Armoured RECCE

[KevinB]

Yes; I've always thought of surveillance as passive and reconnaissance as active.

And then Intelligence sorts the mess out
Which is Why I like ISR better than RSTA as a moniker, as long as it has an intelligence aspect.

The fact remains the "Light Armored Reconnaissance" concept has gone with the way of the Dodo, as in a peer v peer, or near peer conflict it is just sending lambs to the slaughter. Enemy ISR has the capability to detect vehicles before they do much Reconnaissance at all.

I suggest it is better to make ISR Troops at the Bde Level that have appropriate tools for the theatre, and are linked with G2/G3 to provide the ability for the Bde to See, Sense, Detect and Analyze to inform the commanders of what the enemy force construct is.
Those tools are not solely a LAV-LRSS, and definitely not a TAPV.

 

[FJAG]

The production plan calls for 150 Centauro 2 with the first 10 units ordered in 2018.

That just reinforces the point, though. They are relacing them at the rate of one new one for every three old ones and removing them form the recce squadron level entirely. The logical conclusion is that the gun "tank" was not suitable in the recce squadron and is being replaced by a, presumably, slightly less expensive, and lighter armed Freccia. The heavy squadron remains, again presumably, to extract the recce squadrons in a pinch.

As an aside, I've been trying to figure out the Italian "regimental" system for some time.

Back in the day when @Old Sweat and I were in Italy in the mid seventies they had true regiments. The 1st Mountain Artillery Regiment had three Gruppos of three batteries each. Alpini regiments had three battalions.

The new structure has each regiment with one battalion (run by a LCol) while the rest of the regiment is a logistics company. There are some army's where the regimental headquarters is nothing more than the depot structure that runs through new recruits and keeps up the regimental museum. Since the Italians have also gone to the brigade structure, my guess (and purely a guess) is that the "regimental command" structure is the Italian version of our cap badge mafia. It's a way of retaining a whole bunch of colonels on the payroll who have no real tactical function. Let's face it, running the battalion logistics company is a captain's job that even we have inflated to major.

 

[Kirkhill]

There was a specific request to look at how the Spanish, Italians and French did things. The Italians were the easiest to get ahold of first.

WRT Surveillance or Recce.

I think that is what the Freccia-Janus and Lince Platoons are trying to bridge. The Freccia supply Surveillance while the Lince supply Recce. The Centauro supply Protection.

 

[Kirkhill]

That just reinforces the point, though. They are relacing them at the rate of one new one for every three old ones and removing them form the recce squadron level entirely. The logical conclusion is that the gun "tank" was not suitable in the recce squadron and is being replaced by a, presumably, slightly less expensive, and lighter armed Freccia. The heavy squadron remains, again presumably, to extract the recce squadrons in a pinch.

Agreed. But that presumably applies regardless of whether the "gun" is mounted on wheels or tracks? The "gun tank" is not compatible with the Recce function but needs to be on hand as a Protection and Screen.

As an aside, I've been trying to figure out the Italian "regimental" system for some time.

Back in the day when @Old Sweat and I were in Italy in the mid seventies they had true regiments. The 1st Mountain Artillery Regiment had three Gruppos of three batteries each. Alpini regiments had three battalions.

The new structure has each regiment with one battalion (run by a LCol) while the rest of the regiment is a logistics company. There are some army's where the regimental headquarters is nothing more than the depot structure that runs through new recruits and keeps up the regimental museum. Since the Italians have also gone to the brigade structure, my guess (and purely a guess) is that the "regimental command" structure is the Italian version of our cap badge mafia. It's a way of retaining a whole bunch of colonels on the payroll who have no real tactical function. Let's face it, running the battalion logistics company is a captain's job that even we have inflated to major.

It kind of looks like that. The one thing I can see a good Regimental Commander doing though is allowing the Battalion OC to focus on the fight in front of him while the Regiment manages the rear link.

 

[FJAG]

And then Intelligence sorts the mess out
Which is Why I like ISR better than RSTA as a moniker, as long as it has an intelligence aspect.

The fact remains the "Light Armored Reconnaissance" concept has gone with the way of the Dodo, as in a peer v peer, or near peer conflict it is just sending lambs to the slaughter. Enemy ISR has the capability to detect vehicles before they do much Reconnaissance at all.

I suggest it is better to make ISR Troops at the Bde Level that have appropriate tools for the theatre, and are linked with G2/G3 to provide the ability for the Bde to See, Sense, Detect and Analyze to inform the commanders of what the enemy force construct is.
Those tools are not solely a LAV-LRSS, and definitely not a TAPV.

