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

[FJAG]

If that then why not just create permanent combined arms teams?

And what would be so wrong with the cavalry and infantry units being similarly organized and able to cover off the same tasks?

That was tried back around 2007 and after in Gagetown with 2 RCR in what was called an "optimized battlegroup." The idea was to create fairly regular attachments that somewhat mirrored what was deployed in Afghanistan at the time.

It was introduced in "Land Operations 2021: Adaptive Dispersed Operations," and carried on for a few years and then petered away. I'm not sure when it came to an official end but guess it would have been around the time Leslie left as CLS as he was the idea's champion.

Words separating us again.

My proposal for discussion was to remove any distinction between the RCAC ("cavalry") and the RCIC ("infantry") beyond the cap badge and train both elements to the same standards in the same tactics.

So let me get this straight. You're proposing that the branch that can't figure out how to train two streams of heavy and light (medium) whatever, cavalry now take over integrating infantry as well.

. . . .

And there is no difference between Dragoons and Mounted Infantry.

And we all remember what happened to dragoons at the Battle of the Greasy Grass.

IMHO, there's a very good reason why troops who fight (and not merely travel) mounted and those who fight (and not merely travel) dismounted are in two separate specialties. Dragoons (as originally conceived and not what they morphed into) and mounted infantry are essentially the same thing - troops who travel mounted but fight dismounted.

 

[McG]

Interesting, I haven’t see that model. I’ll confirm but I’m 90 percent sure the TAPVs we had were capable of both.

Apparently my information was out of date. The decision to drop single weapon RWS seems to have been been made in conjunction with the decision to not buy RWS for every vehicle.

Yes it should. Right now the "medium cavalry" are using TAPV's as a large portion of their cars. That's not medium or cavalry. The Medium Cavalry project and a purchase of new or more tanks are not mutually exclusive. They can both be done concurrently.

CA should rush to buy something now and then later address doctrine to determine if it is even required is how CA got TAPV. Why should CA rush to buy a medium cavalry vehicle if it cannot demonstrate from a doctrinal position that such a thing should exist? Why should CA send two of its mechanized brigades to war supported by the Booker instead of real MBTs?

 

[Kirkhill]

@FJAG

I am saying, precisely because neither corps seems to have a grip on what they have to do and how they want to do it, and they are both competing for the leadership of the defence of Canada, that Bill Murray was right.

60 reactions | “It just doesn’t matter!” Bill Murray apparently improvised this speech and I love the real laughter from the other actors in the scene. #meatballs #billmurray #ivanreitman #summercamp | VHSRevolution

“It just doesn’t matter!” Bill Murray apparently improvised this speech and I love the real laughter from the other actors in the scene. #meatballs #billmurray #ivanreitman #summercamp.

www.facebook.com

 

[OldSolduer]

That was tried back around 2007 and after in Gagetown with 2 RCR in what was called an "optimized battlegroup." The idea was to create fairly regular attachments that somewhat mirrored what was deployed in Afghanistan at the time.

It was introduced in "Land Operations 2021: Adaptive Dispersed Operations," and carried on for a few years and then petered away. I'm not sure when it came to an official end but guess it would have been around the time Leslie left as CLS as he was the idea's champion.

I seem to recall in the 90s 2 VP always got B Bty OC (Major Larocque) as the COs gunner guy, and we always got B Sqn Ldsh as the tanks.

Everyone at the command levels knew their counterparts and what they could bring to the fight.

 

[Kirkhill]

@FJAG

I am saying, precisely because neither corps seems to have a grip on what they have to do and how they want to do it, and they are both competing for the leadership of the defence of Canada, that Bill Murray was right.

60 reactions | “It just doesn’t matter!” Bill Murray apparently improvised this speech and I love the real laughter from the other actors in the scene. #meatballs #billmurray #ivanreitman #summercamp | VHSRevolution

“It just doesn’t matter!” Bill Murray apparently improvised this speech and I love the real laughter from the other actors in the scene. #meatballs #billmurray #ivanreitman #summercamp.

www.facebook.com

Further to....

I know I want continental air defence control of the air approaches. I know I want control of the seas and the maritime approaches.

 

[FJAG]

CA should rush to buy something now and then later address doctrine to determine if it is even required is how CA got TAPV.

