Armoured RECCE

[GK .Dundas]

I'll see your Texan Cavalry and raise you Polish Cavalry in 1939

Actually the Poles were never stupid enough to charge German tanks and fought more as mounted infantry. They made life hell for Jerry popping up in places they had no right to be.
According to German propaganda the racially inferior Poles just weren't able to to deal with the technologically advanced Blitzkrieg...
The reality was the Germans were having trouble with the blitzkrieg themselves , they outran their line of logistics more then once
I sometimes wonder if the Soviets hadn't dogpiled on how long the Poles would have lasted. And how long it would have been until the Germans were actually able to mount the Offensive in the West and the Low Countries ? Mid Summer , later ? ...1941 anyone?

 

[GR66]

Back to the Armoured Recce topic...

The question of what to do with our Leopards and LAVs has spanned across a large number of threads over the years. The problem always seems to be that we we can't do "Heavy" because we don't have enough tanks and the LAVs aren't suitable as an IFV. So we try to shoehorn the tanks into some type of hybrid Medium/Heavy(ish) force structure that doesn't really work.

Even with a Defence spending boost I don't see any more tanks or any tracked IFVs to work with them in our future. So this thread got me to looking at some of the past discussions and I came across this one (Canadian Armoured Cavalry) started way back in 2004 by Tango2Bravo. In it he proposed a structure for a Cavalry Task Force/Battlegroup.

The equipment discussed in that thread was very different than what we have now (tanks were gone, the Coyote was the recce vehicle, and the MGS and MMEV were being discussed), so the details of the proposed force structure no longer apply, but how would the concept work now with the vehicles we currently have available (Leopard 2, LAV6, LAV LRSS, TAPV) or could possibly get in the future (LAV or TAPV-AT, LAV or TAPV-SHORAD, LAV-UAV, etc.)? Take Tango2Bravo's general concept, use the vehicles we now have available and apply some of the ideas from this thread and what could we come up with?

The US Army Armored Cavalry Squadron/Regiment structure could be a starting point or we could go with a uniquely Canadian structure making the most of the equipment we have available. We could even use something like the Swedish Mechanized Battalion model as a starting point which was discussed in the Force 2025 thread.

If we're struggling to find a way to build an Armoured Brigade using the tools that we have on hand then maybe we should stop trying and see what alternative useful force we can build with those tools.

 

[KevinB]

Even with a Defence spending boost I don't see any more tanks or any tracked IFVs to work with them in our future. So this thread got me to looking at some of the past discussions and I came across this one

2B would get you tracked IFV’s with ATGM and cannon turret for the Infantry in an ABCT

If we're struggling to find a way to build an Armoured Brigade using the tools that we have on hand then maybe we should stop trying and see what alternative useful force we can build with those tools.

Or just get the tools for an ABCT…

 

[FJAG]

So this thread got me to looking at some of the past discussions and I came across this one (Canadian Armoured Cavalry) started way back in 2004 by Tango2Bravo. In it he proposed a structure for a Cavalry Task Force/Battlegroup.

Thanks for pointing that thread out. It's unfortunate that discussion came to and end when it did. The topics being discussed were at a very significant turning point in the Army's way of doing business: just into Kabul with a battlegroup, still kicking around Bosnia and with a new CLS with a mind of his own about what the Army should look like. (I'll have to dig through - the discussions probably carried on in another thread)

Nothing was settled in those days other than that the RCAC and the RCA better figure out real soon what they could bring to the table or be left behind in the dust.

Also real interesting to see who from amongst the discussion's participants, after 17 years, is still here.

Kudos to all of you.

 

[GR66]

2B would get you tracked IFV’s with ATGM and cannon turret for the Infantry in an ABCT

Or just get the tools for an ABCT…

And how many years have we been saying that we need more tanks and tracked IFVs with ATGMs and cannons? Do we have them yet? Is there a program in place to procure them yet?

You're absolutely right. That's what the government SHOULD do. But you and I both know they won't. After the CSCs, the F-35s and the North Warning System upgrades the governments next dollars will go into dental and pharmacare and various other social programs.

The 2004 thread had people talking about which IFVs we need to get....2024 will be the same and 2044 will likely be the same. Until then I think we should try and figure out what we can do with what we have.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The equipment discussed in that thread was very different than what we have now (tanks were gone, the Coyote was the recce vehicle, and the MGS and MMEV were being discussed), so the details of the proposed force structure no longer apply, but how would the concept work now with the vehicles we currently have available (Leopard 2, LAV6, LAV LRSS, TAPV) or could possibly get in the future (LAV or TAPV-AT, LAV or TAPV-SHORAD, LAV-UAV, etc.)? Take Tango2Bravo's general concept, use the vehicles we now have available and apply some of the ideas from this thread and what could we come up with?

