• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Armoured RECCE

I think so too and see nothing wrong with makeup of these groups.

There's one hang up though with "our existing vehicle park". If I have my numbers right, the Army has around three (maybe four) tank squadrons, seven recce squadrons and twenty-seven infantry rifle companies.

Canada is designed and structured for infantry heavy deployments. A sustained deployment of a cavalry battlegroup would seriously impact the ability to add any armour resources to a second sustained or even a time-limited deployment. In fact even one tank squadron on a sustained deployment would be hard pressed to be sustained while the recce squadrons also have to maintain one or more recce squadrons.

One could, off course, reallocate an infantry battalion or two worth of PYs to the RCAC. 😁

🍻

Hand the RCAC everything with motors and a gun and create the Cavalry force.

Everybody left over becomes a light infantryman and the RCAF buys helicopters.
 
Could someone please explain the difference between what was being proposed/discussed and USMC LAR Battalion recon in force, and why currently available (or possible with only turret substitution) LAV fleet is unsuitable for recon while things like the aforementioned LAV-25 based LAR battalion and Italian Centauro regiments work fine?
 
Could someone please explain the difference between what was being proposed/discussed and USMC LAR Battalion recon in force, and why currently available (or possible with only turret substitution) LAV fleet is unsuitable for recon while things like the aforementioned LAV-25 based LAR battalion and Italian Centauro regiments work fine?
Define ‘works fine’

Reality often kicks theory in the ass.
 
Define ‘works fine’

Reality often kicks theory in the ass.
Read "no Marines or Italians here to complain about their own organizations". I'm sure they would have plenty of negative to say if they were. It's never perfect, never have the right vehicle/weapon/equipment/doctrine etc...
 
The USMC is having major internal conflict about its transition from North America’s second strongest Army.

Drawing conclusions from Iraq and Afghanistan to validate near peer formations and tactics is a poor idea as they didn’t have air assets or other equipment that would have played major havoc with tactics and equipment used at that point.
 
The CA has it's constraints in manpower and the vehicle fleet. Seems like there are three paths forward
-grouse about the best way being an American style and kit ABCT and hope it happens
-design a ground up Canadian solution, take years to do it
-pick one (or multiple and hit the blender) force structures in use by someone else that fits (broadly) within those constraints that deliver what we need to deliver, do the gap analysis for what's missing, implement


Fixed wing aviation aside, if you had to rank an SBCT vs. MEB vs. CMBG vs Italian Pinerolo Brigade both head to head against each other and in terms of usefulness to NATO in a near peer engagement, where does a CMBG stack up? @KevinB

Point I'm getting at, is the CA in a position to be letting perfect be the enemy of good, good the enemy of better?
 
Last edited:
The CA has it's constraints in manpower and the vehicle fleet. Seems like there are three paths forward
-grouse about the best way being an American style and kit ABCT and hope it happens
-design a ground up Canadian solution, take years to do it
-pick one (or multiple and hit the blender) force structures in use by someone else that fits (broadly) within those constraints that deliver what we need to deliver, do the gap analysis for what's missing, implement
The issue isn't that an American or British whatever Armored Bde is better, is that they are heavy Bde's -
Heavy Bde's do somethings better than Medium or Light Bde's - and they do somethings worse.
The CA and it's idiotic symmetrical Bde approach is just Too Light to Fight, Too Heavy to Move.
It takes the worst aspects of a SBCT and sprinkles some IBCT (without either an Airborne or Airmobile aspect) - and not enough Armor to do anything.

Fixed wing aviation aside, if you had to rank an SBCT vs. MEB vs. CMBG vs Italian Pinerolo Brigade both head to head against each other and in terms of usefulness to NATO in a near peer engagement, where does a CMBG stack up? @KevinB

Point I'm getting at, is the CA in a position to be letting perfect be the enemy of good, good the enemy of better?
Are you talking a Staff Problem CMBG with all sorts of enablers the CAF never got?

Quite frankly the idea of doing any sort of LAV Recce at this point (beyond Route Recce) is a little silly. Anything those vehicles could do on the Reconnaissance side is eclipsed by UAS - and stealth mud recce by Infantry/SOF.

What I see Canada trying to do is simply justify it's mindbloggling LAV acquisitions -- rather than adapt to the world.
Plenty of those LAV 6.0 platforms could be ATGM, Mortar, MSHORAD etc systems.

