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.

 

[KevinB]

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.

I can see that - I’m still more for a tracked force for that, but given the number of LAV Canada has, I can see the desire for a role for that. I’m still not sure a large tank cannon is the correct tool for that platform though. F&F missiles sure with a mid cal cannon.

 

[WestIsle]

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.

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?

Keep in mind that this is the same branch not so long ago that was advocating for a MPF light tank battalion at the division level alongside a spattering of new versions of the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle in a division that would have included MBTs in each brigade. It seemed at least at the time particularly with the debacle of the TAPV that the Armored Corps seemed more keen on having the same capabilities as the states even if they were superfluous or unnecessary for us, budget be damned.

Even now as the CA tries to move to division operations we are going to get battalion sized recce elements in each brigade as well as at the division level? Much of these elements are also going to be equipment and manned to near the same as the mechanized infantry.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I can see that - I’m still more for a tracked force for that, but given the number of LAV Canada has, I can see the desire for a role for that. I’m still not sure a large tank cannon is the correct tool for that platform though. F&F missiles sure with a mid cal cannon.

Like an upgraded Bradley?

 

[FJAG]

Like an upgraded Bradley?

I'm actually starting to see the value of the AJAX family (or CV9040s)

 

[KevinB]

Like an upgraded Bradley?

Given Canada doesn’t have a lot (any) Brads, I would not opt for it - but as @FJAG points out the BAE CV90 or the GDLS AJAX, or potentially given the time frame Canada would be looking at the XM-30 MICV systems from either RM or GDLS.

 

[markppcli]

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

Interesting, I haven’t see that model. I’ll confirm but I’m 90 percent sure the TAPVs we had were capable of both. I’m going to shake my head even more that we spent money to ensure we had a second tier RWS in addition to unarmed RWS.

*as anticipated ours will all take both at once (ha). Weird, ill look into seeing if 1 VPs can.

 

[IKnowNothing]

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.

Which brings the discussion back to "what firepower does the team already have?" A Regiment or squadron in LAV 6's with the Desert Viper turret brings a massive amount of firepower under armour relative the LAV Bn of 2022. Likewise to a future LAV Bn that the ATGMR project "only" delivers man portable launchers in one per platoon quantities. Not so much to one that 5th gen launchers at platoon PLUS a proper direct fire platoon in the CS Coy.

 

[Underway]

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?

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why does there have to be a combination of infantry and cavalry?

Is the armoured corps the provider of tank support to the infantry?

Or is it the provider of cavalry functions (whatever those may be) to the army at large?

There is value in having the flexibility to form ad hoc groups tailored to the task but Canada seems to have morphed into the inflexible assumption that every operation must have a defined combination of arms. Military DEI if you will.

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?

The army then would have 12 manoeuvre units it could put into the rotation.

Or perhaps 9 mounted and 3 light.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Why does there have to be a combination of infantry and cavalry?

Is the armoured corps the provider of tank support to the infantry?

Or is it the provider of cavalry functions (whatever those may be) to the army at large?

There is value in having the flexibility to form ad hoc groups tailored to the task but Canada seems to have morphed into the inflexible assumption that every operation must have a defined combination of arms. Military DEI if you will.

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?

The army then would have 12 manoeuvre units it could put into the rotation.

Or perhaps 9 mounted and 3 light.

Panzer Grenadiers enter the chat... again

 

[Kirkhill]

Panzer Grenadiers enter the chat... again

Stuck in that tank rut.

 

[KevinB]

Why does there have to be a combination of infantry and cavalry?

Is the armoured corps the provider of tank support to the infantry?

Or is it the provider of cavalry functions (whatever those may be) to the army at large?

IMHO Cavalry is an amalgamation of Armor and Infantry. It really is not hard armor or infantry and requires a blend of personnel and tactics.

There is value in having the flexibility to form ad hoc groups tailored to the task but Canada seems to have morphed into the inflexible assumption that every operation must have a defined combination of arms. Military DEI if you will.