TAPV was part of a deliberate planning process started late in 2006 to develop a model of what the army should be post Afghanistan. At the time the vision was for a structure that could build one each of a light brigade, a medium brigade and a heavy brigade (hence the CCV at the rate of 108). The complicating factor was the force generation model which was already in existence which called for readiness cycles of symmetric brigade groups as force generators.

The vision for TAPV as a patrol vehicle had several doctrinal slots, not least of which was for the light infantry battalions which grew out of the early use of RG-31s by light companies, PRT, etc in Afghanistan. I had a young infantry officer working for me who ended up posted to 3 RCR around 2010 to work on integrating the not yet arrived TAPV into that battalion as their primary mission vehicle. It didn't work out well.

Why should CA rush to buy a medium cavalry vehicle if it cannot demonstrate from a doctrinal position that such a thing should exist? Why should CA send two of its mechanized brigades to war supported by the Booker instead of real MBTs?

It shouldn't. But one would think that after several years of Ukraine's version of LSCO, and the reams of literature and studies and war gaming coming out of that that the fundamental concepts of a doctrine for future LSCO should be getting clear.

 

[Underway]

CA should rush to buy something now and then later address doctrine to determine if it is even required is how CA got TAPV. Why should CA rush to buy a medium cavalry vehicle if it cannot demonstrate from a doctrinal position that such a thing should exist? Why should CA send two of its mechanized brigades to war supported by the Booker instead of real MBTs?

Booker isn't really modern medium cavalry. Cavalry variants of the Bradley and CV90 are medium cavalry. I don't know what a Booker actually is, lol.

 

[McG]

Booker isn't really modern medium cavalry. Cavalry variants of the Bradley and CV90 are medium cavalry.

That’s according to your feelings. There is no Canadian doctrine to substantiate that, and rushing a procurement could land CA with a Booker or Centauro for a job that should be a MBT.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, Ukraine upgrades Leo 1s into something approximating a 'medium tank' ...

Barely Recognizable – Ukraine Unveils its Upgraded Leopard 1 Tanks​

Ukraine’s 5th Separate Tank Brigade unveiled its newly upgraded Leopard 1A5V tanks in public for the first time saying that two of its main weaknesses have been overcome.

Since the start of the war that was sparked by Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion, Ukraine has received almost 200 of the lightweight, 1980s-vintage Leopard 1A5 MBTs via the German-Danish-Dutch consortium.

They by far made up the bulk of Ukraine’s receipt of Western-style tanks outnumbered only by the T-64s and T-72s that Ukraine either inherited from the Soviet Union or provided by its former Warsaw Pact European allies.

Despite the large numbers of the tanks provided, the 50-year-old design proved particularly vulnerable to modern battlefield weapons and first-person view (FPV) drones, in particular.

It does have its strengths too, not least being its speed and its highly accurate British designed rifled 105mm L7 main armament. The tanks can reach speeds of up to 70 kph (44 mph) and can deliver precise hits at ranges of up to 4 kilometers (2.5 miles).

The Ukrainian upgrades have gone a long way towards overcoming the existing vulnerabilities to produce a tank that bears comparison with the best MBT Kyiv has at its disposal.

These Leopards have been fitted with additional armor and protective screens to counter modern anti-tank guided weapons and the ubiquitous Russian FPV drones that infest the Ukrainian battlefield.

Barely Recognizable – Ukraine Unveils its Upgraded Leopard 1 Tanks

Ukraine’s 5th Separate Tank Brigade unveiled its newly upgraded Leopard 1A5V tanks in public for the first time saying that two of its main weaknesses have been overcome.

www.kyivpost.com

 

[Underway]

That’s according to your feelings. There is no Canadian doctrine to substantiate that, and rushing a procurement could land CA with a Booker or Centauro for a job that should be a MBT.

Yah there is Canadian doctrine to substantiate what defines heavy, medium and light. Its right in the new Cavalry doctrine in the definitions section. I'm very confident that medium cavalry will not include the "Booker", because medium cavalry tasks require dismounts from the vehicle that is doing the cavalry job.

 

[CBH99]

That’s according to your feelings. There is no Canadian doctrine to substantiate that, and rushing a procurement could land CA with a Booker or Centauro for a job that should be a MBT.

