Posted on 02/21/2005 5:03:07 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
The U.S. Army has only one armored cavalry regiment left, and it is scheduled to be converted to one of the new UA (units of action) brigades next year. That event has triggered a debate in the army over whether the traditional concept of, “fighting for information” is still valid. This approach involves using small units of tanks and other armored vehicles to fight your way into enemy territory, grab prisoners, documents or whatever, and bring it back. Along with your observations, photographs or whatever, you get a good sense of what the enemy is up to. The technique was developed by the Germans during World War II, and adopted by the other armies by the end of the war. The alternative, which is more frequently used, is called "sneak and peek". This means UAVs, aircraft and people on the ground who stay out of the way and just watch.
But the success of "fighting for information" caused the German “armored reconnaissance battalion” to become the model for most current reconnaissance battalions. The "fighting for information" technique has been used many times since World War II, but the current reorganization of the army’s brigades has left the fate of the “armored cavalry” in doubt. The current divisions have a conventional armored cavalry squadron (what the cavalry people call a battalion) based on the World War II model. That means a mixed unit, with tanks, infantry fighting (armored) vehicles (IFVs), hummers, and lots of communications gear. The armored cavalry sends small teams, often a few guys in a hummer, out to scout, and especially check out things already spotted from the air (by helicopter scouts, UAVs, or even satellites.) These scouting teams are backed up by heavier teams of tanks and IFVs. If the scouts, on the ground or in the air, find a situation that needs a little muscle, in order to get the needed info, the heavy stuff can go in and do it. This was the genius of the original German concept. There were simply times when you had to fight for valuable information. But the new recon battalion will be called a Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA) Battalion, and is currently designed to have no tanks or IFVs. But lots of UAVs and scouts in armored hummers.
The current armored cavalry regiment has 5,200 troops, 123 M1A2 tanks, 125 M3A2 Bradley IFVs, 16 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, 24 OH-58D Kiowa scout helicopters, 15 UH-60L transport choppers, plus self-propelled artillery and lots of other gear. It's a small army, with supply and maintenance capabilities. The new RSTA brigades will have the supply and maintenance support, but no armor. Lots of UAVs and Internet access, but limited ability to fight for information.
There’s no indication that the “fighting reconnaissance” is no longer useful. American armored cavalry was used with great success as recently as 2003, and the 3rd Armored Cav is going back to Iraq for a year, before returning for conversion to a RSTA brigade. What is still undecided is whether the RSTA brigade will drop the heavy armor. The reason for that is weight. The RSTA brigades are meant to be more portable, and without armor they can be flown half way around the world. While tanks and Bradleys can, in theory, be flown long distances, in practice it is rarely done. Takes up too many aircraft.
So over the next year, the debate will rage, trying to put a value on “fighting for information”, and the wisdom of leaving at least some of the recon battalions with their armored vehicles. UAVs and helicopters can see, but only guys in a tank can go anywhere, reach out, and touch someone.
Cavalry -- horse, mechanized, armored and air -- has always been a combat arm. The Armored Cavalry Regiment was a combined arms war machine with the flexibility to accomplish division-sized missions. The 2nd ACR, raised in 1836 as the Second Regiment of Dragoons, survived the Seminole War, the Mexican War, The War Between The States, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, The First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and OIF, but it will not survive transition into an infantry-centric Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
These RSTA squadrons may call themselves cavalry and have red and white guidons, but they are like unarmed security guards watching burglars breaking in on their surveillance monitor. They will be able to see and report a lot, but they won't be able to do much about it.
Besides, If you ain't cav, you ain't shit
I'm a former paratrooper NCO, not a West Point- or Citadel-trained strategist, but it seems to me the point of reconnaisance is just that: intelligence-gathering. If Cav functionality has been superceded by technological advances, I don't think our military leaders should be hampered by anything approaching nostalgia when it comes to making high-level tactical decisions. Historically, military thinkers have seemingly been decades behind in terms of tactics once the shooting starts. The French infantry sported bright red pantaloons in the early months of WWI while attacking entrenched machine gun positions. Mounted Polish lancers prodded German armor with pointy sticks in the opening days of WWII. The list goes on.
Brave young men die because their leaders long to fight the last war. Thus, if Cav--or my beloved Airborne--need to go the way of the longbow or broadsword, so be it.
I concur.
Anti-armor weaponry has now advanced to the point that armored vehicles are dead the second they show up on the modern battlefield.
If we had faced a real army in the Gulf in '91 instead of Saddam's raggedy a$$ed bunch of Shiite conscripts, we would have learned then that armored cavalry had already followed horse cavalry into obsolescence .
and Desert Storm .... and Operation Iraqi Freedom .... and you are just wrong.
http://www.defense-update.com/topics/topics-armor.htm
Check this out!
ping
What some of your critics fail to realize is the greatest failure is warfare is generals who fight the last war, rather than the next one. I'm glad that you get it, and I thank God than Don Rumsfield gets it.
Reconaissance is only one of several missions cavalry performed.
A RSTA brigade as covering force for a corps in retrograde will have what organic capability to delay, demolish, and defend?
Hey, I'm a tanker myself, so you're preaching to the Choir with me. BUT, I thought that the CIA used a Predator UAV to fire a HellFire missile to take out a carload of senior AQ staff last year....
The article is specifically addressing modification of current reconnaisance-in-force capabilities employing a mix of fast-moving humvees, Bradleys, and heavy armor. I think you folks are thinking we're talking about elimination of armor, when--from my view--nothing could be more disasterous. Former infantry that I am, I absolutely love armor. Armor was my friend.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that anti-tank missile capabilites negate armor on the battlefield. The only anti-tank weapon of any consequence we had (aside from LAW rockets) was the Dragon missile, which required sitting there (pretty much exposed) for several precious seconds while the rocket went on its course, meanwhile betraying a smoke signature visible to the target and all of his buddies. Our aim was attrition; there was no way our weaponry could stop an armored column of any size.
Terrain determines battle strategy...
Will they never learn?
No sound ever invented matches the sound of a tank coming down an urban street.. for BOTH sides.. different responses..
1/1 CAV, Americal-I Corps RVN '68-69
Nothing beats "boots on the ground" and "live prisoners" for info. Sometimes you can try to be too "High Tech"
All I got from the article was discussions of dropping heavy armor from STA Teams, so they could do what the Marine Corps already does.
3d ACR will become just another armored brigade, or will it be chopped-up and redistributed to make a few of them?
However, this RSTA sounds an awful lot like what a CEWI Bn could do with a little more gear. Solves the problem of why they are wondering if there will be armor or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.