Infantry Vehicles

[Brad Sallows]

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.

Roughly, recce missions/tasks are a subset of cavalry missions/tasks. If a cavalry unit or formation is employed no differently than task-organized infantry/armour groupings, it's probably being misused and under-employed. That's a failing of the higher commander.

I'm not sure a division needs a cavalry unit rather than a recce unit, or that a brigade needs a cavalry sub-unit rather than a recce sub-unit. If we aren't really going to expand the missions/tasks much beyond traditional recce in the lower formations, we shouldn't kid ourselves that we are building cavalry. Just continue calling it recce and acknowledge that we don't have an army large enough or a doctrine imaginative enough to require cavalry.

 

[PrairieFella]

Thanks for the post. Pretty well reinforces how I understand American cavalry units. My question was more directed at how this would be applied Canadian side and how it would be useful, given our obvious differences in kit and manning.

We can try it in miniature but depending on the organization of the armoured regiment, its already structured to do the tasks listed in the manual, minus the atts which would super sick to have. I 100% agree that every manoeuvre subunit should have internal mounted mortars, preferably 120 and air assets, which I personally think drones can cover now for their ISTAR benefits.

 

[PrairieFella]

Roughly, recce missions/tasks are a subset of cavalry missions/tasks. If a cavalry unit or formation is employed no differently than task-organized infantry/armour groupings, it's probably being misused and under-employed. That's a failing of the higher commander.

I'm not sure a division needs a cavalry unit rather than a recce unit, or that a brigade needs a cavalry sub-unit rather than a recce sub-unit. If we aren't really going to expand the missions/tasks much beyond traditional recce in the lower formations, we shouldn't kid ourselves that we are building cavalry. Just continue calling it recce and acknowledge that we don't have an army large enough or a doctrine imaginative enough to require cavalry.

They canned recce because of the mindset. It's way too passive, to the point it was more surveillance. All the Cav switch is doing is adding some dynamism into the light and future medium squadrons, giving them the doctrinal raison d'être to get out of the route recce and into a recce by force. Out of the screen and into the delay. Out of the picket and into fixing and guards. It was a profound waste of turreted platforms and combat arms PYs to have them sit in a bush for two weeks watching an intersection most of the time, only to break contact as soon as they saw a bad guy. That should only be their task to enable them to get back on to the offensive, not their whole career.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They canned recce because of the mindset. It's way too passive, to the point it was more surveillance. All the Cav switch is doing is adding some dynamism into the light and future medium squadrons, giving them the doctrinal raison d'être to get out of the route recce and into a recce by force. Out of the screen and into the delay. Out of the picket and into fixing and guards. It was a profound waste of turreted platforms and combat arms PYs to have them sit in a bush for two weeks watching an intersection most of the time, only to break contact as soon as they saw a bad guy. That should only be their task to enable them to get back on to the offensive, not their whole career.

A name change and some doctrinal tweaks going to fix mindset and mis-/under-employment? I'm skeptical. Mere re-branding doesn't very often fix anything. I suppose the doctrinal changes must be substantial, but then I have to think the organization and equipment changes should be substantial.

If we're serious about fighting more in the security zone, any unit we put there is going to occasionally need more infantry than a platoon, and it might be better if it is permanently established to have more infantry than a platoon instead of attaching infantry companies to operate away from their parent battalions for long periods. I just have a gut feeling that the integrity of an established unit is greater than the integrity of a task-organized one - no matter how often the combined elements work together - and that units operating in the security zone need that to function well. Also, the infantry have to be self-mobile and self-protected, so - vehicles. But I'm talking about infantry-type vehicles for infantry-capable elements that are parts of units that are neither armour nor infantry.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think if we are going to call something Cavalry they need to have a mounted troop and have sabers and saddle carbines.

 

[PrairieFella]

A name change and some doctrinal tweaks going to fix mindset and mis-/under-employment? I'm skeptical. Mere re-branding doesn't very often fix anything. I suppose the doctrinal changes must be substantial, but then I have to think the organization and equipment changes should be substantial.

If we're serious about fighting more in the security zone, any unit we put there is going to occasionally need more infantry than a platoon, and it might be better if it is permanently established to have more infantry than a platoon instead of attaching infantry companies to operate away from their parent battalions for long periods. I just have a gut feeling that the integrity of an established unit is greater than the integrity of a task-organized one - no matter how often the combined elements work together - and that units operating in the security zone need that to function well. Also, the infantry have to be self-mobile and self-protected, so - vehicles. But I'm talking about infantry-type vehicles for infantry-capable elements that are parts of units that are neither armour nor infantry.

