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

[MacNav63]

It just seems odd that the unit called "Lord Strathcona's Horse" has MBTs, and yet the unit called 12th ARMOURED doesn't have, well, Armour.

Well, the Strathcona's were once also designated the 2nd Armoured Regiment and 12 RBC was originally The Three Rivers Regiment. Then there is that other armoured regiment, The Halifax Rifles...

 

[MacNav63]

Well, the Strathcona's were once also designated the 2nd Armoured Regiment and 12 RBC was originally The Three Rivers Regiment. Then there is that other armoured regiment, The Halifax Rifles...

And of course both the Canadian Grenadier Guards and the Governor General's Foot Guards were at one time armoured regiments...

 

[FJAG]

It just seems odd that the unit called "Lord Strathcona's Horse" has MBTs, and yet the unit called 12th ARMOURED doesn't have, well, Armour.

Sssshhh. Don't mention the PPCLI!

 

[FJAG]

The above is what I'm suggesting as a possibility made viable through the in depth interdiction of enemy heavy armour from the front through UAV's and N-LOS weapons.

AND artillery. Experience in wargaming and Ukraine shows artillery to play a very major role in both blunting and destroying assaulting forces of all types.

Canada has starved itself of artillery for a very long time and the result is that to many (including this generation of gunners) it is, at best, merely an academic exercise which is often ignored or an afterthought.

 

[dapaterson]

Sssshhh. Don't mention the PPCLI!

In the early 2000s, when access controls were slim to none, someone edited unit names on Monitor MASS to read "Princess Patricia's Canadian Mechanized Infantry" (for the first and second battalions).

aka CAF does not understand info management and info protection.

 

[GR66]

AND artillery. Experience in wargaming and Ukraine shows artillery to play a very major role in both blunting and destroying assaulting forces of all types.

Canada has starved itself of artillery for a very long time and the result is that to many (including this generation of gunners) it is, at best, merely an academic exercise which is often ignored or an afterthought.

Last time I checked the Artillery had a preference for conducting their fires non-line-of-site..

 

[FJAG]

Last time I checked the Artillery had a preference for conducting their fires non-line-of-site..

And it still does albeit loitering munitions qualify for that.

It wasn't an arty choice to give up anti-tank. That was the infantry and armour saying "we can do that - best weapon to kill a tank is an tank and all that, old chap," and the usual force reduction crap which left you with which system do you want to save - for a while it was guns and air defence and then air defence had to go to sleep for a decade or two in the late 60s as well.

And of course no one thinks of giving those capabilities to the reserves.

 

[markppcli]

Sssshhh. Don't mention the PPCLI!

In our defence Hamilton Gault really wanted us to be Cavalry, but it was determined WW1 needed proper soldiers so infantry it was.

Last time I checked the Artillery had a preference for conducting their fires non-line-of-site..

Poles have arty running their Spike LR since it can function a semi loitering munition works indirect. Great tool.

Doctrine and TTPs. Also, the TAPV with dual-wielding RWS (GPMG & AGL) was bought for recce squadrons and should not be in the rifle companies.

Well no TAPV should be in a rifle company but if memory serves we had a few for Recce Platoon that had RWS, certainly 1 RCHA has nearly a 50/50 split. The fact we bought any without an RWS is maybe the 4th or 5th dumbest part of them.

 

[Infanteer]

Medium cavalry should be a combined arms organization and not a branch pure construct designed to save units without tanks. It also lacks and linkage to a higher order warfighting concept - what am I going to do with a "medium cavalry regiment" if its optimal employment lies in pairing it up with infantry that are equipped with the same platform?

 

[McG]

Well no TAPV should be in a rifle company but if memory serves we had a few for Recce Platoon that had RWS, certainly 1 RCHA has nearly a 50/50 split. The fact we bought any without an RWS is maybe the 4th or 5th dumbest part of them

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

 

[Kirkhill]

DSEI 2025: NMS UK Presents Dragon Vehicle As Mobile Counter UAS Platform And Survivability Hub For Frontline Forces

DSEI 2025: NMS UK Presents Dragon Vehicle As Mobile Counter UAS Platform And Survivability Hub For Frontline Forces

armyrecognition.com

A cavalry vehicle for use in conjunction with the JAGM/Skyknight combination mentioned under the Anti-Tank Platoon/Battery thread and by @GR66?

