Cavalry and Regular Armour, how do they differ?

[kneecaps]

In my reading so far I notice that a different symbol is used to depict cavalry armour and 'non-cavalry' armour. Also I notice that cavalry unit armour seems to be used up front in various manuvers and attacks etc....

So my question is, how/why is a cavalry unit better suited and different to regular armour for things like spearheading attacks?

Apologies if this is elementry stuff but i'm yet to find a good answer :D

[Redwolf]

The main difference is that the Cavalry mixed weapons (tanks and mech infantry) at a much lower level than regular army, and gives organic fire support (especially 120mm) to units at a lower level. Other things like helicopters are also easier to get a hold of for small unit Cavalry commanders, although in lower numbers.

So the cavalry is more suitable for tasks farer away from the main force, and when independent operations are more important than hitting power.

In Iraq 1991 they showed that the hitting power is usually sufficient even against an Army like the Iraq one at the time, but even then they lost a Bradley to a wimpy 73mm gun on a BMP-1. Regular army would have had enough Abrahms in one place to keep the Bradleys back - but then regular army would have had a 1/3rd chance to be in that spot in first place and the Iraqi mech unit would likely have gotten away.

[kneecaps]

AAAH!! The penny drops. Cavalry has the emphasis on swift action possessing most capabilities in small numbers.

Thanks, thats helped me lots!

[Pat Proctor]

I think there are two different questions here, as they reference ATF.

First, the designation of a unit as "Cavalry". Confusing the issue is the "1st Cavalry Division". All of their maneuver units are called "cavalry", as in 2nd BN, 8th Cavalry and 2-5 CAV. But they are just armor and mech infantry battalions (respectively) with cavalry names.

The only "true" cavalry units are the Armored Cavalry Regiments (the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th are the only ones in the Active Army) and the Divsional Cavalry Squadrons (DIVCAV, one for each division in the Active Army).

The ACR's have

three ground squadrons and one air cav squadron.
Each ground squadron has its own 155 how bat
each troop (company) has its own mortars.
The air cav is often cut out to the different ground squadrons.
Each ground squadron has three cavalry troops (tank, Bradley CFV mix) and one tank company.


This organization allows it to operate of a much greater area than a normal Brigade Combat Team, to perform screening and flank security for a whole corps, if neccessary (each ACR is organized to an Army Corps).

The DIVCAV squadron is smaller and more reliant on air.

all DIVCAV squadrons have two or three (I can't remember) air troops (companies) and one ground troop.
The DIVCAV squadron has no how battery
The ground troop has 2 mortars
In a light division, the DIVCAV has OH-58D's for air and HMMWV's for ground (with TOWs, 50 CALs, and Mk-19 Grenade Launchers.
In a heave division, the air cav troops are AH-64Ds and OH-58Ds, and the ground troops are M1A2s and Bradley CFVs mixed.


The Bradley CFV (cavalry fighting vehicle) is just like the Bradley IFV {infantry fighting vehicle) except it carries more ammo and less dismounts (none, I think).

The new guy in town is the Brigade Recon Troop (BRT). Each heavy BCT now has one.

I believe it is two platoon of Bradley CFVs
It has one "Knight" platoon (formerly a Striker Platoon till the infantry stole the name for their vehicle :) ),cut to it from the artillery battalion. This is a fancy way of saying the COLT platoon is in the BRT.
The MICO (Military Intelligence Company) will often cut UAVs, GSRs (ground surveillance radar) and other stuff to the BRT.
The BRT steals its unit designation from a CAV regiment (such as D Troop, 7th Cavalry).


The Stryker Brigades now have a whole RSTA squadron (Recon Surveillance and Target Acquisition) organic to their organization). The concept is in flux, so I don't know a ton about them. This is the stuff I am pretty sure about:

They steal their unit designation from Cavalry Regiments, such as 1-14 CAV in the 2nd IDs Stryker Brigade.
They are equiped with Strykers with the LRAS (Laser-Range something something :) ) which is a really long range sight that beat the G/VLLD that the COLTs have all to hell, except that it can't laser designate for PGMs (preceision guided munitions).
It often has the UAV, a bunch of MICO stuff, and other odds and ends attached.
It often has a COLT platoon attached, which I think is equipped with the Stryker Fire Support Vehicle (w/ G/VLLD).


