Combat Team of tomorrow? Mechanized Infantry Company of tomorrow?

[Old Sweat]

Iain,

Have you read Small Wars by Caldwell. It covered the small wars of the nineteenth century in considerable detail and discusses various subjects such as intelligence, security and logistics (called lines of communication in the book). My edition is a reprint of, I think as it is not close by, the 1905 edition. I recommend it as a reference.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I have not read it, although I have heard of it.  Perhaps it will be my posting gift to myself!

 

[a_majoor]

I also reccomend Max Boot's "The Savage Wars of Peace" for a perspecticve into American "Small War" experience.

 

[Zipper]

I think looking at the "smaller" wars like the Boer war would be a great place to look for examples. Good idea.

I'm still a unclear on your Cav concept 2B. Is the unit a combined arms unit? Or separate armour, infantry, and arty units combining to create your Cav Teams on a needed basis only?

Sorry but I was under the impression that we have been discussing "all arms" cavalry units, so that to my understanding the Infantry is permanently assigned a specific vehicle much like the armoured crew is (21 Bravo for instance? ). Thus you have your 4 to 6 infantry per LAV, and 2-3 per coyote. Maybe I'm repeating what you've said already? I'm not sure.

As for keeping them all the same...        ...I guess I am just trying to make the logistics and training as easy as possible as well as avoiding the constant shuffling that happens whenever the next oversea ops happens. And as each unit gets its newest members scrounged from its other coy/sqn's and reserve units in order to be brought up to strength in order to go.

I guess maybe that isn't realistic? Then maybe its something to aim for perhaps?

As for being vague on the AT trp. Why? The TUA may be a very good vehicle. I still think the MGS is going nowhere and will die before it goes into production, and the ADATS or MMEV is a non starter. Then again a MMEV 3 with a different weapons system will be interesting. And mounting TOW on turrets in the LAVs would be a fantastic idea.

Oh and one more question. Am I right in that you are sticking with the 4 vehicle formation per troop? If so, why? If a recce trp is at least 8 vehicles anyway, and the Cav functions very much like a recce unit except with greater teeth and flexability, then why not boost your trp levels to at least 6 vehicles per. This would increase your firepower, mounted infantry on the ground, and area covered. The whole idea of a 4 vehicle trp was for tanks with high firepower/protection. Thats gone. So get rid of the 4 vehicle idea and see if something else is better. Hell, lets look back at the ol' 15 horse squadrons.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

In a perfect world I would see a Cavarly Branch and an Infantry Branch.  A formed Cavalry Sqn (with at least the Recce, LAV Tps and AT Tps) would certainly aid cohesion.  In my dream Cavalry branch the LAVs and the soldiers in them are Cavalrymen.  The simplest Cav version has pure Recce and Inf sub-units operating under a TF HQ with a Cav role.  I favour breaking it down to sub-unit level.

If it has to "plug and play" then I could certainly make it work as long as the team was formed prior to deployment.  A month of admin shake out, two months on an exercise in Wainwright and then some TMST would build cohesion to a high level.  You could practice "Tp Scramble" where several mixed Tps are formed.  Coyote, LAV and TOW could be mixed into Tp sized groupings for certain tasks. 

Looking at Tp size, we could debate this at length.  I favour the six vehicle Recce Tp with the Tp Ldr acting as a Ptl Comd, but the eight vehicle model has many advantages as well.  I'd like the AT Tp be at least six weapon platforms (all the same if possible).  As an aside I think that LAV TOW should be our vehicle priority right now.  The LAV Platoons/Troops could stay at four vehicles each.  The LAVs would have the standard layout of three crew and six or seven dismounts.  I'd like at least four mortar tubes.

One exiting prospect I am seeing right now is the development of a new, smaller OCS (Observer Control Station) for the Coyote.  I am told that this will allow for two seats in the back.  I'd love to put two "scouts" in each Coyote regardless of variant.

I see UAVs, EW and CBRs being held at Task Force (Regt) level, with TUAVs being their own sub-unit. 