Squint and you are either looking at a Humber Pig or a Roshel Senator.


.....

Where would a Swedish LEO/CV90 CAB (or three) fit within this discussion?

 

[MacNav63]

Sssshhh. Don't mention the PPCLI!

It seems there isn't always a direct correlation between name and function.

 

[Lumber]

I know I'm just a Squid, but what about this for a role for Medium Cav: They are for use in operations/theatres where the strength and technical capabilities of enemy force don't require Heavy Cav. Going peer to peer? Send the Heavy and Light Cav. Going back to the Sandbox? Medium Cav.

 

[Infanteer]

I know I'm just a Squid, but what about this for a role for Medium Cav: They are for use in operations/theatres where the strength and technical capabilities of enemy force don't require Heavy Cav. Going peer to peer? Send the Heavy and Light Cav. Going back to the Sandbox? Medium Cav.

That's like saying "let's not win 20-0, lets try to win 4-3."

The problem with medium platforms is that they are no longer light and easy to maintain, so you may as well ship a tank over.

The new doctrine states that Medium Cavalry is "optimized to find, shape and defeat the enemy in the covering force area." The same definition is given to Light Cavalry. I would think a tank/infantry mix is the optimized force to find, shape and defeat the enemy in the covering force area....

 

[Kirkhill]

Related?

GDLS has released the IFV version of the AJAX

DSEI 2025: Ajax IFV version unveiled

General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLS UK) and Lockheed Martin UK unveiled an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) version of the Ajax armoured vehicle on the first day of...

www.janes.com

Suppose heavy, medium and light were defined on the bases of Europen bridge limits?

How many bridges can support a column of 70 ton tanks?

The Ajax weighs in at 38 to 42 tonnes. About the same weight as a Leo1/LeoC1-C2.

Available as an APC, IFV and DFSV/MBT (Medium Battle Tank).

....

Minimum crew of two in the hull. 8 pax. The turret may or may not be manned - dealer's choice.

 

[Infanteer]

Bridge limits aren't very useful, considering most will likely be blown up.

I would say the fuel and maintenance requirement of a 42 tonne vehicle, which weighs more than a Bradley or a LAV 6, makes it "heavy" in its requirements.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bridge limits aren't very useful, considering most will likely be blown up.

I would say the fuel and maintenance requirement of a 42 tonne vehicle, which weighs more than a Bradley or a LAV 6, makes it "heavy" in its requirements.

So "light" is in around the ISV/MRZR/LUV range.
"Heavy" is Boxer/AJAX/Lynx and up. Are LAV6/Bradley/CV90 at 30 ish also heavy?

How about the C130 Stryker reference? A vehicle in the 5 to 15 tonne range, And I know the Herc can manage 20 at a push but why stretch the point initially?

 

[Infanteer]

I don't even find the model of "light, medium, heavy" to be helpful - it is something contrived by doctrine writers that appears to justify existing structures and equipment acquisition, but does not help the discussion.

For the sake of the discussion:

• Any vehicle, even the heaviest, can be destroyed by a dismounted fighter with the right weapon. So heavy does not mean ">light."
• More often than not, light forces should have some sort of protection and mobility, so light does not mean "more appropriate than heavy" as they would be greatly served with some degree of armour for many tactical situations.
• Determination for level of protection in the battlefield should be determined by threat and tactical context, and not ground pressure and local bridge ratings.