The US Army Armored Cavalry Squadron/Regiment structure could be a starting point or we could go with a uniquely Canadian structure making the most of the equipment we have available. We could even use something like the Swedish Mechanized Battalion model as a starting point which was discussed in the Force 2025 thread.

If we're struggling to find a way to build an Armoured Brigade using the tools that we have on hand then maybe we should stop trying and see what alternative useful force we can build with those tools.

Something like
3 symmetrical regiments
2x mixed vehicle Recce Squadrons (LAV LRSS ,LAV -UAV, TAPV AT) for find and fix
1x Squadron (15 Leo's) (take 10 from the training 40 and get 50 upgraded to a common standard)
1x 4-6 tube organic SP artillery (AMOS/NEMO/Denel 105mm)

Where the Leo's are there to give a medium force heavy punch when needed, but the force itself is under no illusions of being heavy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe the answer isn't in the equipment or the organization. Maybe it is in the training.

Maybe if Combined Arms is the answer to every question then we should be spending more time (and money) training with all the combinations and permutations that local commanders can imagine. But that requires placing each brigade with all brigade elements in one location with a massive local training area. And a massive budget for gas, repairs and ammunition.

 

[FJAG]

So, I've been mulling over much of what's been discussed here the last few days and thinking about how the fight has been going in Ukraine and have come up with some observations for discussion. It's basically points on what should or could go into a Canadian cavalry force for a brigade.

1. Size. We are faced with a bit of a conundrum here. Traditionally (and doctrinally) the reconnaissance elements of a brigade have varied. There were times when the armoured regiment merely had a recce troop to support its activities. In the 1980s doctrine there was a single bde recce squadron of 3 troops of 7 cars (Lynx) each and a support troop of a four sections (in APCs with surveillance gear). Then there is todays multi-squadron armoured regiment. US ABCT/SBCTs generally have a cavalry squadron (bn) with four troops (coys 3xscout 1xtank/MGS) of three platoons each (IBCTs have two HMVWW mounted troops of 5 x four car platoons each and one dismounted troop with no direct fire weapons troop). So the first question for a Canadian brigade is: how large should the brigade recce component be? One squadron? Two? a three squadron Regiment?
2. Adaptability. The Army has defined itself as a middle weight force able to conduct operations from light to high intensity mechanized. Accordingly the structure and doctrine should try to be a common one albeit that equipment and capabilities might vary depending on the mission.
3. Function. The question about size is probably best answered by function. Recce forces primarily answered the scout and surveillance functions because of modest fire power, vulnerability and endurance. One single squadron might have been enough depending on the frontages and flanks to be covered. Cavalry forces tend to be more robust and take a more active part in the fight. Ukraine points to finding advancing BTGs and engaging them from ambush with a variety of weapons to force them to deploy and delay while main positions are occupied and developed. That points to a larger, more versatile, more robust force. This can be looked at under the five operational functions: Command; Sense; Act; Shield; and Sustain.
4. Sense. Leaving Command aside for a minute the primary operational function for cavalry remains at Sense. I think there remain two components because of the varying technologies:
   • Scouts. Generally the core of the force. Small, fast and highly manoeuverable vehicles. Armoured sufficiently against small arms and artillery fragments. Small crews yet capable of 24/7 operation (at minimum 2 pers per car/2 car team). Self defence capability with ATGM/25mm. Cheap and redundant MicroUAVs to extend range. Thermal sensors. Radars?
   • Surveillance. Specialized and further ranging sensor dets. Coyote type system. Sufficient number and sensors to cover brigade frontage with redundancy built in. Further ranging Miniature UAVs.
5. Act. There are several different ways to provide Act capabilities depending on the mission. Some of these could be non organic and attached for the mission.
   • Organic
     
     • Scout troops. ATGM and 25mm to allow sniping and ambush
     • Support troop. Additional and longer ranged ATGMs, expendable UCAVs, loitering munitions (such as Switchblade), mortars in addition to surveillance capabilities
   • Reinforcing from other units. (I'm using the term generically here and not a specific command and support relationship)
     
