Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[FJAG]

I’d argue that to do any of the tasks in the above slide requires a combined arms formation that currently doesn’t fully exist.

I actually like @PrairieFella 's slide and description as a general statement.

I agree with you in that Cav should be a combined arms organization (some recce, some anti armour some AD, some infantry, some Pioneers, some indirect fire etc) but not as one that is to be slapped together when needed but rather one that comes that way as a single organic trade/unit fully trained for its role as light or heavy. I'm still pondering whether there is really a need for medium or whether adjusting the Venn diagram is possible.

I'll leave the creation of battlegroups and combat teams to the pure infantry battalions and tank regiments. Mix and match those as needed but leave cavalry

 

[GR66]

Overreaching - the cavalry regiment are the masters of maneouvre warfare within the combat team. The infantry close with and destroy and the cavalry supports that with superior firepower and superior tactical mobility for the ultimate goal of shock action. That said, types of regiments can have direct effects based on the different capabilites they bring.

A light cavalry per the new doctrine cant compete firepower wise in direct engagements at the front but they can enable the heavier guys by acting as sensors. Conducting recces, screens, flank security, things like that. FIND tasks. They can also be used to FIX. Ex: Guards. Even some lighter offensive ops like raids or spoiling attacks. Finally they can be used in rear areas to carry out the traditional TACSEC tasks recce regiments used to do. VCPs. Convoy escorts. RAS. Etc. Think light horse regiments in the age of horse cavalry. Lighter on armour and firepower. Heavier on sensing capability and mobility. This will be further enhanced with the planned proliferation of enablers to LCav units like drones, LMs, mortars and assault troopers.

Heavy cavalry is less about FIND and FIX (though they can do that through enabling ops like the advance to contact) and all about the STRIKE. Pretty self explanatory and wont insult your intelligence by getting into it. Tank go boom.

Medium cavalry kinda splits the difference between the two and currently does not exist within the types of equipment we have. Im thr shakiest here since it doesnt actually exist in our army outside of the book that was just rewritten. Think Div recce which specializes in the deep fight that can FIND and FIX but also STRIKE as necessary to attrite the enemy, disrupt C2 nodes, disrupt supply lines, trade space for time on the delay, etc. Tracked. Heavy autocannon. Missiles. Decent armour. Lots of enablers like the LCav but heavier. Think Bradley squadrons as a modern example.

Dont worry - the image and my musings are open sourced. I dont want to get too deep into specifics but thats kind of an overview. An example of the continuum of cav tasks. Bear in mind its not absolute. A tank can conduct a GUARD task. A LCav AFV can conduct a BLOCK against lightly armed enemy. But I dont want to get too deep into the what-ifs.

View attachment 100588

Frankly I think the RCAC has drunk the US Army's "Maneouvre Warfare" Kool-aid rather than thinking about what kind of war we expect to have to fight.

If the main threat we are expecting to face is a Russian attack on NATO then I think this Heavy/Medium/Light Cavalry concept is fundamentally wrong. If we end up defending against a Russian invasion of the Baltic States we're not going to be fighting a "Maneouvre" campaign.

The political priority for (European) NATO nations is to

Overreaching - the cavalry regiment are the masters of maneouvre warfare within the combat team. The infantry close with and destroy and the cavalry supports that with superior firepower and superior tactical mobility for the ultimate goal of shock action. That said, types of regiments can have direct effects based on the different capabilites they bring.

A light cavalry per the new doctrine cant compete firepower wise in direct engagements at the front but they can enable the heavier guys by acting as sensors. Conducting recces, screens, flank security, things like that. FIND tasks. They can also be used to FIX. Ex: Guards. Even some lighter offensive ops like raids or spoiling attacks. Finally they can be used in rear areas to carry out the traditional TACSEC tasks recce regiments used to do. VCPs. Convoy escorts. RAS. Etc. Think light horse regiments in the age of horse cavalry. Lighter on armour and firepower. Heavier on sensing capability and mobility. This will be further enhanced with the planned proliferation of enablers to LCav units like drones, LMs, mortars and assault troopers.

Heavy cavalry is less about FIND and FIX (though they can do that through enabling ops like the advance to contact) and all about the STRIKE. Pretty self explanatory and wont insult your intelligence by getting into it. Tank go boom.

Medium cavalry kinda splits the difference between the two and currently does not exist within the types of equipment we have. Im thr shakiest here since it doesnt actually exist in our army outside of the book that was just rewritten. Think Div recce which specializes in the deep fight that can FIND and FIX but also STRIKE as necessary to attrite the enemy, disrupt C2 nodes, disrupt supply lines, trade space for time on the delay, etc. Tracked. Heavy autocannon. Missiles. Decent armour. Lots of enablers like the LCav but heavier. Think Bradley squadrons as a modern example.

Dont worry - the image and my musings are open sourced. I dont want to get too deep into specifics but thats kind of an overview. An example of the continuum of cav tasks. Bear in mind its not absolute. A tank can conduct a GUARD task. A LCav AFV can conduct a BLOCK against lightly armed enemy. But I dont want to get too deep into the what-ifs.

View attachment 100588

I personally think that the Army's/RCAC's vision of maneouvre warfare in a conflict with Russia (which is realistically where we are by far most likely to require Divisional-sized forces) are misplaced. Politics determines strategy and the Politics of Eastern Europe dictate that a conflict with Russia will be primarily positional and attritional.

The countries facing Russia will not be willing to give up territory to Russia or see its citizens subjected to the treatment that Ukrainians faced in towns like Bucha. That will mean that NATO forces will undertake a forward defence strategy in order to hold the urban areas. The Baltic States and Poland will not be willing to have forces give up territory in order to trap advancing Russian forces in cauldrons and drones/artillery will prevent the defenders from conducting a mobile defence in open ground. The fight will almost certainly become positional urban defence.

On the offensive/counter-attack side European NATO nations (especially those at the front) will not want to drive deeply into Russian/Belorussian territory because doing so would risk regime collapse and despite that being a welcome outcome it would also very significantly raise the risk of Russia using WMD's to prevent such a collapse. Europe definitely isn't willing for that to happen on their territory. As a result any counter attacks will be limited to the Russian/Belorussian border areas which doesn't give much space to perform significant strategic maneouvre.

Tanks with significant engineering and AD support are what the RCAC needs in my opinion, not LAVs or other light vehicles designed for a maneouvre strategy which is highly unlikely to happen. Tanks can work in the Urban fight, they are protected enough to move between protected areas and IF larger scale maneouvre is possible they can do that as well.

$0.02

 

[Brad Sallows]

It continues to look like "cavalry" is combined arms with a formal unit establishment and maybe a standard formation (brigade) template too (if a force large enough to warrant one ever takes the field). Heavy/medium/light just looks like a descriptor based on equipment.