Cav and 'Light Horse'

[chappy]

Interesting read about the role and capabilities of Cav and Light Horse today

Also some basic info about Battlegroups and composition of them and their Combat Teams

http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/lwsc/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_W/AAJ_w_2004_05.pdf#search=%223%20tanks%20per%20armo ured%20troop%20tactics%22

[Stewy]

Looks like an an interesting read mate - gave it a quick glance over - will read properly tomorrow ;)

[NEpi]

tell me if I got that paper right:
cavalry is highly manueverable, and got quite a punch.
it shouldn't be used as a stand-alone force.
it shouldn't be used for recon. only, since it has too much of a punch for that. it's a waste.

I think this paper is so focused on what cavalry isn't that it says too little about what cavalry is.
although cavalry has got quite a punch, it can't maintain combat for long without taking advantage of its manueverability. that's why you have to use other forces to pin the enemy down and engage it in order to use cavalry as an offensive and lethal force. that's also the big difference between heavy forces and cavalry, AFAIK.
I think that's the "second myth" about cavalry, which the writer is trying to revoke. I think that he didn't make his point clear about it.

[chappy]

I think there is a lot about what its capabilities are, or as you put it, 'what it is'

The
cavalry team is also capable of immediate retaliation at ranges of 3200 m, employing
considerable firepower and precision accuracy. Cavalry elements can execute
multiple tasks by day and night—ranging from searching buildings, communicating
with local populaces, distributing food and aid to engaging enemy conventional
forces. Such tasks can be completed without a need to regroup or be reinforced by
other manoeuvre units.
Because of its inherent flexibility cavalry is often the ideal economy-of-force
option in operations. Emitting a low signature and with limited manpower, a cavalry
force can, if used with skill, have a disproportionate influence throughout an area
of operations. Cavalry have protection, and can quickly disperse or concentrate,
can apply precision direct-fire, and maximise the effects of offensive support and joint assets without large numbers of personnel. Such operational features are
invaluable in conditions where resource limitations and tight mission constraints
are often found.

I also dont see where you get the conclusion that it shouldnt be used alone... the paper clearly suggests that it is more than capable at operating independantly in various tasks. Nevertheless, like ANY battlespace operating system, the tank, infantry, the ARH, engineers etc, they will always operate at their maximum capacity when combined.

The subsequent focus by the author in the later pages about what cavalry isnt is a direct and intentional effort by him to debunk some common misconceptions that have limited thought on what a cavalry capability can acheive both independantly and in combined arms battle groups.

The key difference between 'heavy' forces and cavalry is exactly that. Manpower, resources and size are on a generally smaller scale but are more than capable of being employed effectively to acheive various tasks that a 'heavier' force could acheive with an added economy of effort.

it can't maintain combat for long without taking advantage of its manueverability. that's why you have to use other forces to pin the enemy down and engage it in order to use cavalry as an offensive and lethal force.
I think i understand what u are saying here but generally disagree.. Armour in general has a focus on manoeuvrebility and firepower. I would not personally want my tanks involved in a static contact situation either, just the same as i would prefer my cavalry forces to maintain their freedom to manoeuvre. Yet by the same token, in terms of a tactical engagement, there is no reason whatsoever that a cavalry troop could not provide offensive Direct FS for another manoeuvre element to conduct an assault for instance. In fact in a conventional advance to contact situation you may find that your 'recon' force is the first in contact and may well then provide the 'pinning' for an advance guard to conduct a quick attack.
Operationally, Cavalry, arguably has better endurance for maintaining combat operations (that suite its capabilities) far in excess of a tank unit for instance. They have larger range, lower battlefield signatures, easier resupply.

[NEpi]

I also dont see where you get the conclusion that it shouldnt be used alone...

I was disregarding some of the "operations" that cavalry might achieve, because there's nothing special in cavalry to achieve them. every infantryman in a jeep can "talk to the locals". I wouldn't count on the survivability of cavalry, after reading it is as good as M113s.

Armour in general has a focus on manoeuvrebility and firepower.
very true. on the other hand, armor can take some beating before snuffing it. light armor is somewhat less capable in that. there's also power in numbers. tanks can hold their ground much better than light armor. that what I meant by taking a punch. cavalry is good in getting in, hitting, and then getting out. by doing so, they can sustain offense for a long time.
when they're chased and ambushed, they're in a much worse situation than heavy forces. engaging whoever might chase the cavalry and hurt it is important when using quick and lightly-armored force.

recon. forces that pin down the enemy? better not. at least in the my country's history, recon troops got beaten very hard in such situations, even if a heavier force was close at hand. they were critically hurt in the innitial contact and the immediate fighting that followed.