Now that you (possibly) understand all of this, prepare to forget it. Because now the Army wants to reorganize under the UA (Unit of Action) concept to make army units more uniform (read: vanilla). All that stuff I just said is about to go out the window.

[kbluck]

Actually, the US has an unusual vision for cavalry. Traditionally, cavalry was highly mobile, much more so than the main forces. It was also, however, lightly armed, had had very little staying power. Its primary purpose was (and still is) reconaissance, as well as "tripwire" roles where they identify and delay the enemy's attack long enough for the real forces to react. They had no real capability to conduct an independent attack or defence on their own, however.

This was true of US Army armored cavalry through the '70s, Back then it was mostly equipped with APCs and light tanks. It remains true of most other nation's cavalry units, as well. In the '80s, however, the US ACRs reequipped to a much heavier organization with heavy tanks, IFVs, organic artillery, and attack helos, in effect becoming a "pocket division". It was thus able to mimic the "signature" of a real heavy division. The divisional cav battalions also reorganized along similar lines and were thus able to mimic heavy brigades. In addition to confusing the enemy, they were also freed to undertake much more significant missions, including full on defense and attack roles of their own, effectively turning into true armored units in their own right.

The Army now seems to be stepping back from this idea, as the ACRs now seem to be getting reorganized into "ordinary" units. For example, the 2nd ACR is reorganizing to be a standard Stryker brigade. I believe the Army is embracing a "modular brigade" concept where one brigade is more or less interchangeable with the others, and I think the ACRs are planned to become "cookie-cutter" brigades along with the rest. I expect that all such brigades will retain cavalry-type units organic, but I think the brigade-sized corps-level cavalry unit is finished, unless the Army does a major doctrinal about face.

--- Kevin

[kneecaps]

phew...if my brain already didn't have enough to digest!

So the 1st Cavalry Division is a misnomer of sorts kept probably for tradition and is in fact more like the 1st Armored Division?

Whereas the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for example is true Cavalry...

Are the existing unit names and things going to be preserved when the Unit of Action system takes over?

[kbluck]

I think there are two different questions here, as they reference ATF.

First, the designation of a unit as "Cavalry". Confusing the issue is the "1st Cavalry Division". All of their maneuver units are called "cavalry", as in 2nd BN, 8th Cavalry and 2-5 CAV. But they are just armor and mech infantry battalions (respectively) with cavalry names.


Yes, this bears repeating. Unit names are heraldric, meaning they reflect tradition and attempts to promote esprit moreso than describing the real nature of the unit. You mustn't assume a unit is specially organized or trained in any way simply because it includes the word "cavalry" in its name. It is simply a reflection of a proud lineage, even though there is often no true continuous link to that past and the designation has in truth been chosen arbitrarily for a newly constituted unit by some military historian in the Pentagon.

Even unit size monikers are prone to this sort of jiggering; for example, the artillery habit of calling companies "batteries". I'm betting 2ACR continues to call its companies "troops" and battalions "squadrons" even though those elements are really the same as in any other Stryker brigade. I bet they maintain a horse-mounted honor guard detachment as well.

--- Kevin

[kbluck]

So the 1st Cavalry Division is a misnomer of sorts kept probably for tradition and is in fact more like the 1st Armored Division?


No, there is a completely different division called the "1st Armored Division". But the two divisions are (or at least, were recently) organized identically.

1CD has had a number of incarnations. It is now an armored division. From '71 to '75 is was a so-called "Tri-Cap" division. In Vietnam it was an airmobile division. In WWII and Korea it was an infantry division. Prior to 1943 it was horse-mounted cavalry, which is where the name originated.



Are the existing unit names and things going to be preserved when the Unit of Action system takes over?

Most likely.

The "regiments" the various battalions are "affiliated" with are almost entirely fictional. There is certainly no literal regimental organization for units such as the "5th Cavalry", which 2-5 Cav is supposedly the "2nd" battalion of. Such "regiments" can be considered more akin to historical societies than literal military units. The major exceptions are the ACRs, but even those are really brigades, not truly regiments.

--- Kevin

[kneecaps]

Sorry, thats what I meant by 'more like the 1st Armored Division?'...i didnt meant to imply that the 1st Cav should be called the 1st Armored, i meant that they were the same sort of division :D

Thanks for clearing up the Regiment thing also, I couldn't seem to factor regiments into anything...no suprise since the regiment names bear little or no relevance to any form of organisation.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

The Australian 2nd Cav Rgt is more of a "true" cav unit - based as it is upon LAVs.

