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

[GR66]

While cavalry can have a role in that, I think that deception - physical and electronic - is so essential on a modern battlefield flooded with sensors, that I think the role for that is in a specialized unit which we haven't created yet. IMHO, we need a unit made up of engineers, signallers and a lot of general labourers whose sole role is to create and execute a battlefield deception plan. That needs to be backed up by equipment and supplies and TTPs which integrate with the combat commanders plans and which will mislead the enemy and lure many of their resources into traps or to simply be wasted.

I agree that strategic deception will definitely require specialized units.

There's actually a great pair of episodes on "The Principles of War" podcast series that covers the British deception plan for the Battle of El Alamein (Operation Bertram):

https://theprinciplesofwar.com/the-battles-of-el-alamein/82-military-deception-at-the-strategic-operational-and-tactical-level-examples-from-the-2nd-battle-of-el-alamein/

83 - Op Bertram - Operational Deception at 2nd El Alamein | The Principles of War Podcast

How was deception planning integrated into operational planning? We discuss the deception checklist for operations.

theprinciplesofwar.com

I also think that deception (in a looser sense) will be required at all levels. Improved methods of concealment for sure, but likely also decoy/duplicate emission sources, dummy emplacements, etc. because we're not going to be able to completely blind the enemy. Larger scale deception operations can be done by a specialized unit but everyone will likely require some level of improved capabilities.

 

[FJAG]

Yup. I see deception as a two part process:

1) passive deception practiced by everyone to hide their presence and to ensure appropriate defensive measures against detection are implemented; and

2) active deception by a specialized engineer/signals unit.

I think the specialized unit is necessary to integrate the commanders overall plan, advise on what can be accomplished and take the staff work of implementation of active measures off the various ops staff.

In the current Canadian context I see this as a unit of a general support combat support brigade with a company or the whole regiment attached to a manoeuvre division or brigade as required.

 

[KevinB]

I’m of the opinion that for some theaters a Division will require a ‘Reconnaissance Bde’ to operate in front of (and sometimes intermingling with) the traditional maneuver Bde’s.
To be honest I don’t really like the term Reconnaissance for that role, as there is a tone of other things that it would do, and frankly a lot of it would fit the old Cavalry role- but with a totally different method of doing so.

The focus of that Bde will be to win the information battle by:
Blinding the enemy
Locating enemy front line units, as well as their logistical and their fires support.
Enabling friendly fires to eliminate enemy fires, and sensors as well as degrade enemy forces.


I see the traditional CAB as the assault force once the enemy has been degraded.

I may even see a role for a LAV based force to exploit past the breach seeking to penetrate the enemy in depth supported by Long Range Fires and Air.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I’m of the opinion that for some theaters a Division will require a ‘Reconnaissance Bde’ to operate in front of (and sometimes intermingling with) the traditional maneuver Bde’s.
To be honest I don’t really like the term Reconnaissance for that role, as there is a tone of other things that it would do, and frankly a lot of it would fit the old Cavalry role- but with a totally different method of doing so.

The focus of that Bde will be to win the information battle by:
Blinding the enemy
Locating enemy front line units, as well as their logistical and their fires support.
Enabling friendly fires to eliminate enemy fires, and sensors as well as degrade enemy forces.


I see the traditional CAB as the assault force once the enemy has been degraded.

I may even see a role for a LAV based force to exploit past the breach seeking to penetrate the enemy in depth supported by Long Range Fires and Air.

Is that as far as the ratio scales? On the defensive side of the fight is there room to go all the way and flip the ratio to a cavalry division with one combined arms bde for local counter punching?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I agree that strategic deception will definitely require specialized units.

There's actually a great pair of episodes on "The Principles of War" podcast series that covers the British deception plan for the Battle of El Alamein (Operation Bertram):

https://theprinciplesofwar.com/the-battles-of-el-alamein/82-military-deception-at-the-strategic-operational-and-tactical-level-examples-from-the-2nd-battle-of-el-alamein/

83 - Op Bertram - Operational Deception at 2nd El Alamein | The Principles of War Podcast

How was deception planning integrated into operational planning? We discuss the deception checklist for operations.

theprinciplesofwar.com

I also think that deception (in a looser sense) will be required at all levels. Improved methods of concealment for sure, but likely also decoy/duplicate emission sources, dummy emplacements, etc. because we're not going to be able to completely blind the enemy. Larger scale deception operations can be done by a specialized unit but everyone will likely require some level of improved capabilities.

By this time the Germans had lost the ability to read US Army delegation signals on the deployment of the 8th Army as well.

 

[McG]

I’m of the opinion that for some theaters a Division will require a ‘Reconnaissance Bde’ to operate in front of (and sometimes intermingling with) the traditional maneuver Bde’s.

So what does a mechanized division have greater need of, a light infantry regiment or a recce/cavalry regiment?

 

[Kirkhill]

While cavalry can have a role in that, I think that deception - physical and electronic - is so essential on a modern battlefield flooded with sensors, that I think the role for that is in a specialized unit which we haven't created yet. IMHO, we need a unit made up of engineers, signallers and a lot of general labourers whose sole role is to create and execute a battlefield deception plan. That needs to be backed up by equipment and supplies and TTPs which integrate with the combat commanders plans and which will mislead the enemy and lure many of their resources into traps or to simply be wasted.

Herr Gott. Muessen wir alles spezialistischen haben?

How many specialists in all these novel technologies were there in the Ukrainian forces when this latest unpleasantness broke out?

Most of the new stuff has been debeloped by hobbyists and people like Magda who have been making everything (technology, tactics, training and procedures ) up as they go along.

I was just reading an article about a defence expo in Ukraine (think about that for a second - an expo in a country at war). The expo and the international attendees were celebrating and promoting the direct and ongoing links from soldier at the front to designer to factory that has reduced the innovation time from decades to days.

The Americans are starting to realise that all those hours the kids have spent on Playstation have produced soldiers with some radically different skill sets that upper management just doesn't grok. They can make new solutions faster than they can explain them.

Give the rifle companies a Visa card and a FedEx account and let them have at 'er.

 

[Kirkhill]

So what does a mechanized division have greater need of, a light infantry regiment or a recce/cavalry regiment?

What is the difference between a light infantry regiment mounted on ISVs or a Cavalry Regiment? Can they both be assigned to sense and screen tasks?

 

[KevinB]

So what does a mechanized division have greater need of, a light infantry regiment or a recce/cavalry regiment?

Depends on the opponent and terrain.
As well as composition of the units.

However I generally I don’t see a LI unit being of any advantage to a Mech Div.

 

[ArmyRick]

Depends on the opponent and terrain.
As well as composition of the units.

However I generally I don’t see a LI unit being of any advantage to a Mech Div.

Extra bodies to help clear out a heavy urban area?

 

[Brad Sallows]

To be honest I don’t really like the term Reconnaissance for that role, as there is a tone of other things that it would do,

It's providing cover to friendly forces and trying to overcome the enemy's equivalent. Maybe just call it a covering force.

Cavalry historically had a lot of tasks for which it was thought best or ideally suited. A few:

• reconnaissance
• screening/guarding
• foraging
• various economy of force
• wide area security
• raiding
• pursuit/exploitation

Not all cavalry-exclusive, obviously, but the relative mobility characteristic was an important factor.

There isn't much wrong with continuing to call such forces, greatly composite at the unit and lowest formation level (brigade), "cavalry".

 

[PrairieFella]

Alternative perspective:

Poor man's MBT: A Critical Capability

That is to say, the RCAC is down to a wholly inadequate 74 track fleet of MBT's, (34 of which are right on the line between obsolscent and obsolete), a lemon of a security vehicle, and a surveillance vehicle that doesnt really fit new doctrine.

The clock is ticking.

The surveillance vehicle is officially dead too, couldnt pass RAMD. We're in real desperate straits here.

 

[PrairieFella]

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

That is incorrect. All turreted TAPVs run Kongsberg DRWS with AGL and C6, which is an awful combination for offensives and practically useless beyond rear area security.

 

[FJAG]

Herr Gott. Muessen wir alles spezialistischen haben?

How many specialists in all these novel technologies were there in the Ukrainian forces when this latest unpleasantness broke out?

Most of the new stuff has been debeloped by hobbyists and people like Magda who have been making everything (technology, tactics, training and procedures ) up as they go along.

I was just reading an article about a defence expo in Ukraine (think about that for a second - an expo in a country at war). The expo and the international attendees were celebrating and promoting the direct and ongoing links from soldier at the front to designer to factory that has reduced the innovation time from decades to days.

The Americans are starting to realise that all those hours the kids have spent on Playstation have produced soldiers with some radically different skill sets that upper management just doesn't grok. They can make new solutions faster than they can explain them.

Give the rifle companies a Visa card and a FedEx account and let them have at 'er.

I'm not one to disparage amateurs. Most folks tend to look at one element of the definition of that word, but there s another:

a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid rather than a professional basis.

At one time all Olympic athletes were amateurs.

The issue that you are glossing over, however, is how to take a "hobbyist" activity and scale it up on an industrial level. This war has been going on for years and Ukrainians have, very fortunately, fought for the time to scale up their industry. That has taken hobbyists, money, an industrial base that could be leveraged. Add to that the fact that Ukrainians are not a stupid or lazy people and the fact that they are fighting for their survival.

Enthusiasm will only take you so far. When you look at the American tech industry, which for the most part started off as hobbyists working in their garages and basements, you see the same thread. But only a few became Apple and Microsoft and Amazon.

When ideas need to move to scale you need specialization and a trained workforce and all the TTPs to make things work in the field. A Visa card and a Fedex account won't do it. But you do need a system that is agile and progressive. That's what is wrong with most Western armies. Their conservatism and risk aversion won't let them get there . . . at scale. That's why I laughed when I saw a reference in ONSF to a "more agile defence procurement system." To be more agile you need to be agile in the first place. We haven't been and I seriously doubt that we ever will be. It's not in our nature.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not one to disparage amateurs. Most folks tend to look at one element of the definition of that word, but there s another:



At one time all Olympic athletes were amateurs.

The issue that you are glossing over, however, is how to take a "hobbyist" activity and scale it up on an industrial level. This war has been going on for years and Ukrainians have, very fortunately, fought for the time to scale up their industry. That has taken hobbyists, money, an industrial base that could be leveraged. Add to that the fact that Ukrainians are not a stupid or lazy people and the fact that they are fighting for their survival.

Enthusiasm will only take you so far. When you look at the American tech industry, which for the most part started off as hobbyists working in their garages and basements, you see the same thread. But only a few became Apple and Microsoft and Amazon.

When ideas need to move to scale you need specialization and a trained workforce and all the TTPs to make things work in the field. A Visa card and a Fedex account won't do it. But you do need a system that is agile and progressive. That's what is wrong with most Western armies. Their conservatism and risk aversion won't let them get there . . . at scale. That's why I laughed when I saw a reference in ONSF to a "more agile defence procurement system." To be more agile you need to be agile in the first place. We haven't been and I seriously doubt that we ever will be. It's not in our nature.

I agree with you, as usual, but....

No matter how bright the CDS may be she only has one brain.

She has available to her 130,000 civvy, reg and res brains working all her problems on a daily basis.

Those brains need to be given the freedom to explore their "one-off" solutions on the company nickel without crashing into mountains of blubber.

There is no sense scaling up anything if it doesn't work or is obsolete.

The Ukrainians are constantly upgrading that which they receive through their system.

Every now and then they produce a large batch but they never seem to surrender to stasis and declare that this is the standardized, codified, ossified item which will be made available to them for the next three decades.

Bureaucracies don't innovate. And suggestion boxes are inadequate.

People need 80% commonality but they have to be free to apply some originality to the last 20%.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Extra bodies to help clear out a heavy urban area?

'Dismounted' Infantry, yes.

Light Infantry? Not without extensive support, as the 'Blackhawk Down' episode showed us.

Even in Northern Ireland, a classic light/COIN role, in the cities we had armoured vehicles to deploy the troops and to protect them while they were on the ground.