Leading scouting/counter-scouting theorists
I already asked about leading infantry theorists and got some replies, now it's the turn for scouting/reconnaissance, and its counter.
Armour, infantry and air get a lot of attention, but scouting is hugely important as well.
I recall several armor journal articles of the 90's about how the (counter)reconnaissance decided most NTC battles.
There are other, more theoretical reasons for my interest as well.
Well, does anybody know modern (post-'92) theoretical work about ground scouts or cavalry?
An author's name would already suffice as a first hint.
Here's a link to 'Scouts Out.'
Big slow 272 page .pdf
LINK.
True, American Cavalry differed from European norms
in many ways. Almost every way, in fact. We never went the Curassiers, Hussars or Lancers route.They were effectively Mounted Infantry -- not Dragoons -- Mounted Infantry, not the same thing at all.
I recall reading that when Rudyard Kipling visited the US, he talked to a US Cavalry Trooper at Yellowstone, one who had been in the Household Cavalry in the British Army. The man said "Our horses aren't half trained and we almost never use the Saber or do Saber drill -- but we can shoot. I fire more ammunition here in one month than I fired in seven years with the Blues." That carried through to the present day and the Armored Cavalry Regiment that Fuchs fails to appreciate is the result. :D
As one US Cavalry Colonel was heard to remark when asked why we Americans weren't better at sneak and peek reconnaissance; "We don't have the patience for it. We just go out looking for trouble and find it -- if you're going to do that, you have to have Armor and Tanks." True statement, that.
The flip side is that we can and do perform sneak and peak reconnaissance -- we just do it in small batches and we don't talk about it.
Understanding the Terrain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
The biggest issue I find with people taking about "Reconnaissance", is that it always seems that they mean something over and above "finding the enemy".
Now I don't really KNOW what "Reconnaissance" is. I just accept that I/someone has to find the enemy, to fulfil the "FIND" function. FINDING is vital. I'm not so sure about "Reconnaissance".
Wilf, I disagree with this comment. Before you can FIND the enemy, you must KNOW the terrain. That's where Reconnaissance comes in. In American Doctrine, we have different forms of how to figure out the terrain.
Several forms of Reconnaissance:
-Map
-Aerial
-Route
-Area
-Zone
There are differing views between our Infantry and Armor communities on how to execute reconnaissance missions. I've worked in both, and I prefer a combination of the guidance listed in the Scout Platoon and Infantry Platoon manuals.
v/r
Mike