Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suggesting a new Cav ORBAT

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

  • On a related note.


    The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit has already adopted this asset and is adjusting their mobility teams around them. The zero MMX motorcycle is a revolution in recon technology. It has a 100% electric powertrain that emits zero exhaust and is completely silent when in neutral. These new capabilities will change the way the US military conducts future reconnaissance missions and direct action raids. But why would your average soldier ever want the added risk of an unarmored motorcycle? Couldn’t a drone do the same job but better? Written by: Chris Cappy & Justin Taylor Edited by: Michael Michaelides in 2010 a US Marine named Golembesky said his unit in Afghanistan started to improvise since there was a shortage of bikes outside special forces. The Marines actually purchased cheap chinese knockoff motorbikes directly from the Afghanistan Bazaars or marketplace. The Marines then welded racks on the back of the bikes for added payload capacity and spray painted them with a tan camouflage coating. This allowed them to overcome long distances and harsh terrain. I get it, I mean I’ve seen the kind of slopes that need to be navigated by goats. Picture an elite mobile biker gang of marines speeding across the mountains of Afghanistan. The tires grinding through the sand would be the loudest warning the insurgent would have. Marines launched successful surprise attacks on Taliban positions. Even the big conventional force of the Army took notice and started equipping ATVs to not just their special forces but regular troops. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSq3... Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry. Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.​
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post

      Primary rol​e but it also has other roles like raiding, screening, escorts, seize & hold etc
      Those roles can be done by anyone, mostly by the Infantry, it's not the role of a dedicated brigade unit.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

        Those roles can be done by anyone, mostly by the Infantry, it's not the role of a dedicated brigade unit.
        You could say that about many Corps really, if you gave 120mm mortars to infantry support coys, had an RBS70 platoon in battalions, eng platoon in battalions etc.

        Comment


        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4AI...l=WeaponDetect ive

          intresting video on Otokar Akrep II and scout cars in general i beleive it comes in all electric verson

          Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post

            Those roles can be done by anyone, mostly by the Infantry, it's not the role of a dedicated brigade unit.
            Nonsense. Unhelpful thinking "don't need em, inf can do it instead"
            Its a bit like saying the guy zipping around the harbour in a power boat can be a captain of a cruise liner, because boats are boats...
            Ever hear the term "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

            Infantry is the tip of the spear, always will be. Mechanised infantry is still infantry, once you start taking on cavalry roles and artillery roles, where does the mission creep end? Infantry coys operating field hospitals? Logistics & vehicle maintenance? Then when you need riflemen first there are none available because they are all off building bailey bridges, Operating the Artillery fire support base 6km to the rear, or carrying out a full 10,000km service on one of the infantry Mobile gun systems.
            The more roles Infantry take on, the more will be expected of them, to do with less. Then you've lost your backup. There was a proposal to move the army to a single brigade force during one of the white papers. It was ruled out for the same reason. If everyone is in one brigade, you have no reserve, no space to have under-strength units, no space away from operations where Junior NCOs and Officers can learn their trade..

            The recce doctrine was formalised (I thought) about 2 decades ago in the Irish DF between Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Remembering of course there is only one combat arm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                The role of the Cav Sqns is formation reconnaissance, that formation being the brigade. They are the eyes of the brigade commander on the ground operating beyond the range of the artillery.
                That is pure theory as the Army has not operated at brigade level since the Emergency. When was the last time we had brigade vs brigade maneuvers?

                Today if we look at Ukraine, there are no units that are not using drones to located and eliminate opposing forces. The old roles of Cav has been taken over by new tech and that must drive the force design.

                Comment


                • Before I throw my opinions into this debate I just want to say that these are just that, my opinions. I genuinely don’t want to offend anyone, I apologise in advance for spelling and grammatical errors. I know plenty of people will disagree with me and that’s fine, I’ve donned my virtual helmet and flak jacket to save my tender ego from the undoubted thrashing heading my way ;-)

                  The first point I would make is that whilst there may well be a new “Cav ORBAT” its unlikely to be governed by the current definitions of Cavalry, current roles of the Cav or even imported roles of Cavalry from other militaries.

                  The CoDF stresses that the current capability gaps in the Army (and other branches) are so severe that a complete re-organisation of the force is required. The latest Detailed implementation plan states that the Amry Force Design is to be initiated in Jan 2024.


