Dragoons = Mechanized Infantry?
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Thanks guys.
As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated....
Cheers,
Matthew.
As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated....
Cheers,
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
You meant to say "therefore we are Mechanized", right?
The BMP is an IFV, whereas the BTR is an APC. I've been under the impression that the vehicle class is the factor which determines whether you call a unit Mech or Motor. The LAV3 is an IFV (and is more similar to a BMP2 then it is to a BTR) and therefore Mechanized, No?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmp-2.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/btr-80.htm
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Ghostwalk said:
With exception of the BTR 90...which is an MICV or IFV depending on the variant.
As for the title "Dragoon".....it's an old Calvary term, passed onto Armoured units.
Why the Yanks picked it up for their infantry is beyond me :
Probably to bolster moral. If changing names is what they need to bring up moral...they're in a world of hurt.
Infanteers will always be infanteers no matter what they ride into battle in...period.
My .02
Regards
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
As a former, and now one who can look at this from a far:
I think the defintions of infantry (mech, motor, whatever), dragoons, cavalry, and armoured should break down into their specific primary role.
Infantry - hold ground or close with and destroy enemy. Does matter how they get there?...no.
Dragoons are a obsolete term but would be better described as a mechanized recce, where we would put troops like 1 Bn recce plattons in or the assault troops from the armoured recce sqns, troops whose primary role isn't infantry, but do support the true infantry. And if required, can fight as infantry in a specific task.
Cavalry - light mobile forces who fight from their "mounts". AKA RCDs with their Coyote...now light armour, primarily used as recon.
Armour...the knights of old, the tanks in our time.
If there is a requirement to rename or reassign titles to units, it should be the Armour who should termed Cavalry, the RCD become actual dragoons, and do not change the infantry. The infantry needs bodies, not new names.
I think the defintions of infantry (mech, motor, whatever), dragoons, cavalry, and armoured should break down into their specific primary role.
Infantry - hold ground or close with and destroy enemy. Does matter how they get there?...no.
Dragoons are a obsolete term but would be better described as a mechanized recce, where we would put troops like 1 Bn recce plattons in or the assault troops from the armoured recce sqns, troops whose primary role isn't infantry, but do support the true infantry. And if required, can fight as infantry in a specific task.
Cavalry - light mobile forces who fight from their "mounts". AKA RCDs with their Coyote...now light armour, primarily used as recon.
Armour...the knights of old, the tanks in our time.
If there is a requirement to rename or reassign titles to units, it should be the Armour who should termed Cavalry, the RCD become actual dragoons, and do not change the infantry. The infantry needs bodies, not new names.
J
Joint Service Guy
Guest
With respect, everyone seems to be missing some critical points,
Infantry are those who fight and operate dismounted. The vehicle is merely a method of transport/protected mobility and can provide close support.
Skilled, well-trained, rationally equipped infantry can operate from any vehicle, be it an IFV or rubber boat. You should be able to take the dismounts of any armoured or mech infantry unit and deploy it on operations as an Airmobile/LI unit. If you can't then there is something wrong with your army, leadership and manpower.
Armoured vehicle crews need special training, as do those who support and command them, but the dismounts just need to be good at what they do, regardless of the vehicle. Only the dismounts need to be "infantry".
The current situation is not the product of operational need or effectiveness, but rather the most armies need to protect their budget and keep the inter-arm and service rivalry going.
Infantry are part of the combined arms team, and can never be self-sufficient or operate in isolation from some type of vehicle support.
BTW, BTR-90? Two years ago I did a study for a light unit, on facing down a BTR-90 based battle group, using NATO type SOPs and TTPs. Scared the crap out of off them.
Infantry are those who fight and operate dismounted. The vehicle is merely a method of transport/protected mobility and can provide close support.
Skilled, well-trained, rationally equipped infantry can operate from any vehicle, be it an IFV or rubber boat. You should be able to take the dismounts of any armoured or mech infantry unit and deploy it on operations as an Airmobile/LI unit. If you can't then there is something wrong with your army, leadership and manpower.
Armoured vehicle crews need special training, as do those who support and command them, but the dismounts just need to be good at what they do, regardless of the vehicle. Only the dismounts need to be "infantry".
The current situation is not the product of operational need or effectiveness, but rather the most armies need to protect their budget and keep the inter-arm and service rivalry going.
Infantry are part of the combined arms team, and can never be self-sufficient or operate in isolation from some type of vehicle support.
BTW, BTR-90? Two years ago I did a study for a light unit, on facing down a BTR-90 based battle group, using NATO type SOPs and TTPs. Scared the crap out of off them.
