Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best of Breed Armored Cav Regiment for Asymmetric Battlefields
HeavyD    8/27/2010 2:49:27 PM
It should be fairly clear to military planners that a good number of future armed conflicts will be against opponents who either never had or no longer have any significant armored forces. However due to IEDs, mortar and RPG and other ATGM threats an armored vehicles are still important. Pulling from all modern arsenals, including Merkava 4s, BMP-3s, etc. in addition to the new German Puma, the CV-90 family, the Korean K-21 IFV, etc how would you equip a heavy ACR? Ignore the logistics of supporting different types and nationalities of equipment for this exercise, but mobility, tramsportability and fuel usage counts) I like the Merkava4 for a MBT that will not fae a front-line MBT foe, I'm torn between the well-protected Puma and the well-armed BMP-3 (100mm main is nice, 4km range with pinpoint accuracy for the ATGM also nice, and do they have a thermobaric round for the main gun?) with the Arty having the excellent PzH2000 and the CV-90 dual 120mm mortar system. I'd also like to see a purpose-built turbine/electric-hybrid MRAPed Wiesel II type rig that is helo deployable for quick reaction. Crew of 2 plus 3-4 troops, 40mm AGL or 25mm gun, or even an ONTOS type rig with 2 revolver-type auto-loading 106mm Recoilless rifle. That brings up the Helo component, but that is a different thread altogether...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
JFKY    You can't ...   8/27/2010 3:01:24 PM
Divorce the logistics of various vehicle families from the discussion. Sorry,
.
Next, you have to discuss the background of the unit...an Israeli unit, fighting within 100 kilometres of it's borders faces a different logistics situation than a US/British/French unit, that is INEHRENTLY expeditionary in its nature...

 
Lastly, why a "cavalry" unit?  Cavalry has the job of scouting, screening,  and economy of force missions.  How do any of those translate into an asymmetric battlefield?

 
This veers dangerously close to one of the Mike Sparks "reform" pages where people start creating "ideal" companies, for specific battlefield niches...
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       8/27/2010 4:45:16 PM
Everyone knows the platform is irrelevant, it's all about the system! http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       8/27/2010 5:15:33 PM

Divorce the logistics of various vehicle families from the discussion. Sorry,
Next, you have to discuss the background of the unit...an Israeli unit, fighting within 100 kilometres of it's borders faces a different logistics situation than a US/British/French unit, that is INEHRENTLY expeditionary in its nature...

Lastly, why a "cavalry" unit?  Cavalry has the job of scouting, screening,  and economy of force missions.  How do any of those translate into an asymmetric battlefield?

This veers dangerously close to one of the Mike Sparks "reform" pages where people start creating "ideal" companies, for specific battlefield niches...

1.  I was talking purely hardware.  Yes, the US, as Rumsey famously said "went to battle with the equipment that you have"...or don't have as the case may be.  And yes this is distinctly an 'ideal' unit discussion, but let's face it:  the current constitution of US forces is still 'round peg in asymmetic hole' in nature.  We're not going to buy Pumas or Merkavas or PzH2000's (very unfortunately on this last point!) but after the first week of hostilities there ain't alot of OpFor tanks to shoot at, and years of nation-building and insurgency-suppressing to do.  WE DO NEED UNITS EQUIPPED FOR THIS TASK EXCLUSIVELY!  If not in Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Somalia, Nigeria, Venezuela, maybe a few of the 'Stans, hell maybe even Mexico the way things are going there...
2.  Why Cav?  I used the Armored Cav Regiment as a unit that was one of the original 'combined arms' units, tightly integrating tanks, IFV's, artillery, air defense (mostly irrelevant for this exercise, though a good old M163 Vulcan could still lay down some wicked suppressive fire, and take down some crude UAV's), some Engineering/Comms, AND importantly dedicated helo assets.  This type of unit is ideal for supporting local ground forces and our special forces trainers.
 
3.  Let's lern from the Israelis who are years ahead of us with TUSK type enhancements and designs, and form the Soviets with their experiences in A-Stan, Chechnya, etc.
 
In the absense of large-scale conflict in the Koreas, with China or the Soviets, we'll not face a serious armor threat for more than a week, but there is no end to occupational nation-building in sight, is there?

 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       8/27/2010 8:03:18 PM
OK.  We need expeditionary counterinsurgency armored vehicle units for the US Army, intended to hold urban terrain over the long term vs insurgents.  Why cavalry? Because cavalry allows rapid response. 
 
Is that a good, specific description?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No   8/27/2010 8:13:44 PM
When cavalry has a mission...scouting, screening, economy of force....
 
