Regine using a heavy armored ifv or tank is a waste in most situations, you Are showing the enemy Your unit, snd most likely you will lose it to a minefield or well hidden anti-tank weapon carried by an anti armor patrol sent by an infantry unit, such patrols will know the terrain well and will stage overwhelming ambushes using everything from 66mm LAWs to 84mm recoilless cannons, as a ground force commander I would keep my armored units hidden until airborne scouts or infantry scouts reported a definate enemy concentration of enemy armor which validated my comitting my armor against them
Your reference of ACR as line combat units in Desert Storm reminds me of one important fact. At the Battle of 73 Easting, the units of the 2ACR were not ordered to go out and destroy a huge Iraqi division. Their orders were to go FIND it and allow the rest of the Corp to come in and smash it. Once they found, they initially engaged in skirmish attack to fix it in position until the big boys showed up. It was individual troop commander (mainly then Capt McMaster) initiate that led to them decisively engaging the enemy.
I also think it's important to note that then-CPT McMaster made that (snap) decision because he figured that if they strictly followed orders, the Corps would lose the operational initiative, allowing the Iraqi RG units to either reorient and reinforce, or withdraw.
Fair points. McMasters found himself on top of what he was looking for - and as mentioned, chose initiative and violence of action (to his credit). Had Eagle or Ghost troop spotted the Iraqi positions farther out (vs driving up onto them - literally - in a sand storm), I expect McMaster would have held his position and waited for a larger force to arrive and engage.
@@likydsplit8483 certainly, he took the initiative when it presented itself. Other circumstances, he would have taken the more traditional route and held an overwatch and waited for the main element came up. And THAT would have been even more one sided!
Dude that recon detachment really single handedly took down an entire battle group by itself. The recon unit realistically shouldn’t have been able to dish out as much damage as it did, it was because the opposing guards army technically let themselves get lit up. The issue for them was their recon unit was trash too 😂, they couldn’t find the US recon detachment. I mean they did find them but only locally, it created such a bad bottleneck at first that when the rest of the army finally converged and concentrated, it was too late.
As a olde 11D the commander did exactly what his training says (upon contact there is now no stopping said contact,contact must at any and all costs be maintained. Must be Maintained.. if that contact turns into an all out battle tuff. Contact must be Maintained remember the ARMY is on its way...🪖♾️
'Recon by stealth' vs 'Recon by fire' vs 'Recon by force'. I guess it depends on the situation. In a wide flat open desert recon by stealth may not be feasible, especially if the enemy has air assets and you don't yet have air superiority, so recon by force may be a better option. In a dense jungle recon by stealth would be better. In a dense urban environment then recon by fire may be more appropriate. I.e. "We think there may be bad guys in that building . Let's shell it and find out." 😂
Yes but it isn't just about terrain. Recon-by-fire or recon-in-force is a different type of mission set. Recon-by-fire is meant to gauge the enemy reaction to attack which often time you can't find out by simply passively observing. Enemy main force may be in reserve or covered by a screening force. The only way to get intel about the enemy main force would be to fake an attack such as recon-in-force.
Good call, watched it last night....there should be a great many people very annoyed right now...... the enemy of any nation is not another nation, it is 'PROFIT'
One thing that annoyed me was how the people and situation were portrait. The Bradley was always intended to be an IFV yet in the movie it somehow was shown as if the project was changed because of some wacky military ideas. Burton was also shown as an innocent person who just happens to seek justice which wasn't true either he was part of a group that demanded reformation in military doctrine...honestly pretty stupid. The story is way more complex then the movie shows it and sometimes it makes the army look very foolish when in reality it was not. What I wanted to say the movie makes sure to portrait an image of incompetence on the army side it is not historitcly accurate or better said it knows how to twist certain parts to get a massage across. Not that everything was done in the best way in the Bradleys development but the movie is garbage...yet fun to watch. But just keep in mind it's just a movie.
Recon gives information. With such information you can deploy the right killing machines for the right job. No point in sending MBTs to engage a small infantry unit if there's an enemy MBT unit threatning your flank. Is just like economics as you have limitated manpower and hardware: You can't conquer the entire battlefield but you can maximize invesment, attack where the enemy is weak, avoid strong points, deceive the enemy. Reinforcing all the sides means weakning all the sides (Look at French tanks deployments are WW2)
the7observer not unless there is platforms that can engage tanks and light infantry, i.e Puma, besides the mortars would take care of light infantry while IFV/Tanks can engage the their counterparts, if recon SQDNs can have organic UAS, fires and rotary wing, they can go after destroy task and not just reconnaissance.
"you can't just send in a spearhead of armor not knowing what you're going up against" well you clearly haven't seen me play steel division normandy 44 then, as long as you outnumber the enemy by a good margin you can do whatever you want :D
Dskater84 But good sir, the point of recon is make sure you DO outnumber them by such margin before charging in the first place! How else would you know that you outnumber them? In a game it's possible based on the meta and resource knowledge I suppose, but even then you don't 'know' that the enemy didn't play full turtle and have shit tons of anti tank guns lol
Informative and interesting. I watch a LOT of military news / info channels and this has to be one of the best, not only in terms of accuracy and interesting topics, but his non-biased opinion is very interesting after reading up on a subject and then watching one of his videos that include other info not found elsewhere. Keep up the good work
This piece reminds me of how the Tiger was designed to be a "breakthrough" tank, punching through enemy lines, then returning for maintenance while more mobile units exploited the opening -- but German officers consistently used their Pz 6 tanks like any other AFV, leading to their loss by mechanical failure and/or enemy action. One result was that the Tiger gained terrible and somewhat unjustified reputations for unreliability.
Without armored scouts no one sees! I was a US Army Armored Scout for 12 years, and loved every second of it. 1st Cav almost my entire career. Best dam job...
@@brianc9374 Not really, there are 19Deltas in almost every infantry battalion, and some divisions have scout squadron's. You don't have to stay 19D either. I always tell people do it for 4 - 8 years, then transfer to a highly technical job, to prepare for your transition out.
If you take a "standard Nato-brigade" they are normally deployed with two combat bataljons in front with the third in reserve. Assuming the enemy does more or less the same - it is of vital importance to find WHERE the ENEMY has his reserve - and what condition it is in. Aircraft can be fooled to some extend by camouflage, proper movement tactics and all the other tedious jobs done in the field. That is the reason a brigade will normally have a recce squadron to find the enemy and his minefields (and determine if they are protected or not). The major problem with recce is that when they run into real opposition and not dummies they are supposed to withdraw and make the engagement seem like a probing attack that will make the enemy shrug it off as a diversion. Now what the hell is the poor recce commander supposed to do if he actually find the enemy reserve in a poor state and has the opportunity to wreck a bit of havoc and mayhem before retiring. If there is no cost (he is discovered anyhow) taking out the enemy reserve is a great bonus. That decision takes a lot of skill, daring and aggressiveness - but if he persist in an attack and is lured into a trap - the recce unit is toast. That is probably why the yanks use heavy equipment for recce, as they have generally been successfull in smacking bottoms where encountered. Now the best recce-units are homeguard units that have been overrun (any major army unit will leave such for a mobbing up action). Home guard units cannot stop an advancing unit, but they can give rather precise and current information to what that enemy is doing. Personally - on a Baltic battlefield - I would attach a light squadron of combined arms to the brigade as recce unit. In swampy areas I like something like the Wiesel or other light tanks - as they can sneak around where no tank can go. The alternative for the light unit is: If they don't find the enemy's reserve; but stumble into their supply train or depot. Naturally that is to be slaughtered quickly - and get the hell out of there.
Thank you for all the great information in this great video. As they say when the tank is buttoned up, the crew is 90% blind and 100% deaf to what’s going on outside their tank.
