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

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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.

The Armoured Cavalry Commander

The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps’ (RCAC) shift to Armoured Cavalry aims to reenvision armour as a key manoeuvre force on the battlefield. Previously, the RCAC provided very task based sub-units for brigade reconnaissance or to form combat teams to, ultimately, support infantry battle groups by...

www.canada.ca

 

[KevinB]

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.

 

[FJAG]

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.

This has been true for decades and is based on the reality that a) we usually are exercising just a battlegroup or, at best, a rump brigade; and b) that an offensive operation can't operate with just a battlegroup or rump brigade because it would very quickly be hammered to crap from the flanks as it penetrates as neither of these groupings have enough combat power to protect their own flanks - thus we have a notional allied force on the flanks.

Perhaps this is a lesson to remember when we are creating our own "division" as a division ought to be capable, by and of itself, of conducting offensive penetrating operations.

That said, I find the article somewhat limited. I was expecting to read about "cavalry" and all I saw was "tanks." I can't help but think that maybe the Brits had it right in the '30s with "infantry" tanks and "cruiser" tanks . . . or the Germans with "panzer" and "Sturmgeschutz." I can't help but get back to the feeling that there needs to be a tactical grouping where some "tanks" work in close harmony with predominantly infantry combined arms battalions providing them with direct fire support to what are essentially infantry-based, concentrated hard slogging fights and a separate tactical grouping of mixed forces where "armour" predominates but which is designed for the rapid offensive and defensive type of warfare characterized by more open spaces and wide-ranging manoeuvre.

For the former, I can see infantry-heavy combined arms battalions of light or medium infantry supported by some form of direct fire "tank company" and CS artillery while for the latter I see a combined arms cavalry regiment with a mixture of medium-weight sensor systems, "tank-destroyers," medium to heavy infantry in IFVs, their own organic indirect fire support as well as access to long-range fires (including UAV surveillance and loitering munitions). Both would be supported by engineers configured appropriately for their specific tasks. The first should form the core of the division's manoeuvre brigades while the latter should be a divisional asset tightly tied in with the division's artillery brigade. (I wouldn't go quite so far as having them organic to the arty bde like the Brit's Deep Recce Strike bde but close to that in operational concept)

What I can't see is a single armoured corps organizational structure that is equipment agnostic and does both roles. I think it's past time to see the division as our basic tactical entity where all arms and services are combined and to tailor it with the most efficient units to fulfill its role. We need to stop fiddling with platoons and troops except as tiny pieces of the whole.

 

[Kirkhill]

Latvia Completes Delivery of the Patria 6x6 Armored Vehicles for Ukraine's Special Operations Forces | Defense Express

Latvia has fulfilled its promise to transfer 42 Patria 6x6 armored personnel carriers to Ukraine, with the final batch officially handed over at the Ādaži military base

en.defence-ua.com

42 6x6 Patrias in three batches, July, September, November.
Stanag 2 to 4.
12.7mm hatch with a shield.
15.5 tonnes dry
21.5 tonnes amphibious
22 to 24 tonnes combat.

 

[MilEME09]

So this doubles for the tanks, but the combined RFI for both MCAV and HDFM were just released. Noah does a good summery

Breaking: HDFM & MCAV RFI Released

Project Update

www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca

but it you want to read it your self here

Request for Information – Heavy Direct Fire Modernization (HDFM) and Medium Cavalry Vehicle (MCAV) Projects - Tender Notice | CanadaBuys

The Department of National Defence is requesting information to exploring options for upgrading or replacing the Canadian Army (CA) armoured vehicle fleets. This RFI is issued to request information from industry to support Options Analysis activities and preliminary project definition activities.

canadabuys.canada.ca

 

[Kirkhill]

So this doubles for the tanks, but the combined RFI for both MCAV and HDFM were just released. Noah does a good summery

Breaking: HDFM & MCAV RFI Released

Project Update

www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca

but it you want to read it your self here

Request for Information – Heavy Direct Fire Modernization (HDFM) and Medium Cavalry Vehicle (MCAV) Projects - Tender Notice | CanadaBuys

The Department of National Defence is requesting information to exploring options for upgrading or replacing the Canadian Army (CA) armoured vehicle fleets. This RFI is issued to request information from industry to support Options Analysis activities and preliminary project definition activities.

canadabuys.canada.ca

Aye, we're serious right enough.

RFP in four years. Delivery in 5 to 10.

 

[MilEME09]

Aye, we're serious right enough.

RFP in four years. Delivery in 5 to 10.

The UOR clause for MCAV is interesting, and would see 30 vehicles by 2030 if used.

 

[Kirkhill]

Based on Noah's take it seems as if the preferred solution is something like the CV90 with the upper end being the 38 tonne variant with a 120mm being the Heavy Direct Fire option.

