Medium Cavalry: Critical Capability or Poor Man’s MBT?

[FJAG]

If Canada is pursuing medium tanks for medium cavalry because the CAF budget cannot afford MBTs for heavy cavalry, that is a fair argument. But if cost is the limiting factor, why are we going for two units of medium cavalry and two units of heavy cavalry?

I don't know. Ask a tanker. I don't know what gene pool they are looking at - stupid things will probably have wheels.

Surely we can more easily afford three units of heavy cavalry. I understand war gaming determined that one unit of MBT was not enough for a battle winning division, but why did CA plan to add a new unit for heavy cavalry instead of re-rolling a unit envisioned to be medium cavalry?

I don't believe in medium cavalry. I believe in light and heavy cavalry. I believe in lighter and cheaper MBTs as the foundation of heavy cavalry.

If MBTs are too big and heavy, that can be fixed in the design of MBTs.

Absolutely. But there are limited choices and their availability is anyone's guess.

And modern military bridging is able to support most MBTs, with the US and UK fleets being the difficult outliers.

Military bridging can but civilian bridging in some areas are challenged. Note how the Americans are putting their bridging/water crossing assets in the three armoured divisions (reinforced) while the ordinary armoured divisions generally don't. That speaks of your vanilla armoured divisions being follow on forces on the 3 heavies have established bridgeheads. Other folks have bridging too, but I see a dearth of it in the Baltic States.

 

[KevinB]

Outside of Recce, the TAPV with RWS are single weapon capable (GPMG or AGL as opposed to GPMG and AGL).

Well that’s dumb.

Frankly the dual M2/Mk19 manned turret of the ones down here make a lot more sense to me.