I think part of the problem is that they are being equipped as combat units fundamentally identical to the tanks and APCs in the putative actual combat units, except the 'recon' combat units are supposed to be able to magically do recon in addition to heavy combat. If they are full up combat forces whose job is 'supposedly' recon, it is small wonder if commanders use them as combat forces, of which there are never enough. I think a recon platoon should perhaps have one actual full up combat vehicle, and the others should be equipped for self defense only. However those other units should have things like telescoping periscopes with sophisticated optics, battlefield radar, drone launch and control vehicles, etc.. Make those recon platoons 'really' good at recon, so the actual combat forces have a really clear picture of what to engage.
There are three Cavalry regiments in the Army (that I know of), the 2nd in Germany, the 3rd at Ft. Hood, and the 11th at Ft. Irwin (parts of other regiments are spread all over as parts of Division organizations). The job of the Corps Cavalry regiments in Germany was primarily as a covering force, "to provide the main body early warning, reaction time, maneuver space, and information about the enemy." In other words to delay while the rest of the Corps got ready.
Having been an infantry scout......a lot of the job is just blundering into the enemy and getting killed so higher command knows where the bad guys are. Very little of the job is careful, stealthy and patient reconnaissance. Everyone wants to keep the operational tempo high. A good deal of the job is also setting up a counter-recon screen. This is why cavalry units have gotten so heavy. The impact of drones in the future will be very interesting.
Dr Bendover - interesting, but small drones would be very vulnerable to infantry small-arms fire, No? Must be situations where they would be very valuable, though...
Speaking as a Former scout... No drones cant fully do the job. Finding the enemy is just 1/4th of the job. A drone can not execute a 36-96 hr Screen line, rate curves/fighting positions, route/area/zone recon, gain and maintain enemy contact, Poor weather conditions can severely degrade its performance, Rough/heavily vegetated areas will degrade its effectiveness almost completely, the list goes on ... Yes, they can do some of a job and they are a GREAT tool. We even use them I.E. Ravens
how long can it stay on station if it is the size of a large plate? I don't think people realize scouting takes days or weeks of being in the field. Most airborne access can only fly for a short while.
@@ryanfisher4567 if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal,engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.
The reconnaissance battle will invariably determine the out come of the main battle. Blind the other side all they can do is react, which as a rule is too late.
I can confirm what you were talking about the miss use of cavalry units by higher command as an infantryman in a cav scout unit. Now I can't relate to heavy cav as I'm apart of a light unit and my company is a dismounted unit, but I can attest that the cav scout troops alpha and bravo with their trucks mounting the M2A1 Browning or the ITAS. I've watched/ heard over the radio during field events them being abused into combat roles and being absolutely rolled over especially at JRTC where "tanks" are in play. But I well say when used effectively cav units do bring a force mulitplyer to the battlefield in use of painting the picture for higher or cordnating with armor, CAS, CCA, or indirect fires. I well attest during a training event our squadron was able to stop a brigade size force with fire missions alone. There is something to be said when combineing scout units and heavy weapons systems that makes a leathel force.
I love your videos and almost never comment but I gotta say I was happy to see RSTA squadrons mentioned as I'm in the dismounted recon troop. Most people I know are confused as fuck to find out infantrymen can serve with cavalry units.
What tanks need more than anything is dismounted infantry troops, plus recon drones. IFVs are a combination of personnel carrier plus autocannon. That way infantry in the vanguard can protect its tanks from enemy infantry and their anti-tank weapons, while the tanks augment the infantry with direct fire with their main guns and coax MG to address fortified points. There are stories from the US Revolutionary War where Continental infantry relied on horse-drawn artillery pieces for exactly this purpose.
The US military does use drones of various sizes intelligence collection. Also, there are train loads of American space satellites looking down. Some have an image resolution so that you could read license plates on cars. Would be nice to compare mounted calvary scouts to infantry scouts. LRRP, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, were constantly used in Vietnam. I don't think LRRP's would be good in open area of desert combat. But, they are perfect for jungle and heavily forested areas.
Because the destructive power they can´t support infantry so good, ammo capacity and weight of said ammo are a factor as well. Not to mention the size, weight and complexity such a system adds to the verhicle. The job of a coaxial mg or turrettop weapon for doesn´t require such destructive power(In most cases.), thus a machinegun will do the job fine for less weight and size, and comes with much and much more ammo. Another big reason why most armies don't put for examples 20mm autocannons on their tanks is because their doctrine mixes the tanks with IFV's who carry those weapons, thus "freeing" the tank from doing that job. There are tanks who had or have bigger weapon systems aboard as secondairy or tertairy weapons, showing that some militairies did make the choice. Is that a stupid choice? No. The "penalties" i mentioned before are also the reasons why a militairy might choose it: bigger, heavier ammo in a bigger system means more destructive power over a longer range. Handy for shredding a chopper for example. It's comparing pro's and cons and decide what your army needs. (My appolygies for my English btw, wanted to get this typed as fast as possible before Mat had that video ready XD )
My unit 10th Light Horse was/is the only armoured unit in the whole of Western Australia, yet the main role is armoured reconnaissance. Not pounding the enemy. Initially, I thought this was a bit strange, but it reinforces the importance of recon.
Did you ever see the movie the Pentagon wars? Its a comedic commentary about the Bradley IFV program. The design team were pulling their hair out because of the ever changing requirements. Worth watching. its quite educational.
Under the new British Army reorganization, missile artillery are added to the recon unit to serve as a spearhead brigade since until current organization, their heavy division only had two maneuver brigade.
Mat, thanks for this great video!!! I agree with you 100% on Armored Cav of the past, as you knew of my own experience. I always felt like our armored cav units were much like what the US military used to form up during WW2 as Combat Command... or the latter cold war's Combat Team (ala TEAM YANKEE), while Combat Commands were usually formed ad hoc as mission/task dictated, with a mix of armors, infantry and artillery, armored cavalry units were formally organized with particular TO&E... hell, we even have our own mortar track in each platoon, not to mention squadron's own self-propelled arty! Yes, I also agreed that while we were still reconnaissance in mission and we were always send ahead of other elements, the actual recon elements usually came down to our dismounted scout units! Our tanks and scout vehicles would move forward, tanks deployed to overwatch and support the scout carriers as they continued; finally, the carriers would stop before a certain location, usually before a crest, or wood line, dismount the scouts as they then could hoof forward and conduct their actual recon missions. As quiet as any recon vehicle might be, it would still be too noisy to 'sneak' up on anyone to spy on them! Granted I do missed having BIG Abrams in a Cav unit, I also understood how armored cav units could and have been misused by theatre commands. 73 Easting was a GREAT battle for us 2nd Cav and still being studied as an example in Armor Schools but it was a tank battle, not a cavalry battle; we were used as an armored fist and we did well but we weren't doing any reconnaissance; sending in a cav unit in a conduct movement to contact mission is not reconnaissance. I do question of the forming of Stryker brigades though, as how affective Strykers are as scout carriers; granted Strykers could have firepower similar to a tank but it is also a very big and tall vehicle too, not exactly easy to hide. In fact, it was much bigger than the infantry carrier of old- the M113 that also served as a troop carrier for a similar purpose. They were called 'Battle Taxi' for a reason. ACRs had their own air cav squadrons and partially, they were used affectively as the best recon units because the choppers were usually send far ahead of flanking, popping up and just below treetops, thus providing battlefield recons much better than our ground units could. And our own Apaches also provided immediate suppressions of any enemy units encountered before scooping out of there! Loved those Gunslingers! Well, this is just my opinion for what it's worth. Keep on Soldiering, Mat!
