Cavalry Fighting Vehicles & Armoured Reconnaissance

[Britboy]

Hope this isn't in the wrong forum, thought about putting it in equipment & gear as an AFV is a piece of kit, but as it kind've goes into doctrine I put it here...

Picked up a cheap book off a market stall the other day, 'The Bradley Company', and it goes into mainly M2 and infantry stuff, but theres also a bit on the M3.

Thinking about the M3 and the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle idea it seems to reflect American armoured recce methodology... You carry dismounts with you in every CFV, and the Armoured Cavalry organisations also feature Abrams MBTs and mortar carriers - it seems that they go looking for a fight as in 'recce by fire/in force'. Minituare combined arms forward of your main forces for probing purposes, so to speak.

This got me thinking about the BMP-3.

A) BMP3 has extensive armaments fit - 100mm (not the same as a 120mm MBT main gun but nearly), 30mm (similar to most IFV armaments and the 25mm of the CFV), 7.62mm MGs, gun-fired ATGMs.

B) BMP3 carries up to 7 dismounts.

C) Light weight (relatively) of under 19 tonnes.

Which got me thinking that BMP3 would make a suitable CFV. Its got a close match for the weapons fit of both vehicles, and more dismounts than the CFV employs, in one vehicle.

If you were to equip the dismounts with an infantry ATGM like JAVELIN, that could be fired from a roof hatch, that'd compensate for the only having a 100mm as opposed to 120mm, as well as giving you a dismounted anti-armour option.

The only thing I was thinking was that its a bit big for recce, but then I came across the BMD4 - the VDV/naval infantry version of the BMP3, air droppable, swimmable from ship to shore, at around 15 tons I believe. It has less dismounts (only 4) but this is plenty for recce purposes and the odd ATGM team - its not like you need a whole section in the back is it...

Greece has recently bought BMP3s and is fitting them out with top of the line French electronics I believe, so their experience of it will be interesting. Matching the potent Eastern hardware with Western electronics could bring the best of both worlds, a true world beater.

What do you make of the true role of a CFV (as opposed to armoured recce vehicles like the Scimitar), and how well do you think the BMP3 or (even better it seems) the BMD4 would fulfil it?

To me, it looks like a unique combination of armour and infantry carrier that would be near perfect for such a role.

Regards
BB

[The Dane]

I would still pick an M3A3 over that any day; maybe fit it with some band-tracks.
It give you much better protection, comfort and it has plenty of firepower(25mm+TOW).

[wilhelm]

I think a heavy wheeled vehicle, not compromised by the need to carry troops, would make the ideal heavy armoured recce vehicle.

The Rooikat springs to mind. Long range, relatively heavy armour, high speed, heavy punch.

[DesktopArmor]

ehicle idea it seems to reflect American armoured recce methodology... You carry dismounts with you in every CFV, and the Armoured Cavalry organisations also feature Abrams MBTs and mortar carriers - it seems that they go looking for a fight as in 'recce by fire/in force'. Minituare combined arms forward of your main forces for probing purposes, so to speak.

Well, the British/Commonwealth are the main exception to the "Recce by Fire" tactic. That's why the US had light tanks into the 1970s-'80s (not just airborne). They only carry two scouts, though, and the vehicle is noticeably different from the M2 inside. It also has a better/different NBC system fitted.

Which got me thinking that BMP3 would make a suitable CFV. Its got a close match for the weapons fit of both vehicles, and more dismounts than the CFV employs, in one vehicle.

Yes, but the point of "Recce by Fire" is not to get out of the vehicles and start walking around. Dismounts are there to act as scouts.

If you were to equip the dismounts with an infantry ATGM like JAVELIN, that could be fired from a roof hatch, that'd compensate for the only having a 100mm as opposed to 120mm, as well as giving you a dismounted anti-armour option.

The only thing I was thinking was that its a bit big for recce, but then I came across the BMD4 - the VDV/naval infantry version of the BMP3, air droppable, swimmable from ship to shore, at around 15 tons I believe. It has less dismounts (only 4) but this is plenty for recce purposes and the odd ATGM team - its not like you need a whole section in the back is it...

Yes, but the armor of the BMD series is not their strong point. It trades protection for very low weight. Combat experience with the BMD showed this. For British "Recce by Stealth," this is an acceptable compromise, seeing as how the CVR(T) has very little in the way of armor. For front-line "Recce by fire," you need a little more if you want to stay alive.

What do you make of the true role of a CFV (as opposed to armoured recce vehicles like the Scimitar), and how well do you think the BMP3 or (even better it seems) the BMD4 would fulfil it?