I agree that cavalry has better long-term "endurence", since they don't suffer the same "mechanical attrition" heavy armor does. on the other hand, they should be protected, and not thrown into battle en mass.

[chappy]

Sure a digger in a truck can win hearts and minds, but in an environment that involves likely contact with enemy threats what is his likelyhood of casualties compared to an ASLAV. Threat level is an important consideration. You can look at the different scales of deployment around Afghanistan and Iraq by the UK for instance. In some areas its Warriors. In others it is LandRovers. (their reserve cav are truck mounted)

You can extrapolate that argument and claim that by that logic then an MBT would be ideal because it almost garauntees survivability in an asymmetric environment, yet it has to be considered within not just the economy of force (an ASLAV is significantly easier to run and has all the other operational advantages arleady identified above), but also the political decision process. An ASLAV based Cav force is a medium type response suitable in many situations for low-medium intensity situations where an unprotected force would not be survivable but may have been a less provocative deployment politically. Cav provides in these situations a more survivable and lower political profile deployment force.

recon. forces that pin down the enemy? better not. at least in the my country's history, recon troops got beaten very hard in such situations, even if a heavier force was close at hand. they were critically hurt in the innitial contact and the immediate fighting that followed.

well right there u may have fallen into the grove of what the author is trying to persuade others not to, ie: misconceive that cavalry is purely 'recon'. It is more than recon and has a very definite firepower and protected capability in contact. It can conduct recon and it can pretty much instantly switch to a sustained combat capability. It may be your 'recon' force, but in 2 minutes time it may well be your fire support for a mechanised coy quick attack on a hill.

Yes armour can take a beating. and comparitively more so than an ASLAV. certainly if u are talking tank combat. that goes without saying based entirely on the armour and armament values of the current age MBT. Yet armour by itself in an environment that involves multiple threats including enemy armour and ATGM armed infantry is just as vulnerable, if not more so perhaps, than a comparable force of cav which includes ( in australian terms) 20mm KE/HE, JOST, Javelin and, importantly, the added security of dismounted infantry in the vicinity of the AFVs. In the end the strongest (static) situation you could hope for would involve elements from all arms of course. Armour by itself in a static position is (to my mind) extremely vulnerable and certainly historically this has been the case.

I guess to me, saying that cav cant take a beating when fighting against tanks or a superior force is like saying a platoon of tanks cant take a beating when fighting against a division of armour with ARH and arty support.... its a 'duh' type conclusion. Cav CAN take a beating when utilised correctly against the correctly identified enemy weaknesses and targets if it HAD to remain in situ. Hopefully no one would tie the cav (or the armoured regt) to one geographic location for too long. (maybe an infantry commander would :))

To conclude that cavalry is inneffective in sustained combat based on the theory that it cant match up to an MBT toe to toe is flawed for the simple reason that any modern military force in % terms is made up of a minority of MBTs compared to the other combat arms. Any insurgent, irregular or asymmetric threat is almost certainly devoid of MBTS. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

[HotTom]

Chappy,

Thank you for an interesting read.

I think, however, it is an overly optimistic view of the capabilities of Cav units.

The "first myth" happens to be true. They are VERY good at recon (sneak in, spot the enemy, sneak out to warn the general and run like hell under cover of arty if you're spotted).

The author doesn't even mention their capability as a screening force, both front and flanks, for larger units. Maybe he considers that a recon function; I would term it a security mission, a very vital mission in fact. They ARE very good in that role and capable of operating over large areas. But again, once you spot the bad guys, call for artillery support and run like hell.

They have some capability at slash-and-run raids but not stand-and-fight battles. Remember Custer commanded a cavalry regiment and it was the infantry that really won the Indian Wars once the Cav spotted the Indians and got out of their way. The other units approaching the Little Big Horn were infantry and the Sioux and Cheyenne did not stick around to face them.

Cav units certainly have a role on the non-linear battlefield: More mobility, punch and protection than an infantryman's cotton uniform, as the author points out. But they are very vulnerable to IEDs and RPGs.