Long Range Surveillance isn't Recce, there is a reason ISR means Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance.
- those LRS LAV's can be teams with UAS LAV - and a Inf Recce Platoon/Det to make a RSTA/ISR Squadron - but please don't kid yourself that the LAV or worse the TAPV is a Recce vehicle.

JSOC used FAV's as recce vehicles in GW1, Coalition SOF used ATV's for Recce in Afghanistan and Iraq -- because it gave some mobility to light assets -- and the enemy didn't have any ability to operate Aircraft or UAS.

A Near Peer conflict needs to consider Air Parity issues - where the enemy also gets a vote in the Air - so vehicles need to assume they are vulnerable at all times.
 
The issue isn't that an American or British whatever Armored Bde is better, is that they are heavy Bde's -
Heavy Bde's do somethings better than Medium or Light Bde's - and they do somethings worse.
The CA and it's idiotic symmetrical Bde approach is just Too Light to Fight, Too Heavy to Move.
It takes the worst aspects of a SBCT and sprinkles some IBCT (without either an Airborne or Airmobile aspect) - and not enough Armor to do anything.


Are you talking a Staff Problem CMBG with all sorts of enablers the CAF never got?

Quite frankly the idea of doing any sort of LAV Recce at this point (beyond Route Recce) is a little silly. Anything those vehicles could do on the Reconnaissance side is eclipsed by UAS - and stealth mud recce by Infantry/SOF.

What I see Canada trying to do is simply justify it's mindbloggling LAV acquisitions -- rather than adapt to the world.
Plenty of those LAV 6.0 platforms could be ATGM, Mortar, MSHORAD etc systems.

Long Range Surveillance isn't Recce, there is a reason ISR means Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance.
- those LRS LAV's can be teams with UAS LAV - and a Inf Recce Platoon/Det to make a RSTA/ISR Squadron - but please don't kid yourself that the LAV or worse the TAPV is a Recce vehicle.

JSOC used FAV's as recce vehicles in GW1, Coalition SOF used ATV's for Recce in Afghanistan and Iraq -- because it gave some mobility to light assets -- and the enemy didn't have any ability to operate Aircraft or UAS.

A Near Peer conflict needs to consider Air Parity issues - where the enemy also gets a vote in the Air - so vehicles need to assume they are vulnerable at all times.

Bold 1- No I'm talking a CMBG as they exist today. 4th out of 4 on both questions right?
Bold 2- Agreed. But where do those repurposed LAV chassis fit, and what is the endgame?

Acknowledging the aforementioned constraints (and adding in cap badges and Bde symmetry to those) I think it's fair to say that the CA is simply not going to do heavy BDE well, regardless of what enablers are provided, what what turrets are slapped onto a LAV. So why aim at doing something not well?

Tank squadron (14 tank)
2 RSTA/ISR squadrons
Mobility/ Direct Fire company (Battalion worth of LAV's in place of AAV's)
3 x Infantry Battalion (USMC pattern)

For the cost of
20 tanks
Lav modifications
48 M777's and associated vehicles
15x Marine Infantry Battalion worth of mortars and ATGM
Training reservists to provide the GBAD and second battery of M777's

Could match the GCE of a MEB (more likely improve upon it, depending how crazy you go with LAV modifications), with two full sets of kit prepositioned to be a fly over force.


No it's not a heavy Bde, but it would be doable within the current political constraints and allow for a tangible, non-token commitment.


Realizing as I type this has morphed into a Force 2025 post, sorry.
 
MEB as you think of doesn't exist anymore.

USMC divested the tanks.
Does that invalidate the premise?
Which is more useful to NATO, a CMBG as it sits now with current equipment and deployment timeline, or a (now former) MEB/GCE modelled Bde with suitably modified LAV's, prepositioned in Latvia?
 
