The Recce Sqn/Tp

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'll apologize ahead of time if this has been covered in another thread, but my search did not turn up a thread that matched.  The aim of this thread is to explore how the Recce Sqn and Tp should be organized and equipped.  I firmly believe that Recce is the future of the Armoured Corps and I'd like to bounce some ideas around.

What are your thoughts on the ideal orbat (keeping some kit realism in mind)?  How many Patrols should the Sqn have?  Is two eight car Tps better than three five car Tps?  Should the Coyotes and G-Wagons be mixed in the same Sqn?  What about composite Tps?

My own thoughts (admittedly from a guy with primarily tank experience) is that we should stick with the Coyote but add a Scout Tp.  I recognize that the Coyote has recce limitations, but it also has some virtues.  The Coyote is more flexible than many people give it credit for, and in my opinion it is more than a Surveillance vehicle.  Our Coyotes were in high demand from the various contingents in ISAF, and many of our tasks were not purely Surveillance.  The Coyote's protection, mobility and firepower allowed it a certain tactical self-sufficiancy and allowed to access some areas that other contigents had avoided.

My ideal Sqn would have two Coyote Recce Tps (each with three Patrols) and a Scout Tp with some kind of wheeled APC.  The Scout Tp would have four APCs (Bisons or perhaps LAV III) that would each carry four "Scouts".  The Scouts would conduct the dismounted recce of areas.  The Scout Tp could either operate en masse or be attached out to the Recce Tps.  I would also like to see a LAV TOW Tp attached to the Sqn.

Thoughts?

2B

 

[Horse_Soldier]

A couple of comments.  Neither the LAV3 nor the Bison are good for recce - too big and noisy.  We do our "scouting" via the sneak and peek method, so we need to be small and silent.  If you do your recce large and noisy, you need firepower and survivability - think US Armd Cav Regiments.  The Lynx, and before it the Ferret, were excellent recce vehicles - small, maneuvrable and relatively quiet.  The G-wagen, from the little I've seen of it (our unit isn't getting them before next fall) is likely to make a better "scout car" than the LAV or Bison - which isn't saying much, but you do your job with the tools at hand.  We did good work with the Iltis for fifteen years.

Positing a 4 car scout troop in a Coyote-heavy recce sqn doesn't do much for you.  That gives you a grand total of 2 patrols to do your scouting.  Start with the current 8 car troop and your're getting somewhere.  The Coyote is a fine vehicle, but it is primarily a surveillance platform - it does its best work in a static posture - and like the LAV3, it is not a good scouting platform (size/noise).  Reverse your proportions and think two-three scout troops of 8 cars and one "surveillance" troop with Coyotes - that gives you better mobility and "sneak&peek" capability.  You could even, if you wanted to, get your scout troops from the reserves, since that is what we specialize in.

Another option is to adapt a bit from the ACR platoon structure and mix your Coyote/LAV3 with your G-wagons within a troop, say a patrol of Coyotes to provide long-range detection/surveillance and an "oh-shit" 25mm (lighweight, but better than a C-6) punch to cover the 2-3 scout patrols if they have to extricate from a sticky situation.  This kind of set-up will give you maximum flexibility in a recce sqn of 3 recce troops - you can push out whatever troop you have at hand with the articulation already in place.  A TOW troop would be nice, but it kind of goes against our recce doctrine which is that we don't fight for our information, and TOW engagements are at a range where you would deliberately target the enemy.  It's not an "oh-shit" weapon.  I'd rather we get our support troop back.

 

[Recce41]

Well as a Recce guy for 90% of my time in. I feel I can add my 2 cents. First off, what kind of recce do you want?
Stelthy or fight for info? If it the old way, must of us know. To get in with the enemy, stelth would be the way to go. 3 ptls of 2 Luvws and a Tp HQ ptl. x 4 tps. This would give the flexibility of covering a large area with a tp in reserve. To do other recce tasks,such as RAS, screen or even just to fill the gaps.  Light Recce is the fastest. It cannot fight but can get in, get the imfo and get out.  If it is fighting for imfo. 3 troops of 3 ptls of 3 vehs and a Tp HQ ptl. The three would be a Tank or LAV 105 and 2 Coyotes. HQ ptl would be a Bison with a UAV and a Lav III CP. The Tank does not have to be a Heavy but ie Leo or even a Stingray type. It is there for one thing, support! Not to fight directly. Just to help the Coyotes, get in. To be the counter Recce role.

