Ye Olde Cavalry Platoons

[Manic Moran]

I seem to recall back in the M60 days that a US Army cavalry platoon used to consist of a couple of tanks, a couple of M113s and a mortar track. Always thought that was a nice blend of capabilities. Nothing too dramatic, but enough to deal with anything likely to be come across in the recon/screening/independent ops roles.

 

Somewhere along the lines, this changed. I presume with the development of the M3, they decided the thing had enough firepower that they could dispense with the tanks, and the mortar track couldn't keep up. The motorcycle got ditched for whatever reason. Now there are rumblings that the cav want their tanks back.

 

Though the Irish cav squadron has long had an enthusastic dirt bike component, I'm told that they have since lost the 'independent ops' requirement with the withdrawl of large calibre guns, but now there's a possible requirement for a vehicle witha 105. The Germans have also lost their tanks after some 50 years of believing recon units should have a lot of punch, going to Fennek and Luchs only, but I'm hearing that in exercises the Germans are having difficulty in finding gaps to slip through.

 

That said, the British appear to have been incredibly happy with their CVR(T)-based units with no sign that they're going out of service any time soon.

 

Has anyone really figured out what a cavalry platoon is supposed to be able to do ever since they lost the horses?

 

NTM

[rmgill]

Has anyone really figured out what a cavalry platoon is supposed to be able to do ever since they lost the horses?

 

NTM

 

Well if E Trp 108th Cav (48th IB) is any example, they loose their tanks, get closed down as a unit. Then the 48th's Tank Battalion looses it's tanks and it gets turned into a Light Infantry unit complete with HMMWVs and being taught how to fight on foot by the Rangers and Airborne.

 

I guess if we need to fight with Iran, we'll be sending everyone in on foot?

[CavScout2]

Cavalry Troops during the 80's and 90 under the ROAD and AOE set ups had 2 Tank Platoons 2 CFV Platoons and a Mortar Plt.

Scout Platoons were 6 M3's. This allowed the Troop Commander to mix up his platoons or keep them pure. The Armor and Mech Inf had a Scout Plt of 6 M3's or 10 HMMWV's.

With Force 21 doctrine the Cav Squadron and Heavy ACR stayed the same as above but the Armor an Mech Inf wet to a 6 Truck Scout Platoon and the remaining 4 trucks from each Bn went to a new Brigade Recon Troop (to fight at NTC not from actual war experience).

With the Army going modular each Bde got a recon Squadron however on the heavy brigade side the Cav Squadron lost it's tanks(which they want back now!).

Each Cavalry Troop should be able to be used in the economy of force role and it's platoons should be able to support that. The Cav Platoon needs to be able to do it's main function which is security and reconnaissance for the troop, squadron and brigade.

Edited November 14, 2007 by CavScout2

[Richard Lindquist]

From shortly after the end of WWII, the cavalry platoon consisted of:

 

Plt HQ: LT, Dvr, Jeep

 

Scout Section: 12 scouts, four "rat patrol" jeeps with pedestal mounted LMG

 

Tank Section: 2 light tanks in Div Cav, 3 light tanks in ACR

 

Rifle Squad: 11B in M39/M75/M59/M113 track

 

Mortar Squad: SP mortar, at first 81mm in half track then 4.2in in M84 or M106

 

Jeeps were latter replaced by M114. Europe cav units often had med tanks instead of light tanks.

 

Eurpoe then went to 3-for-five replacement where the plt hq and scout section M114 were replaced by three Sheridans gfiving the platoon six Sheridans, a rifle squad and a mortar squad.

 

 

Cav Study of 1974 changed the platoon to five CFV and four MBT. Mortars became a troop asset. To save manpower, troop went from three of the study platoons to the current arrangment of two CFV platoons and two M1 platoons.

[Harry Yeide]

Check out "Full Circle: The Armored Cavalry Platoon," Armor Magazine, Sept-Oct 1994, http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/Armor...94/5bolte94.pdf.

[Ariete!]

While the ‘old’ combined-arms US cavalry platoons are certainly complex enough to get any member of the large (on Tanknet…) “cult of immense, complicated, ever-growing TOEs” drooling, it’s always struck me as unwieldy. How does one 2lt use it as a coherent unit? Or didn’t they? I would think a company is about the smallest unit that can usefully employ different AFVs/primary systems on a routine/organic basis?