[freightshaker]

2nd Cav was pretty close to being true "modern" cav since they were equiped with Humvees. Cavalry missions are usually screens, recon, and counter-recon. In a nutshell, they are a low-manpower/high-firepower unit that is highly mobile but still leaves the footprint of an armored division. "If you ain't Cav, you ain't sh#t!" Blackhorse!

[Pat Proctor]

It might interest some of you "old dogs" to know that the 11th ACR, which for the past ten years has played the OPFOR at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, is being deployed to Iraq.

I don't know if that is a "sign 'o the times" or not, but it is happening.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

makes sense - the unit is used to thinking outside the box, has a high OPTEMPO normally anyways, and is better aquainted with ways to defeat tactics they themselves practice regularly.

They'd be one of the few units that also has field exercises frequently, and doesn't need reservists to bring up to full strength (I assume - it didn;t used to anyhoo :D)

But I also thought the 11th ACR was big on vehicles, low on bodies to fill them?

[freightshaker]

The Blackhorse is Cav in name only now. We drew down in Dec 93 when we left Fulda. A year later they were activated again as the fore mentioned Opfor for NTC in California. They are now more of a Motorized Rifle Regt being equiped with mock up T-80's,BMP's,BDRM's, Etc. It kind of bothered me that they still wear the Blackhorse patch and when I was overrun in NTC I let them know. They are probably the best desert fighters the Army has tactics wise but since they don't operate American equipment they've lost familiarity with current equipment. I've heard that complaint from tankers that served there. I can't believe that they'd be deployed. There's gonna be some big shoes to fill when they leave Blackhorse!

[WMurray]

Now that you (possibly) understand all of this, prepare to forget it. Because now the Army wants to reorganize under the UA (Unit of Action) concept to make army units more uniform (read: vanilla). All that stuff I just said is about to go out the window.

Pat,

I may be opening a can of worms but what is the Unit of Action concept and when are they going to introduce this concept?

Tnx,
Bill

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Pat,

I may be opening a can of worms but what is the Unit of Action concept and when are they going to introduce this concept?

Tnx,
Bill

A post by the late Hank Meyer on the TacOps list:

The new Army CoS (Gen Schoomaker) has redesignated the
former Legacy Force, Interim Force and Objective Force
into the Current Force and Future Force. This is important
in terms of modernization and upgrading of existing
Abrams, Bradley and aviation fleets (proposal is to
consolidate helicoptors from four to two airframes).

Conceptually five per heavy division (unsure as to light/
airmobile/airborne disisions). Quote from Gen Schoomaker "
...we can get more power out of smaller organizations..."
Quote from Janes 15 Oct 2003 "...if trials are successful, the
Army could eventually field 48 such units..." [from the
Active Force]. The 15 enhanced NG brigades would become
21 or 22 under the reorganization.

New organization will include/reflect change-over to unit
manning concept to "stabilize the force." The concept is
to have entire units rotate at once, thus allowing them
to stay together for longer periods of time and build and
maintain unit cohesion.

A snapshot of the UA (sometimes refered to as UE - Units of
Effectiveness) as of late spring this year (although in FCS
[Furure Combat System - Heavy] terms) is as follows (all
material from July 03 Armed Forces Journal):

"The UA can support forces from stand-off ranges by employing
organic line-of-sight (LOS), beyond line-of-sight (BLOS)
and non line-of-sight (NLOS) fires. In addition, the UA is
able to access Army and joint-force efforts thru the network"
[i.e. digitized dynamic real-time communications gobbledigook].

"Retaining current light and heavy forces will become
multidimensional UAs capable of combined arms operations
to the company level and air assault operations across the
force using UE [don't know why they are mixing terms here]
fixed wing assets. In addition, combined arms battalions
of the UA [see above] can be moved by fixed wing aircraft
to conduct aerial envelopement to operational depth."

Cutting to the chase (after much staff BS and long winded
verbage):

"Sustained tactical and operational momentum with few tactical
pauses characterizes how the UA will fight...The UA can conduct
self-sustained operations from three to seven days, arriving
at multiple austere airfields using vertical and horizontal
maneuver without being hindered by traditional concerns over
reception, staging, onward movement, and integration." [Yeah,
right...]

