Armoured RECCE

[TangoTwoBravo]

Terminology Clarification Question: I was under the understanding that Canada has Armour, not Cavalry.

Cavalry AFAIK is an American term. Though with research there seems to be an argument that Cavalry refers to a type/style of armor employment.

Are the terms interchangeable or should we be using Armour in the RCAC context?

I know it seems pedantic but the terminology can be confusing.

It can be useful to settle on some terms.

My own background as an Armour officer includes both tank and reconnaissance. I have been a Recce Sqn BC/2IC on operations and a Recce Sqn OC for two years in Canada. My Recce Sqn had two armoured recce troops, an infantry recce platoon and a sniper platoon. I was also the DCO of a Recce Regt BG for two Maple Resolves (well, for one were a Port Au Prince Guard Mech BG but anyhoo). I am also a graduate of the US Army Cavalry Leader's Course. My turret time expires, though, sometime around 2013!

The US Army employs the term Cavalry. It can can have purely historic reasons (1st Cavalry Division for example) with no reference to role. The role of US Cavalry organizations is to protect and preserve the fighting ability of other combined arms forces. While its primary missions are reconnaissance and security, the cavalry troop may be called upon to execute attack, defend and delay missions as part of squadron (unit sized) and regimental (brigade sized) missions. The Troop accomplishes its missions by communicating, moving and shooting in that order. The emotional touch-stone for US Cavalry is Buford at Gettysburg.

US Cavalry organizations are mixed. There are scout platoons and tank or anti-tank platoons. There is usually integral fire support at the sub-unit level. The Scout Platoons seek to employ stealth to accomplish their tasks. The tank platoons follow and fight as required to accomplish the mission. You can absolutely employ stealth with a Coyote or a LAV. By stealth/sneak and peek I mean using the terrain to mask movement and avoiding getting ambushed with ease by the enemy. US Scout platoons have dismounts - they are not infantry. They are scouts.

US Cavalry organizations can Screen and Guard supported formations generally within their own means with the exception of real fire support. They can also Cover at Regimental level.

Screen: To protect the main body of a force by providing early warning. This is a bread and butter security task and can be conducted as part of offensive, defensive and transitional operations. So a screen detects the enemy in time for the supported formation to react accordingly. My analogy I used at the College was that a Screen is similar to a ball carrier in football seeing a potential tackler in time to alter his course. In US doctrine Screen has the implied task of destroying enemy reconnaissance - we lack such a codicil. A screen supporting a brigade in the defence may well be an OP line with a variety of mounted and dismounted OPs. A screen in front of an advance would generally be a zone or area reconnaissance.

Guard: To protect the main body of a force through the application of combat power while also observing and reporting. The guard will provide more than just warning, it will fight to protect the enemy interfering with the main body/guarded force. Barring other arrangements, a Guard will operate within the fire support of the supported formation. A Guard is like the ball carrier employing a stiff-arm to stop or deflect an tackler to allow him to make adjustments.

Cover: To protect the main body of a force by engaging an enemy while also observing and reporting. The difference from a Guard is that a covering force operates apart from the main force. It is self-contained - an US Armored Cavalry Regiment would Cover. A Cover is like having another player prevent tacklers from reaching the ball carrier. Yes - the analogy is starting to stretch.

What does all this mean? In Canadian doctrine armoured reconnaissance could absolutely Screen. Coyotes, LAVs and indeed TAPVs can Screen whether on the offence or defence. A Canadian armoured reconnaissance squadron could form part of a Guard (say a BG with a Recce Sqn attached) or with significant attachments it could contemplate a Guard task. Could adding ATGMs to LAV-Recce and TAPV allow a recce squadron or rebranded Cavalry squadron the ability to guard, or to think about operating as a US Cavalry organization? Perhaps. It would certainly make the destruction of enemy recce elements easier. They could think about fighting to buy time. I would prefer, though, to have some sub-sub units as scouts and others as shooters.