- Reaction score
- 7,978
- Points
- 1,160
Seeing as how I have my OED out this morning:
Dragoon: 1. Cavalryman (orig. mounted infantryman armed with carbine); rough, fierce fellow; variety of pigeons.
Assuming that the RCDs have no affinity for birdseed, and not knowing enough of them to debate their temperament, I am going to stick with the notion that a Dragoon as a mounted infantryman with a carbine is probably why the Americans (at least that Death Ground fellow) has started to refer to the Guys in the Back of the Bradleys (infantrymen with carbines) as Dragoons.
In Britain when military needs changed roving infanteers that were given horses to allow them to cow large numbers of Scots, Borderers and Irishmen were reroled. They morphed and became part of the Cavalry establishment. At various times they have concentrated on fighting from a mounted position for the assault and at other times the vehicle has been nothing more than transport and they have fought on their feet like line infantry. By the time the Royal Canadian Dragoons took their name the Dragoons in the British Army were cavalry, spending as much time with the sword as the rifle. Peculiarly, in Canada and South Africa the Dragoons were required as Mounted Rifles or Mounted Infantry - the Lee-Enfield was the weapon and the horse was just a vehicle.
But on one point JSG, Franko and I all agree. An Infanteer is an Infanteer no matter what they ride into battle in.
Cavalry fight mounted. Infantry fight on foot. If specialisation is necessary when an Infanteer is mounted in an armoured vehicle (a shorter rifle is required for example) then perhaps that justifies call them something else other than Infantrymen, or perhaps like paratroopers, marines, commandos, riflemen, fusiliers etc they are just another species of infanteer, infanteers that are optimised for cavalry cooperation but infanteers all the same.
If Canada's army was split according to its Regimental titles it would have:
One mounted recce unit - Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)
One armoured support unit - 12 Regiment Blinde Canadien / 12th Canadian Armoured Regiment
One mounted infantry unit (cavalry cooperation) - Royal Canadian Dragoons
3 Light Infantry Battalions - Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
6 Infantry Battalions - Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22nd Regiment
On consideration that is not an unbalanced force. Now all that has to be dealt with is regimental pride, geographic dispersion and national politics.
Cheers.
Dragoon: 1. Cavalryman (orig. mounted infantryman armed with carbine); rough, fierce fellow; variety of pigeons.
Assuming that the RCDs have no affinity for birdseed, and not knowing enough of them to debate their temperament, I am going to stick with the notion that a Dragoon as a mounted infantryman with a carbine is probably why the Americans (at least that Death Ground fellow) has started to refer to the Guys in the Back of the Bradleys (infantrymen with carbines) as Dragoons.
In Britain when military needs changed roving infanteers that were given horses to allow them to cow large numbers of Scots, Borderers and Irishmen were reroled. They morphed and became part of the Cavalry establishment. At various times they have concentrated on fighting from a mounted position for the assault and at other times the vehicle has been nothing more than transport and they have fought on their feet like line infantry. By the time the Royal Canadian Dragoons took their name the Dragoons in the British Army were cavalry, spending as much time with the sword as the rifle. Peculiarly, in Canada and South Africa the Dragoons were required as Mounted Rifles or Mounted Infantry - the Lee-Enfield was the weapon and the horse was just a vehicle.
But on one point JSG, Franko and I all agree. An Infanteer is an Infanteer no matter what they ride into battle in.
Cavalry fight mounted. Infantry fight on foot. If specialisation is necessary when an Infanteer is mounted in an armoured vehicle (a shorter rifle is required for example) then perhaps that justifies call them something else other than Infantrymen, or perhaps like paratroopers, marines, commandos, riflemen, fusiliers etc they are just another species of infanteer, infanteers that are optimised for cavalry cooperation but infanteers all the same.
If Canada's army was split according to its Regimental titles it would have:
One mounted recce unit - Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)
One armoured support unit - 12 Regiment Blinde Canadien / 12th Canadian Armoured Regiment
One mounted infantry unit (cavalry cooperation) - Royal Canadian Dragoons
3 Light Infantry Battalions - Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
6 Infantry Battalions - Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22nd Regiment
On consideration that is not an unbalanced force. Now all that has to be dealt with is regimental pride, geographic dispersion and national politics.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Kirkhill said:
However, the "Mounted Rifles" did not resemble a line Infantry battalion of that era. A Line Battalion was generally "square" with eight companies of Infantry soldiers (this is the period of the changeover to a four company battalion, so there is a bit of flex in these descriptions)
("Return of the Canadian Mounted Rifles" ADTB Vol 5 No 4)
The CMR was different because their mobility allowed them to cover wider AORs. They had machine gun sections since they could not rely on being close to various support weapons or units (even in 1914, a British battalion had only two machine guns). They needed men to attend to the animals while others fought. Their TTPs were different since they could use manouevre to outflank conventional formations. Once on the ground, they were still Infantry soldiers fighting with Lee Enfield rifles and Colt Machine guns, but this is looking at the CMR trooper as an individual, rather than at the section, troop or squadron level.
