PDA

View Full Version : End of the Cavalry Corps?



Goldie fish
14th May 2005, 12:45
Does anyone else think the Cav will soon be no more?

The Piranhas are an Infantry Vehicle, The proposed LTAVs,by all reports will also be an infantry vehicle. The last bastion of armour(as in an armoured vehicle with a heavy weapon of some sort) in the Cav,the Scorpions and Panhards,will soon be obsolete,with no replacment in sight.

So where will the cav go? Unless I'm mistaken at the moment they are limited to a motorised recce role. Will the Infantry batallion be reorganised as a mechanised batallion, with what remains of the cav becoming their recce coy?

Take a look at the use of armour overseas to see how it could be in the future.

DeV
14th May 2005, 12:59
Cavalry units are brigade assets. They are mainly tasked with medium-distance reconnaissance and other more specialist role, therefore it couldn't easily be absorbed into infantry units.

The majority of the cavalry's vehicle have always been softskinned anyway.

Come-quickly
14th May 2005, 13:33
The Australians use the ASLAV and the M113 in Cav units (not to be confused with their Tank unit) these aren't specialised in any particular way AFAIK, and both are used mainly by infantry units.

Pod
14th May 2005, 21:30
What will happen to the "theoretical" fire support the AMLs could provide to the infantry? Unless there are plans (not likely in the DOD) to update/modify the PIIIs or even buy some more with something other than an anti-soft skin on the top.

Goldie fish- what meds are you on ???? ;.)
Reconfigure the infantry battalion to a mechansied role????
With the assests currently available to the DF - which one??

It is an unfortunate fact of historical DF docterine (if there is one) to split equipment rather than consolidate it in one place. the PIIIs are a point in fact. The amount purchased would just about equip 1 decent mechanised battalion, but even that would require a sizeable chunk of, if not all of the ALTVs planned to finish the job.

Truck Driver
14th May 2005, 21:54
Would it be a runner to upgun the Piranhas currently in DF service in the future to cater for the
drop off in Cavalry fire support, i.e; from THIS:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/Snacker1/MOWAG.jpg

as posted by Snacker in the Mowag Weapons thread

to THIS:

http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/cmi/ct-cv.jpg

as posted by Come Quickly in the Low Pressure Guns thread


I know which one would put the s*** up me more !!!!

Itchy
14th May 2005, 22:23
They must have run out of DPM paint for the turret!!!

Goldie fish
15th May 2005, 05:47
They must have run out of DPM paint for the turret!!!

Its a scarce commodoty,you should try looking for some next time you are in stores...

hptmurphy
21st May 2005, 11:13
The days of the cav are numbered definetly...especially in the roles that they were originally configured for.The scorpion and AMLs have been long obselete and the fire support role so aptly pointed out above was merely to get the cavalry units out of trouble and was never envisaged as an infantry fire support role ..that was the job of the artillery and support companies.

Even the CTR that has recently been given to the cav is better suited to the mounted infantry..with proper fire support.

Unless the light armour role is reconfigured and the vehicles required allocated well I reckon the glengarry will be a thing of the past.

The people who wish for big powerful weapons acarriers and APCs for a cav role dream on! Light four to six mna vehicles with a light arammnet arethe best that can ever be hoped for given financial and mnapower constarints.The current cav both PDF and RDF are so undermanned its not funny. There is not even a Commandant assigned to the two units in the south . The one Captain is running two units and this is not unique across the Corps.

Intergration in the south may not be the saviour ...but will only prelong the delay.Vehicles are in short supply with another sris of Nissans due for boarding....and even some of these have been lying around for two years because of the advent of the Nissan GRs. If the Army can afford whole fleets of useless Iveco trucks why not save the money and put it into something worth while.

Pod
24th May 2005, 23:30
Bad enough that we don't have any decent capability to actually defend the country at home, what will happen for overseas ops? Even if we end up only in Africa, for the next 40 years, some of the irregulars there seem to be better armed than our lads - and that's a f****ing disgrace! Don't forget what happened the last time we had a sizable mission in that part of the world with out of date equipment.
And what happens if we get caught up in a Kosovo/FYR type situation?! Sure, we'll be part of a bigger EU/ UN mission with heavy support from just about anybody and everybody else, but the PBI will still need some (semi-)integral and visible fire power to support them other than 82s & 120s.

hptmurphy
25th May 2005, 11:45
Sorry to rain on your parade Pod...but fire support for Infantry is not a primary role of the cavalry...thats an artillery tasking.This has been outlined as a feature not required for any future Light recce vehicle.
The days of the support troop after the decline of the current AML fleet are numbered.

