Reserve Training

[Brad Sallows]

Fair enough, but get it all on one form. Make the system easy for the users, not the administrators.

 

[FJAG]

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

You've. Got. To. Be. Shitting. Me.

This is a managed irrelevance program.

 

[Underway]

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.

Been doing quite a bit of research on this lately. Cavalry and armored recce are not the same thing though they have overlapping responsibilities.

Cavalry: the mounted maneuver capability that can move, shoot and communicate, including the spirit of an aggressive maneuver element capable of operating across vast distances for extended durations. Our allies use cavalry as an aggressive and spirited maneuver capability.

Armored Reconnaissance: uses superior mobility and aggressive action to obtain timely and accurate information to the Commander which leads to the defeat of an adversary. And then add on all the Recce security tasks.

In some ways you could argue that cavalry is just a clever naming convention so that armoured recce doesn't get pigeonholed into specific roles, but most articles I've read seem to view cavalry as a general-purpose mounted maneuver element, and armoured recce as a specialized armoured formation.

Either way a TAPV is not the aggressive manouver element you're looking for and as such its probably not useful in a cavalry role.

 

[Underway]

As an example of the above, the US Armoured Brigade Combat Team has a Calvary Squadron where we would put an Armoured Recce Squadron in a CMBG. The squadron has an HQ Troop and 3x Scout Troops, Support Company and Tank Company.

The Scout Troop consists of a Troop HQ, Mortar Section, and Two Scout Platoons, medical/maintenance support and a FOO/FAC Bradley.

• HQ has 1x Bradley, 1x M113 CP, 1x M113 APC, Truck with water trailer for supplies
• Mortar Section has 2x120mm M113 Mortar Carriers and a LUVW equivalent for ammo/supplies
• Platoon has HQ of 2x Bradleys, and two sections of 2x Bradleys.

This means the troop is able to better fight for information and survive contact with enemy formations.

Added to this Squadron is a Company of M1 tanks, organized as you would think, into an HQ and three platoons, FOO/FAC Bradley and medical/maintenance support.

• HQ is 2x tanks and 2x humvee's (signals support and master gunner support), MII3 APC and truck with water trailer.
• Platoon has 4x tanks in two sections.

They have a modified standard tank mission and do not perform recce duties. Depending on the situation the Cavalry unit will sometimes swap in six Bradleys the tank company. This will allow them to pair three Bradleys with two tanks creating a combined platoon called a hunter-killer team.
The new tank company is then Tank HQ, one tank platoon (4 tanks) and two hunter killer platoons (two tanks, three Bradleys).
The Scout Troop then has a Scout HQ, tank platoon (4x tanks) and a scout platoon (6x Bradley)

As you can see this formation is designed to fight and maneuver aggressively. TAPV would have a limited role here, replacing perhaps the humvee's or light trucks.

 

[FJAG]

Been doing quite a bit of research on this lately. Cavalry and armored recce are not the same thing though they have overlapping responsibilities.

Cavalry: the mounted maneuver capability that can move, shoot and communicate, including the spirit of an aggressive maneuver element capable of operating across vast distances for extended durations. Our allies use cavalry as an aggressive and spirited maneuver capability.

Armored Reconnaissance: uses superior mobility and aggressive action to obtain timely and accurate information to the Commander which leads to the defeat of an adversary. And then add on all the Recce security tasks.

In some ways you could argue that cavalry is just a clever naming convention so that armoured recce doesn't get pigeonholed into specific roles, but most articles I've read seem to view cavalry as a general-purpose mounted maneuver element, and armoured recce as a specialized armoured formation.

Either way a TAPV is not the aggressive manouver element you're looking for and as such its probably not useful in a cavalry role.

I think that needs context. Yours too @Underway. In an ABCT the cavalry squadron is M3 Bradleys and the M1 tank in its Armor company. In an SBCT its M1127 Stryker Recce vehicles with M1128 Stryker MGS and M1134 Stryker ATGM in its Weapons Company. In an IBCT its basically HMMWVs.

There are degrees of aggressiveness. I can see a TAPV nearer the M1127 Stryker role and certainly superior to the IBCT's HMMWVs if a) we slap an ATGM turret on about a third of them b) provide them capable recce and armed UAVs and c) tie them tightly to general support artillery. Being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean a stan-up fight. One can be aggressive in a stand-off fight as both the SBCT and IBCT need to be.

There are roughly 70 armored vehicles in a cavalry squadron (battalion). We have some 66 LAV Recce/Surveillance systems and 500 TAPVs. That could give us 4 cavalry regiments with 1 x LAV surveillance squadron, 2 x TAPV recce squadrons and 1 x TAPV weapons squadron with hundreds of TAPVs left over.

One needs to watch out reading articles on US cavalry because it has been massively misused during the GWOT as what could be termed economy of force infantry battalion which, as you point out, is a more general purpose role. Here's a brief article that discusses that issue in an SBCT context.

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2016/JAN_MAR/1Hoovestol16.pdf

 

[daftandbarmy]

You've. Got. To. Be. Shitting. Me.

This is a managed irrelevance program.

Agreed. Who invented this abomination?