 

[MilEME09]

Based on Noah's take it seems as if the preferred solution is something like the CV90 with the upper end being the 38 tonne variant with a 120mm being the Heavy Direct Fire option.

yeah but putting both RFI together and seeking compatibility, that tells me we are looking at a K2/Redback or a Panther/Lynx option

 

[Underway]

yeah but putting both RFI together and seeking compatibility, that tells me we are looking at a K2/Redback or a Panther/Lynx option

Does Lynx have a lot of commonality with the Panther?

 

[PrairieFella]

Based on Noah's take it seems as if the preferred solution is something like the CV90 with the upper end being the 38 tonne variant with a 120mm being the Heavy Direct Fire option.

That is a bad idea. Just because its got a 120mm doesnt mean it can be used as a tank per our doctrine.

 

[FJAG]

That is a bad idea. Just because its got a 120mm doesnt mean it can be used as a tank per our doctrine.

I don't think that there is any intent to use a 105mm armed MCAV as a "tank" per se. I see a clear difference in their roles.

OTOH, I do wonder if there is a need to field two different direct fire support vehicles - one heavy one medium. In other words is the difference in price tag per vehicle worth running two different parts/maintenance/ammo/training lines. If we're buying 2 regiments worth of MCAVs and two of HDFM then we're talking maybe 150 vehicles of each. I've seen figures for a Lynx at roughly $15 million and the same roughly for a Panther KF 51 (cheaper than Leo 2s). Even if there was a $5 million per vehicle cost difference that would only come up to $750 million for the fleet which would probably be offset down stream by a simplified maintenance, training, ammunition etc regime.

That would also leave us with one basic line of IFV/APC/ACSV tracked vehicles to round out both the armoured infantry and cav support vehicles. (I would have added SP arty but I think that ship might have sailed)

The only real question is will a heavier HDFM do the job we expect an MCAV to do?

 

[KevinB]

I don't think that there is any intent to use a 105mm armed MCAV as a "tank" per se. I see a clear difference in their roles.

OTOH, I do wonder if there is a need to field two different direct fire support vehicles - one heavy one medium. In other words is the difference in price tag per vehicle worth running two different parts/maintenance/ammo/training lines. If we're buying 2 regiments worth of MCAVs and two of HDFM then we're talking maybe 150 vehicles of each. I've seen figures for a Lynx at roughly $15 million and the same roughly for a Panther KF 51 (cheaper than Leo 2s). Even if there was a $5 million per vehicle cost difference that would only come up to $750 million for the fleet which would probably be offset down stream by a simplified maintenance, training, ammunition etc regime.

I had thought from previous discussions the numbers for MCAV was ~500 and HDFM ~250 no?

That would also leave us with one basic line of IFV/APC/ACSV tracked vehicles to round out both the armoured infantry and cav support vehicles. (I would have added SP arty but I think that ship might have sailed)

Gunners moved H Hour ahead without telling anyone again

The only real question is will a heavier HDFM do the job we expect an MCAV to do?

HDFM has some pretty specific attachment modules. I do not see the HDFM being the same platform as MCAV, short of a Merkava/Namer consortium popping up in Montreal. I see that as the true MBT role still, and the 80bridge class leaves a lot of room for pretty much any current MBT OEM to pony up to the bar with a slightly upgraded variant.
So:
Leo A8
M1E3 (assumably M1A3 by the end of this year)
K-51 Panther
Challenger 3, if BAE is still in the business of building hulls (all the UK 3's are simply reworked 2's)
K-2 Black Panther


There is zero way a CV-90 type vehicle will be able to do the HDFM, nor should it be expected too.

• The MICLIC launcher takes a 60t tracked vehicle to be able to do the task - and the newer MICLIC prototypes are even larger/heavier for the larger and longer clearance paths desired.
• Dozer Blade, Mine Roller, and Mine Plough generally also require a 50t or greater platform to do the tasks with any degree of use.

Honestly I read that and think the M1E3 Abrams and the GDLS XM-30 MICV are currently the closest to fitting into the desired footprint of HDFM and MCAV.
One may also find a convenient way for GDLS to finagle MICV into LAV-ASC, or at least a lot of cross compatible components.

Now granted that we in America are not exactly on the Christmas card list right now - the Lynx/K-51 Panther options are pretty close, I don't see the Redback K-2 BlackPanther as viable - albeit this is an RFI, and the 2030 RFP date could see some sort of Polish K-2 based IFV/CFV in NATO service.

 

[Underway]

I had thought from previous discussions the numbers for MCAV was ~500 and HDFM ~250 no?