2Bravo, the CO and RSM spoke to us today (Fri). And it was brought up about the old style that B Sqn did. ON FOOT. I have found the the troops depend on that damn Surv kit. They have lost, the patroling spirit. Even in a veh, a good patrol can get in and find the enemy. The hunter spirit must come into play. On the DP3CC, ARSC, DP1 AO, RTLC I always pushed for the old style. For one it is a good and best way to tell. If the Patrol Commander is situationly aware. And a jr C/S is prepped to organize a OP base.
Well got to go.
:evil: :tank:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Horse Soldier,

I guess I should have elaborated on what the Scout Tp would do.  The two Coyote Recce Tps would conduct the bulk of the Recce (RAPZ) and the Scout Tp would be brought up to conduct dismounted recce as required by the terrain and situation.  Perhaps six patrols (each a 4 man team with a veh) would be better than four.  That way a Scout patrol could go with each Coyote patrol.  I picked the Bison as we have it now.  Once again, the Scouts would not be leading the Sqn except when dismounted.  A Coyote Patrol could come across an area that requires a more thorough and stealthy approach and then call up a Scout patrol to conduct the dismounted recce.  Personally I am not a fan of using the LUVW or any "jeep" for recce in situations where there might be enemy fire, but they may just be the tanker in me! 

As an aside, the US Cavalry use M3 Bradleys for their Scout Platoons in the Heavy Divsion Cavalry Troops and heavy ACR.  HUUMVWs are used in the Light Div Cav Sqns as well as the Light ACR (2nd ACR when I was in the States, it may have changed).  Some Light Cav Troops employ a "Scat" formation where TOW and Scout HMMVWs are mixed in the same platoons.  I do have that option in mind (the Sqn OC could attach Scout patrols and TOW to each Tp to make them as self-contained as possible).

I would TOW avaible in the Sqn not because I think that we should "fight for information", but because our opponents may actually try to destroy our Recce and we have assumed that battle away for years.  The TOWs would be there to get the Recce Tps out of contact, not necessarily to go hunting for enemy tanks to destroy.

Recce41,

I think that the stealthy vs fight for info technique depends as much on the enemy as it does on us.  We should always try for stealth but be prepared for contact.  I think that jeeps etc are a bit less "stealthy" than we give them credit for.  A moving LUVW or Iltis is far from invisible.  I worry about "light recce" once we are actually in a shooting war.  I'd be interested to try VBLs (or a North American built equivalent) as they have some protection.  Having worked closely with UAVs I am a bit skeptical about their employment at the Tp level but future developments may improve this capability.

I agree 100% that we need to work dismounted skills into our mounted recce.  We did this recently on the RCD Cav Cup (Jun 04) where Coyote Patrols set up a small patrol base and pushed out a dismounted patrol.  The usefulness of dismounted scouts is my rationale behind having the "Scout Tp" in APCs. 


Thanks to both of you for your observations and have a Merry Christmas,

2B

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Perhaps I should have named the thread "Is the Coyote a Recce Veh?", since one's answer to that question will have alot to do with a proposed Recce Sqn organization.  I am an admitted Coyote advocate but I do recognize the limitations.  It performed very well in ISAF carrying out a wide variety of roles and that may have biased my viewpoint.  Many still look back fondly at the Lynx, but I believe that the Coyote is now an operationally proven vehicle that is in high demand from our allies.  Time will tell with the LUVW, but it seems rather large (particularily its height) to try to claim a "stealth" moniker.

I'll most likely be off these means for the next week or so.  I am liking the idea of the 3 vehicle patrol, and I would also like to get more dedicated dismounted scouts into our Sqns.  I also like the idea of mixed Tps/Ptls to give the Patrol Commander a variety of tactical options without needing to regroup on the fly.  I doubt very much that Assault Troop will return, but perhaps we could fight to get a recce tp that travels in protected vehicles but conducts its business dismounted (and I think that Armoured Recce soldiers should be the ones doing that).

Perhaps a three vehicle Patrol that consists of a Coyote, an AT platform and a small APC/AFV that can carry four dismounted scouts?  Perhaps try using Command Variants to carry two dismounts?  A Patrol could then kick out a dismounted patrol while still having full crews for the vehicle (somewhat like the US model.  They do not employ Scout vehicles that carry less than five for this reason).  >

Do you guys think that the MGS could have a place in the Recce Sqn?

I also recognize the issue of how to integrate the Reserves into the equation.  The LUVW Tp attached to a Coyote Sqn does make a nice fit, but I'd much rather see them in a better protected vehicle with better optics.  This is an issue that the Corps is going to have to come to grips with.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Infanteer]

A disclaimer - I've had very limited exposure to armoured recce;other then yelling at an entire Troop that motored through my cordon once, I've learned everything from reading what you guys have to say, so bear with me.

Well as a Recce guy for 90% of my time in. I feel I can add my 2 cents. First off, what kind of recce do you want?
Stelthy or fight for info?

This seems to make alot of sense.   Do you guys think that this demands two separate vehicles to fulfill each role?   As well, should the recce element be proportional to the force it works for (ie: The LAV-variants work well for a light "Cavalry" force, but a Bradley or an Abrams tank may be more appropriate for a heavy force).

I have found the the troops depend on that damn Surv kit. They have lost, the patroling spirit. Even in a veh, a good patrol can get in and find the enemy. The hunter spirit must come into play. On the DP3CC, ARSC, DP1 AO, RTLC I always pushed for the old style. For one it is a good and best way to tell. If the Patrol Commander is situationly aware.

Perhaps this is where the whole "Cavalry" ideal may be an advantage if extends beyond mere organizational changes - doctrinally it can move the Armoured and Mechanized forces from using vehicles as a crutch.   Like good Horse Cav of old, they have to be proficient both on and off their mounts....

Cheers,

Infanteer (who drives Black Cadillacs....)

PS: Going from what I understand here, perhaps these are two good candidates for "Scout Cars" for working in conjuncion with Coyote Recce vehicles....

 

[bgreen]

Great Discussion...,

Although you are discussing the recce troop keep in mind that the real functional unit of recce is the sqn as the eyes and ears of a Bde Comd or BG.  Also in the current missions overseas we are using a recce sqn in the plug and play way we are assembling our mission elements.

The CRV (Beamer) is a step up from the Iltis. I was raised on 5 and 7 car tps but I believe if you have the vehs an 8 car tp would increase your capability and reserve (something which we have little of).

But the point I really want to make is one for the Assault troop of the recce sqn.  Because the sqn operates well in advance of Bde resources it requires in my opinion some consideration for intrinsic eng/inf/anti-armour sp.  The assaulters had this in spades.  Senior recce troopers and gung-ho M/cpls that were adept at both fighting patrols, ambushes in the delay, snatch teams, long range recce patrols from an OP screen or flank with the added capability of clearing rtes through minefields or delaying the same were excellent capabilities that a sqn comd could count on.

I would argue that because of our forward deployment in the adv, or our RAS and NBCD survey work we need this specialized troop of 40 individuals.

Comments?
BG

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bill,

I agree wholeheartedly. It's probably the worst mistake the army made for the Armoured Recce. It rates right up there with the loss of our heavy direct fire, roller and plough capability. This is a decision that's going to come back and haunt them in spades. I'm waiting for the first large Brigade ex where the Commanders start to realize what they've lost. Unfortunately they've let this resource go and by the time they realize they need it, it'll take years to regain it. The higher ups at the Conferences have an incumbent duty to not back down from the bean counters and "Just Say NO". If these assets were needed up ahead, we had the capability of doing it ourselves, with little delay or burden on the system. Now we'll have to waste resources and thin screens, etc in order to escort the Eng and other assets forward all the while providing security while they do their tasks. Classic rob Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Infanteer]

It's probably the worst mistake the army made for the Armoured Recce. It rates right up there with the loss of our heavy direct fire, roller and plough capability....Classic rob Peter to pay Paul.

Funny, I said the exact same thing regarding the loss of the intergral mortar, pioneer, and AA assets for the Infantry Battalion.

Seems us Infantry types aren't the only victims of stovepiping....

 

[Garry]

I've done Recce from a Lynx, Kiowa, and by foot- and they all have advantages and disadvantages. I've also advanced to contact in Leopards, and imho that is the way to conduct a Recce.

One big advantage to sneak and peek recce is that if we're sucessful, whatever prosecution our info brings may well come as a surprise to the enemy. It's a time consuming endeavour, and dangerous. It also assumes a slow rate of advance, and planned battles. NOT the way for an Armoured Force to act. Speed, firepower, violence. Take and maitain the initiative. We now fight as an ally to the single largest fighting force ever assembled (US) and (again, imho) we may as well plan to augment their force. MBT's, advancing to contact, is the way ahead.

The Recce Sqn has more on it's plate though- and for this I'd like to see the Lynx concept revisited. Small, reasonably quiet, and most importantly mobile.

An od friend once told me "Army vehicles have tracks".  He's right.

Cheers-Garry

 

[Infanteer]

I've done Recce from a Lynx, Kiowa, and by foot- and they all have advantages and disadvantages. I've also advanced to contact in Leopards, and imho that is the way to conduct a Recce.

The US ACR's seem to do it this way.  8)

One big advantage to sneak and peek recce is that if we're sucessful, whatever prosecution our info brings may well come as a surprise to the enemy. It's a time consuming endeavour, and dangerous. It also assumes a slow rate of advance, and planned battles. NOT the way for an Armoured Force to act. Speed, firepower, violence. Take and maitain the initiative.

That, my friend, is something I fear we've overlooked.  With doctrine trying to cut-and-paste a maneuverist approach, how do we tend to graft a method of information gathering that requires sensory input (and the rationalization of action that follows) as opposed to recce by fire (which assumes a rapid advance to destroy cohesion).

Are we receding from the concept of "Reconnaissance Pull" to one of "Command Push"?

 

[a_majoor]

I cooked this up with the help of some local Armoured people, and it seems to make sense, and in the fully developed form, does not require too much new kit:

1. Armoured Recce tp (L) 10 vehicles (G-Wagons for now, VBL/EAGLE/Fennick ideal) arranged in 3X3car patrols, and a separate Tp Leader car

Each patrol is configured with a "Surveillance" car under the patrol commander mounting a very abbrieviated surveillance kit (NODLER and laser range finder for a really bare bones G-Wagon version). This car scans the local area and provides guidence to a "Scout" car which carries a dismountable patrol to investigate contacts, as well as the ability to call in strikes by attached IF and DF assets. The third car is the "Overwatch" car, mounting heavy weapons to protect the troop and allow them to break contact. If we have Fennicks or VBLs, turret mounted HMG's and AGLs would be the weapons of choice., but even C-6 and a dismountable Javelin/ERYX team can be accomodated by a G-Wagon.

2.  Armoured Recce Sqn. Two troops of light recce, a surveillance troop of Coyotes which lay back and provide overall guidance to the advancing troops (Investigate contact GR 123456...), and the Assault troop for close protection, light engineering tasks or to help fight the counter recce battle.

There are many variations possible in this set up. If the surveillance of the Coyotes is good enough, then there could be two patrol cars per light troop. Alternatively, the surveillance vehicles could be coupled to responsive coverage by IF or DF weapons, reducing the need for the armed overwatch car (although I wouldn't want to be the one trying that).

This is still more in line with "sneak and peek" recce, but has mounted mobility to permit mechanized rates of advance, and is flexible enough for PSO and "3 Block War" scenarios as well. This also fits into the current Armoured structure, with Militia regiments able to raise the light troops, and the regulars the surveillance troops and assault troop in the Recce Sqn.

 

[Kirkhill]

Art

Aren't there enough vehicles out there (you mention some of them) that could carry Observation kit, Vehicle mounted man-portable weapons AND a pair of dismount scouts that you could get the light job done with two-car patrols with two drivers, two gunners (one of them Ptl Comd or Ptl 2ic) and 4 scouts (one of them Ptl Comd or Ptl 2ic)?

 

[a_majoor]

That was an early take on the idea, but my black hat friends were very clear there needs to be at least one more car per patrol. If the lead car gets whacked doing a route recce in a two car patrol, it is "endex", while the three car patrol can continue , piquet or pull out, depending on the patrol commander's assessment.

Not all the cars have to be from the same family, although logistically it makes more sense. The "Scout" car could be built on a bigger chassis to carry a mounted patrol and give them stowage space for lots of extra kit, although the lack of a turret or surveillance suite would free up lots of room inside the basic vehicle as well.

I'm sure the Black Hatters reading this will back me up, but the most damaging change to the Armoured recce trade was the drop from 7 car troops to 5 car troops, the lack of flexibility really hurt. Illtis/G-wagon 8 car troops are a step in the right direction, the nine car model gives a bit more capability at a modest price.

 

[Recce41]

A 8 car troop is the way we are going. No more will the troop leader go around by himself. There will/maybe 3 ptls of Coyotes and 1 HQ ptl Coyote/LavIII. The HQ ptl will have UAV/ Anti Armour.

 

[Kirkhill]

A 8 car troop is the way we are going. No more will the troop leader go around by himself. There will/maybe 3 ptls of Coyotes and 1 HQ ptl Coyote/LavIII. The HQ ptl will have UAV/ Anti Armour.

Here endeth the lesson.  All rise and be upstanding.......

 

[George Wallace]

As another who has done Recce for a little bit, I find it interesting that your Armour friends are recommending a three car patrol.  If the lead car gets 'wacked' so be it.  That is why we have two cars.  The Rear C/S sends back the 'Contact' and pickets until the situation is developed further.   That odd C/S would now tag on to the Tp Ldr and become part of 'his ptl'.  Increasing it to three cars will complicate movement, and stealth.  It will also increase the logistics required for a Recce Tp.  

I think that a Recce Sqn as a_majoor describes is fairly good, but I would keep it as having three Recce Tps, as well as the Surv Tp and Assault/Support Tp.  This is due to the wide frontage that a Recce Sqn normally operates on.  (Think - Frontage of a Bde.)

The Tp Ldr now requires a second car, as he is the only means of resupply in the Screen and can not carry enough Rats, Ammo, fuel and other goodies in his single veh to supply a complete troop.  This would become an even more serious problem if patrols were increased to three vehicles and also with the increase of 'dismounts' that is being discussed.

GW

 

[Recce41]

George
We are teaching no resupply in the screen. A troop is to take 96 hrs of required fuel,food,water. Yes 96 hrs. Only resupply will be IF required. This is due thw Tp Ldr will have the UAV. And will be in the rearward part of the screen. No more will the Trpy sleep his days away . His jr will have the Anti Armour role. We don't know if he will get the snr MCpl or Jr Sgt with him. He will also have 4 pers. The jr maybe a LAVIII or Styker type C/S.
But as you brought up. 3 C/Ss would use more resourses. And Kirkhill what do you mean my that?

 

[Kirkhill]

And Kirkhill what do you mean my that?

Sorry Recce41.  Just being cheeky.  Mea Culpa.  I realise you were just giving out the direction taken, in an attempt to focus the discussion no doubt. But in view of the way that 2Bravo opened this thread, leaving the field of discussion open for a broad debate it seemed to me that your information could be taken as a discussion closer.

Apologies....

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

Strange how the opinions differ. I will get back to you after the holiday season when I can talk to my advisor's again.

If 2 car patrols are the standard, the surveillance and weapons can be combined in a turreted "overwatch" car, with the scout car being a stretch platform for the dismounted patrol (Assuming a true recce vehicle). The reason for the tenth car in the 3X3 model was the troop leader could hang back and get a broad situational awareness listening in to the patrols. Another unwarranted assumption?

Although the G-Wagon will be the default platform for years to come, I would like to throw this into the mix: the eventual replacement be based on the army's standard utility vehicle. The Turkish Army uses Otokar "Cobra" vehicles based on the HMMVW platform (and uses the HMMVW as the utility truck).  This would make for a great savings in purchase and O and M costs. Well worth considering.