Why would cavalry have any faster response time than say a MRAP-equipped unit?  Your response time is a function of your mission and your equipment...and for asymmetric, oh heck Guerrilla warfare, you don't need cavalry...you need infantry...
 
I guess this question ASSUMES you need heavy equipment of some sort...
 
A better question would be, what sort of unit would you send to Afghanistan or Iraq, is there a difference, if so what would they be?
 
Not some question concerning a SPECIFIC sort of unit...
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       8/27/2010 8:23:28 PM
I think the idea is next generation urban mechanized infantry.  Perhaps MRAPs are all the mechanization they need.  Are MRAPs especially suited to the role?
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       8/27/2010 8:29:54 PM
Some ideas for the OP author...
 
h*tp://www.defense-update.com/features/2009/october/141009_ground_combat_vehicle.html
 
Also, the Stryker, MRAPs are modern Army creations.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Gone   8/28/2010 3:24:25 PM
The last heavy armored cav reg in the US Army will be gone soon (the 3rd is converting to a stryker brigade).  The question isn't what equipment should be utilized but whether the unit itself is viable much less needed.  From the US Army perspective they don't require ACR's screening corp movement anymore.
 
From my personal perspective this is an irrational decision but then again in my view the US Army should have converted to heavy brigades of 4 maneuver battalions not the current binary 2.  The US Army seems to believe it needs to be organized to fight colonial wars rather than sustained heavy combat.  This is extremely dangerous to assume- see Italy binary colonial organization in WWII.
 
To answer the question posed one first has to determine what type of unit the ACR is subordinated to, logistical considerations, etc.  So a heavy ACR might not do for an airborne corp and a lighter structure might not be the best unit to support a heavy armored corp.  The structure of the current and last heavy ACR is excellent.  At this point it's probably the most powerful unit of it's size left in the world.  Certainly it could be improved with better kit but that's besides the point once the decision is made the unit type is obsolete.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/11/2010 8:54:49 AM
Cavalry probably has less relevance to the US Army than it would to smaller forces as the US Army is able to deploy brigades, divisions and even corps when required.  Why send an ACR when you could tailor a heavy brigade to suit.
A nation like Australia on the other hand has to cover all bases with a combat component smaller than a single US Army division.  This force has to cover heavy, medium, light, airborne and amphibious. 
 
An ideal ACR would be a good fit with a small military, especially if each of its sabre squadrons could be deployed as an independent combined arms battle group.  This is the situation where individual quality of equipment realy counts, you may only have two SPG's, a dozen MBT's and another dozen CFV / AIFVs in theatre, they need to be the best you can get and they need to compliment and cover for each other.
 
Logistics still counts, as does compatibility of systems from individual sub systems through to the full deployed capability.  Standardise where possible on sub systems and use the same platforms tailored to different tasks but still go for the best compromise.  ie. common hull for CFV, AIFV (Heavy APC?), SPG, ARV, AEV while still choosing the best MBT you can.  Even then you can still go for commonality in fuels, automotive components and other systems.
 
As much as I like the idea I can't see it happening as the US will default to the "not invented here" attitude and smaller nations will be unable to get past the sticker shock of integrating all the best gear the concept will need.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       10/1/2010 10:25:17 PM
Ultimately one would have to have a scenario where heavy ACRs made sense.
 
Say it is 2035, and China is neck and neck with America as the wealthiest nation in the world, yet is torn by massive internal tensions. Hundreds of millions live in abject poverty, and tens of millions of indegent unmarried men (due to the shortage of women caused by preference for male children during the one-child years) are becomming increasingly prone to violent crime. In response, a hardline nationalist faction of the CCP has pushed to the forefront politically and seeks to unite the nation (and do something useful with all of those extra men) under the idea that the modern Chinese state is heir to the Mongol Empire. They are going to rebuild it-stronger, faster, better. They have the money, and the technology.
 
The Russian military is in a state of collapse, and some in the west would be inclined to write them off. Unfortunately for all concerned, some of the ground that the Mongols conquered now belongs to members of NATO, while honor demands that we defend Iraq as well. The Chinese military buildup has continued, with a strong emphasis on heavy forces, while the US has adapted its army to counterinsurgency. We are in a situation much like we were in the late 30s and early 40s having to rebuild an armored corps from scratch to meet a state enemy head-on.
 
The M1 is still a good design, but its development has stagnated compared to the newest Chinese armor (based on the best technology the Chinese could steal worldwide) Some are pushing to update the armor package and gun on the M1, while others are pushing for a clean-slate approach. Our IFVs have been kept more modern, but like everything else in our arsenal are optimized for counter-insurgency action. And while the Paladin/MLRS/M777 mix was ok for fighting insurgents, its is obsolete compared to what many of our allies field, let alone the newest Chinese artillery.
 
What should we do?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics