| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| The Demise of Armored Cavalry |
| 2005-02-19 |
| 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... A grievous error, because that is not the only tactical purpose of "light cavalry". Going back to the time of Napoleon, military units were ordered in a way similar to the pieces on a chessboard. Napoleon had some generals who were masters of this "military unit chess", and were able to optimize the use of each "piece" to amazing effect in both the capture of an enemy army at Ulm, and the subsequent battle of Austerlitz, perhaps the greatest maneuver battle ever fought, Napoleon's single army defeating four enemy armies. For you chess players out there, the effect might be to similar to trading in your rooks and knights for four more bishops. On the surface it looks powerful, but if your enemy discovers a flaw in your maneuver, you are defenseless. N.B.: the Soviets ruthlessly adhered to this concept, with such things as designing helicopters to perform the functions of heavy cavalry, and even integrating NBC war to fit this Napoleonic scheme. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #7 The real controversy is which service is gonna control the new armed UAVS - Army vs Air Force vs Navy. The USA is heading into space - soon enough even our tacair and LR control planes will control their own armed UAVS ags both enemy air and surface targets. What we call wing-mounted "smart" or "brilliant/genius" missles today will have their own submissles. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-02-19 10:44:46 PM |
| #6 Cavalry squadrons no longer exist as they once did. Since the division is being retired and the new modular brigade combat teams are coming on line, the divisional cavalry has been divied out between all the brigades and reconfigured to something between a real big troop or a very small squadron called a RSTA squadron (reconnaissance,surveillance,target acquisition). These units are dominated by sensors and are very light on scouts or serious fighting power. For a BCT to screen or guard, they have to use companies from a line battalion therefore depleting thier combat power for maneuver. The RSTAs are very good at "seeing" all kind of things, but there isn't a sensor that can't be decieved, and they just don't have that fighting combat ability. Very shorly 3rd ACR will be the only true cavalry left and it is up in the air what will happen when they get back from their current rotation to Iraq. I agree with ed, somebody better hope we don't have to fight somebody with strong mech forces or competent generals...but hope never was a plan. Take heart however, there was a doctrinal conference recently at FT Benning to address the recon issue and it seems folks across the board are stepping back and taking another look at this monster. |
| Posted by: TopMac 2005-02-19 9:39:09 PM |
| #5 The ACRs are extremely well armed and would have been the first units to fight Soviet tank divisions in Europe. An ACR also led the Army's 2003 drive to Baghdad. Heavy is good (and saves American lives) if you can logistically support them. An ACR has 1/2 the tanks of an armoured division and geared for high tempo combined ops. Though the new UAs seem to take to heart combined ops, an armoured UA seems to have about 1/2 the firepower of an ACR, which is OK if it has 1/2 the manpower. What concerns me is the medium weight Stryker UAs. The Strykers have a striking lack of firepower, and I think will suffer frightful losses if encountering mechanized or attacking dug in forces. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-02-19 9:12:22 PM |
| #4 It's been more than 20 years since I served in a mechanized theater of operations, but - what are they talking about here? They are talking about converting the one remaining Armored Cav Regiment. What does that have to do with "The end of Armored Cav"? Are there not still Armored Cav squadrons at Division level? The only isue here is about whether the Cav is grouped together at Division, Regiment, Squadron, or Troop level. Back in the cold war, when USAREUR had to defend from Denmark down to Austria, it pehaps made sense to have two ACR's - the 7th and the 11th - manning the border. And the 3rd ACR exploring the expanses of Ft. Hood. But - when you have smaller theaters of operation, the need for a larger formation under its own headquarters may no longer exist. Maybe better to send out smaller formations that report directly to the unit commander at their rear. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2005-02-19 9:04:04 PM |
| #3 #1 mentioned another traditional light cavalry tactic, the screen. However, in combination with other "chess piece" units, they run circles around the more homogenous enemy. For example, light cavalry is superb at hit and run tactics against infantry, supply lines, and heavy (H-K) and headquarters units; finding and opening enemy line weak points; rapid encirclements; and heavy obscuration reconnaisance. As to this last, the *assumption* has to be that the enemy will plan for deception and obscuration, too, which can neutralize much air reconnaisance, and you can't tell for sure unless they lay down fire at you if they are really there or not. Committing a slower unit to finding out could result in their being wiped out. Once again, I would suggest reading a brief on the Ulm-Austerlitz campaign, to see a masterful use of maneuver against a far superior enemy. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-19 8:49:16 PM |
| #2 Aw come on - armored cavalry is a concept whose time has passed. Remember the screams when horse cavalry was converting to armor? |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-02-19 8:08:13 PM |
| #1 Cavalry units were the only integrated combat formation at the Brigade level with their own armor, infantry, artillery, and aviation assets. The new Brigade formations are basically the same thing. This is something that has been discussed for generations in the Army. It appears its what is now coming on line. The Brigades will have the same assets as the old Cav formations, they'll just pick up the 'unique' mission, screening, as another operational function. |
| Posted by: Elmeager Glimp3393 2005-02-19 7:27:24 PM |