Reserve Training

[FJAG]

Cavalry in TAPVs is already a failed experiment.

Why?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Cavalry in TAPVs is already a failed experiment.

Somehow that does not surprise me at all.
Does have even a clue as to why they were ever purchased ?
I have over the years heard a least a half dozen reasons not one of them made any sense whatsoever.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Why?

IIRC for the same reason that the camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Defining the TAPV​

Perhaps because of its dual role, it might take some time before the Army fully defines how it plans to employ the TAPV. While the original intent had been to acquire the vehicle for infantry and armoured reconnaissance units and the light battalions, the TAPV is not an infantry fighting vehicle.

Defining the TAPV | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

 

[markppcli]

Why?

Well it’s proclivity for lighting itself on fire while simultaneously locking its doors aside; it’s size, armament, and mobility make it ill suited for reconnaissance or direct engagements. It’s good for what it was built for, providing a platform for mobile patrols in low to mid intensity conflict areas.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well it’s proclivity for lighting itself on fire while simultaneously locking its doors aside; it’s size, armament, and mobility make it ill suited for reconnaissance or direct engagements. It’s good for what it was built for, providing a platform for mobile patrols in low to mid intensity conflict areas.

Airfield perimeter control for the win!

 

[markppcli]

Airfield perimeter control for the win!

If we were giving them to a Canadian version of the RAF Regiment I’d be all for it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If we were giving them to a Canadian version of the RAF Regiment I’d be all for it.

Wait, we still have LIBs right?

 

[GK .Dundas]

If we were giving them to a Canadian version of the RAF Regiment I’d be all for it.

Just what do you have against the Airforce anyway?

 

[FJAG]

Wait, we still have LIBs right?

That's were my mind is drifting.

Too bad. I was kind of seeing the TAPV as something to build a cavalry regiment around (with the addition of a few more high end weapon stations) It's height has always been problematic but I can see where that adds to its mine resistance.

In my stubbornness I might just leave it in my napkin force in the cavalry role at least for phase 1. Whenever I play with this I look to a) what do we have that will work perfectly in its role; b) what do we have that can be made to work in a given role; c) what do we have that absolutely needs to be replaced (either now or later); and d) what don't we have that is vital and needs to be acquired.

I see the TAPV as a b) with cavalry now and LIB later when it's replaced by something better in the cavalry (not Ajax).

 

[Brad Sallows]

Calvary.

Hallelujah. Amen.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we ever do cavalry, I'd hope we do it properly. Start by learning from the US, who seem to have a particular suite of equipments they favour.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just what do you have against the Airforce anyway?

 

[dapaterson]

The Air Force is the next best thing to being in the military.

 

[markppcli]

If we ever do cavalry, I'd hope we do it properly. Start by learning from the US, who seem to have a particular suite of equipments they favour.

Do they though? Because what defines a Cav Squadron in the US Army is nebulous. ACR vs Cav Bn for example

 

[FJAG]

Do they though? Because what defines a Cav Squadron in the US Army is nebulous. ACR vs Cav Bn for example

There's no wonder why Cavalry is a nebulous term in the US.

There is a distinction between the cavalry function and the titles of units.

For example, every BCT has a cavalry squadron (battalion) which perform reconnaissance and security functions as set out in FM 3-98. Like all US battalion sized units each BCT squadron belongs to an "administrative" Regiment. For example, the 1st Cavalry Regiment now has its 1st Sqn as an armoured Cavalry Sqn with the 2 ABCT of 1st Armd Div while it's 2nd Sqn is the Recce and STA squadron of the 1st IBCT of 4th Inf Div. The 6th Cavalry Regiment provides Air Cavalry Squadrons to four separate divisional Combat Aviation Brigades.

On the other hand, several "Armoured Cavalry Regiments" have been converted to "Cavalry Regiments" (brigades) that are organized and equipped basically as Stryker BCTs (e.g. 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments) or Abrams and Bradley equipped Armored BCTs (for example the Idaho ARNG 116th Cavalry BCT).

As such a given "cavalry squadron" can be anything from a Stryker battalion, a combined arms battalion or one of various different types of reconnaissance and security battalions including aviation units.

I think in discussing the term cavalry for Canada's purposes we are discussing what are in essence the reconnaissance regiments of the CMBG and comparing them to the cavalry squadron in an IBCT, SBCT or ABCT. Tactically and organizationally speaking we should be looking at their roles as set out in FM 3-98. What must be remembered, however, is the current difference in equipment as between Canada's Recce Regts and the BCT cavalry squadron. In particular, the addition of an Abrams tank company with the ABCT Cav Sqn and an Wpns Tp (of 12 MGS and 9 ATGM) with the SBCT Cav Sqn. The IBCT Cav Sqn is basically dismounted scouts or ones mounted in HMMWVs.

I'm not advocating adoption of their organization or doctrine but merely to look at them for research to see what direction Canada might wish to go. Similarly there is a lot to be learned from the deep strike concept in the UK. With what we're seeing in the Ukraine as to the use of ATGMs and GBAD there seems to be room for a more robust role for a properly equipped cavalry in the defence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What I'm thinking of is, how much do you expect them to fight while conducting cavalry-oriented missions? Enough to require tanks, IFVs, and aviation?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What I'm thinking of is, how much do you expect them to fight while conducting cavalry-oriented missions? Enough to require tanks, IFVs, and aviation?

The principles of 'reinforce success' suggest that they need to be backed up if they find/punch a way through.

 

[FJAG]

What I'm thinking of is, how much do you expect them to fight while conducting cavalry-oriented missions? Enough to require tanks, IFVs, and aviation?

Whatever we may have thought cavalry should be doing; we're relearning it right now from what's going on in Ukraine.

There'll be some lessons coming out of what the Brits are doing with deep strike as well.

I'm not thinking tanks and IFV's - that's more the guard battle.

I'm more thinking recce, anti-armour missiles, deep strike artillery including UCAVs and loitering munitions. Maybe aviation but I'm not to sure we need to risk them that far forward with armed UCAVs/loitering munitions available. If it pans out well it might replace the guard battle. We've got a lot of learning to do.

 

[OceanBonfire]

Army Soldier Readiness Policy - Reserve [SRP-R]:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504110254295969796

https://twitter.com/x/status/1533524055487172608

 

[daftandbarmy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1533524055487172608

Thank you, CAF, for defining the lowest common denominator and helping us escalate the 'race to the bottom' before you have clearly articulated the preferred standard e.g., parade 30+ days per year and be ready to 'kick ass' on order.

Now COs and Bde Comds can officially spend more time on Freedom of the City parades and other similar ego building junkets, where they can grab self-aggrandizing media coverage with their troops in the background, as opposed to building a truly combat ready Reserve force