I believe that the current initiative about rebranding to Cavalry is about having a common occupational structure, as well as a common organization and some tactics for all armour elements. So a Cavalry Squadron could be Heavy and have four Troops of four tanks each, or it could be Light with four troops of four LAV-Recce each. This would mean some definite adjustments to Recce tactics in terms of patrols etc, but I think that it would be transparent to supported formations. An infantry BG might have a Heavy Cavalry Squadron attached that would look suspiciously like a current tank squadron. Perhaps the Brigade would have a Light Cavalry Squadron conducting security tasks (screening) that would have the same effect as the Brigade Recce Sqn. In theory you could put them together under one BG CO and conduct something akin to US Cavalry tasks but we can do that now with the right groupings. Perhaps a light infantry battalion receives a Light Cavalry Squadron in TAPVs that executes a wide variety of tasks, ranging from screens to direct fire support?

I believe that the payoff is making it easier to have people transition between the roles if we find ourselves in rotational warfare again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just one.question why the hell isn't their a movie about Strachan winning his V.C. Or Flowerdew's charge ?

Because we're Canadians?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Terminology thing again. Cavalry don't dismount. Cavalry have sabres and lances and stuff and never get off their horse.

If you want dismounts that move by horse you call the Light Horse, or the Mounted Infantry, or the Mounted Rifles, or the Dragoons.

Dragoons are heavy cavalry. Helmets, breastplate, big men, big horses, swords. They are the original 'Death before Dismount' boys. Hussars also don't dismount. They are the light cavalry. Busby instead of helmet, no armour, fast little horses and swords, sometimes lances where no Lancer regiments exist.

 

[GK .Dundas]

British definition of 'Cavalry '.
Heavy cavalry : Armoured from head to foot and from ear to ear.
Light cavalry: There only tactic there is the enemy ......CHARGE !!!!

 

[GR66]

Which I think cements the point that LAV-Recce isn’t…




Too many HQ’s for not enough troops.

A CMBG as it currently sits is what ~ 7,634 all ranks.

But doesn’t have enough tanks for all three
I won’t rehash the other missing enablers that most Armies have as well.

Canada could field three of those at best, and would still be light on service support etc.

But is trying to field 4 Bde plus a lot of other HQ’s.

We don't even have enough tanks for a single ABCT.

Even going to an American-style 15 tank Company vs our doctrinal 19 tank Squadron an ABCT has:
1st Combined Arms Battalion - 2 x Tank Companies (30 tanks)
2nd Combined Arms Battalion - 2 x Tank Companies (30 tanks)
3rd Combined Arms Battalion - 1 x Tank Company (15 tanks)
Cavalry Squadron - 1 x Tank Company (15 tanks)
Total: 90 tanks

In order to field a single ABCT we should likely have around 120-150 tanks to cover the unit requirements, training squadron, maintenance spares, replacements, etc. Double that if you want a 2nd Reserve ABCT to replace any combat losses.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dragoons are heavy cavalry. Helmets, breastplate, big men, big horses, swords. They are the original 'Death before Dismount' boys. Hussars also don't dismount. They are the light cavalry. Busby instead of helmet, no armour, fast little horses and swords, sometimes lances where no Lancer regiments exist.

Actually

dragoon, in late 16th-century Europe, a mounted soldier who fought as a light cavalryman on attack and as a dismounted infantryman on defense. The terms derived from his weapon, a species of carbine or short musket called the dragoon. Dragoons were organized not in squadrons but in companies, and their officers and noncommissioned officers bore infantry titles. From the early wars of Frederick II the Great of Prussia in the 18th century, dragoon has referred to medium cavalry. The light cavalry of the British army in the 18th and early 19th centuries was for the most part called light dragoon. In the 20th century, dragoon regiments were converted to armoured formations; the French army also reorganized some dragoon regiments as motorized infantry (dragons portés).

Dragoon | Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry, Mounted Infantry | Britannica

Dragoon, in late 16th-century Europe, a mounted soldier who fought as a light cavalryman on attack and as a dismounted infantryman on defense. The terms derived from his weapon, a species of carbine or short musket called the dragoon. Dragoons were organized not in squadrons but in companies, and

www.britannica.com

Dragoons were very infra-dig. Didn't even get proper horses, just the stuff the Cavalry didn't want.