How does it work?  In stability operations it works much like our mounted forces do right now in places like Afghanistan.  In more conventional "warfighting" operations the Recce Tps would find enemy security elements and the LAV/AT/Mortars would destroy them.  Platoon sized positions without obstacles could potentially be tackled. 

The Cav Sqn would clear a platoon sized security position only to allow the umimpeded advance of the main body (coalition units).  Basically, the Coyotes (assisted by UAVs and EW) would find the enemy position.  Mortars and other indirect fire assets would then cover the deployment of the AT Tp.  The AT Tp would then snipe any enemy vehicles.  Coyotes with laser designators (which I would also like to see) could bring in precision fires from higher assets, although attached FOO/FAC elements could also do this. 

The assault would be the trickiest part.  There is virtually no breaching capability, unless we use the sappers going in by hand.  While the LAVs can go in with their dismounts (with Recce Tp Coyotes and AT Tp supporting by fire) to provide some level of intimate support, RPGs and concealed AT guns/ATGMs and tanks will pose a grave danger.  I'd prefer to isolate and shoot up a security position and would only try to clear it if it indeed posed a danger to the supported force.  An ideal situation would be to sneak the AT Tp into a flanking position and then push against the security position (primarily by fire).  When the security element withdraws it gets bagged by the AT Tp.  Unfortunately this counts on the enemy being obliging.   

Time will be a factor.  With unlimited time we could use satelittes and B52s with JDAM to destroy every trench.  I doubt, however ,that we will have the luxury of time.

The Cav Team could certainly mount an effective defence with its variety of weapons and sensors.  Again, these characteristics (excellent mobility, firepower and flexibility, with more limited "staying power" and offensive capability) are similar to those of the US Civil War cavalry as well as our own 1900 Cavalry heritage. 

Sorry again for the hijack!

2B

 

[Old Sweat]

This is slightly off the stream, but both the US Civil War cavalry and the Canadian experience in South Africa were more in the nature of mounted rifles than classic cavalry. Both are worthy of study, especially as the Canadians enjoyed a reputation as the best mounted troops in South Africa, at least on the British side. (Our tactics were based, at least to a certain extent, on a study of the Civil War, and we retained formations and drills, to paraphrase Sam Steele's words, as since they were good enough for Sheridan and Stuart, they were good enough for us.)

As a grossly superannuated gunner, I would like to see a wider discussion of the use of indirect fire in support of your cavalry squadron in a variety of different scenarios. Perhaps some of my more current compatriats can add to the debate.

 

[a_majoor]

Overall, the key difference between a Cavalry team and a Combat team is the ability to go in against "dug in" enemies. I read somewhere the CF is looking into an engineer vehicle which has similar mobility to a LAV (including 100 Kph road march speed), a high speed "front end loader" would give the team some more options in clearing road blocks and reducing fortifications. The LAV section carrier for the Engineer troop might also substitute a demolition "cannon" or mortar for the 25mm chain gun.

Since enemy forces will have figured out the ISTAR suite, we can be fairly certain they will be in improvised fortifications, where the "concealment" will probably double as "cover"; holes in the ground, caves, inside buildings, etc.

Increasing the size of the sub sub units inside the Combat/Cavalry team might make sense in some circumstances, but this comes at the cost of greater span of command, larger logistics tail, more difficult to deploy, more difficult to conceal and so on. I would limit myself to a six tube mortar troop, and a larger and more sophisticated CP det which integrates contact reports, Coyote, Recce, TUAV and FOO/MFC inputs into a common database for the team leaders to use (Imagine a map display which also starts showing icons for identified/suspected contacts and positions). The contact that C/S I12a is prosecuting becomes visable to the LAV-TOW lurking 2700m away, who can take the shot and destroy the enemy bunker, while the mortars  use the information developing from the contacts to lay the suppressing barrage or a smoke screen to blind enemy depth positions. (I would like to see all vehicle and weapons sights which have laser rangefinders also have a laser designator mode.)

2Bravo's scenarios represent the ideals we would like when deploying with a medium/wheeled formation, my mantra is a little bit different. The Canadian Mounted Rifles had the ability to "sieze and hold ground", and I feel the Combat Team of Tomorrow must be able to do that as well, within the limitations of our equipment.