Italian Combinations and Permutations

Cavalry Future
Cavalry Present
Tank
Hvy Inf
Med Inf
Lt Inf
Regt
Cmd
1x Centauro IIRegt Cmd1x CentauroRegt Cmd1x ArieteRegt Cmd1x DardoRegt Cmd2x Freccia
Regt Cmd
2x Lince
CLS
Sqn
CLS SqnCLS CoyCLS CoyCLS CoyCLS Coy
C3 PlC3 PlC3 Pl4x M557C3 Pl4x M557C3 Pl4x Freccia
C3 Pl
Med Pl4x AmbMed Pl4x AmbMed Pl4x AmbMed Pl4x AmbMed Pl4x Freccia
Med Pl
4x Amb
T&M PlT&M PlT&M PlT&M PlT&M PlT&M Pl
QM PlQM PlQM PlQM PlQM PlQM Pl
Armd
Gp
Armd GpTank BnInf BnInf BnInf Bn
Gp
Cmd
1x Centauro IIGp Cmd1x CentauroBn Cmd1x ArieteBn Cmd1x DardoBn Cmd1x Freccia
Bn Cmd
2x Lince
Hvy
Sqn
Hvy SqnSpt CoySpt CoySpt CoySpt Coy
Cmd
Sqd
2x Centauro IICmd Sqd2x CentauroCmd Sqd2x LinceCmd Sqd2x DardoCmd Sqd2x Freccia
Cmd Sqd
2x Lince
2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks
2x Trucks
Hvy Pl4x Centauro IIHvy Pl4x CentauroRecce Pl12x LinceRecce Pl12x LinceRecce Pl12x LinceRecce Pl12x Lince
Hvy Pl4x Centauro IIHvy Pl4x CentauroMor Pl4x 120mm
Mor Pl
4x M106 120mm
Mor Pl
4x Freccia 120mm
Mor Pl
4x 120mm
Hvy Pl4x Centauro IIHvy Pl4x CentauroAT Pl4x Spike MR
AT Pl
4x Dardo Spike LR
AT Pl
4x Freccia Spike LR
AT Pl
4x Spike MR
4x Spike MR
Recce SqnRecce SqnTank CoyRifle CoyRifle CoyRifle Coy
Cmd Sqd2x FrecciaCmd Sqd2x CentauroCmd Sqd1x ArieteCmd Sqd2x DardoCmd Sqd2x Freccia
Cmd Sqd
2x Lince
2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks
Recce Pl2x FrecciaRecce Pl2x CentauroSpt Pl3x 81mmSpt Pl3x 81mmSpt Pl3x 81mm
4x Lince4x Lince2x Dardo Spike LR
2x Freccia Spike LR
2x Spike MR
Recce Pl2x FrecciaRecce Pl2x Centauro2x Spike MR
4x Lince4x Lince
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
Recce Pl2x FrecciaRecce Pl2x Centauro
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
4x Lince4x Lince
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
Recce SqnRecce SqnTank CoyRifle CoyRifle CoyRifle Coy
Cmd Sqd2x FrecciaCmd Sqd2x CentauroCmd Sqd1x ArieteCmd Sqd2x DardoCmd Sqd2x Freccia
Cmd Sqd
2x Lince
2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks
Recce Pl2x FrecciaRecce Pl2x CentauroSpt Pl3x 81mmSpt Pl3x 81mmSpt Pl3x 81mm
4x Lince4x Lince2x Dardo Spike LR
2x Freccia Spike LR
2x Spike MR
Recce Pl2x FrecciaRecce Pl2x Centauro2x Spike MR
4x Lince4x Lince
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
Recce Pl2x FrecciaRecce Pl2x Centauro
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
4x Lince4x Lince
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
Recce SqnTank CoyRifle CoyRifle CoyRifle Coy
Cmd Sqd2x CentauroCmd Sqd1x ArieteCmd Sqd2x DardoCmd Sqd2x Freccia
Cmd Sqd
2x Lince
2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks2x Trucks
Recce Pl2x CentauroSpt Pl3x 81mmSpt Pl3x 81mmSpt Pl3x 81mm
4x Lince2x Dardo Spike LR
2x Freccia Spike LR
2x Spike MR
Recce Pl2x Centauro2x Spike MR
4x Lince
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
Recce Pl2x Centauro
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
4x Lince
Tank Pl
4x Ariete
Rifle Pl4x DardoRifle Pl4x Freccia
Rifle Pl
Lince/Puma/Bv206
Tank Coy
Cmd Sqd1x Ariete
2x Trucks
Tank Pl4x Ariete
Tank Pl4x Ariete
Tank Pl4x Ariete
 
1649801232121.png 120mm Ariete 54 tonnes

1649801412878.png 25mm Dardo 23 tonnes

1649801490812.png 120mm Centauro II 30 tonnes

1649801557612.png 25mm Freccia 28 tonnes

1649801674866.png Lince 6.5 tonnes
1649801751973.png Puma 8.2 tonnes
1649801822983.png Bv206 4.5 tonnes

Italian Light Infantry may be supplied with any of the Lince, Puma or Bv206.
 
