What a coincidence. I was thinking similar thoughts just a few days ago and had even started a draft post. But I couldn?t really put together a coherent set of thoughts to make up the initial post.

 

However I will try:

 

My first thought was that the Australian Army is organized along the lines which it trains in, ie:

 

Armoured                         All vehicles, no dismounts
Cavalry                             Mostly vehicles, some dismounts
Mech or Mot Infantry        Mostly dismounts, some vehicles
Light Infantry                     100% dismounts, dependant on other lift units for vehicles

 

But when it has deployed in the last few years it has used ad hoc battle group combinations of:
? Light Infantry
? Mounted in Bushmasters
? Supported by "Cavalry" in a fire support and escort role

 

That is the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically "motorized mounted combined arms formations" with some dismounted capability.

 

Then again East Timor wasn?t ?

 

This "motorized mounted combined arms formation" deployment seemed strange as:
? It seems more logical to create integrated combined arms vehicle mounted formations if that is what is going to be used.
? Half the time the mechanized infantry is deploying with different Vehicles anyhow, eg ASLAV and Bushmaster instead of M-113.
? So much Australian Army "talk" is about how to organize light infantry, and how much they have to carry, and what man portable crew served weapons they should have, which are not particularly relevant topics if you are going to deploy with organic vehicles!

 

But then again a light infantry capability would be important for a Pacific Region intervention such as East Timor.

 

Perhaps the ARA could be split into three "Brigades" or forces:
1) One for vehicle mounted deserts deployments
2) One for jungles
3) Special Forces

 

1) Deserts
 Wheeled vehicles (ASLAV and Bushmaster)
Heavy Vehicle Mounted Fire Support (HMG, AGL, 120mm mortars, mounted Javelin/TOW/Hellfire)
Some infantry
Some artillery, engineers (wheeled mine clearance vehicles?), UAVs, helicopters etc

Combined into organic combined arms groups..

 

2) Jungle
Light Infantry
Some organic ATVs for the light infantry
M-113 tracked lift formations
Lots of Helicopters
Some artillery, engineers, UAVs, helicopters etc

These would be organized as light infantry battalions with attached lift or fire support formations.

 

3) Special Forces
Same as now

 

Thoughts?

 

I also remember some articles on motorized cavalry in the Australian Army Journal but the links that come up in Google are broken.

Perhaps we could call the new "cavalry" formation a "medium weight Stryker Brigade Combat team"?

 

 

A term that is coming back into use is "Dragoon".

 

The concept as always for Dragoons is that of general purpose Medium Cavalry that can fight mounted as Cavalry or dismounted as Infantry.  They are extremely useful in policing and peace keeping activities due to their ability to cover huge areas with their vehicles yet still shut a smaller area down through aggressive patrolling with boots on the ground.  While our deployed Battle Groups often take on this form, how much more effective would they be if they were specifically trained and equipped for this role?

 

 

No Australian Dragoon Regiment, until we get the 1st Battalion Australian Gurkha Rifles up and running!

So long as we still have room for the ALI (Australian Light Infantry), the APR (Australian Parachute Regiment), AMC (Australian Marine Commandos). 

 

On a more serious note irrespective of what we call them there is IMO a need for more Cavalry in Australias order of battle and that Cavalry should be more along the line of the US Armoured Cavalry but with a significant Infantry component.  Say a rifle section per Troop a Platoon per Squadron and a Company at Regiment level. 

 

Heavy Cav would be based on 1 Armoured Regt with MBT's, CFV's, AIFV's, heavy SP mortar's and Armoured Engineer support.

 

Medium Cav would be based on our existing Cav Regiments with the Land 400 ASLAV replacements with AGS or full Armoured Car versions backing up the gun cars and wheeled AIFV's supplementing the APC's, together with medium SP mortar and engineer support.

 

 

 

No Australian Dragoon Regiment, until we get the 1st Battalion Australian Gurkha Rifles up and running!

I am sure that this has been discussed before.......

 

Now, as then, I will refer you to the (then) Captain Damien Patterson's article entitled  Army Force Struture: What has gone wrong? published in volume 3 , number 2, (page 170) of the Australian Army Journal and available from the Australian Army website.