 

[Underway]

It can be useful to settle on some terms.

My own background as an Armour officer includes both tank and reconnaissance. I have been a Recce Sqn BC/2IC on operations and a Recce Sqn OC for two years in Canada. My Recce Sqn had two armoured recce troops, an infantry recce platoon and a sniper platoon. I was also the DCO of a Recce Regt BG for two Maple Resolves (well, for one were a Port Au Prince Guard Mech BG but anyhoo). I am also a graduate of the US Army Cavalry Leader's Course. My turret time expires, though, sometime around 2013!

The US Army employs the term Cavalry. It can can have purely historic reasons (1st Cavalry Division for example) with no reference to role. The role of US Cavalry organizations is to protect and preserve the fighting ability of other combined arms forces. While its primary missions are reconnaissance and security, the cavalry troop may be called upon to execute attack, defend and delay missions as part of squadron (unit sized) and regimental (brigade sized) missions. The Troop accomplishes its missions by communicating, moving and shooting in that order. The emotional touch-stone for US Cavalry is Buford at Gettysburg.

US Cavalry organizations are mixed. There are scout platoons and tank or anti-tank platoons. There is usually integral fire support at the sub-unit level. The Scout Platoons seek to employ stealth to accomplish their tasks. The tank platoons follow and fight as required to accomplish the mission. You can absolutely employ stealth with a Coyote or a LAV. By stealth/sneak and peek I mean using the terrain to mask movement and avoiding getting ambushed with ease by the enemy. US Scout platoons have dismounts - they are not infantry. They are scouts.

US Cavalry organizations can Screen and Guard supported formations generally within their own means with the exception of real fire support. They can also Cover at Regimental level.

Screen: To protect the main body of a force by providing early warning. This is a bread and butter security task and can be conducted as part of offensive, defensive and transitional operations. So a screen detects the enemy in time for the supported formation to react accordingly. My analogy I used at the College was that a Screen is similar to a ball carrier in football seeing a potential tackler in time to alter his course. In US doctrine Screen has the implied task of destroying enemy reconnaissance - we lack such a codicil. A screen supporting a brigade in the defence may well be an OP line with a variety of mounted and dismounted OPs. A screen in front of an advance would generally be a zone or area reconnaissance.

Guard: To protect the main body of a force through the application of combat power while also observing and reporting. The guard will provide more than just warning, it will fight to protect the enemy interfering with the main body/guarded force. Barring other arrangements, a Guard will operate within the fire support of the supported formation. A Guard is like the ball carrier employing a stiff-arm to stop or deflect an tackler to allow him to make adjustments.

Cover: To protect the main body of a force by engaging an enemy while also observing and reporting. The difference from a Guard is that a covering force operates apart from the main force. It is self-contained - an US Armored Cavalry Regiment would Cover. A Cover is like having another player prevent tacklers from reaching the ball carrier. Yes - the analogy is starting to stretch.

What does all this mean? In Canadian doctrine armoured reconnaissance could absolutely Screen. Coyotes, LAVs and indeed TAPVs can Screen whether on the offence or defence. A Canadian armoured reconnaissance squadron could form part of a Guard (say a BG with a Recce Sqn attached) or with significant attachments it could contemplate a Guard task. Could adding ATGMs to LAV-Recce and TAPV allow a recce squadron or rebranded Cavalry squadron the ability to guard, or to think about operating as a US Cavalry organization? Perhaps. It would certainly make the destruction of enemy recce elements easier. They could think about fighting to buy time. I would prefer, though, to have some sub-sub units as scouts and others as shooters.

I believe that the current initiative about rebranding to Cavalry is about having a common occupational structure, as well as a common organization and some tactics for all armour elements. So a Cavalry Squadron could be Heavy and have four Troops of four tanks each, or it could be Light with four troops of four LAV-Recce each. This would mean some definite adjustments to Recce tactics in terms of patrols etc, but I think that it would be transparent to supported formations. An infantry BG might have a Heavy Cavalry Squadron attached that would look suspiciously like a current tank squadron. Perhaps the Brigade would have a Light Cavalry Squadron conducting security tasks (screening) that would have the same effect as the Brigade Recce Sqn. In theory you could put them together under one BG CO and conduct something akin to US Cavalry tasks but we can do that now with the right groupings. Perhaps a light infantry battalion receives a Light Cavalry Squadron in TAPVs that executes a wide variety of tasks, ranging from screens to direct fire support?

I believe that the payoff is making it easier to have people transition between the roles if we find ourselves in rotational warfare again.

Thank you for that. I know it took time but I really appreciate the extra information.

 

[FJAG]

Is it the case that we have too few tanks and guns for the number of infantry we have, or too many infantry for the tanks and guns we have?

The question of the number of tanks and guns is beside the point - although we clearly have too few of both.

The question is what capabilities does the Army need?

It's clear that we need the sense functions like STA and ISTAR but we can barely man the inadequate UAV and recce and STA systems we have now.

We also need more act capabilities tanks, guns, UACVs, loitering munition systems, PG rockets, ATGM systems.

If we were to obtain this equipment, which the Army needs to be effective, then to field these systems we would either need more people or give up other capabilities. Quite frankly, we have no capabilities that can be safely dropped. That's essentially what we've done for two decades and more is give up capabilities to field others, guns and AD for STA is an example.

Since full-time PYs cost the military substantial recurring annual costs one needs to look very seriously at building a capable and credible reserve force to man those systems which are not needed on a day to day basis.

If the Army continues to play the "shuffle the PY deck chairs game" while continuing to marginalize one half of its authorized strength, it will never amount to anything. Let's face it, even if we cut two infantry battalions (which the infantry will fight tooth and nail) it would only add 1,000 folks to redistribute. On the other hand if one seriously reformed the reserves you could easily add 15,000 soldiers into the equation.

 

[FJAG]

Jealous I am. OO or HO?

HO. See my Railroading thread.

 

[Kirkhill]

HO. See my Railroading thread.

Left a lovely Triang-Hornby set back in Britain.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Actually

Dragoon | Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry, Mounted Infantry | Britannica

Dragoon, in late 16th-century Europe, a mounted soldier who fought as a light cavalryman on attack and as a dismounted infantryman on defense. The terms derived from his weapon, a species of carbine or short musket called the dragoon. Dragoons were organized not in squadrons but in companies, and

www.britannica.com

Dragoons were very infra-dig. Didn't even get proper horses, just the stuff the Cavalry didn't want.

......and if you scroll down the search list, the next entry will give you a completely different description.It's the internet. The names are no longer synonymous with roles and equipment. The early era played a lot into the different names for different roles, but eventually, loyalties, equipment and amalgamations makes it all mute. Lancers, became Carabiniers who became Dragoons, Light Horse or Hussars. Other countries use the descriptors differently depending on TO&E. However, none of it really applies to todays roles or names. Just a pleasant distraction and things to toast at the Mess dinner.


'Scotland Forever' Charge of the Royal Scot's Greys at Waterloo

"The Royal Scots Greys was a cavalry regiment of the British Army from 1707 until 1971, when they amalgamated with the 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon Guards) to form The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)."


Fun Fact: "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were accorded the status of a regiment of dragoons in 1921. As a cavalry regiment, the RCMP was entitled to wear battle honours for its war service as well as carry a guidon, with its first guidon presented in 1935."

 

[Kirkhill]

......and if you scroll down the search list, the next entry will give you a completely different description.It's the internet. The names are no longer synonymous with roles and equipment. The early era played a lot into the different names for different roles, but eventually, loyalties, equipment and amalgamations makes it all mute. Lancers, became Carabiniers who became Dragoons, Light Horse or Hussars. Other countries use the descriptors differently depending on TO&E. However, none of it really applies to todays roles or names. Just a pleasant distraction and things to toast at the Mess dinner.

View attachment 69921
'Scotland Forever' Charge of the Royal Scot's Greys at Waterloo

"The Royal Scots Greys was a cavalry regiment of the British Army from 1707 until 1971, when they amalgamated with the 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon Guards) to form The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)."


Fun Fact: "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were accorded the status of a regiment of dragoons in 1921. As a cavalry regiment, the RCMP was entitled to wear battle honours for its war service as well as carry a guidon, with its first guidon presented in 1935."

Understood - On the other hand the original article was Encyclopedia Britannica. Not just the interweb.

With respect to variable nomenclature - that tradition continues to this very day it seems. Which circles us back to trying to decide whether there is a difference between a squadron or a company on wheels - are they armoured, armoured recce, cavalry or ISR or even, god forbid, assault troops, panzer grenadiers or mounted infantry? And lets not forget Light, Medium, Heavy.

The problem, in my opinion, is that as technology changes, capabilities change and overlap, and the needs of the battlefield will result in those capabilities being exploited regardless of which capbadge possesses them. Roles will change and everyone will want the capability until the enemy figures out how to effectively counter it at which point the role, the capability and the technology will be discarded.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just one.question why the hell isn't their a movie about Strachan winning his V.C. Or Flowerdew's charge ?

Or for the action at Leliefontein, South Africa when the Royal Canadian Dragoons earned 3 VC's during that one action and a DCM by Tpr Knisley.

 

[KevinB]

The problem, in my opinion, is that as technology changes, capabilities change and overlap, and the needs of the battlefield will result in those capabilities being exploited regardless of which capbadge possesses them. Roles will change and everyone will want the capability until the enemy figures out how to effectively counter it at which point the role, the capability and the technology will be discarded.

Or Canada will have just gotten around to adopting it…

 

[markppcli]

Dragoons are heavy cavalry. Helmets, breastplate, big men, big horses, swords. They are the original 'Death before Dismount' boys. Hussars also don't dismount. They are the light cavalry. Busby instead of helmet, no armour, fast little horses and swords, sometimes lances where no Lancer regiments exist.

Dragoons were originally mounted infantry. They eventually became simply more cavalry as their role shifted. Since they were “infantry” they actually had a slightly lower pay scale which is why the British decided all their cavalry would become dragoon regiments from 1746-1788, with a few made “dragoon guards” to smooth some egos over.

 

[FJAG]

Fun Fact: "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were accorded the status of a regiment of dragoons in 1921. As a cavalry regiment, the RCMP was entitled to wear battle honours for its war service as well as carry a guidon, with its first guidon presented in 1935."

Does the Musical Ride make them lancers?

 

[GK .Dundas]

I doubt it and they should probably be rather happy not to be.
As I recall the last use of Lancers occurred during of all things ,the American Civil War. A couple of Texan cavalry regiments were so equipped and the two or three times they tried to mount a charge against infantry. They were slaughtered.....

 

[DBNSG]

It can be useful to settle on some terms.

My own background as an Armour officer includes both tank and reconnaissance. I have been a Recce Sqn BC/2IC on operations and a Recce Sqn OC for two years in Canada. My Recce Sqn had two armoured recce troops, an infantry recce platoon and a sniper platoon. I was also the DCO of a Recce Regt BG for two Maple Resolves (well, for one were a Port Au Prince Guard Mech BG but anyhoo). I am also a graduate of the US Army Cavalry Leader's Course. My turret time expires, though, sometime around 2013!

The US Army employs the term Cavalry. It can can have purely historic reasons (1st Cavalry Division for example) with no reference to role. The role of US Cavalry organizations is to protect and preserve the fighting ability of other combined arms forces. While its primary missions are reconnaissance and security, the cavalry troop may be called upon to execute attack, defend and delay missions as part of squadron (unit sized) and regimental (brigade sized) missions. The Troop accomplishes its missions by communicating, moving and shooting in that order. The emotional touch-stone for US Cavalry is Buford at Gettysburg.

US Cavalry organizations are mixed. There are scout platoons and tank or anti-tank platoons. There is usually integral fire support at the sub-unit level. The Scout Platoons seek to employ stealth to accomplish their tasks. The tank platoons follow and fight as required to accomplish the mission. You can absolutely employ stealth with a Coyote or a LAV. By stealth/sneak and peek I mean using the terrain to mask movement and avoiding getting ambushed with ease by the enemy. US Scout platoons have dismounts - they are not infantry. They are scouts.