 

[Zipper]

2B -  Nice! I'd buy you a beer if it were possable. ;D

I agree that the 6 car trp may be then the best way to go. Although looking at an eight may be something for future. As well I agree with Majoor and Sweat about being able to fight and hold ground. Since we have been discussing the idea of Cav and Light Infantry for the CAF, does this mean we should also look at maybe a Mech (LAV APC mounted) Infantry as well to follow along behind the Cav? Would making three different Branches (if you will) make sense?

I'm not so sure. But the ideal of being able to "fight" and hold is invaluable.

As well. Would it be worth it to look at something that Majoor has brought up on other threads (and I love the idea of)? That being looking at other vehicles such as the CV90's?

Thanks

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

My envisioned Cavalry Team can indeed take and hold ground, but hopefully it is seizing unoccupied ground and then holding it against the enemy if required (which is how a successful screen or guard should go).  I've put the infantry, mortars and AT systems in there to achieve that, while its integral CSS will allow it to sustain itself.  Once in position, this force will be hard to dislodge.  In a meeting engagement it could go in against an hastily prepared/occupied position, but this would entail a significant amount of risk.

Going back to Buford, he didn't seize the vital ground at Gettysburg by going in and driving the Confederates off it.  Instead, he got there first and held terrain forward to protect the vital ground (Confederate Cavalry was absent). The Confederate infantry was forced to attack the now dismounted Union cavalry.  The cavalry had high firepower potential and held long enough for the Union infantry to occupy the vital ground.  This is the kind of action that I see our mounted forces as being capable of doing.

If the enemy has got there first and is dug-in with intentions to stay then the LAV team should not be the first choice to dig them out.  Closing with and destroying the enemy is all well and good, but why attempt it with our LAV team if there are other forces better suited?

As for the guns, I certainly want some form of indirect fire support down at sub-unit level.  This team may often find itselt outside the range of higher level artillery, so a self-contained package would be ideal.  The 12 pdrs were a big part of the cavalry team in 1900, and the proposed AT Tp and Mortar Tp perhaps fulfill a similar role.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. Zipper, 

It could be our normal LAV mounted infantry combined with armoured Coyotes or a new branch that has both skills resident.  In that case there would Infantry and Cavalry.  Cavalry would have all mounted troops, while Infantry would be the Light Force.  It can work either way.  A LAV Company could follow the Cavalry Team, but it really wouldn't add any capabilities not already present in the mixed Sqn (which, to review, has 2 x Coyote Tps and 2 x LAV Pls as its proposed core).

As for platforms, the CV90 family would work very well.  I would still call it "Cavalry" with a CV90120T in the AT Tp.

 

[Zipper]

It could be our normal LAV mounted infantry combined with armoured Coyotes or a new branch that has both skills resident.   In that case there would Infantry and Cavalry.   Cavalry would have all mounted troops, while Infantry would be the Light Force.   It can work either way.   A LAV Company could follow the Cavalry Team, but it really wouldn't add any capabilities not already present in the mixed Sqn (which, to review, has 2 x Coyote Tps and 2 x LAV Pls as its proposed core).

As for platforms, the CV90 family would work very well.   I would still call it "Cavalry" with a CV90120T in the AT Tp.

I think for simplicities sake, that you stay with an Infantry Branch that is made into "Light infantry" forces, and turn the Armoured branch into Cavalry which entails a LAV type vehicle (coyote or LAV III) with crew (3-4) and dismounts (either 2 in coyote or 6-7 in LAV III). I think the idea of also trying to have mech infantry in LAV's as well would confuse things far to much (which branch do they belong too?) and would require far to many vehicles of the same type which we cannot afford at present.

So I would guess that if we went back to the original question for the thread that we would not have anything truly deemed as a "combat" team, as we would have nothing heavy enough to actually carry out a sustained assault. And that (in my opinion) we should scrap the idea of mechanized infantry and transform the vehicles and other personal into that of Cavalry since we do not (once again) have the heavy forces to support a mechanized unit.