The fact is, the major planning flaw in Operation Iraqi Freedom (other than doing it in the first place, which has proven to be really dumb) was not enough tanks. Both the Army and the Marines were flying in Abrams tanks just as fast as they could after the fighting started. Their Bradleys and LAVs weren't up to the task.

I think it comes down to what the author calls "the second myth": Vulnerability.

I'm very familiar with the LAV. I was marginally involved with its testing at Yuma Proving Ground (the Army's huge desert testing facility here in Arizona; in fact, I saw most of the US vehicles and many of the weapons like the FASCAM that we use in SB being tested there). It is a very well-built vehicle. The Army turned it down but the Marines grabbed it. It is very good for tasks such as mobile mortar fire. But the operative word in its name is "Light."

The author at least admits it has no better protection than an M113. When you see pictures of my generation of GIs mostly riding ON TOP OF 113s, it's because it was less dangerous than riding inside where an RPG could cause catastrophic damage. Same with the LAV.

I also think the Stryker has the same problems and will not prove out in the long run because it is too vulnerable. Those pics of vehicles carrying around funny looking fences that you see when the credits roll in SB are Strykers. The fences are to stop RPGs which can go right through their light armor.

I admit to being something of a traditionalist and I know what I'm saying runs counter to the flow of the US Army: Light Infantry and light armor.

But I think those trends are based more on cost considerations than tactical ones.

Again, thanks for a good read. Caused me to stop and think a bit. Not every day I can say that :)

S!

HT

[chappy]

i agree hottom, it is LIGHT armour. But that doesnt make it immediately unsuitable for situations other than hit and run, recon and low intensity ops.
I dont think the author is disputing the fact that it is not going to win against an opposing force of heavy tanks
The first myth is not that it is 'good at recon' as u suggest. That in itself is an undeniable fact, it IS good at recon and is one of the preferred methods of conducting recon. The first myth is more that 'recon is all its good for' i think. Hence the myth is most certainly not true.

The bars have been placed on the ASLAVS too. they are a very effective method of preventing HEAT type RPGs from destroying the vehicles and have proven to work on numerous occassions. (necessity is the morther of invention eh!) To date Australia has only had one vehicle pretty much written off in Iraq (AFAIK) and that was by an IED. The crew were not killed and indeed the survival of the crew was a direct result of them being in the LAV rather than perhaps a Rover/truck or even 113. (the LAVs are more armoured than an m113) The thickness may be compareable but believe me the capability of the armour is quite different.(at least compared to the older 113s, they have just been rebuilt now to improve their survivability also and have been improved drastically in that department)

But in any case, the author never tried to argue that the Light armour CAV force was heavily armoured or as well protected as an MBT. In armour thickness and penetration terms it is not.

BUT :

The Army needs to realise that the protection of the ASLAV is not simply a
question of the thickness of armour. Protection must be viewed in holistic terms.
It embraces questions of firepower, mobility, optics, situational awareness, connectivity
and suitable tactics, all of which come into play during operations. From the
perspective of capabilities and versatility, ASLAV cavalry units are arguably the most
protected manoeuvre element in the current Australian Army.
Furthermore, it is important to understand that a narrow definition of protection
by armour thickness is inadequate from the combined arms perspective. The
combination of armour, infantry, artillery and engineers is designed to ensure that
in combat the whole of the military machine is greater than the sum of its parts.
The essence of a combined arms philosophy is
one of coordination in order to minimise each
combat arm’s vulnerabilities while maximising
their respective strengths.


as for additional considerations, I think perhaps one of the biggest ones (aside from that of economy and government spending as you point out) is the political profile.
Politically speaking, there is a BIG difference between sending a contingent of cav in ASLAVS to conduct low intensity or even medium intensity operations to that of sending a contingent of MBTs to do the same tasks. Politically, one looks infinitely more aggressive than the other. This is one of the greatest values of cav and is why (in australia), combined with its added protection, it is one of the most deployed units overseas in the last 6 years.

[Los]

On a related note re survivability I was reading an article from Sep-Oct 2006 ARMOR magazine called "Preserving Shock: A New Approach to Armored Manuever Warfare." (Lester Grau) pp 9-12.

In response to experience in Chechnya and elsewhere the Russians are using a vehicle called the BMPT for close support of tanks in urban type environment. It's built off of a T72 tor T90 tank chassis has laminated or reactive armor and carried a 5 man crew. The first variant has a low profile turrett w/ a 30mm autocannon, coax AG17 grenade Launcher, AT-14 ATGM and a 7.62 mG. A second variant has dual 30mm autocannons, AG17d, AT14 and 7.62MG. A final design has dual 30mms, dual AG17s etc. It's job is to stay up and support the tanks where lighter skinned BMPs would get killed off. The intent is to be able to clear and enemy from a city block at a distance of 3km (That part sounds like wishful thinking to me IMO).