US Cavalry organizations can Screen and Guard supported formations generally within their own means with the exception of real fire support. They can also Cover at Regimental level.

Screen: To protect the main body of a force by providing early warning. This is a bread and butter security task and can be conducted as part of offensive, defensive and transitional operations. So a screen detects the enemy in time for the supported formation to react accordingly. My analogy I used at the College was that a Screen is similar to a ball carrier in football seeing a potential tackler in time to alter his course. In US doctrine Screen has the implied task of destroying enemy reconnaissance - we lack such a codicil. A screen supporting a brigade in the defence may well be an OP line with a variety of mounted and dismounted OPs. A screen in front of an advance would generally be a zone or area reconnaissance.

Guard: To protect the main body of a force through the application of combat power while also observing and reporting. The guard will provide more than just warning, it will fight to protect the enemy interfering with the main body/guarded force. Barring other arrangements, a Guard will operate within the fire support of the supported formation. A Guard is like the ball carrier employing a stiff-arm to stop or deflect an tackler to allow him to make adjustments.

Cover: To protect the main body of a force by engaging an enemy while also observing and reporting. The difference from a Guard is that a covering force operates apart from the main force. It is self-contained - an US Armored Cavalry Regiment would Cover. A Cover is like having another player prevent tacklers from reaching the ball carrier. Yes - the analogy is starting to stretch.

What does all this mean? In Canadian doctrine armoured reconnaissance could absolutely Screen. Coyotes, LAVs and indeed TAPVs can Screen whether on the offence or defence. A Canadian armoured reconnaissance squadron could form part of a Guard (say a BG with a Recce Sqn attached) or with significant attachments it could contemplate a Guard task. Could adding ATGMs to LAV-Recce and TAPV allow a recce squadron or rebranded Cavalry squadron the ability to guard, or to think about operating as a US Cavalry organization? Perhaps. It would certainly make the destruction of enemy recce elements easier. They could think about fighting to buy time. I would prefer, though, to have some sub-sub units as scouts and others as shooters.

I believe that the current initiative about rebranding to Cavalry is about having a common occupational structure, as well as a common organization and some tactics for all armour elements. So a Cavalry Squadron could be Heavy and have four Troops of four tanks each, or it could be Light with four troops of four LAV-Recce each. This would mean some definite adjustments to Recce tactics in terms of patrols etc, but I think that it would be transparent to supported formations. An infantry BG might have a Heavy Cavalry Squadron attached that would look suspiciously like a current tank squadron. Perhaps the Brigade would have a Light Cavalry Squadron conducting security tasks (screening) that would have the same effect as the Brigade Recce Sqn. In theory you could put them together under one BG CO and conduct something akin to US Cavalry tasks but we can do that now with the right groupings. Perhaps a light infantry battalion receives a Light Cavalry Squadron in TAPVs that executes a wide variety of tasks, ranging from screens to direct fire support?

I believe that the payoff is making it easier to have people transition between the roles if we find ourselves in rotational warfare again.

Thanks for this explanation. As a civilian looking in from the fringes this helps me understand where Canada's doctrine is supposed to be .

In that light do you think the budget tomorrow will fix any deficiencies for the Armoured Corps or is the list too long and time too short.

 

[GR66]

I doubt it and they should probably be rather happy not to be.
As I recall the last use of Lancers occurred during of all things ,the American Civil War. A couple of Texan cavalry regiments were so equipped and the two or three times they tried to mount a charge against infantry. They were slaughtered.....

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

And the last Cavalry charge according to historians was an attack by Italian Cavalry against the Soviets in 1942

 

[FJAG]

I doubt it and they should probably be rather happy not to be.
As I recall the last use of Lancers occurred during of all things ,the American Civil War. A couple of Texan cavalry regiments were so equipped and the two or three times they tried to mount a charge against infantry. They were slaughtered.....

There's also the case of the charge by the Polish 18th Pomeranian Uhlan Regiment (Uhlans are lancers) at Krojanty in 1939.

That worked well when they charged German infantry but foundered when a German armoured reconnaissance regiment showed up.

(I guess that case ticks two recce boxes )

Edited to add - darn, @GR66 beat me to it