I never did like ISTAR. TA never fit very well into that construct. It's a separate specialized capability that just messed up the ISTAR data flow and slowed down the TA sensor/shooter link. ISR works for me.

I'm not sure what "cavalry" should be yet, but in my mind I see a mixture of light reconnaissance, surveillance, UAV and UCAV elements, some infantry, definitely anti armour missiles, FOO/JTACs, and a small element of loitering munition launchers. Maybe a tank squadron to help extract threatened elements.

I don't have the same issues with LAVs & TAPVs in the "cavalry" as you. I think they would make adequate vehicles for UAV/UCAV/loitering munition carriers and controllers, maybe ATGM det carriers, maybe even FOO/JTAC carriers (all customized for their roles) but with the condition that their roles are not recce but merely protective vehicles for the specialized supporting dets.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not sure what "cavalry" should be yet

Isn't everything "cavalry" now? Whenever possible, the "rifles" are "mounted".

 

[KevinB]

There was a specific request to look at how the Spanish, Italians and French did things. The Italians were the easiest to get ahold of first.

WRT Surveillance or Recce.

I think that is what the Freccia-Janus and Lince Platoons are trying to bridge. The Freccia supply Surveillance while the Lince supply Recce. The Centauro supply Protection.

French Jaguar 6x6 Recce Vehicle - investing in the fact the Commanders independent thermal and targeting system has a slaved Mag-58 GPMG

 

[Kirkhill]

French Jaguar 6x6 Recce Vehicle - investing in the fact the Commanders independent thermal and targeting system has a slaved Mag-58 GPMG
View attachment 70056

I just have trouble accepting the number of revolving gadgets stuck on top of each other. To me it is the very definition of Byzantine. Hard to build, hard to maintain and impossible to replace in a hurry.

 

[FJAG]

Agreed. But that presumably applies regardless of whether the "gun" is mounted on wheels or tracks? The "gun tank" is not compatible with the Recce function but needs to be on hand as a Protection and Screen.

I may be less trusting than some. Putting a large gun like that on a light vehicle will just have a whole generation of cowboy squadron commanders (or worse regimental commanders) push the envelope thinking they are armour (like too many Stryker battalions did with their MGSs.

I'm not sure what the answer actually is as we're finding out that T72s and 80s aren't all that useful in the role either

I kind of looks like that. The one thing I can see a good Regimental Commander doing though is allowing the Battalion OC to focus on the fight in front of him while the Regiment manages the rear link.

Hmm. ... Captain's job.

 

[KevinB]

I never did like ISTAR. TA never fit very well into that construct. It's a separate specialized capability that just messed up the ISTAR data flow and slowed down the TA sensor/shooter link. ISR works for me.

I think TA gets a poor rap, but anyone can do Target Acquisition - it's target selection and prioritization that really gets messed up - and more so when it is shoehorned into TA.
TSP is a G2/3 Function - and needs it's own "cell" that doesn't affect the ISR collection.

I'm not sure what "cavalry" should be yet, but in my mind I see a mixture of light reconnaissance, surveillance, UAV and UCAV elements, some infantry, definitely anti armour missiles, FOO/JTACs, and a small element of loitering munition launchers. Maybe a tank squadron to help extract threatened elements.

I started napkin army'ing a BDE ISR "Unit" - and decided that realistically a combined Arms BN was a better fit - that Bde in itself didn't need a separate entity - more a TSP sorting group, perhaps as part of a FSCC.

I don't have the same issues with LAVs & TAPVs in the "cavalry" as you. I think they would make adequate vehicles for UAV/UCAV/loitering munition carriers and controllers, maybe ATGM det carriers, maybe even FOO/JTAC carriers (all customized for their roles) but with the condition that their roles are not recce but merely protective vehicles for the specialized supporting dets.

I have no issues with the LAV, when it it viewed objectively as to what it can and cannot do.

Coming full circle I think the Combined Arms BN can provide the Bn and Bde the eyes needed.

1 X Tank Sqn
2 x Rifle Coy
1 x ISR Coy (more on that)
1 x Cbt Spt Coy (I would roll Bn HQ into Coy Spt Coy - instead of a separate HHQ Coy)
1 x Admin Coy

ISR Coy

Sniper Troop (20 pers)
4 x 4man Sniper Dets

Recce Platoon (40 pers 1+39)
6 x 6 man Recce Dets (adding Close UAV Op role to each Det)

Unmanned Systems and LRSS Troop (40 pers, 1+39)
4 x 4 man UGV Det - each in LRSS LAV
4 x 4 man UCAV Det - each in LRSS LAV

Fires Co-Ordination Troop (40 pers, 3 +37). (we could call it FSCC Troop)
JTAC, Foo Team, MFC Teams

 

[KevinB]

I just have trouble accepting the number of revolving gadgets stuck on top of each other. To me it is the very definition of Byzantine. Hard to build, hard to maintain and impossible to replace in a hurry.

Modular - It offers ATGM, a 40mm cannon, independent commander sight/target designator - which is key so if needed the gunner can fight the vehicle, while the Commander can designate other targets for UCAV etc, and prioritize target engagement sequences while under armor.

Wouldn't be my first choice - but seems to be fairly capable.

 

[Kirkhill]

I may be less trusting than some. Putting a large gun like that on a light vehicle will just have a whole generation of cowboy squadron commanders (or worse regimental commanders) push the envelope thinking they are armour (like too many Stryker battalions did with their MGSs.

I'm not sure what the answer actually is as we're finding out that T72s and 80s aren't all that useful in the role either

Hmm. ... Captain's job.

Brigadier's Brigade Major outranks Lt Col's Capt
On the other hand a Colonel outranks the Brigadier's Lt Col CoS.

Who is pushing and who is pulling?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

French Jaguar 6x6 Recce Vehicle - investing in the fact the Commanders independent thermal and targeting system has a slaved Mag-58 GPMG
View attachment 70056

The first time I did recce in a (simulated) Bradley turret with my own independant cupola separate from the gunner/turret, I thought "this is the way to do this hatches down stuff".

While scanning, I could override the gunner controls and put him/her onto my new priority target at a seconds notice. Turret moving while I'm calling out tgt description, FCOs.

It is the way, IMO.

 

[KevinB]

The first time I did recce in a (simulated) Bradley turret with my own independant cupola separate from the gunner/turret, I thought "this is the way to do this hatches down stuff".

While scanning, I could override the gunner controls and put him/her onto my new priority target at a seconds notice. Turret moving while I'm calling out tgt description, FCOs.

It is the way, IMO.

Yup - it was incorporated into all the Abrams after the M1A2 Block I

 

[Brad Sallows]

French Jaguar 6x6 Recce Vehicle

The French have always been effective at getting a lot of work out of a crew commander.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think TA gets a poor rap, but anyone can do Target Acquisition - it's target selection and prioritization that really gets messed up - and more so when it is shoehorned into TA.
TSP is a G2/3 Function - and needs it's own "cell" that doesn't affect the ISR collection.


I started napkin army'ing a BDE ISR "Unit" - and decided that realistically a combined Arms BN was a better fit - that Bde in itself didn't need a separate entity - more a TSP sorting group, perhaps as part of a FSCC.

I have no issues with the LAV, when it it viewed objectively as to what it can and cannot do.

Coming full circle I think the Combined Arms BN can provide the Bn and Bde the eyes needed.

1 X Tank Sqn
2 x Rifle Coy
1 x ISR Coy (more on that)
1 x Cbt Spt Coy (I would roll Bn HQ into Coy Spt Coy - instead of a separate HHQ Coy)
1 x Admin Coy

ISR Coy

Sniper Troop (20 pers)
4 x 4man Sniper Dets

Recce Platoon (40 pers 1+39)
6 x 6 man Recce Dets (adding Close UAV Op role to each Det)

Unmanned Systems and LRSS Troop (40 pers, 1+39)
4 x 4 man UGV Det - each in LRSS LAV
4 x 4 man UCAV Det - each in LRSS LAV

Fires Co-Ordination Troop (40 pers, 3 +37). (we could call it FSCC Troop)
JTAC, Foo Team, MFC Teams

What you're really arguing, and FJAG, is that there is a role for a Combined Arms "Unit" in each Bde. Which in turn implies that each RCAC Cavalry Regiment should be a Combined Arms "Unit". Which in turn implies that tanks should be equally distributed across the Brigades. Which in turn implies equivalent training areas. Which in turn implies more money for parts and better management of logistics over a dispersed force.

Why not train as you intend to fight and practice supporting distributed forces in garrison?

Mo' money!