If we ever did get the resources and will to purchase CV-90's (I can dream can't I? ), we could look at either making them into a heavier Cavalry force with the 120's as the AT support, or once again going back to a more "mechanized" model with the CV9030(5)'s as the mech infantry carriers and the 120's in squadrons as the armoured support.

Either way 2B, I think your ideas are far better as opposed to the way things are going now. Have you managed to submit them to the journals yet?

Oh, and why are you refering to the LAV's as platoons? Either go one way or the other (troop or platoon).

 

[redleafjumper]

I may be taking things away from the excellent tactical discussion that is underway here, but I thought perhaps it might be useful to insert some strategic aspects.

In "Defeat into Victory" Field Marshall Slim reports that more vehicles in his order of battle actually slowed down his combat troops - the logistical tail required to support the fighting troops grows tremendously when there are more vehicles and when the tactical and logistical situations precluded use of vehicles, his troops actually moved faster and more aggressively in the Burma Campaign.  He relied heavily on aircraft as an important vehicle, that is for transport of reinforcements, supply and tactical support.  Of course, the air resources presented logistical problems of their own.  They needed forward bases, repairs and lots of service support.  He was writing in the early sixties and had some time to reflect on the campaign.  He felt that there were many lessons from Burma that could well be applied to modern conflicts (Vietnam was likely in his mind at the time of writing, as well as the various fights of the fifties).  He did make use of the obsolete armour that he was equipped with for close in support of infantry against entrenched positions, but in the end it was always the poor bloody infantry that went in with small arms and bayonet to take and hold the ground.

In my view, the proper thing to do is to determine what the general purpose of the army is to be before deciding what it will be equipped with and how it should be structured.  I tend to agree with Slim (and others who have posted previously) that generalist light infantry formations trained in small unit tactics are a good way to go for many applications.  As I have said in other places, what this country really needs to do is to develop a defence policy, and then determine what the armed forces needs to look like to carry out that defence policy.  That's the key question: who are we likely to be engaged in war with, and what are our needs to meet that threat, or threats given the current and projected international situations?  And, overarching all of that is the old problem of what such a military would cost and will the public support the expense.

 

[Zipper]

Agreed with you for the most part there redleaf.

One of the things that has come up in our discussions is the fact that we would like to see our Infantry units move towards a "light" focus as opposed to the mechanized versions they are now. They seem to be heading in that direction anyway. We are looking at other ways of doing things for the rest of the Army since the lose of the Leopard for the Armoured and the M105's for the Horse Artillery.We are also trying to find ways for the military to be viable in a wide set of circumstances as opposed to the direction of Ad hoc'ery patrol units that it seems to be taking recently.

As for who we are likely to be at war with in the future? Unless you have a crystal ball sitting around somewhere, then quite honestly no one can answer that question. And if you try, then you are making the same mistakes Canadian governments have made over the years in which there have been no immediate threats (to us) present and thus slashed the military to the bone. Germany wasn't thought of as a threat in the 20's and early 30's till it was to late. Threats that we need to think about are more then 10 years out, since it takes at least that long to respond as far as logistics is concerned. Planning ahead is not a government strong suite.

And if you think terrorism is a threat? Then you will know that a military solution is not going to solve that problem regardless of what is handed you in the media.

2B - I hate to do this. But I spent quite a bit of time thinking of your set up for the Cav last night. I know, shouldn't have had that chicken leg before bed. ;D

I still have a few problems that need to be worked out.

First. I'm still not comfortable with the fact that you are keeping all your coyote and LAV assets in two distinct sub units (Trp or Plt). If you are thinking of a more mechanized infantry focus, then maybe it makes sense. But from an armoured perspective it doesn't. Usually an armoured trp works along its own designated pathway within the line of advance/withdrawl so as to not get mixed up with its other sqn mates (yes, you do get some crossover).

So I asked myself why would you want all your coyotes in one path and your LAV's in another? You would then have many dismounted infantry in one line of advance, and few in another. The only way to solve this is to only have 2 corridors of advance per sqn for the LAV's and the coyotes as support (or vice versa). This would make a fairly narrow front.