 

Admittedly this was prior to the announced expansions, but asks very similar questions.

 

Brett.

Interview with Eric Shinseki in  - mastermind behind the Stryker combat brigades 

About the early US (& coalition) response to Saddam's threat to Saudi Arabia:

Our response was to take a brigade of light infantry, our airborne infantry, the great Eighty-second Airborne Division, airlifted them quickly and put the in the desert to block. And they dug in with not much in the way of lethality of anti-tank capability or artillery. But they went into the desert to take on that movement that was coming south. It's not a battle that we would have designed. Heavy mechanized forces were coming up against light infantry, and frankly, we held our breath.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   But our condition ten years ago has not been corrected today. If we had the same situation and had a breakaway threat and had to respond, our move would be with the light infantry and primarily the Eighty-second Airborne Division again. That would be our strategic response. Then we'd wait for the heavy divisions to arrive, which would be a number of weeks. We need to correct that. That's an operational shortfall. I personally feel a moral obligation to those soldiers that we would first have something to go in right behind them to give them the kinds of capabilities that that brigade of the Eighty-second did not have ten years ago. They didn't have technical mobility. They didn't have weapons platforms and they did not have an assault gun capability. And frankly, this is something we have to take care of.

Thanks Brett,

I must have missed it when you posted the info previously, but reading the article now I can see it is very similar to what I was thinking.  Some of the structural issues he mentions remind me of a comment a former comrade of mine (An officer in RAE last time I caught up with him) made during the early 90's, "Australia has the best 1970's Army in he World"

 

I like your thinking ,

 

1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Light infantry Battalion

2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Light infantry Battalion

3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Light infantry Battalion

5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Mechanised Infantry Battalion

6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Motorised infantry Battalion

7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Mechanised Infantry Battalion

8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Motorised Infantry Battalion

1st Armoured Regiment, Armoured Regiment

2nd Cavalry Regiment, Formation Reconnaissance Regiment

2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment, Formation Reconnaissance Regiment

1st Aviation Regiment, Attack helicopter Regiment

NEW 1st Armoured Cavalry Regiment, Combined Arms Unit - M1A1,light/recon tank, Tracked IFV(CV90-Puma type), Aslavs, SP Mortor, SP AA, UAV, SPG

NEW 1st Airborne Regiment,- based on 82nd Airborne/Para's/Rangers

NEW 1st Marine Commando (200-400 men) - based on Royal Marines/SBS/Navy Seals - Marine Special ops -

 

 

 

 

Where do you expect to fight? Who do you expect to fight?  How do you expect to fight.

Look around at your battlespace. Lots of islands and lots of low tech "enemies".

Mechanized cavalry is nice. Mechanized amphibious though is a certainty.

Start thinking like Marines. 
On a side note, when Australia selected the ASLAV the future commander of 2 CAV, one Brian Burke, was sent to the US to learn all about how to use LAV's from the US Marines.  Rumour has it the main concepts he brought back were that all his troopers should wear white T-Shirts under their cams because it looked smart, they should all be trained as Assault Troops not vehicle crews (as all US Marines are Riflemen first) and they should have daily morning room inspections as if they were USMC recruits and not trained Cavalry Troopers.  The end result was a mass influx of disgruntled former 2 CAV personnel into southern reserve units.  Can anyone from 2 CAV during that period confirm or deny this?

Herald
 

I am not suggesting that the entire land force be converted to Cavalry but rather that a larger proportion of it should be combined arms based on Cavalry.  This is not only due to the nature of our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also because, while there are a large number of islands in our region, the fact remains that Australia is a considerably sized, sparsely populated continent with many regions where Cavalry would be ideal and Light Infantry or even Mechanised Marines would be of limited value.

 

That said I believe there is a place for an EFV force say of Squadron strength with 3 deployable Troops each capable of a reinforced Company lift with role specific support elements i.e. fires, engineering and recon (possibly also AT, AD and Direct Fire Support) elements attached to each troop.  These would be fantastic to have available to deploy from the LHD's and whatever we end up with as a Logistics Support Ship to supplement the LHD's.  In the same vein a similarly structured Squadron with 3 troops of BVS10's or Vikings would be a useful asset to support not only amphibious operations but also air mobile ops and providing general support for Light Infantry as the Royal Marines Vikings are currently doing for the British Army in Afghanistan.  A third Squadron equipped with Bushmasters and other suitable protected vehicles could complete the mix of what would be a full composite Cavalry APC Regiment designed to support our Light Infantry Brigade where ever required.

 

On the Amphibious line but not related to Cavalry there is probably also a need for some sort of robust brown / green water light assault capability, something between landing craft and RHIB's say a Flotilla of CB-90's or similar.  This would be a great asset for inshore patrol in our Northern waters but also in the northern reaches of the Persian Gulf.

 

Having absorbed the article Enterpriser referenced I am revising my ideas for a modified Army ORBAT, if interest in this post continues I'll write up my modified concepts and see where they take the discussion.
 

Where do you expect to fight? Who do you expect to fight?  How do you expect to fight.

Look around at your battlespace. Lots of islands and lots of low tech "enemies".

Mechanized cavalry is nice. Mechanized amphibious though is a certainty.

Start thinking like Marines.

Herald
 

I have suggested Marines before ...  not popular  around these parts

 

However I will explain  my new units.... 

 

Armored Cavalry (new equipment) -  become your Expeditionary forces , ideal  when firepower and boots  are required - cover large distances , full organic support - can deploy  overseas with  amour,fire support  etc , without having to deploy  full armored regiment or  break up limited existing assets-

 

-Dutch / Canada/ UK  etc  all deploying tanks  to  Afghanistan

 

Airborne - Become your rapid reaction forces/ ideal for taking on low tech enemy in pacific / support  armored cavalry in overseas ops.

 

Marine commando (400men) (semi spec ops-most  royal marine standard - 2 alpha/beta squads SBS/SEAL standard )-  Under special ops command / having a large marine battlespace it  would  be viable to have specialists/ thus  allowing SAS to concentrate on LRRP  and Spec ops /  and Commando(TAG) reg - on counter terrorism- navy divers - on mine clearing  - Ideal for use in pacific

 

The existing  units made into battle groups as  the  mission requires/  remain at home for DOA /  tasked as  required

 

Example:     Armored Cav / SAS / Engineering - Afghanistan

 

                   Airborne/Marine Commando/ 1 light infantry - Timor

 

                   2 Mechanized / 1 Amour/ 1 Artillery/ 1 Motorised  - Iran

 

                   Anzac naval task group - Tiawan crisis

 

                    2  AWD

                    2   SSG ( collins 2 )

                    3  ANZAC II  (aus)

                    1 ANZAC  II(NZ)

 

                  

               

 

 

In my entirely amateur opinion cavalry should continue playing a niche role. They are neither the main component of armour nor infantry. Tanks are the dominant battlefield vehicles. An armoured battle group based around cavalry would be weak, especially with such a light vehicle as the ASLAV. It wouldn't be fit for high intensity war, and an armoured battle group, especially with aviation, artillery, etc. as support is excessive for low intensity conflict. The tanks should form the basis of a conventional land fighting force, with cavalry supporting them in recon and carrying dismounts. Ideally a heavier tracked IFV would be used in this role, but that may be a while off. In a lower intensity conflict light, mechanised and motorised infantry are better options. Infantry is better suited to the range of terrain that peacekeeping and counter-insurgency occurs in. Plus they are mostly easier to transport, support and pay for. Cavalry can play some niche roles here, such as firepower or some long range patrolling through open terrain, but it shouldn't be the basis of the force.

You dare deign to doubt our demonstrably-dubious tactical and strategic brilliance!?! With a cohesive, logical and WELL ARTICULATED OPPOSING VIEWPOINT !?!?! DAMN YOU, SIR! Damn you!

I have been a bit quiet since my earlier comments in relation to Capt Patterson's article (been busy). However, I must say that I can see some sense in what is being said. Perhaps we are all a little biased by the fact that 2nd Cav and 2/14th LH-QMI are the closest things to mech infantry the Australian army has.........don't get me started on the M113(A3/4) riding pansies in 5&7 RAR! The essential point here seem to be that A) standing comnined arms units may have merit and B) Cav should have more dismounts, even when operating as a squadron attached to battlegroups.

 

Brett.