DeV
25th May 2005, 11:49
The main role of the Cavalry is as Brigade reconnaissance, everything else are secondary duties, such as fires support, convoy security and traffic control (there are many more)

Pod
25th May 2005, 21:24
I hear what you are saying hptmurphy, but artillery is only ever going to be able to provide (delayed) indirect support. What are we going to have alongside the PBI for more immediate and direct FS other than support company?

I think I know the answer, I just don't want to hear it.....

hptmurphy
25th May 2005, 22:24
Well what ever its going to be itaint going to be cav operated. the reasoning behind the cavs firepower is to get the recce elemnet out of the shit...remember Cav recce is not adavance to contact due to the small numbers involved but if a cav unit comes under fire...SOP is shoot and scoot!
Pod are you RDF cav?

Are coming to the corps concentration in the glen of imagination in July?

Bam Bam
25th May 2005, 23:41
corp comcentration? is that the 9 day exercise

adwmaher
26th May 2005, 22:37
please stop using abbreviations!!!!!!!!!! What exactly is PBI? Anyhow main argument is incorrect. Cav will continue to exist, but current firepower will soon be nothing but a memory. Scorpions never served overseas and never will. See brits and aussies have recently scrapped them

hptmurphy
26th May 2005, 22:58
PBI is poor bloody infantrycorrect on the scorpions and the Cav will only have ahighly mobile undefended recce abd CTR role

Laners
26th May 2005, 23:15
Have no fear , There will always be the Equation School to keep the Cav name alive .

Gasplug
26th May 2005, 23:20
The equitation school, is actually technically transport now, as all soldiers in there have af154s and the officers are commissioned as transport officers!

Laners
26th May 2005, 23:42
It was just a little joke

Pod
27th May 2005, 21:53
Nah Hpt, long since departed ex-pat, ex-NS(PDF) actually, but with an interest in things Cav and Armour. More fun than chasing fishermen just trying to earn a crust.

As an ex-pat I'm probably a little bit behind on things so sorry if there's a thread on this already, but does the DF reorg and White paper set out ant specific for the Cav?

Gunner Who?
27th May 2005, 22:35
If it is the end of the Cav,can the RDF have their headgear pls its really jilty.

California Tanker
28th May 2005, 07:22
If it is the end of the Cav,can the RDF have their headgear pls its really jilty.

Any RDF deserving of it already have it.

NTM

Pod
1st June 2005, 23:12
The rationale for the scorpions was to ensure that the DF were able to maintain a cadre that would maintain the relevant skills and tactical knowledge for some day in the future when MBTs would be an option for the DF. [I] No shittin' you guys- This is for real! I've paraphased this from an 18 year old memory of an An Cosantoir special on the 1st Tank squadron!!
So we have to keep the Cav- afterall An Cos would know.

Back to earth now...

The HEAT round wasn't really intened for much more than The Soviet BDM & BRM series of vehicles, all fairly flimsy - but them Ruskies made millions of the little feckers, and the HE would only realy be of use against soft skins and relatively unprotected infantry. So in reality they fall into that good old fashioned class of infantry tanks that the Brits made so well (in the 30's) - only their a bit quicker.

The talk of sending the scorpions out to Liberia that was flying around last year tells the story- if they had gone it wouldn't have been with the intention of recon( by force, guile or anything else) it was for infantry FS ( and to frighten the locals- a bit colonial if you ask me!) I know it never happened, but the fact that it even got air time and web space suggest something about either GHQ docterine, peoples (mis)conceptions or both.

adwmaher
2nd June 2005, 01:09
Why cant we have situation where vehicle capable of both CTR, recce and infantry support can be selected. Am i really that naive to think there isn't at least one vehicle out there that can do that?And as for that old chestnut of artillery providing the fire support for the infantry, how's that meant to work on long patrols from base as in Liberia at the moment?

Bam Bam
2nd June 2005, 06:37
what about replacing our light armour with bradley or warrior AFV's.

Barry
2nd June 2005, 09:50
And as for that old chestnut of artillery providing the fire support for the infantry, how's that meant to work on long patrols from base as in Liberia at the moment?
Most countries get around this by using ground attack aircraft, or heavy artillery. Unfortunately, we aren't really equipped for either. In any case, artillery fire would not be called for in a peacekeeping situation. In a full scale war the affiliated artillery battery should be following the infantry battalion, ready to provide fire support if ordered to by their OP/asked to by the infantry

Bam Bam
2nd June 2005, 12:24
In Vietnam the US set up remote firebases on mountain tops all over the south so their troops would nearly always have fire support.

