Read on Twitter
This thread is about the Light Cavalry concept as much as what vehicle is needed to prosecute the the role. I said earlier that I though it was a bogus concept. Why? https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1355978100576841729
First of all, I’m a believer in the law of focus. As soon as you take on multiple roles, you end-up being a jack of all trades and master of none. In the Army, being proficient requires extensive training for each arm. The Light Cavalry concept is a mix of cavalry and infantry.
So what we’re doing is blurring the lines between infantry and cavalry. If we’re not careful, eventually we will reach a point where the distinction doesn’t matter. We’ll end with just combat soldiers and non-combat soldiers operating direct fire and indirect fire weapons.
So, I believe infantry should be infantry. Their primary job is to seize, hold and physically dominate ground by being present in large numbers. Boots on the ground says it all. It’s warfare at its most basic. It’s bloody and dangerous. Infantry need all the help they can get.
Today, infantry vehicles provide protected mobility that delivers the fighting soldier to where he or she is needed. It’s basically a taxi but needs some kind of weapon to defend it itself, but this should not detract from its primary purpose.
Infantry need direct fire support to help them achieve their objectives. This is where cavalry come in. (Here cavalry means RAC) Infantry also need cavalry to destroy other armoured vehicles. Lighter more nimble cavalry can provides forward screen and flank protection.
Cavalry provide reconnaissance forces which can also be used as QRF to contain an enemy breakthrough. All of this is within a high end manoeuvre type warfare scenario. They may operate missile systems for offensives devices defensive purposes including DF and NLOS.
Next you have artillery providing indirect fire support using tube artillery, rocket artillery and missile systems. Traditionally, we have have always thought of artillery as an enabler of manoeuvre. Increasingly with Strike doctrine manoeuvre is an enabler of artillery.
The same goes for Engineer, Signals, Logistics, REME, Medical and other support assets. If you suddenly decided to give any one of these specialist organisation a additional roles, you would immediately dilute their effectiveness in their primary role.
This is a vast simplification to make a point, and its is limited by 280 characters, the law of focus is important. It is especially important today when we have a much smaller army. Above all, mass still matters. Therefore role allocation has to be got right.
When you give Light Cavalry a task that is actually an infantry task, you deny other infantry battalions a cavalry regiment capable of supporting them. We’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. I frame this discussion within a peer context because this what we must be prepared for.