     • Direct fire. tanks from armoured regiment or additional ATGMs from infantry battalions
     • FSCC and FOO/JTACs. from brigade CS arty regiment
     • Indirect Fire/Air Sp. heavier UCAVs (Bayraktar), Precision GS rockets, CAS, Aviation, designated GS arty (so as not to unmask DS artillery too early)
     • Infantry. to provide additional support including acting against enemy infantry and additional anti-armour capability
     • Infantry
6. Shield. In addition to organic and attached Sense and Act systems the following should or could be attached
   • AD. At a minimum SHORAD capable of protecting against UAVs, Aviation and CAS
   • Engineers. Possibly for route clearance and mining
7. Sustain. Larger A1 and A2 echelons than now to sustain particulalry for high fuel and ammunition expenditures
8. Command. Having left this aside at the beginning, I'll leave it aside again. The requirement for secure and shielded communications over a wide frontage is obvious. As is the need for data feeds from the various surveillance (especially UAV systems) to be pushed back to appropriate intel and command nodes. That's a whole discussion in and of itself.

That brings us back to the first point. How large should this organization be? - One large squadron? A two or even three squadron regiment? And if a regiment, then should some of the Support Troop capabilities and even reinforcing capabilities be located in a Support Squadron?

It also brings us back to the second point. Can the same structure work without too much tinkering if it needs to be scaled back to support a battle group rather than a brigade? Or become dismounted or lightly mounted if needed to support a "light" battlegroup or brigade?

 

[markppcli]

Maybe the answer isn't in the equipment or the organization. Maybe it is in the training.

Maybe if Combined Arms is the answer to every question then we should be spending more time (and money) training with all the combinations and permutations that local commanders can imagine. But that requires placing each brigade with all brigade elements in one location with a massive local training area. And a massive budget for gas, repairs and ammunition.

Sooo Maple Resolve ? Lol that’s literally most of our collective training.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sooo Maple Resolve ? Lol that’s literally most of our collective training.

Not one Maple Resolve annually but many mini-Maple-Resolves continually for each of 1, 2 and 5 Brigades on their home training grounds.

 

[Infanteer]

That brings us back to the first point. How large should this organization be? - One large squadron? A two or even three squadron regiment? And if a regiment, then should some of the Support Troop capabilities and even reinforcing capabilities be located in a Support Squadron?

To answer this question, I think you need to actually get some quantitative analysis. What is the area of influence it is expected to have to conduct its tasks? If its expected to conduct the full range of security tasks, what does it need in terms of time, space, and force to be effective within the AO it would be assigned?

Also, how does it fit in with higher formation functions. Are we simply doing this a Bde level because we don't have a Div to do some of the things it should be doing? If there is Div Recce, we probably don't need Bde Recce as you get an awkward hot potato of handoffs from Div to Bde to Unit.

 

[GR66]

Does a Cavalry unit have to be strictly considered as just an Armoured Recce unit? Depending on the components it could just be an optimized Combined Arms BattleGroup (Battalion Tactical Group to use a dirty phrase) with a strong Recce capability.

In a Canadian context it could be quite useful in a BattleGroup-sized deployment (which is what is called for in SSE) in less than peer conflict situations. In a peer conflict where our Brigades are possibly not "heavy" enough to act as main body Mechanized forces a Cavalry unit could take on an Armoured Recce role.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The perfect Recce veh should be able to ford and swim. I'd of loved a Bison-type veh with better commanders cupola and TOW (I'm thinking the Bradley...loved the Commanders Independent Cupola, seriously loved it).

Dismounting; assuming you'll never do a LP or night OP...bad form, IMO. Sensors don't always work to the % you need them to, they go U/S.

It seems to me that the Army has the vehicle it needs to do recce and fight for info, sans the weapon it needs to do the same role.

LAV 6 is perfectly capable of doing the job required if one were to change the turret to take ATGMs. Roughly comparable to a Bradley and certainly more protected than the Scimitar and various French offerings. (wheels vs tracks debaters please go elsewhere).

TAPV it seems despite its good mobility (teething problems aside - more than one poster on this forum has mentioned firsthand that the TAPV can hide places the LAV can't and go across some types of obstacles/difficult terrain better than the LAV can) has neither the weapon nor the survivability/signature to do the job outside of counter-insurgency operations.

Neither vehicle is well suited for sneak and peak, GWagon though having a smaller signature isn't ideal either with no survivability and not enough dismounts, and no weapons outside small arms.