Goldie fish
2nd June 2005, 15:15
And Vietnam was such a successful conflict for the US...

Bam Bam
2nd June 2005, 16:25
Strategically and militarily the US won nearly every battle.
They lost 50,000 soldiers
NVA lost 1,000,000

They lost the war politically.
This was the first conflict that was broadcast as the fighting was taking place. Normal civilians saw for the first time what war was really like.

It lost the romance that the movies had given it.

In the end the American people lost the American goverment the war.

Pod
2nd June 2005, 20:56
Sorry Bam- Bam but strategically America- LOST!
The numbers game is a non-starter - the NVA were able to absorb the loss of 1,000,000 souls, and as for the American people lossing the war for the governement- call me stupid but the government is supposed to serve the will of the people.

What has any of this got to do with the end of the cavalry corps and that glorous history that gave us the pedaling panzers and a sinlge Comet tank?

Goldie fish
2nd June 2005, 22:08
Exactly,some people seem to think we live in a country that regulary gets attacked by hordes of tank driving terrorists.

Try to embrace reality someday. We don't need heavy armour for our current role.

B Inman
2nd June 2005, 22:16
Sorry Bam- Bam but strategically America- LOST!

What has any of this got to do with the end of the cavalry corps and that glorous history that gave us the pedaling panzers and a sinlge Comet tank?


Total number of Comet tanks in service was 8.

Tank
3rd June 2005, 18:57
Goldie Fish and HPTMurphy are right: The LTAV is really an Inf vehicle and the current Cav setup probably won't continue.

There seem to be quite a number of armies downscaling armoured recce roles. Most of western Europe except for France and the UK seem to be going that way. The US Army changed the 2ACR from heavy to light (Humvees), so it seems to me to be a trend going that way. I think this is a natural trend as more peacekeeping duties are required rather than combat missions.

Would it be true to say that whatever the parent unit type (I.e. Inf, Armour), the recce element tends to be light or heavy accordingly? So since the DF has Inf as parent units, it would seem logical to me to have light Cav units.

Not that I like that trend, but it just looks that way to me. Is there a recce/scout platoon in the new Rapid Deployment Battlegroup? Are they in PIIIs or how does that work?

DeV
3rd June 2005, 19:23
There seem to be quite a number of armies downscaling armoured recce roles. Most of western Europe except for France and the UK seem to be going that way. The US Army changed the 2ACR from heavy to light (Humvees), so it seems to me to be a trend going that way. I think this is a natural trend as more peacekeeping duties are required rather than combat missions.


The armoured recce role is untaken by the support coy within the UNIMIL battalion with AML 20s and AML 90s.

But the trend with peacekeeping missions is more towards forces being able to warfight if required.

Pod
3rd June 2005, 21:20
Thanks Dev, that the point iIve been trying to make but obviously not clearly enough.

Laners
3rd June 2005, 22:00
If the Cavalery where to be disbanded would that mean the end of the Glengarry, probely so , which would be a pity. It's probly one of the best looking and unique examples of military head pieces around .

hptmurphy
4th June 2005, 01:35
Thank you finally some body has concede that the cavalry role can be done buy trained specialists from any unit within regular ifantry battalion . The cavarly as they are will only exist as long a thier weapons platforms.

Laners I keep my Glengarry in Pride of place a longside my White Cap with the bobbin .My time is nearly done now and I've got pride with being amongst some of the most professional units in the DF.

The NS for being operational from the time the line leaves the bits on the wall,

The cav for having the bollocks to try...Drive it ....shoot it...bitch about it!

Laners
4th June 2005, 01:53
Murph you must have a thing for headwear with ribbions and tails . Much like those German Navy hats with the long ribbons at the back.
Regardless as to what becomes of the Cav I hope someone will have the sence to reatain the Glengarry in some way or other . No other armed force in the world has such a unique piece of head dress and it would be a shame to see it go. and how did it come about that the Cav wear the Glengarry ?.

Goldie fish
4th June 2005, 02:03
they were probably out on a drive when everyone else was in stores trading their glengarrys for berets.

DeV
4th June 2005, 14:00
Thank you finally some body has concede that the cavalry role can be done buy trained specialists from any unit within regular ifantry battalion . The cavarly as they are will only exist as long a thier weapons platforms.