 

Then again, I’ve never served in that kind of unit. Maybe former Cav types can give us some flavor of how such Plts were employed (either in reality or even doctrinally).

[Guest aevans]

I think the point was to have on hand any capability that you might need, not that you'd use all of those capabilities all at once.

[rmgill]

While the ‘old’ combined-arms US cavalry platoons are certainly complex enough to get any member of the large (on Tanknet…) “cult of immense, complicated, ever-growing TOEs” drooling, it’s always struck me as unwieldy. How does one 2lt use it as a coherent unit? Or didn’t they? I would think a company is about the smallest unit that can usefully employ different AFVs/primary systems on a routine/organic basis?

 

Then again, I’ve never served in that kind of unit. Maybe former Cav types can give us some flavor of how such Plts were employed (either in reality or even doctrinally).

 

Walker in Jungle Dragoon seemed to describe the process pretty well. I suppose one could always describe it like an infantry section with a bunch of lighter guys with small weapons and an attached heavy weapons section, each with big machine guns And a grenadier for indirect fire.

 

You can establish a base of fire, move your lighter stuff forwards with the dismounts leading the way or a single APC breaking trail and the infantry riding on top OR walking near by. When you find heavier problems OR need lots of firepower, the tanks PLUS the ACAV (APCs) provided even more firepower. I think, for the purposes of OIF, the crews that added armor to their tanks Pintle mounted weapons had the right idea, too bad there wasn't an APC version of the Bradley with more space for a few more belt fed MGs. In the jungle, the Cav Troops seemed to be just what the doctor ordered. Why this didn't work as well in urban settings with clear gaps in capability (no Beehive or cannister, still! or Crews ordered to remove unauthorized gunshields from tanks) seems to be beyond a lot of people.

Edited November 15, 2007 by rmgill

[Old Tanker]

Then again, I’ve never served in that kind of unit. Maybe former Cav types can give us some flavor of how such Plts were employed (either in reality or even doctrinally).

 

ROAD ID '60s use in wooded and fields rolling terrain with roads crossing.

 

On field manuevers by platoons was basically how I saw them deployed when in the defense. More or less as pickets in the old ACW role. Sound the alarm make the enemy deploy and then leapfrog back. Or stay fixed for an ambush setup.

On offense ( the poor b*stards) were also by platoon with bounding jeeps leapfrogging forward as the armor section and infantry section basically waiting for orders to followup or close up.

We would know the OPFOR was closing in as the Cav. blew through our position at max speed.

[Guest JamesG123]

Tanknet “cult of immense, complicated, ever-growing TOEs” drooling,

LOL!

 

it’s always struck me as unwieldy. How does one 2lt use it as a coherent unit? Or didn’t they? I would think a company is about the smallest unit that can usefully employ different AFVs/primary systems on a routine/organic basis?

 

Eh, its really not that bad. It does take more experience/knowledge/agility of mind to be able to employ effectively as opposed to "pure" forces where you pretty much just do one thing depending on the situation.

 

Even in main forces you wind up getting getting different types mixed up and working together at the squad/section level, especally in tight situations like urban terrain or deliberate defenses. So having your units organized that way of say, a mech inf. platoon of 2 x tanks and 2 x IFVs + their dismounts, will get them familiar with each other in ways that just cross-assigning them to each other for a task force never can.

[Old Tanker]

Check out "Full Circle: The Armored Cavalry Platoon," Armor Magazine, Sept-Oct 1994, http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/Armor...94/5bolte94.pdf.

 

Good article........... so sad but true that every generation trys to reinvent the wheel.

[CV9030FIN]

Good article........... so sad but true that every generation trys to reinvent the wheel.

 

That is called progress - you old fart!

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

The Cav Troop that I had experience with was organized thusly:

 

1x M151 Co, Dvr.

 

1x M151 IstSgt. Dvr

 

2x Scout Plat. ea w/

3x M113

1xM901

 

2x Tank Plat. ea w/

4x M60A3

 

1 Mortar Platoon

always off target 100 mil.

[Richard Lindquist]

WWII Cav platoon had three rat patrol jeeps with LMG, 3 jeeps with 60mm mortar, and three armored cars. Post war, the conclusion was that the platoon needed more dismount capability and that the 60mm mortars weren't all that great. Hence the move to a scout section, armored car (later tank) section, one large mortar (81mm later 4.2in), and the rifle squad (originally called a "dragoon squad" and m,anned by cav guys.

[Manic Moran]

Check out "Full Circle: The Armored Cavalry Platoon," Armor Magazine, Sept-Oct 1994, http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/Armor...94/5bolte94.pdf.

 

That bloke certainly seems to be thinking more or less along my lines.

 

NTM

[Harry Yeide]

WWII Cav platoon had three rat patrol jeeps with LMG, 3 jeeps with 60mm mortar, and three armored cars. Post war, the conclusion was that the platoon needed more dismount capability and that the 60mm mortars weren't all that great. Hence the move to a scout section, armored car (later tank) section, one large mortar (81mm later 4.2in), and the rifle squad (originally called a "dragoon squad" and m,anned by cav guys.

 

The War Department mandated that change even before the war ended, and it would have seen use in battle had Japan not surrendered. The switch to a single 81mm mortar actually took the platoon back to where it had been before 1943, and a number of cav units had already gone back to the old weapon on their own say-so.

[baboon6]

Didn't the Danish army recce units have a similar type of platoon up to at least the 1980s? IIRC it had 2x M41s, a couple of M113s, a couple of jeep-like vehicles (can't remember which ones).

[Ariete!]

aevans wrote: “I think the point was to have on hand any capability that you might need, not that you'd use all of those capabilities all at once.”

 

That makes sense, though it implies that a substantial portion of each platoon, at any given time, is not being really utilized.

 

rmgill wrote: “Walker in Jungle Dragoon seemed to describe the process pretty well. I suppose one could always describe it like an infantry section with a bunch of lighter guys with small weapons and an attached heavy weapons section, each with big machine guns And a grenadier for indirect fire. […]”

 

Old Tanker wrote: ”More or less as pickets in the old ACW role. “

 

I guess employment followed the US practice/doctrine of ‘cavalry’ units not so much conceived as recce units but mostly as wider-ranging, ‘economy-of-force’ maneuver units.

 

Crunchie wrote: “The Cav Troop that I had experience with was organized thusly: [2x M151], 2x Scout Plat. ea w/3x M113 & 1xM901, 2x Tank Plat. ea w/4x M60A3, 1 Mortar Platoon

always off target 100 mil.”

 

An interesting “square” CA armored company, in effect. My wondering was about doing CA (organically) down to Plt. Level. I thin at Coy level it’ more doable. Then again consider that in organic terms most units globally are still not CA even at Btn level (the US, obviously, is changing that, with Striker units CA down to Coy level and the Heavy BCTs are CA down to Btn level).

 

baboon6 wrote: “Didn't the Danish army recce units have a similar type of platoon up to at least the 1980s? IIRC it had 2x M41s, a couple of M113s, a couple of jeep-like vehicles (can't remember which ones).”

 

ISTR reading exactly that: 2 ‘jeeps’, 2 M41s, one M113 and one M106.

[Richard Lindquist]

The War Department mandated that change even before the war ended, and it would have seen use in battle had Japan not surrendered. The switch to a single 81mm mortar actually took the platoon back to where it had been before 1943, and a number of cav units had already gone back to the old weapon on their own say-so.

 

Yes, the 3x60mm was a bad idea. The post war cav platoon was essentially the 5 jeep, three AC/Lt Tk, one 81mm (in half track) plus the added dragoon/rifle squad.

 

The Cav volume of the Report of the General Board of the European Theater actually recommended a dragoon squad in each cav platoon, a dragoon platoon in each cav troop, and a dragoon troop in the squadron (methinks there were too many cases in Eurpoe of the Cav being used as an "economy of force" unit. Manpower constraints nixed all but the dragoon/rifle squad.

[CavScout2]

Has anyone really figured out what a cavalry platoon is supposed to be able to do ever since they lost the horses?

 

NTM

 

A Cavalry Platoon is supposed to perform security and reconnaissance for the Troop Commander allowing for the development of actions or course of actions(COA) by higher command elements based on the time and space provided by the platoons ability to deploy, report and the COA taken with the enemy.

Edited November 16, 2007 by CavScout2

[KingSargent]

Yes, the 3x60mm was a bad idea. The post war cav platoon was essentially the 5 jeep, three AC/Lt Tk, one 81mm (in half track) plus the added dragoon/rifle squad.

 

The Cav volume of the Report of the General Board of the European Theater actually recommended a dragoon squad in each cav platoon, a dragoon platoon in each cav troop, and a dragoon troop in the squadron (methinks there were too many cases in Eurpoe of the Cav being used as an "economy of force" unit. Manpower constraints nixed all but the dragoon/rifle squad.