Oh, it gets better with some things like "...Army static and
cumbersome tactical operations centers will no longer exist...
the resulting battle command on the move capability underpins
the UAs ability to [fill in the blanks]...Networked fires will
enable [again fill in the blanks]...[and I love this one] It
represnts a shift from the current approach to engineer soldiers
to operate systems to engineering systems to soldiers."

Anyway, onward - Here's what a FCS based UA/UA looks like:

Unit of Action (x) - 2547 personnel

HHC (I) - 110

Bde Intel Co (I) - 91

Aviation Bn (II) - 190

NLOS Bn (II) - 177

Foward Support Bn (II) - 266

3 x Combined Arms Bns (II) - 3 x 571

HHC (I) - 87

Recon (I) - 62

2 x Mounted Combat System - 37 each

2 x Infantry Company - 157 each

Mortar Btry - 34

I suspect that, given the disinclination of the Army to
integrate below the bn level, we will see (at least in
the case of the heavy force) something like one tank
bn and one mech bn in each UA with a swing inf bn for
task assignment at the division level. Don't have a
clue what will happen to the div cav.

[Pat Proctor]

The Unit of Action concept is an attempt to make brigade combat teams more interchangable. When a whole division deploys, it wipes out an entire instalation, puts undue stress on the local economy, and creates additional hardship for families left behind. Once UAs are fully implemented, supposedly, you can take for instance, the headquarters from 1st Armored Division, the 1st BCT of 1 CAV, the 2nd BCT of 1st Infantry Division, and the 2nd BCT of the 3rd ID. That way, you are deploying a smaller number from four instalations, instead of everybody from one.

They are also going to lock BCTs into three year cycles. Green or non-deployable for 1 year, deployable for 2. All of the training will happen in the Green cycle. Then, a soldier being assigned, say, right out of basic training, or an officer right out of CGSC ("major's school) will go to a unit at the beginning of Green cycle and stay with that unit for its whole three years of life cycle. Right now, when a BCT deploys, a quarter of its soldiers can't go because they are getting ready to leave the unit for some career progression stuff. This should, in theory, solve that.

There will now be 4 maneuver BCTs instead of 3 in a division. This is to support, eventually, the 30,000 new soldiers the Army is getting. In the meantime, I guess, they will just be under strength. Also, every heavy BCT will now have on Armor BN, on Infantry BN, and one ground CAV squadron (without how battery). There are a lot of other strange and questionable innovations, like the artillery battalion going from 3 batteries with six guns to 2 batteries with eight.

Right now, 3rd ID is the only division that has reorganized. I think 10th MTN is the first light division that will do it. The life cycle stuff makes a lot of sense. The changes to the task organization make a lot less sense. They are figuring the stuff out as they go, though.

[CPangracs]

Also, look for a new tagline in the Army,..."Modularity". We had a briefing on it here yesterday, and though we have had modularity at the Division and Corps level (or have been striving for it anyway), this will focus on the Brigade Combat Teams. One major emphasis is that there will be an inherent Signal Asset with each BCT. It will also bump up the manning of an SBCT to 4000 men.

The biggest hurdle will be the MI assets in each BCT, as many of these jobs are held by females, and no female can be assigned to a BCT!

There are other finer points, but the main one that will affect the question of Cavalry units is that they will essentially become RSTA Squadrons (Recon, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition), with all of the assets that entails.

Oh yeah, each battalion will have their own "personal" UAV's to scout over the next hill! This is giving the Air Force people fits over what the airspace will look like over the battlefield with all of these UAVs buzzing around.

Lastly, it looks like the Army is seriously considering armed UAV's for the FA battalion in each brigade.

More toys for the boys!

I'll post some links and such here when I get them.

Curt

[kbluck]

They are also going to lock BCTs into three year cycles.

It'll be fascinating to see if they've integrated any of the lessons learned from the not-very-successful COHORT company-level stability experiment. Given the inevitable attrition over the course of three years, are they going to build in any redundancy so that as small units inevitably fall understrength over the course of two years, their mission capability won't be unduly affected? Or are they going to pull in singleton replacements during that time, which sort of defeats the whole point of unit coherence? And how will *combat* casualties be dealt with?

I'm not complaining; I think stabilization is a good idea. However, it does produce some significant personnel challenges in an Army filled with personnel accustomed to lots of career mobility. For example, how does this reconcile with enlisted troops serving a 2-year enlistment term? Does this mean we can't send our NCOs to NCOA schools and whatnot for two years at a time? If we can, what happens if a deployment comes? Will promotion cycles be synchronized as well?