All things considered, it seems to me that the RCAC should follow the fight for info doctrine ((I know, oversimplification), and have LAVs without the LRSS get ATGM turrets. A situation where instead of having doctrine match the vehicle, you can have the vehicle modified best as possible for the doctrine. A mixed group of LRSS and ATGM LAV is likely better than a mixed group of TAPV and LAV.

Question: Are there TAPV with LRSS equivalent gear?

The LAV 6 lacks a critical (IMO) ability; fording/swim capability.

I agree with the need for TOW on the LAV 6, regardless of what it is tasked to/for.

The TAPV, I was told, is heavy. Not just heavy, top heavy. Not really a good combination for 'off the hard stand' recce. Anyone remember swaying around in the turret of a Cougar can relate (especially compared to how stabile a Bison was, not to mention mobile as well).

Having done "sneak and peak" in an Iltis and a GWagon...I'd take the Iltis anyday for that task. Not a fan of the G Wag, at all, for recce of any kind (other than "I can keep warm!" tasks).

End state for me: The Cdn Army has no suitable veh for either 'sneak and peak' nor "calvary/fight for info" recce.

Question: what happened to LAV TUA? E COY LdSH(RC) PUTS THE LAV TUA TO THE TEST

 

[Underway]

The perfect Recce veh should be able to ford and swim. I'd of loved a Bison-type veh with better commanders cupola and TOW (I'm thinking the Bradley...loved the Commanders Independent Cupola, seriously loved it).

Dismounting; assuming you'll never do a LP or night OP...bad form, IMO. Sensors don't always work to the % you need them to, they go U/S.


The LAV 6 lacks a critical (IMO) ability; fording/swim capability.

I agree with the need for TOW on the LAV 6, regardless of what it is tasked to/for.

The TAPV, I was told, is heavy. Not just heavy, top heavy. Not really a good combination for 'off the hard stand' recce. Anyone remember swaying around in the turret of a Cougar can relate (especially compared to how stabile a Bison was, not to mention mobile as well).

Having done "sneak and peak" in an Iltis and a GWagon...I'd take the Iltis anyday for that task. Not a fan of the G Wag, at all, for recce of any kind (other than "I can keep warm!" tasks).

End state for me: The Cdn Army has no suitable veh for either 'sneak and peak' nor "calvary/fight for info" recce.

Question: what happened to LAV TUA? E COY LdSH(RC) PUTS THE LAV TUA TO THE TEST

Mobility wise I have been told more then once by RCD WO and MWO that a good Recce vehicle has similar mobility to the elements it's doing Recce for. Part of the reason you do Recce is to prove the ground the follow-on elements will use. Given our LAV 6 isn't fording and having a LAV 6 doing Recce for it proves the ground I expect.

As for what happened to TUA LAV's they were converted to LAV RWS in 2018-19 to support Afghanistan Operations. It was interestingly the step between the current LAV 6 and the LAV III as it has many of the current LAV 6 modifications (improved belly armour, blast protected seating etc...).

As for the TAPV first-hand experience posted here by more than one person has stated that the TAPV has in some cases better mobility/easier to hide than a LAV 6 (can back into tighter spaces, can go over obsticles/some terrain that the LAV cannont).

Not being an apologist, but its important to have a realistic understanding of what the equipment can "actually" do instead of what we assume it can do. There are a lot of assumptions here that are not true regarding the capabilities of the equipment.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

"Sneak and peak" does not need dismounts. The Ferret had a crew of two and the Lynx a crew of three. They could do dismounted ops (ie conduct surveillance away from the vehicle but certainly not fight except to call in fire. I recall that recce squadrons at times had an assault troop which was akin to an infantry platoon to handle "dismounted" fighting. It was usually the first thing to be zero manned when PYs were short.

Disagree; "mud recce" certainly needed dismounts during troop and patrol level tasks; drills (blind corner, gap, defile) required dismounts. Rte recce - if a patrol goes down a lateral, they might encounter a 'lateral off the lateral'. We would dismount our Obs, who was then the security element. This help with "economy of effort/force" stuff, clearing that part of the trace as a ptl. This allowed us to maintain both our degree of search and rate of adv.

44 (assault troop) was more of a "conduct minor engineering tasks" sub-unit than an Inf platoon.

 

[GR66]

The perfect Recce veh should be able to ford and swim. I'd of loved a Bison-type veh with better commanders cupola and TOW (I'm thinking the Bradley...loved the Commanders Independent Cupola, seriously loved it).