Economy of force: I read of an incident when Ike was visiting Patton and saw the 3rd Army Operations map. There was a big hole in the line and he said "What about THAT?"

 

I CRS the name of the ACR CO, but Patton said, "Oh, Jimmy <whatever> is out there pretending to be two armored divisions, so I don't worry about it."

[Manic Moran]

A Cavalry Platoon is supposed to perform security and reconnaissance for the Troop Commander allowing for the development of actions or course of actions(COA) by higher command elements based on the time and space provided by the platoons ability to deploy, report and the COA taken with the enemy.

 

But is it? That's one answer.

 

Another answer is that in addition to the screening and recon roles, a cavalry unit is also a self-contained rapid-mobility battle force capable of undertaking independent, and often long-range operations to include raids and exploitation. Another possibility is that cavalry should be tasked with the offense counter-recon role involving the destruction of enemy recon elements. Over time, it seems, different militaries have vaccilated from one opinion to the other.

 

NTM

[Lyle, Bob]

Talking about low-level CA, there was an Armored Division (5AD?) in NW europe who went all the way to the squad level. By robbing Peter and Paul and re-purposing the mortar carriers thet got as many infantry carriers as tanks. An "Armored Squad" was tank, a halftrack, and a squad of infantry. Five "Armored Squads" made an "Armored Platoon", three "Armored Platoons" made an "Armored Company", etc, etc.

 

The did a write up after the war in Cavalry Journal, the predecessor of Armor. They said that tight tank-infantry cooperation was enhanced and accounted for the lower casualties suffered. Be a bitch for career-path and admin in peacetime, but it was worth it in wartime.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Lyle, Bob

[Ariete!]

Talking about low-level CA, there was an Armored Division (5AD?) in NW Europe who went all the way to the squad level. By robbing Peter and Paul and re-purposing the mortar carriers they got as many infantry carriers as tanks. An "Armored Squad" was tank, a halftrack, and a squad of infantry. Five "Armored Squads" made an "Armored Platoon", three "Armored Platoons" made an "Armored Company", etc, etc.

 

The did a write up after the war in Cavalry Journal, the predecessor of Armor. They said that tight tank-infantry cooperation was enhanced and accounted for the lower casualties suffered. Be a bitch for career-path and admin in peacetime, but it was worth it in wartime.

 

That’s kinda amazing. And to think that elsewhere on this forum I’ve seen people write that C-A battalions were impractical from admin/training standpoint!!.

 

From what I’ve read above, etc., IMHO the “ideal” lowest level of organic C-A capability is the battalion for maneuver units and maybe the company for dispersed/economy-of force units.

[FALightFighter]

That’s kinda amazing. And to think that elsewhere on this forum I’ve seen people write that C-A battalions were impractical from admin/training standpoint!!.

 

From what I’ve read above, etc., IMHO the “ideal” lowest level of organic C-A capability is the battalion for maneuver units and maybe the company for dispersed/economy-of force units.

 

For peacetime (admin and training), I think the "ideal" level for branch consolidation is the level at which the army in question plans and resources training. In the US Army, this is the company/battery/troop. On any given day, a company should be focused in only 1 or 2 areas. HHCs/HHBs/HHTs are an exception to this, which is why they are considered a "harder" unit to command, and their leadership (generally) is more senior and more experienced (second command, second 1SG, senior PLs/PSGs, SFC section leaders, etc). The level above this (in the US Army, the battalion/squadron) is where organic combined arms should be.

 

For wartime/operational employment, I think the "ideal" level for combined arms is where the leadership has the training & experience to employ the assets, while the logistics system can continue to resupply/maintain the systems. In the US Army, this is generally the company, but could be platoon. Span of control (3-5 subordinate elements) also figures in to this. A US Army mech platoon has 4 elements for the PL to control- 3 dismounted squads, and the mounted element commanded by the PSG or senior section leader. A armor PL has the same- his tank, and 3 others. Some leaders are exceptional, and can handle more, but you have to plan for the general rule, not the exception.

 

Bob, a question about the WW2 AD you referenced. If they basically doubled up each tank PLT by adding an IN PLT, what did they do with the IN COs? It seems like they would only have 1/2 the maneuver elements if they organized the way you described? Maybe I'm missing something.