment are not what I have in mind. A cavalry unit isn't a sh!ttier battle group unless it's being misused by a myopic commander.
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to hear what your what your employment concept is and how they'd fit into our army structure. Why pursue this instead of relying on the beefier battlegroup on the offensive? I'll take tanks and infantry over some light AFV and infantry any day. How would they be used and how would it be better? You also have to take into consideration our manning and equipment limitations. American Cav Regiments are basically BCTs with historical lineage designations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
British infantry small arms
Replies
8
Views
11K
onecat
onecat
R
  • Locked
British infantry small arms
Replies
2
Views
8K
Pikache
Pikache
foxtwo
Bolt Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Replies
13
Views
15K
TheShepherd
T
B
Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
36 37 38
Replies
749
Views
471K
a_majoor
a_majoor
Back
Top