 

[FJAG]

Brigadier's Brigade Major outranks Lt Col's Capt
On the other hand a Colonel outranks the Brigadier's Lt Col CoS.

Who is pushing and who is pulling?

And so he should. Fundamentally armies are "push" organizations. 99% of the "rear link" (which incidentally is part of the bn ops cell's job, is a captains. The 1% where there is an issue is a "Sunray to Sunray" thing. That gets real complicated if there's a spare colonel sitting around between the bn comd and the brigade commander (who in their org is probably a BGen based on the usual rank inflation.)

Modular - It offers ATGM, a 40mm cannon, independent commander sight/target designator

Big fan of modular. I think everything should be a base vehicle with a modular, replaceable turret and modular interior fittings. I'm not sure I'd go so far as the Boxer concept with a replaceable body behind the driver - I'm more with a common shell (maybe two a standard and a high roof shell)

What you're really arguing, and FJAG, is that there is a role for a Combined Arms "Unit" in each Bde. Which in turn implies that each RCAC Cavalry Regiment should be a Combined Arms "Unit".

Yes and no from me. Firstly I'm talking armoured brigade for combined arms battalions. Medium and light brigades should be infantry battalions with the right support company and brigade enablers.

While technically I think a cavalry regiment should have a "combined" aspect to it (primarily it may get involved in a fight before the rest of the brigade is engaged or unmasked) I don't consider it a "combined arms" battalion such as in the ABCT. It's job is different than a "combined arms" battalion although for an ABCT it might more resemble a line "combined arms" than one in a medium or light brigade.

IMHO there needs to be a capability of employment similarity between heavy, medium and light cavalry regiment which mandates that the same functions be there but perhaps with entirely different equipment and possibly even different TTPs.

In essence I do see a cavalry battalion having disparate capabilities including sneak and peak, surveillance and direct and indirect fire capabilities. I'm trying to concentrate on their reaching out beyond the range of their ground sensors and weapons with easily replaceable UAV/UCAV assets and being able to identify, and engage, enemy forces as much as possible with over-the-horizon or stand-off weapon systems.

I can definitely see a heavy brigade in the offence needing a powerful advance element that can pinpoint and fix enemy locations while rapidly advancing and therefore needing to be armour heavy itself. I recall back in the mid to late seventies that the Germans under Heerestrukture 3 had mixed Panzeraufklärungsbataillonen which included two light companies with two platoons of 8 x six wheeled Luchs recce vehicles each and one platoon of 9 x Leo1s and one heavy company with two platoons of 5 x Leo 1s each and one of 5 x Marders, one platoon of 6 x 120mm mortars and an engineer platoon with a Class 60 bridging capability. Handy little buggers they were. Everything old is new again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bit more on the Italian Army.

Heavy Brigades - 1x Tank (1x Cavalry + 2x Ariete MBT + 1x Dardo TIFV) , 1x Armd Inf (1x Cavalry +1x Ariete MBT + 2x Dardo TIFV)
Medium Brigades - 3x Mech (1x Cavalry + 3x Freccia WIFV)
Lt Brigades - 2x Alpini (1x Cavalry + 3x Alpini (Bv206S, Lince)) , 1x Parachute (1x Cavalry + 3x Para (Lince))
Specialist Brigades - 1x Air Asslt (1x Lt Inf (Lince)), 1x Cavalry (1x Cavalry + 1x "Marine" (AAV-7, Lince)), 1x Army SF (1x Para, 1x Raiders, 1x RTA) 1x Roman Brigade (1x Cavalry, 1x Dardo, 1x Lince)

Heavy Brigades are equipped with PzH 2000
Medium and Alpine and Cavalry Brigades are equipped with FH-70
The Parachute Brigade is equipped with 120mm mortars

In addition there is an MRLS Regiment and a separate PzH 2000 Regiment.

Air Defence is Stingers and Aspides (Aspides being replaced by CAMM-ER).

 

[Kirkhill]

@FJAG

Seriously? A Brigadier in charge of a Brigade is rank inflation?

 

[Kirkhill]

In essence I do see a cavalry battalion having disparate capabilities including sneak and peak, surveillance and direct and indirect fire capabilities. I'm trying to concentrate on their reaching out beyond the range of their ground sensors and weapons with easily replaceable UAV/UCAV assets and being able to identify, and engage, enemy forces as much as possible with over-the-horizon or stand-off weapon systems.

At that point your Cavalry Battalion is starting to sound an awful lot like a mini-Brigade.