Both the BvS10 and the STK Bronco 3 can swim and interestingly both are almost 1m SHORTER than the TAPV. Road speed however I'm thinking would be the issue (75km/h and 65km/h respectively).

 

[FJAG]

To answer this question, I think you need to actually get some quantitative analysis. What is the area of influence it is expected to have to conduct its tasks? If its expected to conduct the full range of security tasks, what does it need in terms of time, space, and force to be effective within the AO it would be assigned?

Also, how does it fit in with higher formation functions. Are we simply doing this a Bde level because we don't have a Div to do some of the things it should be doing? If there is Div Recce, we probably don't need Bde Recce as you get an awkward hot potato of handoffs from Div to Bde to Unit.

I think that's exactly the question one needs to ask but at the same time Canada's general employment model means that we need to be able to slot in from anywhere starting at battlegroup through brigade and into a div model.

That really means having to develop a modular capability with, say, a "unit" whose primary role is at brigade yet capable of plugging into an allied (or even our own) div cavalry formation, while capable of spinning off a sub-unit that could work at battle group without great organizational or doctrinal changes.

We've been doing things like that (somewhat, but not entirely, inadequately because of PY and equipment limitations) with artillery where we have troop level building blocks that can operate either as a composite battery supporting a battlegroup or as batteries within a regiment supporting a brigade.

I'm not a great fan of cobbling together these little Frankenstein subunits/units but its a bit of a necessity, isn't it?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Mobility wise I have been told more then once by RCD WO and MWO that a good Recce vehicle has similar mobility to the elements it's doing Recce for. Part of the reason you do Recce is to prove the ground the follow-on elements will use. Given our LAV 6 isn't fording and having a LAV 6 doing Recce for it proves the ground I expect.

Their thoughts, to me atleast, make sense for a task like Rte Recce. What about all the other types/tasks? Area, zone...flank surv. Screen Ops...etc. What if my orders, pickett/bypass policy tells me to bypass something and I need to ford/swim to do that? I just shrug and stay put?

If that statement is very accurate, why do we have Coyotes doing recce for tanks then? That isn't "similar mobility"....

As for what happened to TUA LAV's they were converted to LAV RWS in 2018-19 to support Afghanistan Operations. It was interestingly the step between the current LAV 6 and the LAV III as it has many of the current LAV 6 modifications (improved belly armour, blast protected seating etc...).

Check, tks.

As for the TAPV first-hand experience posted here by more than one person has stated that the TAPV has in some cases better mobility/easier to hide than a LAV 6 (can back into tighter spaces, can go over obsticles/some terrain that the LAV cannont).

But, personally, I don't think the LAV 6 is a good recce veh to start with. What is "easier to hide"? Easier to put a cam net over? Easier to get into a turrent down?

Not being an apologist, but its important to have a realistic understanding of what the equipment can "actually" do instead of what we assume it can do. There are a lot of assumptions here that are not true regarding the capabilities of the equipment.

Having done x-country and hard stand recce in everything from Iltis, G Wag, track, Bison, Grizzly...I think I can still see caps/lims in various vehicles.

 

[IKnowNothing]

This thread seems to calling out for a modernized CVR(T) set

 

[FJAG]

Disagree; "mud recce" certainly needed dismounts during troop and patrol level tasks; drills (blind corner, gap, defile) required dismounts. Rte recce - if a patrol goes down a lateral, they might encounter a 'lateral off the lateral'. We would dismount our Obs, who was then the security element. This help with "economy of effort/force" stuff, clearing that part of the trace as a ptl. This allowed us to maintain both our degree of search and rate of adv.

44 (assault troop) was more of a "conduct minor engineering tasks" sub-unit than an Inf platoon.

I might have worded that badly. I do mention that the crew may need to dismount for a variety of reasons such as you state. Even a Ferret could dismount one member while the other continued to drive the vehicle and operating in pairs, they could man a dismounted OP 24/7.

My comment about not needing dismounts was carrying a group of "extra" folks in the back for such things at tank hunting teams, infantry tasks and so on and so forth. Those "dismounts" sould be either in something like the assault troop or support troop (when they existed) or be attached infantry. IMHO, the "mud" recce troop should be lightly manned in small manoeuvrable vehicles lightly armoured but with decent self protection.

My recollection of exercises with 8 CH in Pet at the time was that the assault troop rarely made an appearance being the first outfit to be robbed of people to fill the recce troops or the RSM's work details or whatever was the more important function that needed doing.