Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suggesting a new Cav ORBAT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DeV View Post

    There is no D/Cav and D/Arty, they have been merged into D/CS & ISTAR (1 appointment rather than 2)
    There is a Lt Col of the Cav School which is essentially a D Cav in all but name.

    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
    It's the other way around. The vehicle selected will decide the dismount size. Doctrine will adapted to match the vehicle.

    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…
    If you want to take on an MBT with a vehicle it will need to be an MBT. It is not the role of recce units.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

      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.
      They seem to have forgotten their roots, the "motor" squadron. It isn't all about Armour. That's armoured cavalry. Slightly different doctrine, but we are doing pick & mix between cavalry and armoured cavalry.
      Thanks for the LTAV update, It's a few years since I was in the mix, and they were waiting for them at that stage, and the gunners were to get one with a telescopic mast, on which the ground radar could be mounted.
      Those telling stories of the AML90 days must never have operated from them. On the notable occasions when they were used in anger, those within knew the limitations. In one incident, the crew aimed the loaded gun, dismounted via the out of view side door, and attached a rope to the firing mechanism, to fire the gun, if necessary, from safety nearby. It was well known you'd never get a second shot off. That's before we get into the deaths caused by their weakness offroad, and the bloody suicide seat.
      Big gun looks great of course.
      Figure out the doctrine first, then get suitable vehicles.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

        They seem to have forgotten their roots, the "motor" squadron. It isn't all about Armour. That's armoured cavalry. Slightly different doctrine, but we are doing pick & mix between cavalry and armoured cavalry.
        Thanks for the LTAV update, It's a few years since I was in the mix, and they were waiting for them at that stage, and the gunners were to get one with a telescopic mast, on which the ground radar could be mounted.
        Those telling stories of the AML90 days must never have operated from them. On the notable occasions when they were used in anger, those within knew the limitations. In one incident, the crew aimed the loaded gun, dismounted via the out of view side door, and attached a rope to the firing mechanism, to fire the gun, if necessary, from safety nearby. It was well known you'd never get a second shot off. That's before we get into the deaths caused by their weakness offroad, and the bloody suicide seat.
        Big gun looks great of course.
        Figure out the doctrine first, then get suitable vehicles.
        The 'Cavalry' in the unit names should go. Maybe someone with a bit of sense will do it when the single regiment is established as was recommended by the CoDF.
        Formation Reconnaissance Regiment would be appropriate.

        The problem is the decision makers are a bunch of Lt Col's who come together to write reports that decide the future capabilities. Few if any have sat behind the wheel or FCU on an overseas patrol. You get the odd LT who has done a crewman's cse but they will never touch the vehicle again as when they go overseas they'll be a platoon commander. They will never crew a car.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

          The 'Cavalry' in the unit names should go. Maybe someone with a bit of sense will do it when the single regiment is established as was recommended by the CoDF.
          Formation Reconnaissance Regiment would be appropriate.

          The problem is the decision makers are a bunch of Lt Col's who come together to write reports that decide the future capabilities. Few if any have sat behind the wheel or FCU on an overseas patrol. You get the odd LT who has done a crewman's cse but they will never touch the vehicle again as when they go overseas they'll be a platoon commander. They will never crew a car.
          Cavalry in many armies takes different forms. In some armies a cavalry unit is a mechanised infantry unit! There is doctrine there although the quantity of vehicles has never been there to support it and the units, much like many units in Irish military.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

            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.
            The recent deployment of the British Army LRRG to Mali with one light cav squadron plus protected mobility infantry coy and CSS elements is a good example of how a cav squadron could deploy. The current Lebanon mission hasn't best served many Corps throughout the DF.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
              It's the other way around. The vehicle selected will decide the dismount size. Doctrine will adapted to match the vehicle.
              ability to carry x dismounts would be in the specs of the tender