I agree with your sentiment completely - buying a fleet of vehicles & then trying to figure out where it belongs in our doctrine is exactly how we end up with vehicles like the TAPV

That notion aside for a moment though...

Would that job be better performed by a true MBT or a vehicle like the Booker? Would there really be any difference?


...


I know I know, the Booker isn't a tank.

But my brain really struggles to call it anything else because lets face it, it absolutely is a bloody tank.

It's absolutely a lighter, easier to transport version of the M1A2. Sure we can call it something different & justify that based on it's intended usage (calling it a Direct Fire Support vehicle doesn't dissuade me from still thinking of it as a tank though. I mean isn't that what tanks do - direct fire support?)




Curious to hear from any tankers in the room...would there by any huge change to doctrine, or any noticable capability lost, if you had to perform your duties in a Booker rather than a Leopard 2?

 

[Underway]

Doctrine is an entirely different problem. With Cavalry, Infantry, Signals and Fires all creating their stuff without talking to each other as far as I can tell. The army hasn't decided how it wants to fight as a team, just how its own little piece works by themselves.

 

[McG]

Yah there is Canadian doctrine to substantiate what defines heavy, medium and light. Its right in the new Cavalry doctrine in the definitions section.

You mean the doctrine that defines light and medium with the same words? The doctrine that was written to justify TAPV as a medium cavalry platform? That's just going to get people killed in a shooting war.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, Ukraine upgrades Leo 1s into something approximating a 'medium tank' ...

Barely Recognizable – Ukraine Unveils its Upgraded Leopard 1 Tanks​

Ukraine’s 5th Separate Tank Brigade unveiled its newly upgraded Leopard 1A5V tanks in public for the first time saying that two of its main weaknesses have been overcome.

Since the start of the war that was sparked by Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion, Ukraine has received almost 200 of the lightweight, 1980s-vintage Leopard 1A5 MBTs via the German-Danish-Dutch consortium.

They by far made up the bulk of Ukraine’s receipt of Western-style tanks outnumbered only by the T-64s and T-72s that Ukraine either inherited from the Soviet Union or provided by its former Warsaw Pact European allies.

Despite the large numbers of the tanks provided, the 50-year-old design proved particularly vulnerable to modern battlefield weapons and first-person view (FPV) drones, in particular.

It does have its strengths too, not least being its speed and its highly accurate British designed rifled 105mm L7 main armament. The tanks can reach speeds of up to 70 kph (44 mph) and can deliver precise hits at ranges of up to 4 kilometers (2.5 miles).

The Ukrainian upgrades have gone a long way towards overcoming the existing vulnerabilities to produce a tank that bears comparison with the best MBT Kyiv has at its disposal.

These Leopards have been fitted with additional armor and protective screens to counter modern anti-tank guided weapons and the ubiquitous Russian FPV drones that infest the Ukrainian battlefield.

Barely Recognizable – Ukraine Unveils its Upgraded Leopard 1 Tanks

Ukraine’s 5th Separate Tank Brigade unveiled its newly upgraded Leopard 1A5V tanks in public for the first time saying that two of its main weaknesses have been overcome.

www.kyivpost.com

I believe that L7 gun the Ukrainians are touting on the Leo1A5 is the same gun that was on the Abrams M1 and the Stryker MGS and is on the Booker (which is not a tank) and has been proposed in the CV90105.

The gun also has an interesting mix of new rounds from the US. HEP, KEP and canister among others.

 

[FJAG]

I believe that L7 gun the Ukrainians are touting on the Leo1A5 is the same gun that was on the Abrams M1 and the Stryker MGS and is on the Booker (which is not a tank) and has been proposed in the CV90105.

The gun also has an interesting mix of new rounds from the US. HEP, KEP and canister among others.

The L7 was on both the Leopard C1 and C2 we had. The MGS and early M1s had the M68A2 105mm which is a derivative of the L7. The CV90105 TML uses a 105mm GIAT CN 105 G2. I'm not sure what the newer ones with the Cockerill XC-8 turret use - its called "low pressure" so I don't think its an L7. OTOH, I've read that "the Giat Industries 105 mm G2 rifled gun which is ballistically identical to the combat-proven 105 mm L7/M68 gun for which ammunition is available worldwide." That also seen the CV90105 as both a "light tank" and as a "medium tank."