As well, why would you need 6 coyotes in a trp (if you use the 6 car trp)? With only 2-3 dismounts per vehicle, this would limit your support quite a bit if that trp was caught out of position. Not to mention the coyote is NOT a very good recce vehicle and a reasonable surveillance vehicle at best. Thus it would be fine for a withdrawl or static position (harbour), but lousy on a fast moving advance/screen.

So I propose you look at changing your trp layout to something like 4 LAVIII's (w 6-7 dismounts) and 2 coyotes (2-3 dismounts) per trp. This would give you your required recce/surveillance per trp, not cut down your trp firepower much, and not leave your coyotes hanging in the wind if they are out of position, as well as give you a broader front per sqn. This would cut down your Infantry per trp, but would give you more overall per sqn (16 LAVIII's instead of 12).

(one thing that would need to happen would be the change of the coyote chassis to that of the LAV III instead of the LAV II it has now for CSS purposes)

Also with the lack of the coyote as far as recce is concerned, you still need recce (mud recce that is) assets within either your sqn or regiment. So either your going to have to add a 6 vehicle trp to your sqn, or an 8-10 vehicle trp to the regiment, or both. What vehicle that is I don't know. As the coyote as I said is not great, nor is the Gwagon a perfect alternative (although better then the coyote). I don't know if the LAVIII chassis in a recce variant is of any use as I have never experienced one. Either way you need better recce for your proposed unit.

And if you are following a mech battalion model, it would be nice to add a LAV AMB per trp as well on top of the SHQ ones.

Thanks

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

"Mixed" Troops are certainly an option and could be formed for certain types of terrain and tasks.  I've kept them seperate to keep the Sqn Team flexible.  I see a "hunter/killer" concept for the Team.  The Recce Tps are the "hunters", while the LAV Pls, AT Tp and Mortars are the "killers." 

In a screen/guard setting, the Coyotes would be spread out in a screen watching the avenues of approach/NAIs.  They detect enemy recon and other elements.  The LAV Pl/Tp along with the AT elements would be held back.  They would be "vectored" by the Coyote OPs against advancing enemy elements.  The AT sections would employ long range fires, while the LAV Platoons would move into ambush positions.  The "killers" would be supported by the Mortar Tp, along with any other fire support available.  Spreading out the recce while keeping the combat power tight would be my underlying principle.  The LAV Pls would also be centralized so that they can react en masse to support a threatened OP.

In an advance setting, where the Cav Team is performing a zone reconnaissance, again the Coyote would lead spread out with the LAVs/AT Tp and Mortars trailing.  Coyotes find enemy OPs/security positions, while the killers folllowing destroy them.  Prepared position, however, would be left for follow-on forces.  The Sqn could cover two axis in compartmentalized terrain, with a Recce Tp and LAV Pl on each.  Mixing it up into four Troop Teams would let us cover more axis, but each force would be relativley weaker.  This could be decided based on the situation.  The Sapper Tp would normally be centralized, although the option would exist to push sections out with Tps if required.

The issue of the Coyote as a recce vehicle is indeed a contentious one.  I do see the Coyote as a recce vehicle.  Having two scouts in the back of each will augment that capability as well.

There are many different ways to organize.  My main point is the role.  A Cavalry role is within the capabilities of our equipment and is also a meaningful one.

Cheers,

Iain

 

[Zipper]

Ok. I see now. It almost like your taking your Cavalry idea not so much from the European idea of cavalry as hunters/screens with the ability to hit home in a heavy sense, but from the more Asian/Mongol sense of light rovers that pick at the edges and exploit weaknesses. Your not operating so much on a front idea, but more as a skirmisher.

It could work well if the enemy wanted to play the maneuver game. But then we'd need to call in the heavies if they decided to turn and fight it out.

Its very difficult to wrap my head around the fact that we're moving everything to "light" types of forces. As with the examples of the Boer war, we are going to have to look at almost every case of light units throughtout history. Mongol's, Skirmishers/light cavalry of the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, Boer's, even possibly the Native Indians of the SW US. All fast moving forces that could take and hold ground until the bigger boys got there, and could get out fast if necessary.