By the way, the Soviets in WW2 started with careful, stealthy recon. They abandoned it because the Germans would stop small and stealthy units by using thinly manned lines that had small strong points arrayed in depth. To counter this, the Soviets started sending company sized battle groups crashing into the German lines. These could brush aside German strong points and make it to the MLR. These little battle groups getting flung helter skelter at the enemy also kept the operational tempo very high.
Bradleys engage the enemy to screen and “hold” the enemy in place so the armored spearhead can come in and do their job. Also the ACR job is very fluid according to location
Might have to argue on the Bradley, I've heard described as being too much gun, not enough transport and not enough speed. That being said, I also have to argue. There's a difference between doing your job, sticking to a function, and not using the firepower that same unit brings when it's needed. Just see how the TD formations were used in the indirect fire role. Just as much effect as the artillery, less craters. I will be the first to say if you're out there and a commander decides he needs the firepower, the mobility, the whatever the unit brings, he's free to use it. He's got a hell of a job making sure everyone gets home alive. If they think you can help, they're going to put you in that position. Information is even more important in the modern age and it doesn't need to come from one source any more. Satellite, high altitude drones, helicopters, rotary wing aviation, through to boots on the ground. It's no longer a single unit, squad responsibility. Everyone is in on it and everyone needs to do their part, have a system to communicate their findings. Is it needed? Oh yeah. Is it important? Oh yeah. Does have a complex mix of trade offs, survivibility at the cost of vehicle weight, profile, presence? Sure. Does it also present tactical advantages that a savvy field CO to use? I think it's easy to say 'but recon is for recon' when you're not in the field, not under fire, when you need a couple of extra rifles, cannon to make the point, you're going to use everything you have at your command. I'm not going to tell them they're doing their job wrong.
Great topic ! Back in the "steel pot and face paint" days the way armored cav was organized with M114's ,M551's and M113's for infantry and mortars on a platoon level was the best for a peer adversary , trying to use large infantry IFV's for recon is a mistake , when we switched to M113's in the scout section our effectiveness was noticably lessened. For all it's faults (drivetrain, overheating) it was a low profile , heavily armed vehicle that should have been improved instead of dropped completely. Even the 151 jeeps were better than APC's for scouts ! Cavalry today still needs a dedicated light recon vehicle and a light tank that isn't misused by Division commanders. Also , a Amos type mortar vehicle would be awesome as long as I'm dreaming here , lol.
From my personal experience, these days, proper recon from the ground level, can only be done on a very small and specific scale by tiny elements that carry good surveillance equipment behind enemy line.
I always thought that we made a mistake when the only difference between the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle was how many passengers it carried and how many munitions. The M3 really should have been an entirely different vehicle to better add suit its role.
I'm always amazed how fast and how much the combat tactics and doctrine changes when a large military conflict erupts. WW2 and submarine/anti submarine warfare in the battle of Atlantic comes to mind. First convoy ships were sitting ducks for the German wolf packs submarines who plucked them whenever and how ever they wanted. Then a completely redesigned anti submarine warfare brought convoy protection by destroyers and honing the skills of detecting and destroying the submarines, primarely with the depth charges. The other great example is the famous Blitzkrieg and it's devastating effects in the 1939-1941 time frame. Then we saw the Soviet defense in depth doctrine develop which bludgeoned the effects of the Blitzkrieg. One could only guess how profoundly current tactics and doctrines would change and adapt in the case of a major near peer war.
Hello Matsimus. Could you talk about the Horizon program in a future video plz ? I know you talk about tanks here but i really liked your T45 destroyer video so if you could talk about the horizon frigates (destroyers), that woul be awesome !
This is just me thinking, and I'm probably wrong, but I think scouts need to be specially trained for the task. GP units make lots of sense for general use, but, for ferreting out ambushes it would be nice to have someone who can get into the enemy's head and figure out where they likely are, then confirm it without necessarily engaging in combat.
@M33f3r: Drones are a valuable addition, but can not replace human (ground) recon. Some soldiers can even smell their enemy, show me a drone capable of that... BTW, are there any ground(vehicle) drones ?
I served in an ACR, the goal is to gain and maintain enemy contact. Meaning, they have to hang in the fight long enough for support to arrive. So they're typically more heavily armed than Infantry. With that kind of firepower, why relegate them to strictly reconnaissance missions?
Your recon element is primarily air. I'd suggest you'd take a gander at the F-35s sensor suite to see which way they're going and have been going with this. Most fightcraft in the CAS role having been using LANTRN for awhile now and the F-35 simply improves upon that. The Imaging the F-35 produces is far superior to what a Bradley could offer at ground level. On top of this: Drones have been the mainstay scout for years now and are cheaper to both produce and operate than either an F-16 / F-18 (or F-35 obviously) OR Bradley. Global Hawk is exemplary at it's role.
Good luck sending F-35 and drones and global hawks into contested airspace for ground recce missions against near peer adversaries. Hell, why not send the J-STARS in there?
Thing is I see a lot of military organizations considering reconnaissance as more of a first strike shock force than a scouting and information gathering role.
As a sidenote. While most of the world gave tanks to their cavalry units so they could go back to their classic "charge/breaktrough" thing. Sweden made their cavalry to recee units, already before ww1. Since that was what the cavalry had been "degraded" to anyways. So while in most countries the armoured units carry the tradition from cavalry, in Sweden the armoured units carry traditions from infantry units and it is our ranger and sog units that carry the tradition from the old cavalry. Just a sidenote...
Hey Matsimus, could you please tell me what is your intro and outro song ? Putting it in the description would reply to peoples that has the same request has me, because I guess I'm not the only one enjoying that much your video but to be frustrated because I can't find this song xD As always good video, I'm rarely posting a commentary but I'm watching all yours no-gaming video. Keep the good work!
I like your vids Matsimus,can you take a look at the romanian MBT TR-85M1 "Bison"?There are some cool footage on the internet with the tank.Keep up the good worck ;)
I always thought of my cav troop as what the army used to form up as 'combat command' team, i.e. mixing infantry and armor elements with attachments as/when needed; some CCT might be tank heavy while at times, could be mostly infantry. armored cav troop had always been a mix on a permanent basis. Sending in cav scouts without tank support as overwatch elements could be a recipe of disaster when running into such threats as more heavily armed and more numerous Russian (for example) advance elements in a possible meeting engagement. Even mounted cav scouts, be they on wheeled or tracked vehicles, should do their recon-ing dismounted ahead of their vehicles to maintain maximum stealth. Creeping over a berm and finding oneself facing enemy advance elements, such dismounted scouts need to beat feet really fast back to their mounts and hope their big brothers in the tanks would be able to cover their retreat. Yes, very dependent on how commanders use their cavalry forces and yes, I have been assigned various missions beside pure recon but then, that was what we were suited for, from flanking, screening, advance to contact, retrograde to stealthy recon. I admit it readily, I am sad to see cav armored squadrons being switched to stryker ones. Sending strykers forward would have been attaching at least a couple of tanks to protect them in certain situations, thus forming ad hoc combat teams. I'd rather have the armored units as part of my actual command TO&E too for better combat effectiveness.
Great vid, but I'd like to see a more down to earth view on armored scouts. What do those two guys in the back of the Bradley actually do? What would require them to leave the safety of the Bradley, if ever? The same question applies to mechanized infantry in general. What threat could they actually face that would require engaging the target with small arms that the 25mm cannon couldn't obliterate on it's own?
Hey Mat, since I recently acquired an electric mountain bike, I realized the potential of carrying a couple of them for 'dismounted' recons on Strikyers as they are so quiet and have perfectly acceptable range and speed. Remember the US army experimented using motorcycle for recon? I guess if the technology mature too, then electric motorcycle for scouts would serve well then. What do you think?
Sgt. Fanning: A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance... And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-machine, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C. THIS is what we're building? At least that’s how I remember the quote.