(Something to look up; I once heard the "RCD" was raised as a CMR regiment, but the Colonel wanted a more dashing title. True? False?)
It may well be possible to have a generic "Infantry" which does not change TO&E or TTPs when mounted or dismounted. I suspect it would resemble a Light Infantry unit (Like the US 173 Long Range Surveillance Detachment detailed in the Towards a true Light Infantry thread), with specialized "Battle Taxi" vehicles sized to hold an entire section plus three man crew, and only used for indirect support (with an on board 60mm mortar, for example). They would have the ability to "snipe" the enemy, or vector in artillery/aircraft/helicopters, but only a limited ability to engage in shock assault. Intermediate solutions like our own LAV III mechanized Infantry or the US SBCT have better mobility than foot infantry, but inferior protection and firepower compared to mechanized forces using heavy armour and IFVs, hence need different TO&Es and different TTPs.
So long as our focus is simply on the man dismounted on the battlefield, then there is really no fundimental difference between a footsoldier in the "Division of the Ram" fighting for Rameses II, and Robert Heinlein's "Mobile Infantry" in "Starship Troopers". Each individual man still must "close with and destroy" the enemy, and ultimatly serves to take and hold ground. The "how" they do that changes over the ages, a spear and wicker shield might serve against the similarly armed and organized Hittites, but even dealing with the Mycenean warriors in bronze armour required new types of organization, equipment and training. The way I see it, this argument is essentially about section and above level organization and training for the soldiers who are vehicle mounted and can use their vehicles as fighting platforms in their own right.
- Reaction score
- 7,978
- Points
- 1,160
And there we come up against the vicissitudes of historical nomenclature once again. By the time of the Boer war Mounted Infantry consisted of sticking well worn horses, or camels in Egypt, under the butts of eight companies of infantry and moving them off in fours towards the enemy.
Mounted Rifles (actually I can only think of Canadian usage here) seemed to harken back to the original Rifles which were skirmishing infantry, fighting in pairs rather than in line. In that sense they were mounted skirmishers as opposed to mounted infantry and thus started moving more definitively into cavalry terrain where dragoons, which had been mounted infantry converted to cavalry to go charging down on enemy lines, were being used as mounted skirmishers. All clear now ;D.
Its all in a name isnt it.
More seriously, it is indicative of the constantly changing needs of the battlefield and the limitations of associated with raising units named for a specific technology or role.
It IS about the dismounted fight and holding ground, often in complex environments with civilians in evidence, versus the mounted fight, the assault and taking ground, often where the target, the enemy and the rules of engagement have been more clearly defined, the civilians either absent or ignored.
The Infanteer may find himself wandering the souks and casbahs surrounded by women and children waiting for the enemy. The guys in tanks and manning howitzers are more likely to find that they have been given a less complex, less fraught, if still dangerous, task. Remove those people from that ground over there. Do what it takes.
As to the CMR vs RCD
According to Marteinson, We Stand on Guard, Maj-Gen Ivor Caradoc Herbert GOC convinced the Canadian government to Stand up the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and the Royal Canadian Regiment all at the same time in 1890.
Interestingly enough the RCMP continues to hold the traditions of a regiment of Dragoons.
Cutting back to the discussion though, in addition to the debate over mounted versus dismounted there seems to be a correlated debate over "skirmishers" those that operate in small groups (pairs or teams) in advance of the main body (mounted or dismounted) and those that act "en masse" as the main body (mounted or dismounted).
Cheers.
Regarding the Canadian Mounted Rifles in the South African War, the 1st Battalion was raised around a cadre of the Royal Canadian Dragoons with selected militia regiments tasked to provide the second, third and fourth troops per squadron. It should be noted that it was a unit of the regular army, like 2 RCR and the Brigade Division RCA. In South Africa the CO, Lieutenant Colonel Lessard, requested that the unit be redesignated the Royal Canadian Dragoons to conform to the names of the other regular units.
As for the original names, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, Royal Canadian Artillery and Royal Canadian Regiment, all originated in 1890. In 1905 the Royal Canadian Field Artillery was resdesignated the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery as a recognition of its service supporting mounted troops in South Africa.
Hope this helps. I could pound on at length about the differences between cavalry, mounted infantry and mounted rifles, but it basically revolved around whether the horse was an infantry carrier or a fighting vehicle. That is the easiest way to explain it, odd as it may sound.