The CFV is the equivalent to the CVR(T) series in US service, but it has the scouts because it uses an existing platform of the M2/M3. When the US operated purpose-built recce vehicles earlier, they didn't have dismounts. This was added when the M3 was chosen for commonality, as it was inefficient to leave the whole back of the vehicle empty. The dismounts in the back also have the task of reloading the TOW launch box.

[seraosha]

If you were to equip the dismounts with an infantry ATGM like JAVELIN, that could be fired from a roof hatch, that'd compensate for the only having a 100mm as opposed to 120mm, as well as giving you a dismounted anti-armour option.



Firing an ATGM from the back hatch of a Bradley, especially when moving, in combat, doing evasive maneuvers would only occur in a movie, or when facing certain annihilation. Dismounting a TOW team on an lp/op and covering a flank from defilade (Bradley) makes much more sense. I'm guessing you've never had the pleasure of being a Scout dismount on a Brad? The affectionate term is JAFO. And it sucked

[panzerkardinal]

Tracked vehicle make bad reconnaissance vehicle because they make an incredible amount of noise. Even with "quiet" tracks, the large engines, which are required to move these heavy vehicles make enough sound that anyone will hear it.

Plus having a recon vehicle with heavy weapons give rise to a tendency to duke it out instead of running away or keeping under cover and observing.

Having had the "pleasure" of being inside a running BMP-3, I would say that it won't be my first choice to go into battle.

First it amazing cramped and noisy inside. Makes you sort of "buggy" after about 30 minutes. Second, the 35mm armor didn't inspire alot of confidence in me. Third, I can't really see how you get out of the vehicle quickly, especially if you're the one seated next to the driver. The 100mm gun/launcher is sort of interesting. And I heard it's about 1/4 the price of a Bradley.

[Hellfish]

I've been drinking a bit, so I may be completely incoherent right now.

There are various schools of thought on armored recce/cavalry operations.

1) Stealth. Light vehicles (light weight, light armament, light armor) dash around and attempt to find the enemy passively (i.e. seeing the enemy without them seeing you in the process). The Germans and Dutch are moving toward this kind of doctrine with the Fennek - which has a mast-mounted sensor, is wheeled, and armed only for self defense. This doctrine presumes that you will find the enemy with your superior technical means before the enemy finds you.

2. Heavy cavalry. The US, France, and, to a lesser extent, Russia are the big proponents of this doctrine. Examples are the US M3 CFV (and the inclusion of M1 tanks in cavalry units, until recently anyways), French AMX-10RC, AML-90 and ERC-90 and the Russian BRM series of recce vehicles (basically BMPs without heavy armament). This school of thought is aggressive - heavy cavalry goes out looking for a fight, assumes it will be shot at, and provides for the recce units to take some punishment, and dish it out as well. This is active recon - like recon by fire.

3. A mix of the above. The Brits are good poster children of this with the Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre series of vehicles. Small, semi-stealthy, poorly armored but relatively well armed for their size. Naturally this is an attempt at a compromise of the above two doctrines.

You've also got to look at unit organization.

IIRC, German/Dutch type units don't have much of a dismounted presence, and also don't have any heavy weapons. IIRC a battalion recon platoon is pretty much 4-6 Fenneks without any supporting arms. The Fenneks can dismount 1-2 soldiers as needed. This is fitting with the passive recon doctrine the German/Dutch forces are oriented towards - sneaking, without much combat power.

The Americans have several levels of armored recon. They have one Armored Cavalry Regiment left (the 3rd ACR) which provides Corps/Theater armored recon capability. These are large units with a roughly 50/50 mix of Abrams tanks and Braldey CFVs. They are obviously a very active recon force. The American brigade and battalion recon assets get "softer" the lower you go on the order of battle. A Heavy Brigade Combat Team has about a 50/50 mix of Bradleys and Humvees as scouts in the Brigade's cavalry squadron - a mix of active and passive capabilities. At the battalion level, the scouts are mounted almost entirely in humvees (IIRC) and are largely a passive recon force. Notice the trend from active to passive from the ACR down to the scout platoon.

The French seem largely standardized. They have light armored brigades, which are brigades made up of 1-2 light tank (AMX-10RCs are basically wheeled light tanks) battalions and 1-2 motorized infantry battalions. At the battalion level, they use VBLs, which are roughly equivalent to uparmored humvees. The French appear to be mostly oriented to active recon.