Canada has a really small Army, and doesn’t have nearly the flexibility it thinks it does.

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

I’m a big fan of that, and it works on the Divisional base scale, where you always have enough assets to run courses and exercises. @Infanteer and a few others have lead me to believe that Canada with Bde- bases isn’t well suited for that’d and doesn’t have the infrastructure, equipment or numbers to support it. As well it works with true Mech Infantry, Canada doesn’t operate its Infantry LAV like that, and keeps some dismounted light skills alive in the LAV BN’s.

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

That is a massive duplication of courses, and a time and expense sink that the CA cannot afford.

Better use Infantry as the dismounted aspects of the Cav, with the Armoured Recce providing the mobility and vehicle experience.

The army then would have 12 manoeuvre units it could put into the rotation.

Or perhaps 9 mounted and 3 light.

If you had 6 CV-90 BN’s and 3-5 Tank BN’s I’d agree. But the LAV isn’t a tracked IFV, and doesn’t work with tanks.

You have a lot of formations that are the Jack of All Trades, but no Queens, Kings or Aces.


When Canada opted to go all in on a LAV-25 with a bunch more armor, I’d argue it missed the point of what the USMC used the LAV-25 for, and had missed the issues of the AVGP Grizzly, and while it solved some of the M113 issues, it lost out on off road mobility.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Canada has a really small Army, and doesn’t have nearly the flexibility it thinks it does.

For small force, concentration of effort may be more desirable than being a jack of all trades, master of none ?

 

[Kirkhill]

@KevinB

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.

After all I keep hearing the rejoinder to any proposal "any well trained (fill in the blank) could do that".

So everybody can do everything given enough training.

And there is no difference between Dragoons and Mounted Infantry.

 

[daftandbarmy]

@KevinB

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.

After all I keep hearing the rejoinder to any proposal "any well trained (fill in the blank) could do that".

So everybody can do everything given enough training.

And there is no difference between Dragoons and Mounted Infantry.

Armoured Corps bods contemplating their new Infantry role...

 

[KevinB]

For small force, concentration of effort may be more desirable than being a jack of all trades, master of none ?

The CA adopted symmetry in the later 90’s to lessen the burden of constant deployments, first for PSO, then Afghanistan.

Also gutting the heavier elements from the force, to ‘better’ adapt to the world order. Tanks where on the chopping block too until the requirements for a direct fire support gun came up, and MGS had died.

Given the PY in the CA one would think it’s possible to field 2 Armoured Divisions, a LAV ‘medium’ Div and a Light Division, or at the very least 1 Armoured, 1 Medium wheeled and a Light. OFC that would require thinking about the PRes beyond augmenteees.

 

[Kirkhill]

Armoured Corps bods contemplating their new Infantry role...

You know, I have no problem accommodating people who want to get paid for doing things they like and do well. But only if I need those things done.

First principles time: What do I, the Government of Canada, need my combat arms to do?

Given that then I hire those people that actually want to do those jobs.

 

[KevinB]

@KevinB

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.

After all I keep hearing the rejoinder to any proposal "any well trained (fill in the blank) could do that".

So everybody can do everything given enough training.

And there is no difference between Dragoons and Mounted Infantry.

Cavalry isn’t the Armoured Corps. When the Cav became Armoured, the Cav then died.

It’s been reintroduced in two forms, both Airmobile, and ‘Armored Calvary’.

When one looks at Armored Calvary, there is a distinct difference between the Mechanized Infantry and the Scout/Screen aspects of the Calvary.

The Mechanized Infantry (Panzer Grenadier) conducts different tasks, the Armoured (MBT’s) also conduct different tasks.

With a larger Army you could make a specific trade for Calvary, and have aspects from Infantry and Armour training, but you don’t.

You can’t expect Armoured and Infantry to be interchangeable, or you’d have a 3 year pipeline to get a Private, 15 different PCF’s and a year long course to be a section/Det commander. Then you’d need to have them in the field almost 24/7 to maintain proficiency.
The trade would be unsustainable in peacetime let alone wartime.