              Can of course be the other way around though

              If you want to take on an MBT with a vehicle it will need to be an MBT. It is not the role of recce units.
              the Cav are primarily recce but the can have multiple taskings

              not if it mounts Javelin or similar ….. and I did say able to…. as in should the need arise

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

                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
                It wouldn’t though because you’d have 2 x Jaguar and 2 x LTAV per troop

                both completely different platforms and only 4 dismounts available spread between 2 vehicles

                If you use MRV/CRV (which aren’t ideal vehicles for recce) you could have up to 16 dismounts in a troop, if you had 2 x MRV & 2 x LTAV you could have 12

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  ability to carry x dismounts would be in the specs of the tender

                  Can of course be the other way around though


                  the Cav are primarily recce but the can have multiple taskings

                  not if it mounts Javelin or similar ….. and I did say able to…. as in should the need arise
                  Maybe there will be a low minimum number for dismounts (ie two dismounts) in tender specs but there will be no exact figure or a figure based on the current fleet/unit structures.
                  The vehicle selected will decide the dismount size, doctrine and unit structures.

                  The Javelin is an infantry weapon, the Cav do not use them or don't plan to either or any other missile for that matter.
                  The DFS concept the Cav is fixated on is a type of vehicle that serves no purpose in formation reconnaissance units. It is being discarded by most armies and goes against international best practices.
                  Last edited by Rhodes; 26 November 2023, 11:26.

                  Comment


                  • Belgium was very dissatisfied with their mowag Pirhana fire support vehicle.
                    it looked great in pictures, but was nothing but trouble in service.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

                      The DFS concept the Cav is fixated on is a type of vehicle that serves no purpose in formation reconnaissance units. It is being discarded by most armies and goes against international best practices.
                      DFS is not been discarded, the M10 is such a vehicle being introduced to support foot sloggers, the infantry. Yes the Stryker MGS has been removed but this had a lot to do with the vehicle short comings rather than the doctrinal need. But the ability to deliver DFS is no longer limited to canon equipped vehicles but there is a growing number of turret systems with direct fire mortar. There is the Patria Nemo, the Polish M120 RAK, the Swedish Grkpbv 90 and the Elbit Crossbow 120. But if we did go down the road of a vehicle mounted 120mm mortar for DFS who would it be assigned to, the Cav or Art? ​

                      Comment


                      • 120mm is an artillery weapon. It's indirect fire, no real justification for it in the Cav ORBAT, whatever that may become.
                        In the past, the 60mm mortar the AML60 carried were short range, and ideally to flush out soft skin or troops if the recce came under attack. The 90mm was the same, to protect the troop from enemy armour while withdrawing from contact.
                        The current Mount on the Mowag, the Hitfist, is actually a near ideal cavalry weapon, the problem is the platform. Modern 30 or 40mm is where cavalry recce is going, for those who have done it in the battlefield.
                        That said, you want something more than just RWS optics for recce. The French know this. Look at the optics on EBRC Jaguar!

                        Driver has independent 360 VR "proximal"view, Gunner has a scope/RWS as well as sights for main & secodary armament, commander has a scope plus all round vision, and the anti armour missile has its own independent sights too.
                        5 mil a pop,
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

                          DFS is not been discarded, the M10 is such a vehicle being introduced to support foot sloggers, the infantry. Yes the Stryker MGS has been removed but this had a lot to do with the vehicle short comings rather than the doctrinal need. But the ability to deliver DFS is no longer limited to canon equipped vehicles but there is a growing number of turret systems with direct fire mortar. There is the Patria Nemo, the Polish M120 RAK, the Swedish Grkpbv 90 and the Elbit Crossbow 120. But if we did go down the road of a vehicle mounted 120mm mortar for DFS who would it be assigned to, the Cav or Art? ​
                          Yes, infantry.
                          M10 Booker is a heavy-armoured tracked vehicle, a completely different class of vehicle.
                          It is apple and oranges comparing it to medium-armoured wheeled vehicles like the Stryker 105mm, Mowag 90mm, ERC 90mm, and AMX-10 105mm, which are all being ditched.
                          The US Army will not be using the Booker in its recce units. They will continue to use their 12.7mm armed Stryker and 25mm Bradley plus other lighter vehicles.
                          The Bookers will go to new standalone units.

                          As for where 120mm mortar vehicles belong, as I said above, put them into Inf Coy's.

                          Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                          120mm is an artillery weapon. It's indirect fire, no real justification for it in the Cav ORBAT, whatever that may become.
                          In the past, the 60mm mortar the AML60 carried were short range, and ideally to flush out soft skin or troops if the recce came under attack. The 90mm was the same, to protect the troop from enemy armour while withdrawing from contact.
                          The current Mount on the Mowag, the Hitfist, is actually a near ideal cavalry weapon, the problem is the platform. Modern 30 or 40mm is where cavalry recce is going, for those who have done it in the battlefield.
                          That said, you want something more than just RWS optics for recce. The French know this. Look at the optics on EBRC Jaguar!

                          Driver has independent 360 VR "proximal"view, Gunner has a scope/RWS as well as sights for main & secodary armament, commander has a scope plus all round vision, and the anti armour missile has its own independent sights too.
                          5 mil a pop,
                          I would argue that the 120mm mortar is obsolete as an artillery weapon. It was fine in the days of complementing the 25 pdr, but in this day and age, the 105mm guns should be the minimum for gun batteries.
                          The 120mm mortar still has a life, in mechanised infantry units, which you are seeing more and more of with armies modernising their mechanised infantry forces.

                          The Mowag MRV on paper sounds ideal but in practice, they turned out to be very problematic and unreliable, becoming garage queens. The CRV is their workhorse.
                          As I said above they are now seeking an LTAV-type platform fitted with a 30mm RWS as their new primary recce vehicle.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

                            Yes, infantry.
                            M10 Booker is a heavy-armoured tracked vehicle, a completely different class of vehicle.
                            It is apple and oranges comparing it to medium-armoured wheeled vehicles like the Stryker 105mm, Mowag 90mm, ERC 90mm, and AMX-10 105mm, which are all being ditched.
                            The US Army will not be using the Booker in its recce units. They will continue to use their 12.7mm armed Stryker and 25mm Bradley plus other lighter vehicles.
                            The Bookers will go to new standalone units.

                            As for where 120mm mortar vehicles belong, as I said above, put them into Inf Coy's.



                            I would argue that the 120mm mortar is obsolete as an artillery weapon. It was fine in the days of complementing the 25 pdr, but in this day and age, the 105mm guns should be the minimum for gun batteries.
                            The 120mm mortar still has a life, in mechanised infantry units, which you are seeing more and more of with armies modernising their mechanised infantry forces.

                            The Mowag MRV on paper sounds ideal but in practice, they turned out to be very problematic and unreliable, becoming garage queens. The CRV is their workhorse.
                            As I said above they are now seeking an LTAV-type platform fitted with a 30mm RWS as their new primary recce vehicle.

                            I find the LTAV platform with a 30mm interesting, reminds me of all the stability problems of mounting 90mm/105mm calibre guns on top of apc's that weren't designed for them from the ground up unlike Centauro etc. Havent seen any other country use a LTAV 30mm type vehicle.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Spark23 View Post


                              I find the LTAV platform with a 30mm interesting, reminds me of all the stability problems of mounting 90mm/105mm calibre guns on top of apc's that weren't designed for them from the ground up unlike Centauro etc. Havent seen any other country use a LTAV 30mm type vehicle.
                              Therewas some development of the humvee that mounted a Hughes chain gun on the roof ring. It never went beyond prototype, I believe.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • An LTAV with a 30mm? Would an LTAV platform even be able to handle that caliber of weapon? Are there any examples in the wild?

                                I've seen the Oshkosh LTAV with a 12.7mm on a RWS, but lets keep in mind, the current 30mm in our arsenal is sitting our Piranha IIIH MRV's.
                                What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X