The Russians are a mix at all levels. The corps/army-level recon battalion is a healthy mix of dismounted scouts, motorcycle scouts, BRDM scouts and BRM scouts. They are often given tanks as attachments as well, I think. Divisional recon battalions are largely the same, but with slightly less dismounted scouts and slightly more BRMs. At the regimental level, the recon company organization is roughly proportionately identical - 1/3rd motorcycles, 1/3rd BRDMs and 1/3rd BRMs. Battalion level scouts are the same, just smaller. Instead of platoons of motorcycles, BRDMs and BRMs, they have sections (a squad of motorcyclists, a single BRDM with a scout team, and a single BRM with a scout team). Often Russian recon organizations are given tank and motorized rifle attachments for extra punch, forming advanced bodies of combined arms teams ahead of the main body.

The British organization is pretty vague to me right now, but IIRC their armored recce regiments are very light on dismounted forces and rely on maneuver and their moderate firepower to find the enemy.

OK. I'm really drunk now, and feel like a complete nerd for writing about this instead of sleeping with many anonymous women like most single guys should be, and I think I lost my point too.

[BugHunt]

Some people get drunk and horney for wimmin - others get drunk and horney for armour...... ;)

Go with the flow Hellfish - a tank will never leave you, sleep with your best m8, or empty your bankaccount! :D

[Lokos]

or empty your bankaccount!

That's what I thought, too. I was wrong.

Lokos

[BugHunt]

Hehe you drive a BMP to work Lokos? p-)

[Lokos]

Perchance to dream, BugHunt. Perchance to dream...

Lokos

[DarthJesus]

Tracked vehicle make bad reconnaissance vehicle because they make an incredible amount of noise. Even with "quiet" tracks, the large engines, which are required to move these heavy vehicles make enough sound that anyone will hear it.

Plus having a recon vehicle with heavy weapons give rise to a tendency to duke it out instead of running away or keeping under cover and observing.

Having had the "pleasure" of being inside a running BMP-3, I would say that it won't be my first choice to go into battle.

First it amazing cramped and noisy inside. Makes you sort of "buggy" after about 30 minutes. Second, the 35mm armor didn't inspire alot of confidence in me. Third, I can't really see how you get out of the vehicle quickly, especially if you're the one seated next to the driver. The 100mm gun/launcher is sort of interesting. And I heard it's about 1/4 the price of a Bradley.

I've been inside an M3 Bradley and the experience is the same as what you described. Diesel engines are very loud when you're basically sitting inside them.

[panzrman]

[QUOTE=DesktopArmor;3261692]
and the vehicle is noticeably different from the M2 inside. It also has a better/different NBC system fitted.

Not anymore. The A3 version is almost entirely identical for the M2/3. Only small tell tales that you would have to know what to look for. And the only difference in the NBC system is in the GPFU.

[The Dane]

Does anyone know how USMC organize their LAV-25 recce units(LAR battalions)?

Their vehicles have just been upgraded.
http://www.youtube.com/v/jJ8ydnRWSbU



The Light Armored Vehicle [LAV] is the Marine Corps' armored reconnaissance asset. LAVs are organized into Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) Battalions and are used to gather information well forward of the main MAGTF units, providing the MAGTF commander operational flexibility by giving him stand-off distance. LAR is also used to protect flanks, perform screen missions and raids, and to conduct route and area reconnaissance.
There are four LAR battalions in the Marine Corps, located in Camp Pendleton, Camp Lejeune, 29 Palms, and one in the reserve. Each battalion has four line companies, consisting of 14 LAV-25s, 4 LAV-ATs, 2 LAV-Ms, 1 LAV-R, 3 LAV-Ls, and 1 LAV-C2. The mission of the LAR battalion is to conduct reconnaissance, security, and economy of force operations and, within its capabilities, to conduct limited offensive or delaying operations that exploit the unit's mobility and firepower. The LAR battalion may function as an independent maneuver element, or its subordinate units may support other tactical units. LAR units may support the MAGTF or the GCE.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/battalion.htm

How are the line companies organized(platoons, dismounts etc)?

[Hellfish]

IIRC there are three platoons of four LAVs each, with four dismounted scouts per LAV. The LAV-ATs are their own platoon, the LAV-Ms are the company's mortar section, andthe LAV-R, -Ls and -C2 belong to the HQ element. They can be task organized differently, of course.

[The Dane]

Great!
Thank you...:)

It seems to be a flexible unit.

[OldRecon]

As for British recce, experience from WW-2 apparently showed the Recce regiments of infantry divisions to be more effective in their role than the cavalry armoured car regiments of the Armoured divisions.
Apparently because the Recce regiments contained their own integral infantry element, and thus were a better balanced and more flexible force than the cavalry armoured car regiments.