I think the British Army has been quite sensible in effectively replacing the old CVRT equipped Formation Recce squadrons with both the heavier Ajax mounted Armoured Cavalry units and the Jackal 2 mounted Light Cavalry units. Thus retaining the speed and stealth of CVRT in the Jackal 2 and gaining a heavier protected element in the new Ajax, despite both sets of troops essentially doing the same job but in different situations.
Such armored recon role can be done with recon drone of various size and form. Faster, cheaper and safer. Such drone cost just fraction of armored recon vehicle and operated remotely by infantry.
I mean, military commander are pragmatic. They aren't gonna leave a bunch of armored IFV with TOW missile lying around doing recon. It would suck when you really need a scout and there aren't any available but better scramming for stuff then than leaving a fully armed and armored Bradley in reserve.
ahhh, just a point here...MOST militaries have dedicated and specially equipped and trained Recce Units.....that's not really "having them lying around".......sending un prepared and troops unfamiliar with the Recce Taskings and means and methods?...is a recipe for disaster....There are PROPER troops to do the job...they are generally seen very infrequently as they are out on the flanks and far to the advance of the general troop concentrations operataing in small troops and being resupp'd by Logistics and usually at night from Log . Resupply RV's...the US tends to be different than most of it;s NATO allies.....Canada, the Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Danes and Brits seem to operate smaller, more lightly equipped Recce Vehicles in small groups and generally avoid contacts as much as possible.......
Yes, that is my point. The US armed their recon Bradley to defend themselves but to the commander, they are armored car that can kill tanks. Using a jeep/humvee to do recon while it would suck for the recon when a fight do happen, they would be send on recon since the lost of fire power aren't that great. A IFV that can kill tanks however, letting them sitting in some wood somewhere over yonder providing information while useful, it can kill a tank. So some commander would drop off the infantry for recon then pull it into fighting to provide fire support. It is the same for us when playing games like Wargame tbh. I can put a jeep into a wood and forgot about them cause they provide information, not fire power. A Bradley however, they do have excellent scouting ability, some armored to shrug off attack and a TOW missile that can kill tanks. If i don't have tanks to spare, those poor bugger would be leading in their place
Well, OK...I guess if it works in games...I don;t know...I only have real military service and experience to go by. Lets just say that I will disagree all the way till Sunday about the Bradley being remotely good for Recce........in my opinion, the are WAY too loud, too tall, too large and an absolute waste of a vehicle that has ZERO original planning as a Recce Vehicle, and is in fact a troop carrying IFV........ Again, in my humble opinion...a HUMVEE is another useless tool of a thing to try and use as Recce....UNLESS it is totally stripped of the roof, doors and only mounts a few GPMG's, lots of cam netting and crew of three...THEN it could perhaps run as a light Armoured Recce.....run very fast, and do the sneak and peek routine...... AS I see it, the issue and major trouble comes from trying to slap inappropriate vehicles and untrained ( in Proper Recce) troops in a recce tasking and sending them out...just a fool hearty move ...... I just dont; see ANY "excellent" scouting ability in a bloated, overweight IFV trying to do Recce.....they are totally ill equipped for the task, the crew has neither Surveillance suite or mast for it...they have limited vision and next to no hearing in them.....the ONLy way to do the job properly is to either have speciality vehicles like the Brit Scorpion and Scimitars, Canadian Coyote, the German Fenek or the new French Jaguar ( a new heavier class recce vehicle)...or the LIGHT versions which include the Land Rover WHMIK's and Jackals, the Belgian Iltis and FOX, even stripped down HUMVEE's or G-Wagons with a few MG's and shoulder fired A.T missiles and some light Rocket systems, can do the Light role...WHY?...because the Recce Crews will be less "eager" to get into contacts, they can SEE and HEAR all around them...and put in a small target...quieter and less obtrusive...........SNEAK and PEEK.......like I said...there really are two trains of thought...the heavier, well equipped Surveillance suited Recce's or the lighter , faster eyes and ears, more old school version........each have their place......some Nations utilize alot of single or pairs of motorcycle riding "scouts"...such as Finland, as does Singapore......each to their own needs and means...but I can NEVER say that a Bradley is a good choice..... After all, Recce penetrates DEEPER and STAYS Longer ;) Stay Golden.....
I agree with Recce are suppose to be light, mobile and easily conceal. Military doctrine are ever changing and nation like US prefer to over equip their unit to deal with multiple kind of scenario and that let the crew get the unlucky stick of driving their overly armed vehicle into front line combat cause command that day can't afford such a vehicle on recce duty. The other problem of specialized vehicle is the matter of supply. US has based all around the world and creating another vehicle for 1 branch of unit inside the armed forced would be a logistic nightmare. Same for the M4 concept, it might not be the best tank for the Soviet and UK but for US at that time, M4 is the perfect solution. Transportable on ship, fit in with the current logistic system, can cross civilian bridge, easily repair and replace. Bradley imo is seeing the same treatment. A good IFV to do whatever is required at hand.
Interesting......Light Infantry Regiments here tend to have integral "Patrols Platoons".....not usually anything more than their regular IFV/ APC's, in our case, the LAV III's, now the LAV 6.0's as well........but most of the "recce" they conduct is foot patrols.......... In MOST NATO Nations, it seems far more common to have Actual Armoured Corps units "attached" to Battle Groups of Brigade levels.......from these usually the Light Armoured Recce, which for MOST Nations is the lighter, faster, smaller vehicles and specially trained crews that conduct the vast majority of the Recce required......VERY little in the way of heavy Armour used for Recce exists..........and RECCE is a resource that Brigade and higher command is NOT thrilled to get shot to pieces...it takes time and alot of effort to properly train Recce Crewmen.....and the Operators for the Surveillance Suites even more so.......so NO, I will disagree that a). Commanders don;t generally send Recce units belonging to Armoured Corps units to "Probe enemy lines" etc.......Recce's job is to go and observe the enemy, find out WHERE their lines are, access routes, routes of possible advance, enemy defenses, dispositions etc.......... and run / protect the flanks of the advance etc........... The terminology "mechanized Recon" is something that is a differential MOST NATO member nations don;t use........and almost across the board, having the MBT's to simply toss away on Recce is not often an option......Heavy Armour, the MBT's are generally kept and utilized to spear head a combined arms thrust along with the "Mechanized INFANTRY", those that are in units that use various APC's / IFV's, such as the British Warriors, the Canadian LAV III's or the German Marder's, Boxers etc. or the Italian Dardo or the CV-90's used by the Dutch, Estonians and Norwegians etc........... Generally speaking even the terminology "Heavy Brigades" is a bit of a curious one......one that for most NATO Nations don;t have specific "Heavy Brigades".....the Brigades being simply comprised of the Mech. Infantry, supporting Armour and attached Artillery, Engineers, Log's etc.......There are often what are referred to as "Battle Groups", essentially a Brigade with either some of the attached support NOT present, or simply a reduced number of troops IN the B.G. This seems to be far more common in NATO or UN deployments overseas for Peacekeeping , during the Afghanistan deployments etc........ Again...the shear differences in the US Military, how they operate and simply HAVE, are far different than the rest of the world essentially...... Cheers
knowing the enemy is half the battle ;)
cant dispense freedom on something if you dont know what your up against
Banned Inc. haha nice to see you here buddy
:), just lurking around and watching content of my favorite youtubers ;)
Banned Inc. did you use Matsimus video´s as an inspiration for your arma videos? ;)
Regine using a heavy armored ifv or tank is a waste in most situations, you Are showing the enemy Your unit, snd most likely you will lose it to a minefield or well hidden anti-tank weapon carried by an anti armor patrol sent by an infantry unit, such patrols will know the terrain well and will stage overwhelming ambushes using everything from 66mm LAWs to 84mm recoilless cannons, as a ground force commander I would keep my armored units hidden until airborne scouts or infantry scouts reported a definate enemy concentration of enemy armor which validated my comitting my armor against them
@@_Matsimus_what's the name of the song at the beginning?