Jeez I hope we don't get caught with out pants down with this.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

In a conventional warfighting context I see this force operating in conjunction with Coalition heavy forces.  It would provide security for coalition heavy forces and it could do more than find the enemy and warn the heavy forces about incoming threats to the flanks.  It can destroy enemy recce and impose a delay on heavier forces to allow the main body time and space to react.  While it does not fight the main battle, it sets the conditions for the success of the main battle.

By way of convuluted historical analogy, we would be the allied light cavalry and light infantry contingents that made up part of Alexander's army.  We aren't the heavy cavalry or pikemen who fight the main battle but the ones who make sure that the main effort succeeds.

Against all opponents, but especially heavy ones or those dug in, this team will only seek battle when it is advantageous.  In some situations we could withdraw our recce to entice the enemy into an ambush.  If the enemy is dug-in, however, then the follow-on heavy coalition forces will deal with them.  Our role will be to prevent the heavies getting suprised and having to fight at a disadvantage.

One worst case scenario could be in a stability operation where "warlords" with access to conventional forces try to topple a government that we are supporting.  Our Cavalry team may well be the heaviest forces around.  It could certainly defend well enough, perhaps to buy time for other forces to arrive (even if it is only the USAF).  Again, the integral infantry, fire support, recce and AT assets plus CSS and command give this force the ability to hit an attacking conventional force fairly hard.

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

It could be our normal LAV mounted infantry combined with armoured Coyotes or a new branch that has both skills resident.   In that case there would Infantry and Cavalry.   Cavalry would have all mounted troops, while Infantry would be the Light Force.   It can work either way.   A LAV Company could follow the Cavalry Team, but it really wouldn't add any capabilities not already present in the mixed Sqn (which, to review, has 2 x Coyote Tps and 2 x LAV Pls as its proposed core).

As for platforms, the CV90 family would work very well.   I would still call it "Cavalry" with a CV90120T in the AT Tp.

You may have hit on something here.  A new type of unit.  We would have 'dedicated' Armour, Recce, Infantry, Arty, and Engineer Units and Cbt Teams, but also bring into play a new unit that borrows from them all to form a Cav org.  It may be a way of doing away with some of the animosity that seems to be building in the West with the PPCLI AT Teams being posted into the Strats along with ADATS Gunners.

 

[Zipper]

Actually what may be better is getting rid of the dedicated armour, recce, infantry, arty and engineers and going towards a more total combined arms with aspects of all of them within either light Infantry units or Cavalry units.

The idea of Armour died pretty much with the loss of the Leopard and no replacement any time in the foreseeable future, and having complete coyote (recce) units doesn't make any sense either as they will be chopped up into ad hoc units to fill in spaces in combat teams (??) and other operational units anyway. And I know you agree George about how useful the coyote is as far as recce is concerned. Same goes with the arty and engineers.

Adding yet another branch called Cavalry would actually confuse matters worse.

As for the DFS idea that the Strats are being forced into is yet another non-starter that has been discussed around here ad nauseum. Make the PPCLI, RCR and Van doos into light Infantry and the Strats, RCD, and RBC into Cavalry period. All with arty, engineers, and other support directly attached.

There is no need anymore for separate engineer or arty units as we have dropped the whole idea of us ever forming anything larger then a BG. Brigades and divisions with support elements are for those countries that have money and resources, not to mention political will.

 

[a_majoor]

I finally worked it out (no more decaf for me!):

A Cavalry unit (Cavalry Team/Regiment/Brigade) is designed to operate above the ISTAR threshold: where ISTAR and surveillance assets can be employed to their best advantage. This includes the various tasks 2Bravo has identified, and can include some limited urban ops (acting as a mobile cordon or firebase in the more open areas, along major MSRs etc.)