When it comes to mechanised recce, I'm rather a fan of the recon by fire concept, rather than the road bound stealth on wheels concept of the Bundeswehr.
Off road mobility on wheels my perhaps work ok in Central European flatland, but it certainly won't work in the general terrain where I live.

Have experience of both LRRP concept of recce, and mech recce with APC + infantry combination, with the recce unit of my conscript days, and can attest to the asset of mech recce being seriously undervalued in my country back then and probably still is to this day. :(

[Britboy]

I think a heavy wheeled vehicle, not compromised by the need to carry troops, would make the ideal heavy armoured recce vehicle.

The Rooikat springs to mind. Long range, relatively heavy armour, high speed, heavy punch.

This seems to make sense for the European or British models that Hellfish mentioned below, but makes less sense for the American model where CFVs are used. If you are sneaking about, I can see that troops wouldn't be needed and the bigger size of vehicle necessary would be more likely to get you noticed. But if you are intent on making contact with the enemy forward of your own main body of troops, I don't see how vehicles alone would cut it. You'd surely need dismounts to clear ridgelines, buildings and likely ATGW spots - not to mention giving you a dismounted recce and ATGW option. Kind of like combined arms in the same way as the main body uses it, but more compact and probing forwards, I suppose.




Yes, but the armor of the BMD series is not their strong point. It trades protection for very low weight. Combat experience with the BMD showed this. For British "Recce by Stealth," this is an acceptable compromise, seeing as how the CVR(T) has very little in the way of armor. For front-line "Recce by fire," you need a little more if you want to stay alive.


I accept this, but surely even the baseline M3 hasn't that much in the way of protection. I know Bradleys have been using add-on armour and ERA, as well as the new slat armours. Granted, the armour of the BMD wouldn't be exactly what you wanted, but seeing as even Brads are up-armoured, whats to stop you putting additional armour onto a BMD when applicable? And when it's not applicable, you have the airmobility and amphibious capability that this vehicle has.


Firing an ATGM from the back hatch of a Bradley, especially when moving, in combat, doing evasive maneuvers would only occur in a movie, or when facing certain annihilation. Dismounting a TOW team on an lp/op and covering a flank from defilade (Bradley) makes much more sense. I'm guessing you've never had the pleasure of being a Scout dismount on a Brad? The affectionate term is JAFO. And it sucked

Well, nope, I've never been in the US Cavalry, or been in an Armoured role - one of the reasons I started the thread, to get a bit of insight into it all. I'm sure firing an ATGM out of a roof hatch would be less than ideal, but as TOWs fired from M2s/M3s need the vehicle to stay guiding the missile to the target for the entire flight time, and JAVELIN is now fire and forget, surely the potential for 'shooting and scooting' is much greater? Not to mention the vehicle's own armaments.

[Britboy]

Hellfish that is a great post with a lot for me to take onboard from, and it's good that the LAVs have also been mentioned, I take it this sort of 'wheeled but armoured' mechanised recce will become more important now Stryker units are formed up. But let me take a while to digest and reply when my brain is less frazzled!

Cheers
BB

[Hellfish]

I think a heavy wheeled vehicle, not compromised by the need to carry troops, would make the ideal heavy armoured recce vehicle.

The Rooikat springs to mind. Long range, relatively heavy armour, high speed, heavy punch.

The Rooikat is kind of a unique vehicle designed for a very different environment than all these other vehicles mentioned. Rooikats are designed for independent long range operations, and the ability to perform armored raids was as much a part of their design philosophy as scouting was. Rooikats are really more like a wheeled light tank than they are a dedicated recon vehicle.

[The Dane]

My proposal for a Danish light armoured Recce Troop.

Baseline vehicle will be Piranha IIIC which Denmark operates.

http://www.mowag.ch/PDF/PIR_IIIC8x8_APC_en.pdf

The troop will have 2(3 later on...) identical scout sections.
Each section consist of 2 Piranha IIIC/35mm with 3 men crews and 4 dismounts per vehicle(8 per section). The scouts are lightly armed but can dismount as ATGM teams(Javelin) also. They will have some lightweight target aquisition equipment too: http://www.thalescomminc.com/datasheets/optronics/J-TAS-US.pdf

35mm turret: http://www.gdls.com/ (IFV-35 turret under programs)(we also uses the Bushmaster III on our CV9035's)

The command section consist of two 35mm vehicles(one for CO and one for 2IC) which also have a mastmounted sight and additional workstations. The section also carries a sniperteam(Sako TRG-42 .338 Lapua).

