What’s wrong with tanks and cavalry being part of the same unit?

The provision of close fire support by tanks, is a completely different undertaking to that of intelligence gathering by reconnaissance vehicles.

So-what, I hear you say: if the Chief of Army wants to create an RAAC unit with mixed roles, why shouldn’t he go ahead and do so? 

This is exactly what he’s done. Why, then, should there be any opposition?  

Because what’s happened is that the RAAC has been prostituted to give the CA the experimentation unit he wanted.  

The consequence has been to decimate the Army’s only armoured brigade: 1st Armoured Regiment has been made a non-combatant entity to evaluate new technologies; and 2nd Cavalry Regiment has been given incompatible dual roles.

The question is – can 2 Cav Regt be successful as an RAAC dual-role unit. Indeed, can any unit adequately fulfil two completely different roles by itself?  

The presumption is clearly not; which is why the Army comprises units, all of which have a single role.

Close fire support for infantry is provided by tanks.  Being designed for the task, these AFVs are ideally suited to it.  They have the ability to break through close country and directly attack fortified enemy positions.   They can also use their speed and mobility to rout an enemy with shock action. 

Intelligence gathering with reconnaissance vehicles, on the other hand, frequently requires stealth … to close with the enemy, while avoiding detection.  

The two roles are so totally different, how does a commander bring them together?  

Does he try – or does he maintain separation between the two halves of his command?

The differing skill sets for tank and recon both require constant honing to reach combat readiness.  It would seem that the only way to achieve this, is to split the unit and conduct training on a separate basis for tanks and recon.

This raises the issue of command.  Ideally, an additional major would be made available to command the tank squadrons; while the regimental 2IC looks after the cavalry.  This would allow the CO to meet his command obligations. 

With four squadrons, one would expect that the 2 Cav Regt echelon would be supplemented.  Resupply needs for tanks, of course, are completely different to those for recon vehicles. So, a supplemented AND a tailored echelon.

Of course, this could all be irrelevant, if the 2 Cav Regt organisation was considered one for peacetime only.  

Is this possible?  Could it be that, to accommodate the CA’s experimentation unit, 2 Cav Regt has been given a charter to maintain both tank and reconnaissance skills … on the basis that any operational contingency would necessitate the formation of separate tank and recon units.  

Surely this couldn’t be feasible?  Could it?

Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)

.

.

ChatGPT image, modified by CONTACT

.

.


.


.