Your reference of ACR as line combat units in Desert Storm reminds me of one important fact. At the Battle of 73 Easting, the units of the 2ACR were not ordered to go out and destroy a huge Iraqi division. Their orders were to go FIND it and allow the rest of the Corp to come in and smash it. Once they found, they initially engaged in skirmish attack to fix it in position until the big boys showed up. It was individual troop commander (mainly then Capt McMaster) initiate that led to them decisively engaging the enemy.
I also think it's important to note that then-CPT McMaster made that (snap) decision because he figured that if they strictly followed orders, the Corps would lose the operational initiative, allowing the Iraqi RG units to either reorient and reinforce, or withdraw.
Fair points. McMasters found himself on top of what he was looking for - and as mentioned, chose initiative and violence of action (to his credit).
Had Eagle or Ghost troop spotted the Iraqi positions farther out (vs driving up onto them - literally - in a sand storm), I expect McMaster would have held his position and waited for a larger force to arrive and engage.
@@likydsplit8483 certainly, he took the initiative when it presented itself. Other circumstances, he would have taken the more traditional route and held an overwatch and waited for the main element came up. And THAT would have been even more one sided!
Dude that recon detachment really single handedly took down an entire battle group by itself. The recon unit realistically shouldn’t have been able to dish out as much damage as it did, it was because the opposing guards army technically let themselves get lit up. The issue for them was their recon unit was trash too 😂, they couldn’t find the US recon detachment. I mean they did find them but only locally, it created such a bad bottleneck at first that when the rest of the army finally converged and concentrated, it was too late.
As a olde 11D the commander did exactly what his training says (upon contact there is now no stopping said contact,contact must at any and all costs be maintained. Must be Maintained.. if that contact turns into an all out battle tuff. Contact must be Maintained remember the ARMY is on its way...🪖♾️
'Recon by stealth' vs 'Recon by fire' vs 'Recon by force'. I guess it depends on the situation. In a wide flat open desert recon by stealth may not be feasible, especially if the enemy has air assets and you don't yet have air superiority, so recon by force may be a better option. In a dense jungle recon by stealth would be better. In a dense urban environment then recon by fire may be more appropriate. I.e. "We think there may be bad guys in that building . Let's shell it and find out." 😂
@@SirCzechMate sometimes you just don't wanna blow your cover
Problem is when a recon by fire mission turns into a seek and destroy mission.
For urban?
Let's shell and find out. Ends up killing a buncha civs.
Yes but it isn't just about terrain. Recon-by-fire or recon-in-force is a different type of mission set.
Recon-by-fire is meant to gauge the enemy reaction to attack which often time you can't find out by simply passively observing.
Enemy main force may be in reserve or covered by a screening force. The only way to get intel about the enemy main force would be to fake an attack such as recon-in-force.
Have you seen the movie "Pentagon wars"? It's a much watch to military buffs for the laughs.
Jagannath Barman ive only just heard about that movie a few weeks ago, deff want to check it out.
Southpaw Moose It's free on yt
That’s funny as, I watched it the other week.
Good call, watched it last night....there should be a great many people very annoyed right now...... the enemy of any nation is not another nation, it is 'PROFIT'
One thing that annoyed me was how the people and situation were portrait.
The Bradley was always intended to be an IFV yet in the movie it somehow was shown as if the project was changed because of some wacky military ideas.
Burton was also shown as an innocent person who just happens to seek justice which wasn't true either he was part of a group that demanded reformation in military doctrine...honestly pretty stupid.
The story is way more complex then the movie shows it and sometimes it makes the army look very foolish when in reality it was not.
What I wanted to say the movie makes sure to portrait an image of incompetence on the army side it is not historitcly accurate or better said it knows how to twist certain parts to get a massage across.
Not that everything was done in the best way in the Bradleys development but the movie is garbage...yet fun to watch.
But just keep in mind it's just a movie.
Recon gives information. With such information you can deploy the right killing machines for the right job. No point in sending MBTs to engage a small infantry unit if there's an enemy MBT unit threatning your flank. Is just like economics as you have limitated manpower and hardware: You can't conquer the entire battlefield but you can maximize invesment, attack where the enemy is weak, avoid strong points, deceive the enemy. Reinforcing all the sides means weakning all the sides (Look at French tanks deployments are WW2)
the7observer not unless there is platforms that can engage tanks and light infantry, i.e Puma, besides the mortars would take care of light infantry while IFV/Tanks can engage the their counterparts, if recon SQDNs can have organic UAS, fires and rotary wing, they can go after destroy task and not just reconnaissance.
"you can't just send in a spearhead of armor not knowing what you're going up against" well you clearly haven't seen me play steel division normandy 44 then, as long as you outnumber the enemy by a good margin you can do whatever you want :D
Dskater84 Hes speaking in terms of actual combat, mass casualties tend to be looked down on.
and I was just making a joke... exactly about the high number of casualties you take if you lack good recon.
Dskater84 But good sir, the point of recon is make sure you DO outnumber them by such margin before charging in the first place! How else would you know that you outnumber them? In a game it's possible based on the meta and resource knowledge I suppose, but even then you don't 'know' that the enemy didn't play full turtle and have shit tons of anti tank guns lol
The soviet armored doctrine summed up by one YT comment
@@Dskater84 Saudis don't agree with Matsimus either. Which is why they get humiliated by a militia.
War Thunder will never be the same without these boys.
Thats why i love playing my light tanks, just so i can spot for people AEC mk 2 all the way
Informative and interesting. I watch a LOT of military news / info channels and this has to be one of the best, not only in terms of accuracy and interesting topics, but his non-biased opinion is very interesting after reading up on a subject and then watching one of his videos that include other info not found elsewhere. Keep up the good work
Craig Horsburgh thank you 👍😃
*so you can use the right tool for the job*
Just shared to my Cav Scout friend. Very interesting Matsimus.
Serg Revolvera thanks buddy! Glad you enjoyed it 👍
This piece reminds me of how the Tiger was designed to be a "breakthrough" tank, punching through enemy lines, then returning for maintenance while more mobile units exploited the opening -- but German officers consistently used their Pz 6 tanks like any other AFV, leading to their loss by mechanical failure and/or enemy action. One result was that the Tiger gained terrible and somewhat unjustified reputations for unreliability.
Without armored scouts no one sees! I was a US Army Armored Scout for 12 years, and loved every second of it. 1st Cav almost my entire career. Best dam job...
What is your unit asset ? HMMWV ? M3A1 ?
I've heard people say that once you go to Hood it's hard to transfer out. Is that true?
@@brianc9374 Not really, there are 19Deltas in almost every infantry battalion, and some divisions have scout squadron's. You don't have to stay 19D either. I always tell people do it for 4 - 8 years, then transfer to a highly technical job, to prepare for your transition out.
“You just can’t send in a spearhead of armor” my Tiger Blitzkriegs in Men of War Assault Squad 2 begs to differ.
Saudis also beg to differ.
Spot-on. The Aussie army has finally integrated armoured recon (primarily ASLAVs) with tanks in armoured cav regiments.
If you take a "standard Nato-brigade" they are normally deployed with two combat bataljons in front with the third in reserve. Assuming the enemy does more or less the same - it is of vital importance to find WHERE the ENEMY has his reserve - and what condition it is in. Aircraft can be fooled to some extend by camouflage, proper movement tactics and all the other tedious jobs done in the field.
That is the reason a brigade will normally have a recce squadron to find the enemy and his minefields (and determine if they are protected or not).