                  In light of the fact that it will be complete re-design of the roles, capabilities and resourcing (both Human and financial) of the entire Army I believe its likely that this process will essentially begin with a blank slate and look at what is required and move on from there.

                  Now no plan survives contact with the enemy and in this instance no proposal will survive contact with DPER but if we park that for just a moment and think about what this new force might look like we can begin to get an idea as to what roles will be required which will in turn govern the requirements in future tenders for equipment.

                  Big picture - I’m guessing that what will be recommended is a motorized light infantry force with organic APC transport and protection for each PDF manoeuvre unit. (Don’t know if those manoeuvre units will be Battalion plus sized unit’s or regiments or BCT or whatever.) These units will be supported (hopefully) by a plethora of companies and platoons specialising in Drones, EW, GBAD, Recon, etc. However Im also going to go out on a limb and suggest that there will be a recommendation for an armoured fire support element to be attached to these manoeuvre units. These armoured units will probably be wheeled (in line with the rest of the force which will consist of wheeled APC,s, wheeled self propelled Artillery etc) but maybe not? Its not beyond the realms of possibility that we could end up with CV90’s in the mix filling this fire support role in the future. But whatever vehicle is selected (and my money would be on the Jaguar or Centauro due to the wheels as opposed to tracks) it will not be selected based on current “Cav” roles. So talk of “reece” being the only requirement and looking at this from the lens of the current force structure is, in my humble opinion, missing the point of Force re-design.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • What does CODF say about that’s relevant?


                    LOA2:
                    significantly increased levels of mobility, firepower and force protection (to STANAG 4)

                    450 personnel for Cav Regts

                    LOA3:
                    ​Combat Support elements would be modernised, with both Artillery regiments and Cavalry squadrons being fully interoperable to NATO standards






                    a lot of work has already been done on what the future army could look like


                    my 2 cents it needs to be a balanced all arms force based on international norms, many, not all, international forces have a formation recce type force. The structure, ORBAT, equipment differs but they have one.

                    ISTAR is and will remain a key enabler

                    ISTAR is also all arms, the NBG Irish ISTAR TF included Cav, Arty, Engrs and I’m sure others
                    Last edited by DeV; 1 December 2023, 14:27.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                      Nonsense. Unhelpful thinking "don't need em, inf can do it instead"
                      Its a bit like saying the guy zipping around the harbour in a power boat can be a captain of a cruise liner, because boats are boats...
                      Ever hear the term "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

                      Infantry is the tip of the spear, always will be. Mechanised infantry is still infantry, once you start taking on cavalry roles and artillery roles, where does the mission creep end? Infantry coys operating field hospitals? Logistics & vehicle maintenance? Then when you need riflemen first there are none available because they are all off building bailey bridges, Operating the Artillery fire support base 6km to the rear, or carrying out a full 10,000km service on one of the infantry Mobile gun systems.
                      The more roles Infantry take on, the more will be expected of them, to do with less. Then you've lost your backup. There was a proposal to move the army to a single brigade force during one of the white papers. It was ruled out for the same reason. If everyone is in one brigade, you have no reserve, no space to have under-strength units, no space away from operations where Junior NCOs and Officers can learn their trade..

                      The recce doctrine was formalised (I thought) about 2 decades ago in the Irish DF between Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry.
                      I don't know how you interpret that from my last post. I have never suggested that the Infantry should be operating field hospitals, building bailey bridges, operating artillery guns or anything of the sort.
                      Tasks such as seizing and holding, escorting, raiding, etc are common military tasks that can be done by anyone, you don't need a dedicated brigade-level unit to do that. Those tasks are mostly carried out by Infantry units.

                      Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

                      You could say that about many Corps really, if you gave 120mm mortars to infantry support coys, had an RBS70 platoon in battalions, eng platoon in battalions etc.
                      ​Infantry battalions are a combination of combat, CS and CSS grouped under one command.
                      They have their own indirect fire support with organic mortars. I have already left my views on 120mm mortars in an earlier post. Obsolete as an artillery weapon, have a life with mechanised infantry but I don't think they would be suitable for light infantry.
                      ​Infantry battalions formally had Assault Pioneers for minor engineering tasks but nothing on the scale of brigade field engineer units.
                      Air Defence Platoons were meant to be part of Inf Bn's but no weapon system for them was ever procured so they never existed. It would require something like the Stinger missile as the RBS70 is unsuitable for light infantry.