Then there will be a section of Piranha IIIC/TOW(2 vehicles) with the same turret as the one on Stryker M1134: http://www.f-sds.com/anti-tank-guided-missile.html

And finally a heavy mortar section with 2 AMS II 120mm turrets on the Piranha IIIC: http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_serv_ls_120mm_II.html


The Troops will be organized into a larger squadron(brigade asset) with 3 recce troops, 1 command troop and a support troop.
" Read it idiots..."
p-)

[Hellfish]

My proposal for a Danish light armoured Recce Troop.

Baseline vehicle will be Piranha IIIC which Denmark operates.

http://www.mowag.ch/PDF/PIR_IIIC8x8_APC_en.pdf

The troop will have 2 identical scout sections.
Each section consist of 2 Piranha IIIC/35mm with 3 men crews and 4 dismounts per vehicle(8 per section). The scouts are lightly armed but can dismount as ATGM teams(Javelin) also. They will have some lightweight target aquisition equipment too: http://www.thalescomminc.com/datasheets/optronics/J-TAS-US.pdf

35mm turret: http://www.gdls.com/ (IFV-35 turret under programs)

The command section consist of two 35mm vehicles(one for CO and one for 2IC) which also have a mastmounted sight and additional workstations. The section also carries a sniperteam(Sako TRG-42 .338 Lapua).

Then there will be a section of Piranha IIIC/TOW(2 vehicles) with the same turret as the one on Stryker M1134: http://www.f-sds.com/anti-tank-guided-missile.html

And finally a heavy mortar section with 2 AMS II 120mm turrets on the Piranha IIIC: http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_serv_ls_120mm_II.html


The Troops will be organized into a larger squadron(brigade asset) with 3 recce troops, 1 command troop and a support troop.

p-)

So...

HQ Section: 2 Piranha IIIC/35 with mast mounted sights and sniper team

2 scout sections, each with: 2 Piranha IIIC/35 with 8 dismounts

AT section: 2 Piranha IIIC/TOW

Mortar section: 2 Piranha IIIC w/AMS 120mm

Seems like a lot of support weaponry for two maneuver subunits.

[The Dane]

Okay maybe your right... 3 sections then..:)

[Hellfish]

It's a good organization, well balanced, decent firepower, and good dismountable footprint as required.

[The Dane]

It's a good organization, well balanced, decent firepower, and good dismountable footprint as required.

Thank you... :)
BTW the command troop in the squadron should have an UAV section/group(Raven B).

[peter.pl]

Sorry but I don't want to make single thread so I will ask here. USMC used LAV-R in Operation Iraqi Freedom ? Question is stupid but I can't find any info and I got to be sure..
Thanks in advice.

[The Dane]

Sorry but I don't want to make single thread so I will ask here. USMC used LAV-R in Operation Iraqi Freedom ? Question is stupid but I can't find any info and I got to be sure..
Thanks in advice.


LAV-R = Light Armoured Vehicle-Recovery ?
Yes, the LAR battalions uses those.. as many other variants.

3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (3rd LAR) is a light armored battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion) of the United States Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps). Their primary weapon system is the LAV-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV-25) and they are part of the 1st Marine Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Marine_Division_(United_States)) and I Marine Expeditionary Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Marine_Expeditionary_Force).

This is about 3rd LAR in OIF

Operation Iraqi Freedom

In late January through February 2003, the Battalion, with the exception of Company C (on unit deployment in Okinawa), deployed with the 1st Marine Division to Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom). Upon arrival, the Battalion attached Company B, 4th LAR Battalion, which was subsequently re-designated as Company E. On March 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_21), 3d LAR Battalion and its attachments crossed into Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) with the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom), attacking into the Rumaylah oil fields. The Wolfpack, along with 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Light_Armored_Reconnaissance_Battalion), led the Division’s lightning attack north, passing through Task Force Tarawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Tarawa) 56 hours after attacking into Iraq, crossing the Euphrates, and continuing to attack north along Highway 1. On 23 March 2003, while advancing hundreds of kilometers in front of the Division to seize a bridge over the Tigris River, the battalion uncovered a night ambush by dozens of Iraqi irregular forces known as the Fedeyeen. This was the first major and only battalion-level engagement of the war which resulted in several dozen enemy killed in action and the destruction of Iraqi armor forces attempting to maneuver south against the Division. From the afternoon of March 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_24) until April 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1), the Battalion was attached to Regimental Combat Team 5.

On March 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_31), the Battalion attacked north as part of Regimental Combat Team 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Marine_Regiment_(United_States)) and secured the northern portion of Hantush Airfield. On 10 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_10), the Battalion was tasked to provide a headquarters and two companies to Task Force Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Tripoli). This ad-hoc task force, composed of elements of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions, as well as G/2/23 and TOW plt, 1st Tank Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Tank_Battalion), and commanded by the assistant Division commander, continued to attack north towards Tikrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikrit). The remainder of Task Force Wolfpack, Companies B, E, and approximately half of H&S Company, as well as the Rear Command Post element, remained outside Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad) conducting stabilization operations while attached to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Assault_Amphibian_Battalion).