Los

[stalintc]

On a related note re survivability I was reading an article from Sep-Oct 2006 ARMOR magazine called "Preserving Shock: A New Approach to Armored Manuever Warfare." (Lester Grau) pp 9-12.

In response to experience in Chechnya and elsewhere the Russians are using a vehicle called the BMPT for close support of tanks in urban type environment. It's built off of a T72 tor T90 tank chassis has laminated or reactive armor and carried a 5 man crew. The first variant has a low profile turrett w/ a 30mm autocannon, coax AG17 grenade Launcher, AT-14 ATGM and a 7.62 mG. A second variant has dual 30mm autocannons, AG17d, AT14 and 7.62MG. A final design has dual 30mms, dual AG17s etc. It's job is to stay up and support the tanks where lighter skinned BMPs would get killed off. The intent is to be able to clear and enemy from a city block at a distance of 3km (That part sounds like wishful thinking to me IMO).

Los


Some nice pictures of that BMPT right here: http://www.modelpoint.us/s.nl/it.I/id.14/.f?sc=8&category=-108

damn thats a mean looking battle beast, it has to be the scariest looking PC I have seen thus far.

[Los]

But is it a PC? I didn't read anything about it carrying troops, just that it had a 5 man crew. Thanks for the link.

Los

[stalintc]

But is it a PC? I didn't read anything about it carrying troops, just that it had a 5 man crew. Thanks for the link.

Los


Sorry that was just my assumption :redface: it is most definatley not a PC upon further reading, I guess I was fooled by the BMP part of its name as its always screamed APC at me hehe.

Upon reading more about this vehicle, I realise I should learn to research and never assume with things like this. It appears the 5 crew are:

1 commander in the turret

1 gunner with the commander in the turret

1 driver in the chassis

2 other weapons operators sat either side of the driver

Each with their own hatches none the less :)

And your quite welcome for the previous link, I found some more information here: http://www.republika.pl/hudi2/BMPT.htm

[NEpi]

one very important feature of CAV, one that I think should be most important for a few branches around the world, is that CAV units are lighter, hence quicker to deploy in the field. I think that's why the american marines like them more than the army. they're very nice to have before the ships with the MBTs and heavy APCs get there.

right there u may have fallen into the grove of what the author is trying to persuade others not to, ie: misconceive that cavalry is purely 'recon'.

not quite. I merely said that CAV units are more dependable in other forces than, say, heavy machinized infantry. they could be used, but they shouldn't pin forces down, since that means they stay around for too long, and other enemy forces might get to them and crack them up. their mobility is their defense. as for their "protected capability", that comparison to the M113 is not very reasuring.

Sure a digger in a truck can win hearts and minds
so does a digger in a light PC (M113, for example), which gives more or less same coverage. you don't need optics to talk to the locals.

for the political cost of deploying tanks, sure. never march tanks into a city unless you want the civillians to run all over the place. scared civies are one big problem you don't want to encounter.

I've never said "CAV is useless" or anything close to that.
the article almost sounds like "CAV da big1111!" which is far from being true. they're handy in some situations, but are not the answer to all.

if I was in Iraq or Afghanistan today, I'd prefer using light Inf rather than CAV.

[chappy]

totally agree re: deployment (and ease there of)

As for protection compared to an m113, the author is comparing the ASLAV with the NEW upgraded m113. their armour is significantly improved on that seen in the original m113.
anyways, as the para i quoted above states, consideration of protection as merely an armoured value is a very narrow perspective of what protection entails. Protection is gained through various things such as doctrine, training, armour, equipment (such as NVG, TIS, body armour, the vehicle automatic fire extinguisher system (uses an inert gas)), intelligence and combined arms.

You are right, u dont need optics to talk to locals, but those same optics may help save your life if u are required to talk to locals that are mixed in amongst insurgents too.

The article is most certainly talking up Cav, not surprising given the author is/was the CO or one of the 2 cav regts in the ADF but it certainly does not claim it is the answer to call problems.
I personally would rather have both light infantry and cav working in combined arms in iraq.. but thats just me.