The Soviet Combined Arms Battalion...blast from the past
I thought this might provie interesting. In the late 80s, beofre the SU collpased, they were ehading toward brigade based formations. Their first task was the Sov style CAB (see attached jpeg). Time, resources and the collapse of the USSR prevented this. It's still a desire, however, with the Russian Army.
From Soviet Non-Linear Combat: The Challenge of the 90s (sorry, I don't have a more accessable link).
1 Attachment(s)
Who's the idiot who forgot to attach the jpeg....?
Outline of planned, but never completed, Soviet combined arms battalion (c.1989) courtesy of SASO (now FMSO) and Lester Grau...
Cavalry Squadron versus Reconnaissance Battalion
BLUF
In addition to conducting the full range of Combat (attack, defend, delay) and Security (Screen, guard cover) missions, Cavalry units are capable of conducting effective all three reconnaissance missions (Route, aone, area).
Our current Recon Sqdrons are only effective in conducting surveillance (watching and listening) and very limited "active recon" (most often limited to screening) against weak or passive opponents. With augmentation is the phase that is often thrown about to allow/enable the ARS to do other things/tasks/missions. Read, Rob Peter to pay Paul.
What makes the current set of Recon Squadrons so bad is their lack of organic capablity to develope the situation while in contact (read fight for information). Against a determined opponent, they will bump up against the front edge of his security force/zone and call for the commitment of the Main Body. Fine if that call does not come too early.
This is situation is made worse because both the division and corps are "out of the Cav business". No division or corps level units (other then a BCT) to fight for information and develop the situation prior to commiting the main body. No unit (other then a BCT) available for economy-of-force or deception missions. Taking any unit away from a BCT to preform these tasks/missions "breaks" that BCT.
BCTs need Fully Mission cabable Cavalry Squadrons to enable them to develop situations while the rest of the BCT is out of contact and commit the BCT at the time/place of the CDR's choosing vice the enemy's.
I take that a step further
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAH
BCTs need Fully Mission cabable Cavalry Squadrons to enable them to develop situations while the rest of the BCT is out of contact and commit the BCT at the time/place of the CDR's choosing vice the enemy's.
Armored (Heavy), Infantry (Light) and Airborne Infantry (Light) Bdes need a Cav Sqn plus a third maneuver Bn. What's also needed are true Armored Cavalry Regiments (NOT Stryker units).
If we're going to have a total of an arbitrary (on affordability grounds) 60 Bdes, AC/RC, the IMO we should aim for:
10/20 Armored or Heavy
10/5 Infantry or Light
5/5 ACR
5/0 Abn Inf (aka Light)
The design of the Bns that comprise those Brigades is largely totally immaterial as long as they are anywhere near current or historic US norms and allow Commanders to rapidly tailor AND constantly adjust their force for METT-TC parameters *. Forcing them to do so would be even better until we improve our training...
If we temporarily have more Bdes, plus up the Infantry and ACRs only on a 1/1 ratio. For the Stryker fans, three to five of the Armored or Heavy Bdes could be Strykerized if one insists. While the stryker has merit, it is not adequately survivable of maneuverable for MCO. The 'medium ' role should be filled by the TRACK vehicle mounted ACRs, one of the best economy of force designs yet to appear. I'd personally go for more ACRs but the Inf / Armor communities would then squabble. :wry:
The Cav Sqn and ACR -- particularly the 1945-70 variants were the only organizations that offered true combined arms training to all members and young Cav LTs were versatile and flexible Dudes who could and would delegate...
For those who say Airborne units are unnecessary and obsolete, I totally agree BUT we have not developed, deliberately or inadvertently, the capability of otherwise moving and inserting a Bn or larger sized force 10,000 or so miles and getting it on the ground, a useful strategic capability. Until we do, that capability is better maintained than discarded. I'm aware of the traffic bump jokes. I'm equally aware of the damage LGOP (LINK) can wreak on Armor. The last three lines of the Rules are particularly to be noted. With perhaps emphasis on lines 5 and 8... ;)
I'm also aware of the capabilities and limitation of Armor units in the Guard. METT-TC... :cool:
* As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not really what you have, it's how you use it... :D