In its advance north towards Tikrit, the element of the Battalion attached to Task Force Tripoli made national headlines in the town of Samarra on April 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_13) when members of Company D rescued 7 American servicemen who had been taken prisoner earlier in the conflict. The rescued prisoners included two Army helicopter pilots and Shoshanna Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshanna_Johnson), a soldier from the same unit as Jessica Lynch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch). An image from this moment is captured in the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” mural on a building in 29 Palms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentynine_Palms,_California). The Battalion reformed in Ad Diwaniyah on April 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_21). By mid-June, the entire Battalion had redeployed to Twenty-nine Palms, with the last elements of the Division following in September. The Battalion suffered two non-combat deaths, no killed in action, and nine wounded in action during this deployment.

Operation Iraqi Freedom II

In November 2003, the Battalion was given a warning order to prepare to redeploy in August to Iraq in support of the Division’s resumption of support and stability operations in the Al Anbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar) province. The Battalion was ordered to deploy in August 2004 for a seven-month period. 3rd LAR conducted a relief in place with 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Light_Armored_Reconnaissance_Battalion) at Korean Village, 35 miles (56 km) west of the city of Ar Rutbah, and fell under Regimental Combat Team 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._7th_Marine_Regiment). During the early part of the deployment, Company D operated out of Al Qaim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaim), north of the Euphrates River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_River) and along the Syrian border, while the remainder of the Battalion operated out of Korean Village.

Beginning November 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_7), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004) Task Force Wolfpack lead by Company C participated in Operation Phantom Fury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury), the Division’s operation to retake Fallujah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah). Task Force Wolfpack’s primary mission was to attack to seize three key objectives on the Fallujah Peninsula—-the North and South Bridges and the Fallujah Hospital. Task Force Wolfpack suffered one killed in action and sixty-two wounded in action during this battle. During this time, Company C was attached to 1st Battalion, 23rd Marines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Battalion,_23rd_Marines) and operated near the cities of Hit and Haditha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha) securing the main supply routes and patrolling known insurgent areas.

In late November, Task Force Wolfpack departed the Fallujah peninsula and was attached to the US Army’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team (2BCT), 2nd Infantry Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Infantry_Division_(United_States)) in Ramadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadi) and supported the 2005 Iraqi national and provincial elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_January_2005). Upon completion of these operations in early March, Task Force Wolfpack returned to Korean Village where the Battalion reformed and subsequently conducted a relief in place with 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Light_Armored_Reconnaissance_Battalion). The Battalion redeployed to the United States in early April 2005 and began preparations to redeploy to Iraq the following year.

Operation Iraqi Freedom IV

In early 2006, 3rd LAR redeployed to Iraq for the 3rd time in as many years. They are responsible for the western portion of the Al Anbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar) province including the Iraqi-Jordanian border and the southern portion of the Iraqi-Syrian border. By early October 2006, the battalion had redeployed to Twentynine Palms, CA. where it currently prepares for its next deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Light_Armored_Reconnaissance_Battalion

[peter.pl]

Thanks, I thonk maybe they had something new to do job of LAV-R cause I found only one photo from Saudi Arabia.

[The Dane]

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww1/heinesbilleder/CV9035Recce.jpg

BAE Systems Hägglunds has introduced the CV90 Reconnaissance System (RS) to meet increasing user requirements for a highly mobile all-weather reconnaissance system capable of operating with mechanised forces.

Developed by the company as a private venture in association with a number of other contractors, the CV90 RS is seen as adding further capability to the expanding family of CV90 vehicles. It is now on a European tour to demonstrate its advanced capabilities to potential customers.

The CV9030 RS is based on the latestgeneration CV9035 infantry combat vehicle currently in large-scale production for Denmark (45 units) and the Netherlands (184 units), with first vehicles already delivered to both countries.

The two-person turret armed with an ATK 35mm/50mm Bushmaster III cannon and 7.62mm co-axial machine gun is retained. Mounted on the right side of the rear troop compartment is a telescopic arm, on which is mounted the fully stabilised advanced reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition sensor pod.

Developed by Vintaqs of Norway, the RSTA features a day colour camera, thermal camera, radar, laser rangefinder and laser target pointer.

The operator is seated inside under full armour protection and provided with a display on which various sensor information can be displayed and evaluated in the CV90 RS or transmitted to a higher level.