The major problem with recce is that when they run into real opposition and not dummies they are supposed to withdraw and make the engagement seem like a probing attack that will make the enemy shrug it off as a diversion. Now what the hell is the poor recce commander supposed to do if he actually find the enemy reserve in a poor state and has the opportunity to wreck a bit of havoc and mayhem before retiring. If there is no cost (he is discovered anyhow) taking out the enemy reserve is a great bonus. That decision takes a lot of skill, daring and aggressiveness - but if he persist in an attack and is lured into a trap - the recce unit is toast. That is probably why the yanks use heavy equipment for recce, as they have generally been successfull in smacking bottoms where encountered.
Now the best recce-units are homeguard units that have been overrun (any major army unit will leave such for a mobbing up action). Home guard units cannot stop an advancing unit, but they can give rather precise and current information to what that enemy is doing.
Personally - on a Baltic battlefield - I would attach a light squadron of combined arms to the brigade as recce unit. In swampy areas I like something like the Wiesel or other light tanks - as they can sneak around where no tank can go.
The alternative for the light unit is: If they don't find the enemy's reserve; but stumble into their supply train or depot. Naturally that is to be slaughtered quickly - and get the hell out of there.
I love being a scout. Eyes and ears of the army #ifyouaintcav
I miss those days !
More doctrine, please.
Stephen Lode roger that!!
I second that notion
I third it , thanks Matsimus
love your videos, keep them up!
SilverStar Heggisist thank you!! 👍😉
Three tank vids
One vid from Simple History
And this one...and from Squire...
Great...thank God
As spoken directly from my mind!
Been a scout and mechanized inf. in a Cavalery Regiment/Armored Battalion....
Thank you for all the great information in this great video. As they say when the tank is buttoned up, the crew is 90% blind and 100% deaf to what’s going on outside their tank.
I think part of the problem is that they are being equipped as combat units fundamentally identical to the tanks and APCs in the putative actual combat units, except the 'recon' combat units are supposed to be able to magically do recon in addition to heavy combat. If they are full up combat forces whose job is 'supposedly' recon, it is small wonder if commanders use them as combat forces, of which there are never enough. I think a recon platoon should perhaps have one actual full up combat vehicle, and the others should be equipped for self defense only. However those other units should have things like telescoping periscopes with sophisticated optics, battlefield radar, drone launch and control vehicles, etc.. Make those recon platoons 'really' good at recon, so the actual combat forces have a really clear picture of what to engage.
Yet another awesome video! I really enjoyed it.
Liam Boyle thanks Liam
Love all your video, especially the ones about military tactics. Keep up the great work bro
"you can't just send in a spearhead of armor not knowing what you're going up against" looks like I've been playing Men of War the wrong way.
Nicely explained. I used to be Light Recce and Heavy Recce in the CAF.
There are three Cavalry regiments in the Army (that I know of), the 2nd in Germany, the 3rd at Ft. Hood, and the 11th at Ft. Irwin (parts of other regiments are spread all over as parts of Division organizations).
The job of the Corps Cavalry regiments in Germany was primarily as a covering force, "to provide the main body early warning, reaction time, maneuver space, and information about the enemy." In other words to delay while the rest of the Corps got ready.
Having been an infantry scout......a lot of the job is just blundering into the enemy and getting killed so higher command knows where the bad guys are. Very little of the job is careful, stealthy and patient reconnaissance. Everyone wants to keep the operational tempo high. A good deal of the job is also setting up a counter-recon screen. This is why cavalry units have gotten so heavy. The impact of drones in the future will be very interesting.
And another great upload. Keep em coming Matt!
that's what drones are for these days both flying and wheeled, one manned scout vehicle could deploy drones and cover ten times the area.
Dr Bendover - interesting, but small drones would be very vulnerable to infantry small-arms fire, No? Must be situations where they would be very valuable, though...
Speaking as a Former scout... No drones cant fully do the job. Finding the enemy is just 1/4th of the job. A drone can not execute a 36-96 hr Screen line, rate curves/fighting positions, route/area/zone recon, gain and maintain enemy contact, Poor weather conditions can severely degrade its performance, Rough/heavily vegetated areas will degrade its effectiveness almost completely, the list goes on ... Yes, they can do some of a job and they are a GREAT tool. We even use them I.E. Ravens
Dr Bendover i can't think of any profile picture more childish than yours
But if their flying at a height of 100meter, and is the size of a large large plate, your not likely to see it, and certainly not hear it.
how long can it stay on station if it is the size of a large plate? I don't think people realize scouting takes days or weeks of being in the field. Most airborne access can only fly for a short while.
Matsimus my boi back at it again with that colonization
XD
I only subbed you this morning and already you have another awesome vid to watch. Peace from Berkshire.
ReinhardvonHolst haha thanks for watching buddy!
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." -Sun Tzu-
Unless you know the enemy outnumbers you 20 to 1 and you face certain death. You could still try to cut fear out of the equation but yeahhh
@@ryanfisher4567 if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal,engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.
Armored recon points out where the depleted uranium darts need to go.
Fantastic treatise on the doctrine of armoured reconnaissance! All officer cadets should be made to watch this video as an intro to the doctrine.
My 20 tonn recon mech is full covered in battlescars
The reconnaissance battle will invariably determine the out come of the main battle. Blind the other side all they can do is react, which as a rule is too late.
I can confirm what you were talking about the miss use of cavalry units by higher command as an infantryman in a cav scout unit. Now I can't relate to heavy cav as I'm apart of a light unit and my company is a dismounted unit, but I can attest that the cav scout troops alpha and bravo with their trucks mounting the M2A1 Browning or the ITAS. I've watched/ heard over the radio during field events them being abused into combat roles and being absolutely rolled over especially at JRTC where "tanks" are in play. But I well say when used effectively cav units do bring a force mulitplyer to the battlefield in use of painting the picture for higher or cordnating with armor, CAS, CCA, or indirect fires. I well attest during a training event our squadron was able to stop a brigade size force with fire missions alone. There is something to be said when combineing scout units and heavy weapons systems that makes a leathel force.
I love your videos and almost never comment but I gotta say I was happy to see RSTA squadrons mentioned as I'm in the dismounted recon troop. Most people I know are confused as fuck to find out infantrymen can serve with cavalry units.
Hey Mr Matsimus can you please do a video about the American Civil Air Patrol, I'm a Cadet Airman in it and I would like to see you do a review on us
Excited about the New Aussie Recon vehicle, damn thing is huge, but super cool. Dude you see the info on that new IDF tank?
What tanks need more than anything is dismounted infantry troops, plus recon drones. IFVs are a combination of personnel carrier plus autocannon. That way infantry in the vanguard can protect its tanks from enemy infantry and their anti-tank weapons, while the tanks augment the infantry with direct fire with their main guns and coax MG to address fortified points. There are stories from the US Revolutionary War where Continental infantry relied on horse-drawn artillery pieces for exactly this purpose.
The US military does use drones of various sizes intelligence collection. Also, there are train loads of American space satellites looking down. Some have an image resolution so that you could read license plates on cars.
Would be nice to compare mounted calvary scouts to infantry scouts. LRRP, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, were constantly used in Vietnam. I don't think LRRP's would be good in open area of desert combat. But, they are perfect for jungle and heavily forested areas.
Correct. Long range infantry patrols only make sense in thick forests. Reminds me of the Chindits.
Hey matsimus, could you make a video about why 20mm canons arent used on tanks (coaxial/on top of turrets).