Personally I would see a CV90120 as a light tank for use as one of, but not the sole, system of a divisional light cavalry regiment but probably not at all as a brigade armoured regiment. For that I want a somewhat light MBT than what is currently on offer. I find the Ukrainian version of the Leopard 1 intriguing. At the time, Leo 1 definitely and deliberately sacrificed firepower and manoeuvrability for protection. With today's more powerful engines you can probably pack on a few more tons of stuff to give that a boost.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The L7 was on both the Leopard C1 and C2 we had. The MGS and early M1s had the M68A2 105mm which is a derivative of the L7. The CV90105 TML uses a 105mm GIAT CN 105 G2. I'm not sure what the newer ones with the Cockerill XC-8 turret use - its called "low pressure" so I don't think its an L7. OTOH, I've read that "the Giat Industries 105 mm G2 rifled gun which is ballistically identical to the combat-proven 105 mm L7/M68 gun for which ammunition is available worldwide." That also seen the CV90105 as both a "light tank" and as a "medium tank."

Personally I would see a CV90120 as a light tank for use as one of, but not the sole, system of a divisional light cavalry regiment but probably not at all as a brigade armoured regiment. For that I want a somewhat light MBT than what is currently on offer. I find the Ukrainian version of the Leopard 1 intriguing. At the time, Leo 1 definitely and deliberately sacrificed firepower and manoeuvrability for protection. With today's more powerful engines you can probably pack on a few more tons of stuff to give that a boost.

FWIW, apparently the Leo 1 armour upgrades are effective...

Upgraded Leopard 1A5 withstands multiple drone strikes

A Ukrainian Leopard 1A5 tank, recently upgraded with additional protection measures, survived a series of attacks from Russian FPV (First Person View) drones during a battle on the front lines. The Militarnyi has reported that the tank, positioned in a wooded area, became a target for Russian...

defence-blog.com

 

[FJAG]

FWIW, apparently the Leo 1 armour upgrades are effective...

Upgraded Leopard 1A5 withstands multiple drone strikes

A Ukrainian Leopard 1A5 tank, recently upgraded with additional protection measures, survived a series of attacks from Russian FPV (First Person View) drones during a battle on the front lines. The Militarnyi has reported that the tank, positioned in a wooded area, became a target for Russian...

defence-blog.com

I've come to the conclusion that in every one of our LAV platoons we need to replace one of the turreted ISVs with an ACSV Troop transport variant with an RWS that incorporates a short range radar/optically aimed 30mm like Moog's prototype AMPV C-UAS (maybe even a missile pod for anything big) - Not a full M-SHORAD - save that for the AD folks (who incidentally ought to be the driver and gunner on ACSV AD. Basically it still carries a section of dismounts but is the platoon's AD carrier.

Every tank squadron should have two of these as well - actually a good role for the much maligned TAPVs.

 

[markppcli]

Booker isn't really modern medium cavalry. Cavalry variants of the Bradley and CV90 are medium cavalry. I don't know what a Booker actually is, lol.

The Booker is an answer to a problem that didn’t exist. Medium Cavalry really seems like a dubious, ill defined, badly thought out concept.

I agree with your sentiment completely - buying a fleet of vehicles & then trying to figure out where it belongs in our doctrine is exactly how we end up with vehicles like the TAPV

That notion aside for a moment though...

Would that job be better performed by a true MBT or a vehicle like the Booker? Would there really be any difference?


...


I know I know, the Booker isn't a tank.

But my brain really struggles to call it anything else because lets face it, it absolutely is a bloody tank.

It's absolutely a lighter, easier to transport version of the M1A2. Sure we can call it something different & justify that based on it's intended usage (calling it a Direct Fire Support vehicle doesn't dissuade me from still thinking of it as a tank though. I mean isn't that what tanks do - direct fire support?)




Curious to hear from any tankers in the room...would there by any huge change to doctrine, or any noticable capability lost, if you had to perform your duties in a Booker rather than a Leopard 2?

A noticeable increase in dead crews jumps to mind.

 

[Infanteer]

The Booker is an answer to a problem that didn’t exist. Medium Cavalry really seems like a dubious, ill defined, badly thought out concept.

It's as contrived as the Army's doctrinal creation of Combat, Close, Medium, and Long-Range Reconnaissance in the GMR manual. You either find the enemy or you don't.