Suggesting a new Cav ORBAT

[na grohmiti]

Forget our Mowags. Their days are numbered, they should be replaced by end of this decade.

[DeV]

Forget our Mowags. Their days are numbered, they should be replaced by end of this decade.

The MLU extended their life until 2030…. Yes that is only 6 years away

[na grohmiti]

Lets not forget the costly upgrade we did to the Panhard AMLs, before realising they couldn't cut it overseas any more. Most MLU bring an asset up to date, they rarely future proof. CoDF LOA2 is clear about the prospects for the current armour fleet.

[Spark23]

Look outside and inside Jaguar (English subtitles available)

https://youtu.be/EsUSScWfu54?si=bwORuBuzjmy0wr7k

Two squadrons of Jaguar for the Brigades and a Squadron of Centauro B2 for 1ACS be great!

[X-RayOne]

The MLU extended their life until 2030…. Yes that is only 6 years away

Bet the replacement process will only begin in 2030....

[X-RayOne]

Two squadrons of Jaguar for the Brigades and a Squadron of Centauro B2 for 1ACS be great!

Was it reported recently the Jaguar can't currently fire on the move?

[ODIN]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4t9YaXXuVY

[Spark23]

https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1727998287620300960?s=61&t=xlqyUk1FUjlS4z_Oq3udSw

https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1727662173340463159?s=61&t=xlqyUk1FUjlS4z_Oq3udSw

Two interesting posts

[DeV]

https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status...UjlS4z_Oq3udSw

https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/1727662173340463159?s=61&t=xlqyUk1FUjlS4z_Oq3udSw

Two interesting posts

Booker is primarily a light infantry fire support vehicle (with an anti-tank capability)

it’s being orbat’ed into Inf Bde Combat Teams

[na grohmiti]

This theory has been going back and forth since the French introduced the AMX10RC, and seems to change view after each conflict.
Remembering Booker is not a Tank but a tracked fire support, is it in effect a tracked armoured reconnaissance vehicle?
At what point does mechanised fire support become an armoured artillery vehicle? Is it the difference between direct and indirect fire? Is it the ability to recce?
When is a tank not a tank, when is a wheeled armoured vehicle which shares crew, armour and armament but not drivetrain with a tank, a better choice for operations than a tank?

[Rhodes]

Here the lunacy in the Cav Corps is still fantasising and pushing for a 90mm or 105mm Direct Fire Support vehicle. A type of vehicle that most right-minded armies are ditching and serves no purpose in the Cav's supposed role of formation reconnaissance.

[na grohmiti]

Here the lunacy in the Cav Corps is still fantasising and pushing for a 90mm or 105mm Direct Fire Support vehicle. A type of vehicle that most right-minded armies are ditching and serves no purpose in the Cav's supposed role of formation reconnaissance.

I'm not sure if the co-location of D/Cav and D/Arty in DFTC has been a good idea. Interestingly I see (possibly in An Cosantoir, can't remember now) discussion of Irish Cav with an image of an LTAV used, even though the types we have had delivered to date were not intended for Cav, that was in later batches, never delivered. You can't do recce in an LTAV without ground radar or optics.

Back in the day, the Cav orbat was a mix of Soft skin and armour. We had FFRs as no other appropriate vehicle was available. APCs were also included (Irish Cav Sqns made do with what was available, however unsuitable).

The theory is unchanged though. Cav uses vehicles to get its recce dismounts far ahead of the infantry recce teams. the recce teams have fire support available on their vehicles, not to engage and defeat, but to cover while withdrawing from contact. Armoured cav troop is there to support recce troops in the withdrawal from contact, while the main combat arm comes forward to engage and defeat the enemy, supported by Mechanised infantry, Artillery and armoured cav.

The bigger the vehicle Cav uses, the further the dismounts need to walk.

You still need a Cav Direct fire support vehicle, the same way an infantry section needs a GPMG and an infantry Coy needs support weapons. But you also need an appropriate platform to get the dismounts to where they needed, and you need an appropriate vehicle for route recce without dismounts.

[DeV]

I'm not sure if the co-location of D/Cav and D/Arty in DFTC has been a good idea. Interestingly I see (possibly in An Cosantoir, can't remember now) discussion of Irish Cav with an image of an LTAV used, even though the types we have had delivered to date were not intended for Cav, that was in later batches, never delivered. You can't do recce in an LTAV without ground radar or optics.

Back in the day, the Cav orbat was a mix of Soft skin and armour. We had FFRs as no other appropriate vehicle was available. APCs were also included (Irish Cav Sqns made do with what was available, however unsuitable).

The theory is unchanged though. Cav uses vehicles to get its recce dismounts far ahead of the infantry recce teams. the recce teams have fire support available on their vehicles, not to engage and defeat, but to cover while withdrawing from contact. Armoured cav troop is there to support recce troops in the withdrawal from contact, while the main combat arm comes forward to engage and defeat the enemy, supported by Mechanised infantry, Artillery and armoured cav.

The bigger the vehicle Cav uses, the further the dismounts need to walk.