Gunners moved H Hour ahead without telling anyone again

HDFM has some pretty specific attachment modules. I do not see the HDFM being the same platform as MCAV, short of a Merkava/Namer consortium popping up in Montreal. I see that as the true MBT role still, and the 80bridge class leaves a lot of room for pretty much any current MBT OEM to pony up to the bar with a slightly upgraded variant.
So:
Leo A8
M1E3 (assumably M1A3 by the end of this year)
K-51 Panther
Challenger 3, if BAE is still in the business of building hulls (all the UK 3's are simply reworked 2's)
K-2 Black Panther


There is zero way a CV-90 type vehicle will be able to do the HDFM, nor should it be expected too.

• The MICLIC launcher takes a 60t tracked vehicle to be able to do the task - and the newer MICLIC prototypes are even larger/heavier for the larger and longer clearance paths desired.
• Dozer Blade, Mine Roller, and Mine Plough generally also require a 50t or greater platform to do the tasks with any degree of use.

Honestly I read that and think the M1E3 Abrams and the GDLS XM-30 MICV are currently the closest to fitting into the desired footprint of HDFM and MCAV.
One may also find a convenient way for GDLS to finagle MICV into LAV-ASC, or at least a lot of cross compatible components.

Now granted that we in America are not exactly on the Christmas card list right now - the Lynx/K-51 Panther options are pretty close, I don't see the Redback K-2 BlackPanther as viable - albeit this is an RFI, and the 2030 RFP date could see some sort of Polish K-2 based IFV/CFV in NATO service.

Isn't the Lynx competing in the MICV competition as well?

The RFI will also create some interesting team ups, I would not be surprised if say team CV90 combines forces with team Leopard. The timeline is long enough.

That being said they may just end up breaking these two into separate parts in the end.

 

[FJAG]

I had thought from previous discussions the numbers for MCAV was ~500 and HDFM ~250 no?

All I see right now is two regiments of each. I would dearly love a plan for more (based massively on reserves - after all, my plan calls for six mech brigades for Canada - two to deploy, one in reserve.) but not holding breath. From a domestic industry point of view we should aim for more.

Gunners moved H Hour ahead without telling anyone again

Gunners have learned to strike while the iron is hot as too often we've been screwed at the last minute by people who have no idea what guns are for.

HDFM has some pretty specific attachment modules. I do not see the HDFM being the same platform as MCAV, short of a Merkava/Namer consortium popping up in Montreal. I see that as the true MBT role still, and the 80bridge class leaves a lot of room for pretty much any current MBT OEM to pony up to the bar with a slightly upgraded variant.
So:
Leo A8
M1E3 (assumably M1A3 by the end of this year)
K-51 Panther
Challenger 3, if BAE is still in the business of building hulls (all the UK 3's are simply reworked 2's)
K-2 Black Panther

Those are my view of HDFM. My view of MCAV is actually more like a Lynx/K21/CV-90/AJAX supported by a whole lot of Lynx/K-21/CV-90/AJAX-based variants. I do not see carrying a gun above 50mm but many other systems including ATGMs, and LMs.

But, I'd rather see an HDFM in the DFS role for a CAV organization than a CV-90/105 or 120. I see an AJAX-like IFV with a smaller than 50mm being used as one while a CV-90/105 will end up being used as an ersatz HDFM which is just murder of your own troops. You might as well put a real HDFM into the cav org and then right the doctrine to support that.

There is zero way a CV-90 type vehicle will be able to do the HDFM, nor should it be expected too.

agreed

• The MICLIC launcher takes a 60t tracked vehicle to be able to do the task - and the newer MICLIC prototypes are even larger/heavier for the larger and longer clearance paths desired.
• Dozer Blade, Mine Roller, and Mine Plough generally also require a 50t or greater platform to do the tasks with any degree of use.

agreed again

Honestly I read that and think the M1E3 Abrams and the GDLS XM-30 MICV are currently the closest to fitting into the desired footprint of HDFM and MCAV.
One may also find a convenient way for GDLS to finagle MICV into LAV-ASC, or at least a lot of cross compatible components.

I see mixed wheeled and tracked brigades as undesirable but complimentary as separate brigades. I'm being pulled kicking and screaming with wheeled SPs as CS arty. I could tolerate that, however if 1 Div's manoeuvre brigades were all tracked and all of the LAVs went to designated 2 Div units (with the understanding that several brigades in 2 Div remained light wheeled.

Now granted that we in America are not exactly on the Christmas card list right now - the Lynx/K-51 Panther options are pretty close, I don't see the Redback K-2 BlackPanther as viable - albeit this is an RFI, and the 2030 RFP date could see some sort of Polish K-2 based IFV/CFV in NATO service.

From my point of view the important thing is that the chassis is robust, easy to maintain and capable of customization. I see the weapons systems and the netwroking syatems as add on items that can be chosen to suit the roles. What you can't compromise on is that the automotive condition of the fleet needs to be bang on - no more AJAX kerfuffle.