                      Incidentally one of the options looked at by the CoDF was an infantry-only army with some CSS capabilities and the disbandment of all CS units.

                      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

                      That is pure theory as the Army has not operated at brigade level since the Emergency. When was the last time we had brigade vs brigade maneuvers?

                      Today if we look at Ukraine, there are no units that are not using drones to located and eliminate opposing forces. The old roles of Cav has been taken over by new tech and that must drive the force design.
                      I've already said that in an earlier post, there will never be an Irish brigade overseas and that is why the Cav doesn't have an overseas role of its own.
                      There isn't even a proper deployable Bde HQ structure for that matter.
                      I've also said UAVs need to be introduced into Inf Bn's. They also need to be introduced into all units that need them. At present, only the Artillery has real tactical UAVs with the Orbiter and the Engineers have a few drones.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Banner View Post
                        Before I throw my opinions into this debate I just want to say that these are just that, my opinions. I genuinely don’t want to offend anyone, I apologise in advance for spelling and grammatical errors. I know plenty of people will disagree with me and that’s fine, I’ve donned my virtual helmet and flak jacket to save my tender ego from the undoubted thrashing heading my way ;-)

                        The first point I would make is that whilst there may well be a new “Cav ORBAT” its unlikely to be governed by the current definitions of Cavalry, current roles of the Cav or even imported roles of Cavalry from other militaries.

                        The CoDF stresses that the current capability gaps in the Army (and other branches) are so severe that a complete re-organisation of the force is required. The latest Detailed implementation plan states that the Amry Force Design is to be initiated in Jan 2024.


                        In light of the fact that it will be complete re-design of the roles, capabilities and resourcing (both Human and financial) of the entire Army I believe its likely that this process will essentially begin with a blank slate and look at what is required and move on from there.

                        Now no plan survives contact with the enemy and in this instance no proposal will survive contact with DPER but if we park that for just a moment and think about what this new force might look like we can begin to get an idea as to what roles will be required which will in turn govern the requirements in future tenders for equipment.

                        Big picture - I’m guessing that what will be recommended is a motorized light infantry force with organic APC transport and protection for each PDF manoeuvre unit. (Don’t know if those manoeuvre units will be Battalion plus sized unit’s or regiments or BCT or whatever.) These units will be supported (hopefully) by a plethora of companies and platoons specialising in Drones, EW, GBAD, Recon, etc. However Im also going to go out on a limb and suggest that there will be a recommendation for an armoured fire support element to be attached to these manoeuvre units. These armoured units will probably be wheeled (in line with the rest of the force which will consist of wheeled APC,s, wheeled self propelled Artillery etc) but maybe not? Its not beyond the realms of possibility that we could end up with CV90’s in the mix filling this fire support role in the future. But whatever vehicle is selected (and my money would be on the Jaguar or Centauro due to the wheels as opposed to tracks) it will not be selected based on current “Cav” roles. So talk of “reece” being the only requirement and looking at this from the lens of the current force structure is, in my humble opinion, missing the point of Force re-design.
                        Dealing with the Cav org only, as that's what this topic is about, the CoDF has spoken, saying the Cav Sqn's should be amalgamated into a single Regiment based in one location.
                        I've already mentioned mostly what is on the Cav's wish list for armour replacement. There will be again two vehicle families, an LTAV replacement is up first and then the Mowag replacement.
                        There will be no tracked vehicles.

                        There are other areas of this forum to deal with other parts of the Defence Forces Structure.

                        ​​
                        Last edited by Rhodes; 1 December 2023, 15:20.

                        Comment


                        • Our US based cavalryman has the following observation on the future of armoured recce vehicles.

                          Last edited by na grohmiti; 3 December 2023, 13:54.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            Our US based cavalryman has the following observation on the future of armoured recce vehicles.

                            56:30

                            Comment


                            • Did it not start there? Bastard youtube...
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • As referenced by California Tanker in his video, the USMC is trialing an Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle at present, one of the contenders is the Textron Cottonmouth,

                                A force-multiplier armed to the fangs with advanced full-spectrum reconnaissance and surveillance sensors, it’s expertly designed to defeat threats beyond line of sight and comes complete with cutting-edge technologies that will keep adversaries up at night.


                                ARV, Cottonmouth, Textron Systems, military vehicle, military, textron
                                What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X