You still need a Cav Direct fire support vehicle, the same way an infantry section needs a GPMG and an infantry Coy needs support weapons. But you also need an appropriate platform to get the dismounts to where they needed, and you need an appropriate vehicle for route recce without dismounts.

There is no D/Cav and D/Arty, they have been merged into D/CS & ISTAR (1 appointment rather than 2)

the size of the vehicles used with be dictated by among other things - size of dismountable element, armour protection (remember CoDF says STANAG Level 4), the equipment the dismounts need (which can include sniper rifles, SOPHIE, Foxtrack, Javelin, 84mm, SRAAWs, HF radios, UAVs etc etc (not all necessarily at the same time)) to carry all that you need space. If you have adequate mine protection that vehicle is also high off the ground.

Obviously advantages and disadvantages but to have your dismounted element spread over 4 vehicles is a bit disjointed?

add in once deployed forward you lose your local (vehicle) security

also Cav need direct fire options as deploying recce isn’t their only role and will need to be able to take out heavy armour if necessary.

1 vehicle type can’t generally do all those jobs and we need commonality…

[Rhodes]

I'm not sure if the co-location of D/Cav and D/Arty in DFTC has been a good idea. Interestingly I see (possibly in An Cosantoir, can't remember now) discussion of Irish Cav with an image of an LTAV used, even though the types we have had delivered to date were not intended for Cav, that was in later batches, never delivered. You can't do recce in an LTAV without ground radar or optics.

Back in the day, the Cav orbat was a mix of Soft skin and armour. We had FFRs as no other appropriate vehicle was available. APCs were also included (Irish Cav Sqns made do with what was available, however unsuitable).

The theory is unchanged though. Cav uses vehicles to get its recce dismounts far ahead of the infantry recce teams. the recce teams have fire support available on their vehicles, not to engage and defeat, but to cover while withdrawing from contact. Armoured cav troop is there to support recce troops in the withdrawal from contact, while the main combat arm comes forward to engage and defeat the enemy, supported by Mechanised infantry, Artillery and armoured cav.

The bigger the vehicle Cav uses, the further the dismounts need to walk.

You still need a Cav Direct fire support vehicle, the same way an infantry section needs a GPMG and an infantry Coy needs support weapons. But you also need an appropriate platform to get the dismounts to where they needed, and you need an appropriate vehicle for route recce without dismounts.

The Cav has always had the LTAV. Six of the 27 are the Cav ISR variant with the RWS fitted. The Infantry have 15 LTAVs, the Artillery has four and CIS has two.

The DFS vehicle idea, as they are calling it now, is not for any recce role or a defensive role, withdrawing from contact as you say. They want it for offensive roles, in their own words against MBTs (yes seriously), AFVs, buildings, defensive positions etc.
They were essentially looking at the now failed US Army Stryker 105mm MSG vehicles and saying I want one while telling stories of the old AML90 days.
At least the US Army had the wisdom to put their Stryker MSGs into their Inf Coys at the Coy C/O's disposal where such a vehicle should exist to be of actual use in supporting the troops who may need it and not in a brigade unit whose role is brigade recce. The same applies to 120mm mortar vehicles, put them into Inf Coy's.
The US Army has now moved to equip some of their Stryker APCs with a 30mm RWS at platoon level so as not to be overmatched by the BTR-90.

The platform the Cav wants as their new primary recce vehicle is surprisingly an LTAV fitted with a 30mm RWS.

The Cav is like a lost child in the Army, it's the one Corps that if it didn't exist you wouldn't miss it.
Its role is formation reconnaissance, that formation being the brigade, it has no overseas role of its own as there will never be an Irish brigade overseas. 1ACS doesn't even have a brigade to be part of and only survives because the CoS at the time of the re-org was an offspring of that unit and saved it from the chopping block.
They had decided to take it upon themselves to take on a Close Recce role in the search for a place in overseas Infantry Battalions. Close Recce is the role of an Inf Bn's own organic recce platoon.
With the continued downsizing of overseas deployments, they are getting more lost.

[Spark23]

There is no D/Cav and D/Arty, they have been merged into D/CS & ISTAR (1 appointment rather than 2)

the size of the vehicles used with be dictated by among other things - size of dismountable element, armour protection (remember CoDF says STANAG Level 4), the equipment the dismounts need (which can include sniper rifles, SOPHIE, Foxtrack, Javelin, 84mm, SRAAWs, HF radios, UAVs etc etc (not all necessarily at the same time)) to carry all that you need space. If you have adequate mine protection that vehicle is also high off the ground.

Obviously advantages and disadvantages but to have your dismounted element spread over 4 vehicles is a bit disjointed?

add in once deployed forward you lose your local (vehicle) security

also Cav need direct fire options as deploying recce isn’t their only role and will need to be able to take out heavy armour if necessary.

1 vehicle type can’t generally do all those jobs and we need commonality…

Maybe future Cav troops whether Jaguar(Or Mowag Replacement) or Centauro should have two LTAV(or its replacement) type vehicles in troop also containing dismounts, uav, foxtrack etc. This would aid commonality and central location of dismounts