My major concern is that in the name of "more with less", they're going to strip the units to the point where every soldier is indispensable, and any attrition at all will leave key systems undermanned. The mech infantry squad, for example, is at this point now. There are no spare riflemen to pick up slack when losses occur; every man is already a key leader or holding a heavy weapon. When any man at all goes down, there is nobody left to put down a rifle and pick up the MG or whatever he dropped.

The AG has a lot of work to do. I hope they figure it out.

--- Kevin

[freightshaker]

This is sounding like the German Kampfgruupe concept from 60 yrs. ago. It worked well then and should work now as long as we keep descion making decentralized and allow small unit leaders to do their job. Hopefuly, in the spirit of standardization, it won't turn into a micromanaged unit. There was enough of that to go around when I was in.

[CPangracs]

This is sounding like the German Kampfgruupe concept from 60 yrs. ago. It worked well then and should work now as long as we keep descion making decentralized and allow small unit leaders to do their job. Hopefuly, in the spirit of standardization, it won't turn into a micromanaged unit. There was enough of that to go around when I was in.
Under this new modular concept, there will be "Deputy" Battalion and Brigade commanders! It's estimated that about 70,000 jobs currently held by soldiers and officers will be "civilianized" to free-up the necessary personnel to fill the robust staffs required in these new BCT's.

Talk about more chiefs AND indians! Anyway, this new command concept is to allow a BCT to conduct varied operations in the same theater, such as dual combat and SASO roles.

We shall see...

[Pat Proctor]

There is a downside to stabilization of personnel. Under the new model (this facet of which has already been standardized Army-wide) You stay in the same place, basically, for the first seven years of your career. That means everyone in your unit when you are a captain remembers all of those stupid things you do when you are a second lieutenant. Ditto for the PVT to Staff Sergeant career course.

There is something to be said for PCS'ing and getting a fresh start every 3 years. :(

Of course, not that I ever made any bonehead mistakes when I was a 2nd LT. :)

[WMurray]

Thanks, everybody. Sounds like the Unit of Action is a modified BCT then. Just when I start to think I understand one concept the Army introduces a new one. Or I learn that I don't really understand something I thought I did: for example I didn't really understand cavalry prior to the earlier discussion but thought I understood it.

I'm wondering what a NLOS battalion is. Perhaps the forward battalion engages the enemy and the NLOS battalion stays out of sight of the enemy?

No...could be they have COLT observers, but that wouldn't make sense, why a whole battalion? Some sort of indirect fire weapon...but then they would be artillery? Must be some sort of new NLOS weapon I've never heard of...

I give up. Anyone care to enlighten me?

P.S. Regarding the 11th ACR, I assume only 1 battalion is going. If they are ALL going, who is going to take their place at NTC? Tnx.

[CPangracs]

Thanks, everybody. Sounds like the Unit of Action is a modified BCT then. Just when I start to think I understand one concept the Army introduces a new one. Or I learn that I don't really understand something I thought I did: for example I didn't really understand cavalry prior to the earlier discussion but thought I understood it.

I'm wondering what a NLOS battalion is. Perhaps the forward battalion engages the enemy and the NLOS battalion stays out of sight of the enemy?

No...could be they have COLT observers, but that wouldn't make sense, why a whole battalion? Some sort of indirect fire weapon...but then they would be artillery? Must be some sort of new NLOS weapon I've never heard of...

I give up. Anyone care to enlighten me?

P.S. Regarding the 11th ACR, I assume only 1 battalion is going. If they are ALL going, who is going to take their place at NTC? Tnx. The NLOS is a Future Combat System concept vehicle, and is basically the future SP Artillery system (No, NOT the Crusader!). The idea is to have either human, vehicle, or UAV spotters to do the targeting. The NLOS cannon is part of the FCS family of vehicles based on the same chassis across the combat vehicle spectrum. I modeled these in Raging Tiger.

[Pat Proctor]

Artillery just doesn't sound sexy like NLOS does :)

[Ivan Rapkinov]

guys - check out the Skyshield AHEAD 35mm AA system being developed - 32km reach - going to shred UAVs like nobodies breakfast, let alone cruise missiles and the delivery platforms.

pics at the Eurosatory site, and description in the latest Janes digest.