Because the destructive power they can´t support infantry so good, ammo capacity and weight of said ammo are a factor as well. Not to mention the size, weight and complexity such a system adds to the verhicle. The job of a coaxial mg or turrettop weapon for doesn´t require such destructive power(In most cases.), thus a machinegun will do the job fine for less weight and size, and comes with much and much more ammo. Another big reason why most armies don't put for examples 20mm autocannons on their tanks is because their doctrine mixes the tanks with IFV's who carry those weapons, thus "freeing" the tank from doing that job.
There are tanks who had or have bigger weapon systems aboard as secondairy or tertairy weapons, showing that some militairies did make the choice.
Is that a stupid choice? No. The "penalties" i mentioned before are also the reasons why a militairy might choose it: bigger, heavier ammo in a bigger system means more destructive power over a longer range. Handy for shredding a chopper for example. It's comparing pro's and cons and decide what your army needs.
(My appolygies for my English btw, wanted to get this typed as fast as possible before Mat had that video ready XD )
Thanks for the answers
Matsimus, please do a video on Serbian "Lazar 2 and 3" and IFV M-80 vehicles. Thank you and greetings from Serbia. :)
Outstanding Matt - keep practicing those box splits ;)
I'm enlisting in the US Cav scouts, really happy to see something about armored recon. I'm almost in though, wish me luck!
How about doing a video on how the Ajax would be used in real life examples? Like would they be using drones? A fire team for protection? And so on?
Cymro1970 I’ll take a look 👍
My unit 10th Light Horse was/is the only armoured unit in the whole of Western Australia, yet the main role is armoured reconnaissance. Not pounding the enemy. Initially, I thought this was a bit strange, but it reinforces the importance of recon.
Did you ever see the movie the Pentagon wars? Its a comedic commentary about the Bradley IFV program.
The design team were pulling their hair out because of the ever changing requirements. Worth watching. its quite educational.
Always been used as a fast strike group...either to cover asses or jump ahead and take out impedances, multi-purpose as they come.
Great video, would love to see a similar discussion on the Canadian Army's armoured reconnaissance doctrine.
Under the new British Army reorganization, missile artillery are added to the recon unit to serve as a spearhead brigade since until current organization, their heavy division only had two maneuver brigade.
Mat, thanks for this great video!!! I agree with you 100% on Armored Cav of the past, as you knew of my own experience.
I always felt like our armored cav units were much like what the US military used to form up during WW2 as Combat Command... or the latter cold war's Combat Team (ala TEAM YANKEE), while Combat Commands were usually formed ad hoc as mission/task dictated, with a mix of armors, infantry and artillery, armored cavalry units were formally organized with particular TO&E... hell, we even have our own mortar track in each platoon, not to mention squadron's own self-propelled arty!
Yes, I also agreed that while we were still reconnaissance in mission and we were always send ahead of other elements, the actual recon elements usually came down to our dismounted scout units! Our tanks and scout vehicles would move forward, tanks deployed to overwatch and support the scout carriers as they continued; finally, the carriers would stop before a certain location, usually before a crest, or wood line, dismount the scouts as they then could hoof forward and conduct their actual recon missions. As quiet as any recon vehicle might be, it would still be too noisy to 'sneak' up on anyone to spy on them!
Granted I do missed having BIG Abrams in a Cav unit, I also understood how armored cav units could and have been misused by theatre commands. 73 Easting was a GREAT battle for us 2nd Cav and still being studied as an example in Armor Schools but it was a tank battle, not a cavalry battle; we were used as an armored fist and we did well but we weren't doing any reconnaissance; sending in a cav unit in a conduct movement to contact mission is not reconnaissance.
I do question of the forming of Stryker brigades though, as how affective Strykers are as scout carriers; granted Strykers could have firepower similar to a tank but it is also a very big and tall vehicle too, not exactly easy to hide. In fact, it was much bigger than the infantry carrier of old- the M113 that also served as a troop carrier for a similar purpose. They were called 'Battle Taxi' for a reason.
ACRs had their own air cav squadrons and partially, they were used affectively as the best recon units because the choppers were usually send far ahead of flanking, popping up and just below treetops, thus providing battlefield recons much better than our ground units could. And our own Apaches also provided immediate suppressions of any enemy units encountered before scooping out of there! Loved those Gunslingers!
Well, this is just my opinion for what it's worth. Keep on Soldiering, Mat!
sounds like handy advice for tactical RTS games
By the way, the Soviets in WW2 started with careful, stealthy recon. They abandoned it because the Germans would stop small and stealthy units by using thinly manned lines that had small strong points arrayed in depth. To counter this, the Soviets started sending company sized battle groups crashing into the German lines. These could brush aside German strong points and make it to the MLR. These little battle groups getting flung helter skelter at the enemy also kept the operational tempo very high.
Bradleys engage the enemy to screen and “hold” the enemy in place so the armored spearhead can come in and do their job. Also the ACR job is very fluid according to location
Good Video man I never thought about that!
Might have to argue on the Bradley, I've heard described as being too much gun, not enough transport and not enough speed.
That being said, I also have to argue. There's a difference between doing your job, sticking to a function, and not using the firepower that same unit brings when it's needed. Just see how the TD formations were used in the indirect fire role. Just as much effect as the artillery, less craters.
I will be the first to say if you're out there and a commander decides he needs the firepower, the mobility, the whatever the unit brings, he's free to use it. He's got a hell of a job making sure everyone gets home alive. If they think you can help, they're going to put you in that position.
Information is even more important in the modern age and it doesn't need to come from one source any more. Satellite, high altitude drones, helicopters, rotary wing aviation, through to boots on the ground. It's no longer a single unit, squad responsibility. Everyone is in on it and everyone needs to do their part, have a system to communicate their findings.
Is it needed? Oh yeah. Is it important? Oh yeah. Does have a complex mix of trade offs, survivibility at the cost of vehicle weight, profile, presence? Sure. Does it also present tactical advantages that a savvy field CO to use? I think it's easy to say 'but recon is for recon' when you're not in the field, not under fire, when you need a couple of extra rifles, cannon to make the point, you're going to use everything you have at your command. I'm not going to tell them they're doing their job wrong.
Great topic ! Back in the "steel pot and face paint" days the way armored cav was organized with M114's ,M551's and M113's for infantry and mortars on a platoon level was the best for a peer adversary , trying to use large infantry IFV's for recon is a mistake , when we switched to M113's in the scout section our effectiveness was noticably lessened.
For all it's faults (drivetrain, overheating) it was a low profile , heavily armed vehicle that should have been improved instead of dropped completely. Even the 151 jeeps were better than APC's for scouts !
Cavalry today still needs a dedicated light recon vehicle and a light tank that isn't misused by Division commanders.
Also , a Amos type mortar vehicle would be awesome as long as I'm dreaming here , lol.
My nephew is in a 'light' cav unit now and they are using more and more drones for recons!!!
Under the current organization of the US Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Team, a company of main battle tanks is attached to the recon battalion.
Good points, Matsimus
From my personal experience, these days, proper recon from the ground level, can only be done on a very small and specific scale by tiny elements that carry good surveillance equipment behind enemy line.
Australia is adopting the Boxer as a cav vehicle, should be interesting trying to carry out recon with something twice as big as an MBT
do a video about the LGS Fennek as an armored reconnaissance vehicle.
I always thought that we made a mistake when the only difference between the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle was how many passengers it carried and how many munitions. The M3 really should have been an entirely different vehicle to better add suit its role.
In the battle of Gettysburg General Lee's reconnaissance unit was used improperly to say the least .
I'm always amazed how fast and how much the combat tactics and doctrine changes when a large military conflict erupts. WW2 and submarine/anti submarine warfare in the battle of Atlantic comes to mind. First convoy ships were sitting ducks for the German wolf packs submarines who plucked them whenever and how ever they wanted. Then a completely redesigned anti submarine warfare brought convoy protection by destroyers and honing the skills of detecting and destroying the submarines, primarely with the depth charges.
