• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Related thoughts

Static defence and base defence.
Here I see a role for tracks as well.
But uncrewed tracks.

Rather than fixing guns, missiles and radars in place, allowing the enemy to template them and requiring crews to move to them to service them, allow them to move.

Put them on tracks and allow them to move from hangar to firing position and back. Protect the hangar. Control them from the FCS. Comms would be a mixture of redundant means, both fixed an free air.

They do not need to be armoured but they do need to go everywhere on base regardless of mud, marsh or snow.
 
I still don't get the difference, or the rationale apart from copying the US military, between Armd Cav and the capabilities of other kinds of 'combined arms' Armd forces.... sorry ;)


The Armoured Cavalry Commander​



Manoeuvre as the Corps Raison d’Être

The War in Ukraine provides us a modern example of how attrition focused warfare quickly results in a stalemate, costing an unfathomable loss of life and resources. The historical solution to this has been manoeuvre warfare through which operations are planned to seek to defeat the enemy by shattering their moral and physical cohesion – their ability to fight as an effective, coordinated whole – rather than by destroying him physically through incremental attrition (paraphrased from our Canadian Land Operations doctrine). Reviewing the principles of manoeuvre warfare, it is evident why Armoured Cavalry is so well suited. However, to refine the scope of change needed within the RCAC at the tactical level, it is important to note that Mission Type Orders focus on the effects to be achieved.

The ACRIB defines manoeuvre as the “employment of forces on the battlefield through movement in combination with fire, or fire potential, to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission. Although manoeuvre incorporates both fire and movement, it is distinct. For [armoured] forces, manoeuvre is cunning actions taken whose intent is to achieve a relative advantage.”3 The Armoured Cavalry TTP further explains that “the purpose of armoured cavalry today is to provide the Canadian Army (CA) with a versatile, agile, rapid, and lethal manoeuvre force. The armoured cavalry commander must possess initiative, flexibility, quick thinking, and a high degree of adaptability to employ their crews in the full spectrum of offensive, defensive, stability and enabling tasks.”4

However, there has been a CA fixation on the Advance To Contact and Hasty Attack as the combined arms “manoeuvre”, “offensive” operation. Over the years, many mechanized brigades, battle groups, and armoured squadrons have participated in multiple iterations of Ex MAPLE RESOLVE and Ex COMMON GROUND. These mounted forces would always conduct these operations by occupying wide and vast battlespaces with the comfort of the linear contiguous area of operations (AO) mindset. This comfort meaning that in a linear contiguous AO, ideally flanking forces are advancing in symmetry; thus, the threat is always to the front. As such, we pay lip service to rear and flank security, as we fight this attrition style warfare.

By reshaping how the Armoured Cavalry Commander understands and achieves manoeuvre, the RCAC can capitalize its new breadth of doctrinal utility.

 
I still don't get the difference, or the rationale apart from copying the US military, between Armd Cav and the capabilities of other kinds of 'combined arms' Armd forces.... sorry ;)
Don’t forget ‘but on a budget’.

The Armoured Cavalry TTP further explains that “the purpose of armoured cavalry today is to provide the Canadian Army (CA) with a versatile, agile, rapid, and lethal manoeuvre force.​

4 lies for the price of one.
 
Back
Top