How about this: Use the STANAG 4569 criteria. Light forces are those moving about the battlefield in anything rated STANAG level 1-3, meaning it can handle small arms fire and splintering and should avoid close combat against competent heavy forces. Heavy forces are those moving around the battlefield in anything rated STANAG 4-6 with protection from larger direct and indirect fire systems meaning it can, if handled properly, succeed in close combat against the enemy's competent heavy forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't even find the model of "light, medium, heavy" to be helpful - it is something contrived by doctrine writers that appears to justify existing structures and equipment acquisition, but does not help the discussion.

For the sake of the discussion:

• Any vehicle, even the heaviest, can be destroyed by a dismounted fighter with the right weapon. So heavy does not mean ">light."
• More often than not, light forces should have some sort of protection and mobility, so light does not mean "more appropriate than heavy" as they would be greatly served with some degree of armour for many tactical situations.
• Determination for level of protection in the battlefield should be determined by threat and tactical context, and not ground pressure and local bridge ratings.

How about this: Use the STANAG 4569 criteria. Light forces are those moving about the battlefield in anything rated STANAG level 1-3, meaning it can handle small arms fire and splintering and should avoid close combat against competent heavy forces. Heavy forces are those moving around the battlefield in anything rated STANAG 4-6 with protection from larger direct and indirect fire systems meaning it can, if handled properly, succeed in close combat against the enemy's competent heavy forces.

And let us not forget the morale factor: some folks will break at the sight of a man in a skirt. Other folks want their names in the history books. The weight of the vehicle means nothing to them.

 

[McG]

It seems that the army's modernization reoganization plans are to include both medium cavalry and MBT's.

Yes, but it likes to call those MBTs as "heavy cavalry."

Medium cavalry should be a combined arms organization and not a branch pure construct designed to save units without tanks.

I am not fussed if the armoured corps wants to re-brand as cavalry, but I also perceive this is not just re-branding but a construct to retain units in a black beret at a time when Canada did not really intend to spend more than 1.3% of GDP on defence. The spending situation has changed, so maybe the charade can go with it.

While I see a hard MBT role for the Armoured Corps in Canada, as it is hard to function in a combined arms setting without a tank, I am not so set on what exactly Medium Calvary really is. For the Canadian aspect, I get concerned when I hear about wheeled vehicle with tank guns,

I see a role for wheeled medium cavalry if it is part of a combined arms grouping with wheeled mechanized infantry and the two arms realize synergies from a common platform with common mobility & protection characteristics and common sustainment. This also necessitates the wheeled cavalry bringing meaningfully greater firepower to the team. This will not be the force to assault the main defensive area, but it can rapidly manoeuvre for rear and flank security, screening, or exploitation.

Maybe there is a role for medium cavalry as a division asset (Div Recce/Div Cav)? But is a medium tank the right fit for that? Or would a division be better served by a mix of lighter vehicles and MBTs?

as a starter its mass versus cost. It's not the drone that's killing the tank but its inordinate cost. Budgets are always political decisions and if I can get the same budget but buy twice as many lighter vehicles then so be it.

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? 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?

tanks are too big/tall and heavy which restricts their mobility.

If MBTs are too big and heavy, that can be fixed in the design of MBTs. And modern military bridging is able to support most MBTs, with the US and UK fleets being the difficult outliers.

From Noah, 1CMBG will be getting a second Heavy Cavalry Regiment. A new unit. The remainder (the other two) CMBG's will have one medium each. For those counting that's two heavy and two medium regiments. 8th Hussars return?

If CA is going to go with this idea, it should be a two battalion heavy cavalry regiment in Alberta, and two single battalion medium cavalry regiments in the other two CMBGs. A battalion is small enough that it does not need a regimental identity to forge pride, but a common regimental identity could do a lot to facilitate cooperation and career mobility between two units that are close enough for cross posting with one slated to be in a relatively less popular location. It also significantly improves gene pool for development of unit senior leadership.

The army's Medium Cavalry vehicle project is in initial definition phase. I expect it to be expedited.

But should it be? The army wants more heavy cavalry and it also has a project for future direct fire capability, and the army will need to get on with that procurement if it wants to stand-up a new unit. Why invest in the poor man's tank if we would be better getting all our needs via MBTs?