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

[daftandbarmy]

I strongly suspect that the Infantry Corps will insert themselves into a IFV variant if only for 2-3 BN.


Assault Troop wasn’t like a true Mech Inf entity, it was more a close support, local security, mud Recce, Pioneer type entity.

Frankly I’ve come to the belief that Canada needs to create a Calvary Crew trade. Leave the RCAC to the MBT’s, but have the MCAV crewed and commanded by a new trade. Use Infantry as security GIB’s, Snipers, Mud Recce, Mortars, Pioneers and drag in some Engineer SNCO’s for Engineering Recce aspects.

That would to me be the best COA, I’d also have that same MCAV trade crew the Infantry IFV’s, as it allows the Infantry trade to focus in dismounted operations - and allows the MCAV trade to focus on Cav tasks and fighting the vehicle in a Infantry/Armour BG/Combat team or even Combined Arms Battalion.

As @FJAG already pointed out the ABCT’s here are generally pure tracks - the only wheels are logistics vehicles, and some LTV’s as rovers.
MRAP’s were TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) and used in areas that didn’t require a Bradley or Abrams. Apparently even during the drunken sailor GWOT spending days the cost of running ABCT’s for non kinetic purposes was too high.

France used to have tracked IFV’s, with their MBT’s back when they focused on Europe and LSCO. The AMX-56 Leclerc is undergoing a modernization program into the Leclerc XLR, recently increased to 200 units. Oddly the XLR is heavier, going the opposite direction of most other NATO countries. That said it is a simple stopgap, with only 40 new hulls being added. France is/was partnered with KNDS for a Franco/German next gen AFV, which In addition to the MBT plans to have an IFV variant amongst the 5 non MBT variants, that apparently would be used to recreate a Heavy Armored Division for front line service in Europe , while their wheeled fleets would be then more for Africa and non Peer/Near Peer LSCO.

The more I think about this Canadian program and the time frame, it will allow a lot of the newest ‘concept’ programs to actually have vehicles that are past prototype stage and into at least LRIP.

Most nations that have adopted Medium Wheeled fleets have quickly come to the conclusion that they are too heavy to easily deploy, and not heavy enough to fight front line combat. Resulting in the reduction of their fleets.

I truly believe that the UK will eventually see the Boxer is not the end all be all, and increase their AJAX or go to a truly next gen CFV/IFV for a much larger portion of their forces.

Or just make 'cavalry' a role for the Infantry and rotate battalions through that tasking as required after a suitable work up period.

In my tiny little mind, it's not rocket surgery...

 

[FJAG]

Frankly I’ve come to the belief that Canada needs to create a Calvary Crew trade.

That's really self evident. The problem is that the RCAC is too small to support two separate career paths. It has to come to grips with a single trade with specialities. The artillery is also facing that wall with guns, rockets, STA and air defence. We ran air defence as a separate career stream once and my money is on the fact we will again. STA will become interesting once people become real about LMs. HIMARS can probably exist as a sub trade within guns especially if it is turned over to the ARes.

Most nations that have adopted Medium Wheeled fleets have quickly come to the conclusion that they are too heavy to easily deploy, and not heavy enough to fight front line combat.

"Quickly?" I believe that they've been dragged kicking and screaming into that reality since around 2003 or so and for some organizations the fiction of medium armour roaming freely along the autobahns is still their definition of strategic mobility.

I truly believe that the UK will eventually see the Boxer is not the end all be all, and increase their AJAX or go to a truly next gen CFV/IFV for a much larger portion of their forces.

If and when they get over their $5 billion boondoggle and have recapitalized their navy and air force.

 

[KevinB]

That's really self evident. The problem is that the RCAC is too small to support two separate career paths.

Not if you have ~150 bodies from 4 Mech Inf BN as well, some from other arms units as well Let’s say there is at least 1.5k RegF positions.
At a 10% intake that is 150 students a year plus PRes.
Honestly I wouldn’t have it under the RCAC or the RCIC, but its own RCCavC. Created from a group of Armour and Infantry. Tankers going to tank, and the RCAC has had a tendency to view everything as a MBT or MBT trainer for decades.

It has to come to grips with a single trade with specialities. The artillery is also facing that wall with guns, rockets, STA and air defence. We ran air defence as a separate career stream once and my money is on the fact we will again.

ADA is a separate trade. It needs to be, it at the NCM and O levels is entirely different than field artillery.

STA will become interesting once people become real about LMs. HIMARS can probably exist as a sub trade within guns especially if it is turned over to the ARes.

STA to me is a mix of MI and Arty, with a link to the ADA/TACP for airspace control. Frankly the ISTAR role could be a different trade in the MI field.

"Quickly?" I believe that they've been dragged kicking and screaming into that reality since around 2003 or so and for some organizations the fiction of medium armour roaming freely along the autobahns is still their definition of strategic mobility.

Quickly is relative.
We still have Strykers even though we are struggling to find a role for them outside of COIN.

If and when they get over their $5 billion boondoggle and have recapitalized their navy and air force.

My cardinal rule since the mid 90’s has been to look at what the British Army do, and then do a 180