The Combat Team operates below the ISTAR threshold, where ISTAR and surveilance assets have limited utility, and the enemy has the opportunity to engage at close quarters either by accident or design. The Combat team needs sufficient firepower and mobility assets (i.e. Engineers) to allow it to function against an elusive and close quarter foe, and sufficient Infantry to carry out dismounted ops (including patrols) to find and fix the enemy. The Cavalry Team still needs to be "all arms", but various proportions can change (fewer Infantry, more surveillance equipment, more long range DF) compared to the Combat Team. In a LAV context, the Combat team would resemble the SBCT Infantry Coy, while the Cavalry team would more closely approximate the Marine LAR Coy (substituting a Coyote surveillance troop for one of the Infantry Platoons, for example).

 

[Infanteer]

I kinda came to that conclusion as well - I liked to use Krulak's notions of "The Son of Iraq" and the "Step-Child of Chechnya" to describe above and below; both are forms of Complex Warfighting and both will be where we are fighting in the future.

The "Son of Iraq" should require a Cavalry Battlegroup which consists of all-arms Cav Squadrons (perhaps with a Light Coy attachment) - I would think that they would roughly resemble a Stryker Coy (in that they are combined-arms sub-units).

The "Step-Child" of Chechnya will probably require a Light Battlegroup which consists of all-arms Light Companies, something akin to the Light Force Coy Group mentioned in the Light Forces Working Group papers:

- 1 x Light Infantry Company: 145 (3 Rifle Platoons, Weapons Platoon, HQ)
- 1 x Mortar Group: 24 (two 4 man FOO parties and a 20 man Mortar Group with 3-4 81mm mortars)
- 1 x Engineering Section: 8
- 1 x Recce Section: 12 (8 Scouts (preferably with Pathfinder Sect Cmr and 2ic) and two 2 man sniper teams)
- 1 x DFS section: 8 (two four man teams with LUVW equipped with .50 cal, 40mm AGL, and a short range anti-armour and anti-aircraft missiles)
- 1 x Medic Det: 4

This Light Battlegroup can have a Cav Squadron attached to give it some "umph".  As well, if our Cav Troops were organized somewhat along the Aussie lines, they could be used to transport Light Coy Groups in a pinch.

The Light Coy Group and the Cav Squadron will be the sub-unit, modular organizations that everybody is talking about.  They should have the ability to act independently for certain tasks.  These modular sub-units should be capable of being plugged into a Task Force, Battalion/Brigade, or Amphibious or Air Mobile ready units.

Who's going to copyright the theory?  :blotto:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'd venture that all "manouevre" units will operate under the ISTAR threshold to some degree, although I think that you are certainly right that "combat teams" would operate at closer range against unseen enemies.  Units/teams intended for stand-up fights, particularily assaults, would have more combat power than those intended to find the enemy. Thats why I want the close combat forces to have tanks (protection).  The ability of the M1 to take a hit without the crew getting killed was, to me, one of the big factors in both coalition GW conventional victories.  I suppose that getting hit certainly means that you are under the ISTAR threshold!

Light infantry can indeed bring along quite a bit of firepower, but an infantry force attacking in urban terrain will be at a disadvantage if it does not have heavy armour with it.  Its not just about the firepower, its about the ability to manoeuvre under fire which other firepower systems do not have.  I'd add a platoon of M1s or similar tanks to a light infantry battalion intending to duke it out in a city.

A mixed Cav Sqn Team (Recce and LAV Tps/Pls) as laid out on the last page would be a flexible force capable of a wide range of tactical roles across the spectrum.  To review:

  a.  2 x Coyote Tps
  b.  2 x LAV Pls
  c.  AT Tp (MGS, LAV TOW, Leopard C2 take your pick  )
  d.  Mortar Tp
  e.  Sapper Tp
  f.  CSS (armoured ambs, MRTs and supply vehs with the SSM in a LAV III)
  g. SHQ (quite large and all arms) 

Again, I'd like to avoid capbadges and beret colour for a moment and focus on capability.  The mixed Cav Sqn Team could patrol an urban AOO as well as rural ones due to its mixture of Coyotes and LAVs (with the infantry in the back capable of dismounted patrolling/operations).  As configured above it can conduct everything from classic peacekeeping to stability operations to conventional warfighting.  Just don't throw them away against prepared positions.

Looking South, I'd argue that the SBCTs should adopt a Cavalry role.

Cheers,

Iain