Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
...The U.S. idea of a cavalry mission (dedicated force for recce, security, vanguard, rearguard) makes sense, but the execution is strange.
Mostly due to limited equipment choices.
too many helicopters organic at too low level (apparently too much funds for helos!)
In a sense, you're correct. Money to buy aircraft is in a different pot than that for ground vehicles...[/quote]design of a brigade-sized "Regiment" for a mission that should be done by dispersed battalions, if not companies.[/quote]More a tradition and cultural thing than a valid operational requirement. We give our branches too mush clout in structure decisions.
either heavy tracked or 4wd light approach
Again, an equipment available limitation.

I agree with your other points. Infanteer also provided a linked article and asked if I agreed with it -- actually, I do. Mostly due to this quote from that article:

"American military might is based largely on the ability to maintain an operational tempo that vastly exceeds that of an adversary. Operational commanders will not forfeit this enormous advantage to allow tactical units to fully develop the enemy situation."

I don't totally subscribe to that but it is firmly embedded in US military thought and is unlikely to change. That and our national lack of patience make ability to fight for information, on screens and such imperative.
The idea that you send recce elements ahead is outdated...Field manuals come close to recognize this, but force structures don't.
We have too many support and combat troops and too few recce elements. keep in mind; killing is easy nowadays once you have a positive ID and coordinates (+ movement vector) about the enemy.

The brigades should really be the triremes in an ocean of recce troops who already drowned every foe who was too weak to swim; ready to ram with speed and force, if possible multiple vs one.
Yes.

To reconcile the conflicting reconnaissance (and equipment) needs you cited, my preference is for Infantry Battalions to have Scout AND Reconnaissance platoons (light wheeled vehicles for light infantry, slightly modified infantry carrier for signature confusion for mechanized units where they exist), for combined Arms or Armor, Armored Cavalry Platoons with a light tracked scout section, a Tank section, an Infantry section and a Mortar section plus the PL.

BCTs / Bdes should have a Cavalry Troop with the same four functional units except as platoons and not sections. The separate Cavalry or Reconnaissance Squadrons / Battalions should consist of four such troops plus support. All these 'Cavalry' elements are flexibly reorganized to fit situational METT-TC considerations.

Equally obviously, all those organization -- and new ones tailored for the operations at hand -- should be modified to fit the overall situation, location and operational goal.

Cavalry or something like it, a reconnaissance oriented but emphatically combat capable element, is required. It has to be prepared to fight. The issue of 'stealthy' reconnaissance is provided for by LRS companies and elements where appropriate and formation reconnaissance units should be capable of some stealth but must be able to fight for information and be usable as economy of force elements.

My issue with equipment is simply that we should provide special purpose equipment rather than trying to economize in purchases and training by buying one size fits all -- it rarely does.