Italian Combinations and Permutations
I think that there is a hidden message in there that the Italian Cavalry regts are giving up 24 of their Centauros (ie all the ones from their recce squadrons) and replacing them with Freccias.

It would be interesting to hear the rationale for that. Maybe the Centauro, like the MGS, isn't all its cracked up to be.

I won't even get into the question of why a tank regiment or the heavy infantry battalion uses Linces in its recce platoon.

🍻
 
I think that there is a hidden message in there that the Italian Cavalry regts are giving up 24 of their Centauros (ie all the ones from their recce squadrons) and replacing them with Freccias.

It would be interesting to hear the rationale for that. Maybe the Centauro, like the MGS, isn't all its cracked up to be.

I won't even get into the question of why a tank regiment or the heavy infantry battalion uses Linces in its recce platoon.

🍻

Well every Italian Brigade, Heavy, Medium or Light, gets a Cavalry Regiment along with three single battalion Manoeuvre Regiments. Those can be either 3x Light, 3x Medium or 2x Heavy and a Tank or 2x Tank and a Heavy.

The tale starts with the Centauro 1, of which the Italians bought 400 starting in 1991.

The vehicle was developed in response to an Italian Army requirement for a tank destroyer with the firepower of the old Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service with the Italian Army, but with greater strategic mobility. The main mission of the Centauro is to protect other, lighter, elements of the cavalry, using its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross country ability (despite the wheeled design) and computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission. Centauro entered production in 1991 and deliveries were complete by 2006.

The Centauro 1 has a crew of 4 with 3 in the turret manning the 105mm 52 caliber high pressure gun. Italy divested itself of 141 of the Centauros, donating them to Jordan but retaining 259 for their own use.

The Centauro 1 then became the basis for 249 Freccia IFVs (190 IFV, 36 AT, 21 Mor-120, 2 CP). This was considered enough to equip 1 single Medium Brigade. They were delivered between 2006, when production of the Centauro 1 stopped, and 2017. The original Freccia IFV, with a crew of 3 and 8 passengers, has a 25mm 2 man turret.

The Centauro 2 is based on the Freccia IFV and is intended as a replacement for the 30 year old Centauro 1. The Centauro 2 has a crew of with 2 crew in the turret manning the 120mm smoothbore. The Centauro 2 is heavier and has a wider stance than the Centauro 1. The production plan calls for 150 Centauro 2 with the first 10 units ordered in 2018.

In Dec 2019 the Italians started to equip a second Medium Brigade by initially ordering 81 of the original 25mm Freccia (5 IFVs, 36 AT, 14 Mor-120, 26 CP).

Currently the Italians are receiving, in addition to the 150 Centauro 2, 330 Freccia EVO which are based on the Centauro 2 hull. The Freccia EVO has an unmanned, remotely operated turret mounting a 30mm autocannon. The intention is to purchase 180 for the Medium Brigade(s) and 120 of a Recce version. The Recce version is to be equipped with a Janus mast. This is a passive EO/IR sensor. No radars.

JANUS-T is a high performance, stabilised, day/night, all weather multi-sensor designed specifically for Land Vehicle application. It combines both medium and long range panaromic sights in a rugged, self-contained, compact package. It is an upgraded version of the field-proven JANUS multi-sensor selected by the Italian Army to equip the Freccia multirole Armoured Vehicle (VBM).

JANUS-T incorporates the company’s high performance infrared staring focal plane array sensor technology (with colour CCD TV) for high resolution night vision. In order to deliver a hunter-killer capability, it also includes an eye-safe laser range finder.