A number of countries in Europe have a requirement for an advanced reconnaissance system of this type. Among these is Norway, which has a requirement for a complete reconnaissance system based on wheeled (IVECO LMV) and tracked (CV90) armoured vehicles.

Norway already operates some older CV9030 IFV and some of these could be re-rolled for this role, together with the procurement of some new vehicles.

CV90 is a contender for the UK Future Rapid Effect System scout variant, with a decision already taken to arm the selected vehicle with a CTA International 40mm case telescoped weapon system.

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2008/sections/daily/day3/swedish-recce-system-tour.shtml

[zema_06]

here in italy the vehicles mostly used in the recon role are the centauro and the dardo in some units. the dardo can carry a whole infantry section and is traced, wgile the wheeled centauro can carry about 2-4 troops in the back, even if this is rarely done. in future some iveco LMV will be used in thus role with special equipment...

[The Dane]

here in italy the vehicles mostly used in the recon role are the centauro and the dardo in some units. the dardo can carry a whole infantry section and is traced, wgile the wheeled centauro can carry about 2-4 troops in the back, even if this is rarely done. in future some iveco LMV will be used in thus role with special equipment...

Do you have any more information on the Dardo recce units.. Section/platoon organisation .. ?

[zema_06]

at the moment the dardo are distributed this way:

they are used by 3 bersaglieri regiments (mechanised infantry):
each regiment has 41 in service, with portable ATGM (tow2 and in the next future the spike)

starting from this year the bersaglieri regiments (at least 3 out of six) will be restructured, the dardo will be reduced to 28 but the will recieve 14 ariete tanks. the tank regiments will recieve 13 dardos each and the number of the ariete will be reduced from 41 to 30. the dardo will act primarily as recon vehicle in the tank regiments...

the centauro units are structured in 2 ways:

2 cavalry regiments who operate in the sole cavalry role with 58 centauros (the typical 58 tanks regiment) each

6 cavalry regiments which operate 40 centauros and 36 puma 4x4 each

the puma 4x4 can carry 2 soldiers aside the driver and gunner, which could employ atgm in case of need

[Mastermind]

My ACAV days were way back in 1967-1968 and in Vietnam. But, I fought the hell out of these vehicles, had three M-113ACAVs shot out from under me and took several direct hits that did not KO the vehicle (shook my teeth pretty good, though). Ran over several mines (no big ones, ...obviously). Our outfit fought by itself...seven little M-113-AVACs running all over the bushes routing and scouting out the enemy. We would deliberately drive through likely ambush spots in order to trip an ambush...get fired on, then hold the enemy by the nose until heavier units could come up. Some times, it got pretty hairy, since we really had no idea how big an ambush we would trip or how well the ambushers were armed. We had seven .50 M-2, in turret mount, fought behind .37" shields with a single side mounted 7.62 M-60 behind .24" shields(our unit was always short of men and guns).

So..with that background, here is what I have to say on the matter.

Cav is still going around doing the same mission, from what I have read. But, the enemy is still using the basic tactic of engaging with IED (mines) and then fighting willie-nillie according to the go and sway of the battle. Cav holds them and then develops the battle as the needs come. But, increasingly, enemy forces are using highly sophisticated weaponry. So far, coalition forces have engaged "insurgent" types with a mixed bag of weapons. But, to engage a well equipped modern force today with light armor is going to bring on a severe challenge to the cav units. Weapons are out there that can litterally disentigrate a light unit from great distances. The advantages by the cav units are access to highly sensitive surveillance gear and instant communication and direction of very heavy weapons with pin point accuracy. I doubt there would be any great or long lasting advantages to be had by slowing down the cav forces with heavier and heavier armor. The enemy will simply increase the counter weapons to engage such forces (though the Modern MBTs are very impressive in speed and mobility and resistance..they are just too damned expensive to be used as scouts).

Scouts or ACAVs have always been a bunch of innovators, developing radical and as-needed tactics to get their missions accomplished. They will always have to be a bit exposed...that just goes with the job. They will always need to be fast, travel light and stay absolutely fool hardy bold. They will have to live by their wits rather than their brawn. And, as a result, they will have to be risk takers and so they will take casualties and every once in a while, they will get into really bad situations that goes in favor of the enemy for that day.

But, it is really necessary for them to have the best possible equipment for the job. Their strength is composed of the support that is behind them. I could not tell you the number of ambushes that were not tripped on us simply because the enemy learned that to hit us was to invite the wrath of Satan....we could get our hands on all the artillery, infantry and air support...in damn short order...to take care of just about anyone who wanted a piece of us. Naturally, we had to be ready to pay the short price. But, anyone who engages the ACAV folks will be inviting disaster if the CAV folks do their jobs right.