As for the original names, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, Royal Canadian Artillery and Royal Canadian Regiment, all originated in 1890. In 1905 the Royal Canadian Field Artillery was resdesignated the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery as a recognition of its service supporting mounted troops in South Africa.
Hope this helps. I could pound on at length about the differences between cavalry, mounted infantry and mounted rifles, but it basically revolved around whether the horse was an infantry carrier or a fighting vehicle. That is the easiest way to explain it, odd as it may sound.
I would need to consult some references to provide a complete answer, but basically cavalry was trained and equipped to fight mounted and especially to deliver shock action by means of the mounted charge with sword and lance. The term shock action was used at the time in reference to the charge driven home. Cavalry could also fight dismounted, but their carbines were of relatively short range and ground action was a second choice.
Mounted Rifles (MR) were horsemen trained to use ground as something to manoeuvre over in order to defeat the enemy. MR were expected to actually fight dismounted. If any of you have seen the Australian movie The Light Horsemen (name?), the unit was MR in all but name. MR were armed with a standard rifle and bayonet. The Canadian version also carried a Colt revolver and thus were able to fight mounted, probably modelled after the US Cavalry of the late Plains Indian Wars period, who had discarded swords.
Mounted Infantry (MI) were infantry mounted on horses. Each infantry battalion in the British army was expected to have a company trained to operate as MI in peacetime. These companies were supposed to be exercised annually, but this probably was not enforced. In war the MI companies were brigaded into four company battalions, much as the light companies of French and Indian Wars British infantry regiments were brigaded. MI used their animals as transport and were not expected to be able to scout or do very much more than ride up to the battle area, dismount and then fight on foot.
MI existed as a separate arm in the British army in the late Victorian period and Major General Sir Edward Hutton, who commanded the Canadian militia circa 1899, was considered its father. Hutton considered cavalry obsolete and was in the process of designating the RCD as CMR when he clashed with the Canadian government over patronage and was recalled by the British.
Mounted Rifles (MR) were horsemen trained to use ground as something to manoeuvre over in order to defeat the enemy. MR were expected to actually fight dismounted. If any of you have seen the Australian movie The Light Horsemen (name?), the unit was MR in all but name. MR were armed with a standard rifle and bayonet. The Canadian version also carried a Colt revolver and thus were able to fight mounted, probably modelled after the US Cavalry of the late Plains Indian Wars period, who had discarded swords.
Mounted Infantry (MI) were infantry mounted on horses. Each infantry battalion in the British army was expected to have a company trained to operate as MI in peacetime. These companies were supposed to be exercised annually, but this probably was not enforced. In war the MI companies were brigaded into four company battalions, much as the light companies of French and Indian Wars British infantry regiments were brigaded. MI used their animals as transport and were not expected to be able to scout or do very much more than ride up to the battle area, dismount and then fight on foot.
MI existed as a separate arm in the British army in the late Victorian period and Major General Sir Edward Hutton, who commanded the Canadian militia circa 1899, was considered its father. Hutton considered cavalry obsolete and was in the process of designating the RCD as CMR when he clashed with the Canadian government over patronage and was recalled by the British.
'Dragoon' may have originally been applied to soldiers expected to generally fight dismounted, but that changed after a century or so. The tendency of a mounted soldier to want to stay mounted won out. In the British tradition, Dragoons became heavy cavalry, and that is our usage today. Hence the scarlets of the RCD (and the LdSH(RC), you may have noticed).
The traditional uniforms of lighter 'scouting' cavalry, such as that Hungarian invention Hussars, is blue.
So, Dragoons, according to OUR traditions, are heavy cavalry.
Of course, the traditional definitions of cavalry origin will conflict with modern operational requirements. The RCD was an Armoured Car regt in WW2. The NB Hussars was a tank regiment. The Sherbrooke Fusiliers was tank. The Halifax Rifles was a cavalry Regiment, the 12th Manitoba Dragoons was a Recce Regt, the South Alberta Regt was the Div Recce Regt for 4 Cdn Armd Div, but was almost exclusively equiped with tanks... we could go on.
Tom
The traditional uniforms of lighter 'scouting' cavalry, such as that Hungarian invention Hussars, is blue.
So, Dragoons, according to OUR traditions, are heavy cavalry.
Of course, the traditional definitions of cavalry origin will conflict with modern operational requirements. The RCD was an Armoured Car regt in WW2. The NB Hussars was a tank regiment. The Sherbrooke Fusiliers was tank. The Halifax Rifles was a cavalry Regiment, the 12th Manitoba Dragoons was a Recce Regt, the South Alberta Regt was the Div Recce Regt for 4 Cdn Armd Div, but was almost exclusively equiped with tanks... we could go on.
Tom
Similar threads