So, if I take all that together I would suggest that:

1. The Italians are not unhappy with the wheeled platform - retaining, developing and expanding it.
2. The Italians are not unhappy with the wheeled cannon - retaining and developing it.
3. The Italians are not unhappy with wheeled Cavalry - retaining it and supplying each of their brigades, Lt, Med, and Hvy with a regiment.
4. The Italians separate their Sneak-and-Peek forward scouts from their Protection elements but push their Protection far enough forward to cover their scouts.
5. The Italians, are giving up some of that forward Protection by swapping the 105mm Centauro in the Recce Squadrons for the 30mm Freccia, but adding a longer range sensor suite to work in conjunction with the scouts. The Centauro, upgunned to 120mm will be retained in the Cavalry Regiment's Heavy Squadron.
6. The Italians use a common Regimental Structure across all their manoeuvre elements.


The single battalion regiment has a Colonel commanding the Regiment with a Command and Logistics Subunit. The Cmd and Log element comprises a Command, Control and Comms Platoon, a Transport and Maintenance Platoon, a QM or Commissariat Platoon and a Medical Platoon.

The Manoeuvre Group or Bn is commanded by the Lt Col and they all have a Heavy or Support Subunit. With the exception of the Cavalry all other elements, infantry and tank have a Support Company with a very small Cmd Squad with two trucks and two of the common vehicles of the unit. All the Support Companies, have a 120mm mortar platoon of 4 tubes, an Anti-Tank platoon of 4 vehicles, and a Recce platoon of 12 Lince scout cars.

The Cavalry Regiment replaces the Support Company with the Heavy Squadron with its 120mm Centauros.

The Tank Bns, in addition to the common Support Company have 4 tank companies of 14 120mm Ariete.

The Infantry Battalions, also with their own Support Companies have 3 rifle companies. The companies are organized around 3 rifle platoons with 3 rifle sections each and a platoon HQ. In addition there is a Support Platoon with 2 AT systems and 3 81mm mortars. The company is commanded by a Cmd Squad with 2 trucks and 2 of the common vehicle for the company.

7. The Italians are automating. 3 man turrets being replaced by 2 man turrets and 2 man turrets being replaced by unmanned turrets. There is also more emphasis on long range sensors. Presumably the sensor equipped recce vehicles will hold the scout cars in reserve to explore dead ground, rather than having them advance to contact blind.

The trends as I see them are:

Heavy elements retained
Medium elements increased from 1 brigade to 2.
Wheels for everyone else (including the light infantry when appropriate, Bv206 alternate)
Longer Range Weapons and Sensors
Heavier Armament (105 to 120, 25 to 30)
Automation
Reduced Manning
Standardization of both equipment and organizations.

The last one is particularly interesting. It looks to me that Officers and NCOs, as they advance through their careers, could be moved from Cavalry to Tank to Heavy to Medium to Light and constantly understand the organization so they could concentrate on the peculiarities of the equipment and the tasks.
 
Currently the Italians are receiving, in addition to the 150 Centauro 2, 330 Freccia EVO which are based on the Centauro 2 hull. The Freccia EVO has an unmanned, remotely operated turret mounting a 30mm autocannon. The intention is to purchase 180 for the Medium Brigade(s) and 120 of a Recce version. The Recce version is to be equipped with a Janus mast. This is a passive EO/IR sensor. No radars.
Which again I will comment that Surveillance IS NOT Reconnaissance.



So, if I take all that together I would suggest that:

1. The Italians are not unhappy with the wheeled platform - retaining, developing and expanding it.
2. The Italians are not unhappy with the wheeled cannon - retaining and developing it.
3. The Italians are not unhappy with wheeled Cavalry - retaining it and supplying each of their brigades, Lt, Med, and Hvy with a regiment.
4. The Italians separate their Sneak-and-Peek forward scouts from their Protection elements but push their Protection far enough forward to cover their scouts.
5. The Italians, are giving up some of that forward Protection by swapping the 105mm Centauro in the Recce Squadrons for the 30mm Freccia, but adding a longer range sensor suite to work in conjunction with the scouts. The Centauro, upgunned to 120mm will be retained in the Cavalry Regiment's Heavy Squadron.
6. The Italians use a common Regimental Structure across all their manoeuvre elements.
I'd frankly discount the Italians as an example for an Expeditionary Army.
The Italian idea of Expeditionary is sitting around Kabul drinking wine.

They are generally not an involved player in external conflicts to any degree.

If you want to use an Expeditionary Army - you have a choice of the British, American or to a smaller extend France, and Poland (who went to Iraq, and Afghanistan).
Most other countries have set themselves up as Home Guards, OR participants in LOW Intensity Operations.
 
Back
Top