I would like to see a light, fast tracked vehicle, (possibly wheeled...I really like the Strykers, though I think them rather large for a scout vehicle) no more than 18,000 lbs, crew of four, with an articulated gun mount with sensors...the gun would be possibly a rotating canon, 20mm or better...extendible to the front of the vehicle by 15 feet to see around corners, and able to elevate vertically 25 feet to see and shoot over small buildings and vegetation with realy refined wide angle and telescopic video capability and night vision. A crew served weaponry for close-in defense and at the TC fingetips total gps, maping, laser targeting, up-linking, instant range finding, the totally cool latest-stuff technology. They would, of course, have to be coordinated very closely with satellite and aerial scouts, both manned and ROV. Complete arms coordination at the platoon leader's fingertips, and lots of cute little scout robots, both aerial and ground. These toys should be expendable. No worries about retrieving them...that gets guys killed. I would like to have an M-79 launched camera to toss over on the top of a house or a hill to take a look at what's up ahead or behind a barn...to have it with the capability to tell me on my display exactly where it is and where it is looking and to have it pan and tilt at my command. I would like to have 25 lb ROVs that drop out of my hull, scoot out on tracks and drive right to to a wall and detonate at my command or to place claymore type mines, or to stand as listening and watching posts through the night....these little guys would be invaluable, sensors tuned to the smallest sound or vibration or movement and with quality night vision.

I have a whole book full of facy things I would want in scouting missions today...but, they still would not change the basic concept of the ACAV or cavalry or scouting mission...same as it was in the days of Sherman and Custer. Move fast, move light, stay long, be bold...hit with the fright of the banshee and be able to run like hell when the time came.

Just my 2 cnts worth.

[The Dane]

Interesting Mastermind :)


but, they still would not change the basic concept of the ACAV or cavalry or scouting mission...same as it was in the days of Sherman and Custer. Move fast, move light, stay long, be bold...hit with the fright of the banshee and be able to run like hell when the time came.


X2....

[The Dane]

I've been drinking a bit, so I may be completely incoherent right now.

There are various schools of thought on armored recce/cavalry operations.

1) Stealth. Light vehicles (light weight, light armament, light armor) dash around and attempt to find the enemy passively (i.e. seeing the enemy without them seeing you in the process). The Germans and Dutch are moving toward this kind of doctrine with the Fennek - which has a mast-mounted sensor, is wheeled, and armed only for self defense. This doctrine presumes that you will find the enemy with your superior technical means before the enemy finds you.

2. Heavy cavalry. The US, France, and, to a lesser extent, Russia are the big proponents of this doctrine. Examples are the US M3 CFV (and the inclusion of M1 tanks in cavalry units, until recently anyways), French AMX-10RC, AML-90 and ERC-90 and the Russian BRM series of recce vehicles (basically BMPs without heavy armament). This school of thought is aggressive - heavy cavalry goes out looking for a fight, assumes it will be shot at, and provides for the recce units to take some punishment, and dish it out as well. This is active recon - like recon by fire.

3. A mix of the above. The Brits are good poster children of this with the Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre series of vehicles. Small, semi-stealthy, poorly armored but relatively well armed for their size. Naturally this is an attempt at a compromise of the above two doctrines.


Now the Brits seem too go heavy with their new ASCOD SV's.
But i also remember reading about the UK army wanting to create some new light recce squadrons for some of their brigades. Basically the same organisation and equipment as the BRF under Task Force Helmand as i understand. A company sized unit mounted on Jackal's and Coyote.. ??

[happyslapper]

Haven't we already been doing that for donkeys years? The most famous example being D Sqn Household Cav on permanent assignment to 16 Air Assault Bde.

[Navor]

@ Dankeren
How is it done in the Danish army? (equipment and stucture)

[The Dane]

Happyslapper: don't know?? :) Just remember reading about the army wanting more of those.. i actually think there's a thread in here somewhere about it. But i can't find it.. just wonder about if that means less ASCOD SV units?

Navor: the light way.. the latest platoon organisation i know of consists 36 scouts and 10 vehicles. Three scoutgroups of 8 men in 2 custombuild HMMWV's plus 12 men in the HQ-section mounted on 4 Eagle IV's. Four scouts in each group can dismount.

A squadron will have 3 platoons but i'm not sure how the rest of a squadron looks like today?(reorganizing the army isn't finished) But 2. Light Recce Squadron that were deploy to Helmand last year had a 8 men snipersection with them as a new thing..