Laners I keep my Glengarry in Pride of place a longside my White Cap with the bobbin .My time is nearly done now and I've got pride with being amongst some of the most professional units in the DF.

The NS for being operational from the time the line leaves the bits on the wall,

The cav for having the bollocks to try...Drive it ....shoot it...bitch about it!

But who are operating the AMLs within the Inf Bn, is it not Cavalry Corps personnel?

hptmurphy
4th June 2005, 14:10
Yes it is cav personnel...but the point I'm making when these cars are retired in the not to distant future and the army unlikely to replace them with any thing similar and with recce platoons now formalised as part of Infantry battalions ...why bother having a Cavalry corps who's reason for existing is recce.

And don't anyone dare bring on the subject of armoured warfare...Historically Cavalry are recce and the vehicles used were in order for a small force to advance into enemy held territory with the ability to defend themselves and return with the collected information. Yes the role has grown and yes there are other taskings but when the current armoured vehicles are retired and the new system is a multifunctional one....then the cavarly will no more.

Pod
4th June 2005, 19:48
Surely Brigade will still need its own dedicated recce?
If you look at any virtually any other comparable army in the world, maneouver battailons have an integral recce element whilsts the mother formation also has a dedicated recce element for longer range or specialist reconisance missions.
It would seem just a tad short-sighted even for our lot to dispense with the Cav en-masse even if they never again have anything bigger than a 12.7.

DeV
5th June 2005, 18:47
If the previous argument is used - is it not the end of most corps units?

An Irish based infantry battalion has support weapons (eg 81mm mortar), transport, signals, and combat engineering elements as part of their structure.

Overseas units have ordnance, MP, cavalry, and medical elements as part of their structure.

Pod
6th June 2005, 19:42
Virutally every other infanrty battalion in the world has that set up.
The support element is limited in scope and capability. The logisitic ends of things are there, in theory at least, to provide a couple or three days necessary suppplies when on a War footing.
Mortar crew, drivers, signals etc. at the end of the day within an infantry battalion are riflemen with a secondary speciality.
For as long as the DF operate a brigade structure, Corps units will be required.

Goldie fish
6th June 2005, 19:48
The way i see it,with current equipment we barely have enough to be a mechanised infantry batallion!

hptmurphy
6th June 2005, 20:38
Well forty APC switha total capacity of about 380 troops is not even half a battalion.So where do we actaually derive the fact that we have a cavalry CORPs given that we have barelt the requirement in vehicles to establish a squadron let a lone a cavalry Corps.

Pod
6th June 2005, 22:11
I think we're getting into an argument of semantics here guys! Whatever name you want to give them , unless there is a fundemental groundshift in the way armies are put together and tasked, there will always need to be formation units to provide combat support and service support to manaeouver units

Could somebody please clarify for me ; What is the establishment size of a DF infantry battalion following the PWC butchery?

hptmurphy
6th June 2005, 22:20
4 companies of approx 120 bodies plus attachments bring itin at the 550 mark ...roughly

DeV
7th June 2005, 00:27
PwC report was not restricted so i'll post it here:

Bn HQ, HQ Coy, 2 Rifle Coys, Supp Coy

Peacetime establishment = 483 PDF + an integrated FCA rifle coy

The actual way it turned out is a bit different but that is restricted

DeV
7th June 2005, 00:41
Bit of a history of the cavalry corps

http://www.curragh.info/articles/cavalry.htm

Tank
7th June 2005, 08:59
I suppose it's possible the Cav Corps will be kept going - but equiped with LTAVs. No combat support etc any more. Only recce.

Goldie fish
7th June 2005, 17:06
LTAV will be an infantry vehicle,from what I have heard.

Tank
7th June 2005, 18:07
The Infantry will probably get them all right. But unless the Department of Defence is prepared to spend a lot of money on a new range of armoured vehicles, the LTAV would be the only option for the Cav. Most US units use something similar in their Cav units already.

Hptmurphy: The Infantry can do CTR no problem, but how far behind the lines does the Cav need to go to complete its brigade recce mission? Could an infantry scout troop based at battalion level go further than 5k behind? Or would that not detract from the CTR mission battalion scout troops normally have? Just a question for discussion.

JAG
7th June 2005, 18:36
Kind-of-but-not-really-relevent, but did anyone see the piece in the Sunday Times on Future Combat Systems (US name)?

Brings Playstation to the battlefield.

I love modern technology, in general, but I actually want to take applied and integrated high speed information technology and data transfer and electronic navigations (GPS and hopefully soon the EU system) and tracking and sharing as my wife.

Knowledge is power