It's a substantial change from the ground up. No more streaming of tactics. All the kids coming up are trained on tank and recce tasks. All regiments are organized the same way now. No more 8 car troops, only 4 car troops. In terms of infantry, why would you need a company of infantry? An armoured regiment is never independent, they form part of the brigade. Where do you foresee the cav regiment needing a whole company, bearing in mind the brigade has three battalions of actual infantry who are working with the armour anyways? I'm not following your train of thought on where you would realistically need a whole company.

To play middle ground though, I personally believe there should be an assault troop per squadron along with mortar troop and UAS section for a total of 40 extra men per squadron (16-16-8), attached to SHQ in the A1 echelon.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not following your train of thought on where you would realistically need a whole company.

Any kind of fight in the security zone that has to be fought and that typically requires a company of infantry. Any sequence of fights that have to be fought and that typically would require starting with a company of infantry.

 

[KevinB]

I’m still baffled by the Canadian thought process to Armoured Recce in this day and age.

The Stryker Brigades down here have given up on Vehicle Recce and the Recce Squadron are for Long Range Surveillance and Target Acquisition.



The only non Sensor / ISR Recce tasks down here are either ABCT Armored Recce by Force or Mud Recce by Infantry personnel in Light Inf Bde’s

The Scout platoons are part of the Battalion’s (1 per) and more of a screen/guide than any actual hard Recce function

 

[KevinB]

The base result of reality showing the LAV is neither fish nor fowl, and isn’t a fighting vehicle, nor small and nimble enough to do Recce. It’s a Protected Mobility Vehicle.

 

[PrairieFella]

I’m still baffled by the Canadian thought process to Armoured Recce in this day and age.

The Stryker Brigades down here have given up on Vehicle Recce and the Recce Squadron are for Long Range Surveillance and Target Acquisition.

View attachment 86935

The only non Sensor / ISR Recce tasks down here are either ABCT Armored Recce by Force or Mud Recce by Infantry personnel.

Armoured Recce has been dead for over a half decade. The new Cav doctrine is much more along the lines of the ABCT recce by force, with doctrinal provisions for some limited offensive (raids, ATC, pursuits) and limited defensive (delays, guards) and some other enabling operations.

Lien I said previously, Armoured Recce was way too passive and was converted to be more dynamic and offensive in nature. LRS and TA is now covered by the LAV LRSS however I'm not sure if they've actually figured out where to put them and how to organize them yet. Not tracking that one for a while now.

What the cavalry regiment seriously needs going forward is a vehicle. All this doctrine and tactics talk is fine and good but without knowing what we're fighting, it's a fools errand. I have my headcanon for what would be good L/M/H cavalry squadrons but alas, we ain't getting shit for a long time haha.

 

[PrairieFella]

The base result of reality showing the LAV is neither fish nor fowl, and isn’t a fighting vehicle, nor small and nimble enough to do Recce. It’s a Protected Mobility Vehicle.

It's certainly more than a PMV. A TAPV is a PMV. A Roshel is a PMV. The LAV straddles the AFV grey zone between IFV and APC, even if just by the nature of its weapon systems alone. I lean more IFV than APC personally after seeing the some real world armour tests but I can see why people lean APC too.

International Treaty designates an IFV as an AFV that transports infantry with a cannon of at least 20mm and sometimes a launcher tube. Minus the tube, the LAV has it covered.

 

[KevinB]

Armoured Recce has been dead for over a half decade. The new Cav doctrine is much more along the lines of the ABCT recce by force, with doctrinal provisions for some limited offensive (raids, ATC, pursuits) and limited defensive (delays, guards) and some other enabling operations.

The issue is you only have a limited number of tanks, and someone is going to play tank in a LAV…

The LAV ain’t a RECCE By FORCE system at all. The ABCT’s can get away with RBF due to Tanks, Bradley’s and supporting firepower.

Lien I said previously, Armoured Recce was way too passive and was converted to be more dynamic and offensive in nature. LRS and TA is now covered by the LAV LRSS however I'm not sure if they've actually figured out where to put them and how to organize them yet. Not tracking that one for a while now.

What the cavalry regiment seriously needs going forward is a vehicle. All this doctrine and tactics talk is fine and good but without knowing what we're fighting, it's a fools errand.

