Leading scouting/counter-scouting theorists

[Fuchs]

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.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

Not sure if 'scouting' is in your view the same as tracking. There are threads on tracking, notably: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2180 Within are some practitioners who have started in the field. Apologies if 'scouting' is armoured recce or whatever.

davidbfpo

[Fuchs]

I was indeed thinking of armoured recce, but I have a growing feeling that "reconnaissance" is a poor term for it.

"Scouting" & "screening" seem to fit much better.
Navies historically use these terms as well.


I am developing something new anyway; it's just based on armoured recce/cavalry and that's why I am interested in new theoretical works about those.

[RTK]

Screening is part of the Guard and Cover family of security operations that are designed to buy reaction time and maneuver space for the main body commander in order for him to most appropriately apply his elements of combat power in the most adventageous manner to achieve success on the battlefield. Reconnaissance is a sub-element (indeed "perform continuous reconnaissance" is one of the five fundamentals of security operations).

I've written in Armor and Cavalry Journal about planning for reconnaissance and security operations (see ACJ DEC08). What else are you looking for?

"RTK, rush chairman, damn glad to meet you."

[William F. Owen]

I think the problem you will find is a complete lack of relevant material, plus as you have indicated, a poor use of language.

My thoughts in this area is that it is that Land Warfare Reconnaissance is writ large with fuzzy logic and some very bizarre assumptions. Finding the enemy is a simple and useful guide to action. Strange that many have made it so difficult.

Screening is a useful term if applied to giving early warning, to prevent surprise. Scouting is somewhat less useful, because it is far less well defined

[Fuchs]

I think the problem you will find is a complete lack of relevant material, plus as you have indicated, a poor use of language.

My thoughts in this area is that it is that Land Warfare Reconnaissance is writ large with fuzzy logic and some very bizarre assumptions. Finding the enemy is a simple and useful guide to action. Strange that many have made it so difficult.

Screening is a useful term if applied to giving early warning, to prevent surprise. Scouting is somewhat less useful, because it is far less well defined

Well, a way out of the trouble is to invent something new; the inventor can define its name.

scouting
screening
security
infiltration
skirmishing
reconnaissance

All these terms are close to my idea, but none is perfect.
"Reconnaissance" is too general, especially as it's in great part an air power job and it doesn't hint at small combat actions at all.

My present working title is "heavy skirmishers", but maybe I'll settle on "heavy low force density unit" as my concept is very much about filling the gaps left by friendly and enemy combat brigades with few resources and executing the aforementioned tasks.
It's very different from my rather static idea for the "light" counterpart (working title "light skirmishers").


It was difficult to get sufficient accounts about historical armoured recce ops (the Eastern Front accounts were most inspiring, but they're obsolete), and I haven't found any real modern theory about it yet.
I assume that the modern "swarming" theory and the theory that led to the U.S. CavRgt of the 80's and 90's may be useful to some degree.

As usual, secrecy slows down progress.

About "Strange that many have made it so difficult."

The amount of pre-planning demanded in U.S. FMs on mobile ground war is unrealistic anyway. Recce is an art form for daring characters, not management science.
U.S. doctrine for mobile warfare looks at times like American Football.
Planning - action - planning - action - planning - action.
Wait, that's inaccurate. In theory it looks more like planning - action - victory.

The German FM on armoured recce looks like WW2 doctrine plus sensors minus combat capability. It's incredibly inadequate.

I don't have more manuals on armoured recce. Maybe a translated Russian one may be available somehow? Their OPSEC doesn't bother us, right?

[Fuchs]

@RTK:
The armored cavalry journal is new to me, I have no access.
It's not in the official list of journal - it is some kind of non-classified association publication?

[William F. Owen]

scouting
screening
security
infiltration
skirmishing
reconnaissance

All these terms are close to my idea, but none is perfect.
"Reconnaissance" is too general, especially as it's in great part an air power job and it doesn't hint at small combat actions at all.

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".

[RTK]

Also known as Armor Magazine, depending on which cover you get. It's put out by the United States Armor Association.

Reconnaissance, by definition, is "a mission undertaken to obtain, by visual observation or other detection methods, information about the actions and resources of an enemy or potential enemy, or to secure data concerning the meteorological, hydrographic, or geographic characteristics of a particular area." FM 1-02.

Counter-reconnaissance is preventing the adversary, by whatever means available, from accomplishing the mission as stated above.

For an open source reference on American heavy armored cavalry, take a look at Tom Clancy's "Armored Cav." It has a pretty good interview of my old boss and his troop's actions during Desert Storm. I think that's the vein you were looking for to start with.