Agreed - but one can look to Russia and China for a good idea of the foe.

have my headcanon for what would be good L/M/H cavalry squadrons but alas, we ain't getting shit for a long time haha.

I don’t see much use for Light Cav Squadrons - that is in SOF or Light Infantry swim lanes now.

For Canada you probably need a lot more tanks - and a Heavy Tracked IFV to go along with them. Then variants of the above to support the roles needed.

 

[KevinB]

It's certainly more than a PMV. A TAPV is a PMV. A Roshel is a PMV. The LAV straddles the AFV grey zone between IFV and APC, even if just by the nature of its weapon systems alone. I lean more IFV than APC personally after seeing the some real world armour tests but I can see why people lean APC too.

International Treaty designates an IFV as an AFV that transports infantry with a cannon of at least 20mm and sometimes a launcher tube. Minus the tube, the LAV has it covered.

I really don’t care what someone says what defines an IFV, when I have seen what terrain limits LAV’s and the fact is they cannot work with tanks in a number of situations, and while the armor is decent on the turret and front glacial - against some threats, it isn’t a MBT nor an A4 Bradley.

Close Combat mobility requires tracks.

I’m really not the poster child for heavy forces, but I also know the limits of med and light for certain circumstances.

 

[PrairieFella]

The issue is you only have a limited number of tanks, and someone is going to play tank in a LAV…

Agreed. 200 tanks in my ideal army. I've said before the LAV is a crutch for the RCAC because we're so limited on shit. Good enough for training but we desperately need more shit.

The LAV ain’t a RECCE By FORCE system at all. The ABCT’s can get away with RBF due to Tanks, Bradley’s and supporting firepower.

I know it isn't. Our doctrine and RCAC meetings I've attended agree with you too. There's a push to get us something appropriate to do the job but with ships and planes coming in spades, probably not much moolah left for AFVs.

Agreed - but one can look to Russia and China for a good idea of the foe.

Agreed.

I don’t see much use for Light Cav Squadrons - that is in SOF or Light Infantry swim lanes now.

They have some roles, see British use of vehicles like Supacats which from my understanding were put to good use in Afghanistan. Definitely a force to have for less kinetic operations and for rapid deployment (and rapid relief) until heavy forces show up.

For Canada you probably need a lot more tanks - and a Heavy Tracked IFV to go along with them. Then variants of the above to support the roles needed.

Agreed. We missed the boat on Bradleys years ago and there's no point buying a legacy system. The Puma, modernized CV90s, KF31 and Redbacks are probably a good place to start looking though.

 

[Maxman1]

Agreed. 200 tanks in my ideal army.

Double it, to allow for spares, training and overseas squadrons.

 

[KevinB]

Double it, to allow for spares, training and overseas squadrons.

Honestly 600 was my number for that.
100 ish per Bde, two pre deployed Bde’s worth of equipment.
200 in Canada and 200 in war stock.

 

[GK .Dundas]

My number is 850 .
Partially because that was Guy Simonds number back in the day after we made what was supposed to be a initial purchase of 247 Centurions. That is on top of the roughly 250 tanks we purchased.
And partially because in the unlikely event that we actually become serious about having a real military..
We need a least some for training not just individual crewmen but how to operate as a troop , a squadron and eventually as regiment or even a brigade.
And you're going to want to be to cycle through your AFVs every so often pulling some out of storage refitting the to the current standards . "Pickling" those you've replaced so wear and tear spread out over a larger vehicle park.
This will minimize that wear and tear we've discussed.
You will need a war reserve stock to replace destroyed vehicles and to allow for some increase in your field force using reservists.
And finally your going need sufficient numbers to maintain reserve troops and squadrons.

 

[PrairieFella]

850 modern tanks sure would be slick.

But it would cost about $38B CAD so that might be a bit rich for our blood lol.

 

[suffolkowner]

850 modern tanks sure would be slick.

But it would cost about $38B CAD so that might be a bit rich for our blood lol.

Army would have to get quite a bit bigger. Be lucky to replace the 82-8 we have

 

[PrairieFella]

Army would have to get quite a bit bigger. Be lucky to replace the 82-8 we have

That's why I say 200. Ideal? No. Ideally we have a need for twice that. Realistic? Somewhat. Either way our Leos are reaching end of life and desperately need replacement. Not refit. Replacement.