The other great example is the famous Blitzkrieg and it's devastating effects in the 1939-1941 time frame. Then we saw the Soviet defense in depth doctrine develop which bludgeoned the effects of the Blitzkrieg.
One could only guess how profoundly current tactics and doctrines would change and adapt in the case of a major near peer war.
Great video Matsimus. Also please do a video on a fairly recent tank the M-20UP-1?
Was that Bolt Thrower in the beginning? Sounds like Bolt Thrower. Great video Matsimus.
10:36 ACU blends in so well :)
Hello Matsimus. Could you talk about the Horizon program in a future video plz ? I know you talk about tanks here but i really liked your T45 destroyer video so if you could talk about the horizon frigates (destroyers), that woul be awesome !
This is just me thinking, and I'm probably wrong, but I think scouts need to be specially trained for the task. GP units make lots of sense for general use, but, for ferreting out ambushes it would be nice to have someone who can get into the enemy's head and figure out where they likely are, then confirm it without necessarily engaging in combat.
Would have loved some tank support or even apc in my combat Times, we had very little, thank God we had pzh2000,s and Apaches providing support
Charging the tanks first is like sending a fully armed knight into a jungle without a pair of eyes....
I thought the thumbnail was that the abrams needed a 25mm chaingun and I was thinking how could you say something so controversial yet so bold
"you send a cheaper tank first if they die, they die" russian proverb
Drones are probably taking this role over for the most part from here on out.
M33f3r drones only do so much
Drones can't really do reconnaissance by fire
M33f3r yeah, Hollywood and the Media hype the shit out of drones.
Drones can only do so much.
@M33f3r: Drones are a valuable addition, but can not replace human (ground) recon. Some soldiers can even smell their enemy, show me a drone capable of that... BTW, are there any ground(vehicle) drones ?
Scouts are an enormous asset. Coupled with snipers they can be used for all manner of ops especially with light infantry.
I served in an ACR, the goal is to gain and maintain enemy contact. Meaning, they have to hang in the fight long enough for support to arrive. So they're typically more heavily armed than Infantry. With that kind of firepower, why relegate them to strictly reconnaissance missions?
Your recon element is primarily air. I'd suggest you'd take a gander at the F-35s sensor suite to see which way they're going and have been going with this. Most fightcraft in the CAS role having been using LANTRN for awhile now and the F-35 simply improves upon that. The Imaging the F-35 produces is far superior to what a Bradley could offer at ground level.
On top of this: Drones have been the mainstay scout for years now and are cheaper to both produce and operate than either an F-16 / F-18 (or F-35 obviously) OR Bradley. Global Hawk is exemplary at it's role.
Good luck sending F-35 and drones and global hawks into contested airspace for ground recce missions against near peer adversaries. Hell, why not send the J-STARS in there?
Thing is I see a lot of military organizations considering reconnaissance as more of a first strike shock force than a scouting and information gathering role.
As a sidenote. While most of the world gave tanks to their cavalry units so they could go back to their classic "charge/breaktrough" thing. Sweden made their cavalry to recee units, already before ww1. Since that was what the cavalry had been "degraded" to anyways. So while in most countries the armoured units carry the tradition from cavalry, in Sweden the armoured units carry traditions from infantry units and it is our ranger and sog units that carry the tradition from the old cavalry.
Just a sidenote...
Hey Matsimus, could you please tell me what is your intro and outro song ? Putting it in the description would reply to peoples that has the same request has me, because I guess I'm not the only one enjoying that much your video but to be frustrated because I can't find this song xD
As always good video, I'm rarely posting a commentary but I'm watching all yours no-gaming video. Keep the good work!
with the cost of drone technology I think thi consept is obsolete, why risk a large expensive armored vehicle when you can scout with a small drone.
Thank you.
I like your vids Matsimus,can you take a look at the romanian MBT TR-85M1 "Bison"?There are some cool footage on the internet with the tank.Keep up the good worck ;)
When I join the US marine corps I’m gunna try and go in as an LAV crewman
I always thought of my cav troop as what the army used to form up as 'combat command' team, i.e. mixing infantry and armor elements with attachments as/when needed; some CCT might be tank heavy while at times, could be mostly infantry. armored cav troop had always been a mix on a permanent basis.
Sending in cav scouts without tank support as overwatch elements could be a recipe of disaster when running into such threats as more heavily armed and more numerous Russian (for example) advance elements in a possible meeting engagement.
Even mounted cav scouts, be they on wheeled or tracked vehicles, should do their recon-ing dismounted ahead of their vehicles to maintain maximum stealth. Creeping over a berm and finding oneself facing enemy advance elements, such dismounted scouts need to beat feet really fast back to their mounts and hope their big brothers in the tanks would be able to cover their retreat.
Yes, very dependent on how commanders use their cavalry forces and yes, I have been assigned various missions beside pure recon but then, that was what we were suited for, from flanking, screening, advance to contact, retrograde to stealthy recon. I admit it readily, I am sad to see cav armored squadrons being switched to stryker ones. Sending strykers forward would have been attaching at least a couple of tanks to protect them in certain situations, thus forming ad hoc combat teams. I'd rather have the armored units as part of my actual command TO&E too for better combat effectiveness.
Great vid, but I'd like to see a more down to earth view on armored scouts. What do those two guys in the back of the Bradley actually do? What would require them to leave the safety of the Bradley, if ever? The same question applies to mechanized infantry in general. What threat could they actually face that would require engaging the target with small arms that the 25mm cannon couldn't obliterate on it's own?
Check out France’s AMX-10RC armored can. Impressive if aging recon vehicle.
Cool video as you are on the topic could you make a video on the German/dutch Fennek LGS?
For a second I thought the M2 Bradley was a actual reconnaissance vehicle.
Hey Mat, since I recently acquired an electric mountain bike, I realized the potential of carrying a couple of them for 'dismounted' recons on Strikyers as they are so quiet and have perfectly acceptable range and speed. Remember the US army experimented using motorcycle for recon?
I guess if the technology mature too, then electric motorcycle for scouts would serve well then. What do you think?
Speaking of motorcycle recon Japanese SDF used dirtbikes
Cracking vid Matt.
Andy Greenwood / Prop thanks buddy
Very welcome.. love the work.
I spy with my little eye.....a mong brigade.
But sir it’s... it’s a troop transport
Sgt. Fanning: A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance... And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-machine, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C. THIS is what we're building?
At least that’s how I remember the quote.
Comrade Taiwan portholes? What are we, the navy?
Next week they want this thing to fly..
I think the British Army has been quite sensible in effectively replacing the old CVRT equipped Formation Recce squadrons with both the heavier Ajax mounted Armoured Cavalry units and the Jackal 2 mounted Light Cavalry units. Thus retaining the speed and stealth of CVRT in the Jackal 2 and gaining a heavier protected element in the new Ajax, despite both sets of troops essentially doing the same job but in different situations.
Such armored recon role can be done with recon drone of various size and form. Faster, cheaper and safer. Such drone cost just fraction of armored recon vehicle and operated remotely by infantry.
I mean, military commander are pragmatic. They aren't gonna leave a bunch of armored IFV with TOW missile lying around doing recon. It would suck when you really need a scout and there aren't any available but better scramming for stuff then than leaving a fully armed and armored Bradley in reserve.
ahhh, just a point here...MOST militaries have dedicated and specially equipped and trained Recce Units.....that's not really "having them lying around".......sending un prepared and troops unfamiliar with the Recce Taskings and means and methods?...is a recipe for disaster....There are PROPER troops to do the job...they are generally seen very infrequently as they are out on the flanks and far to the advance of the general troop concentrations operataing in small troops and being resupp'd by Logistics and usually at night from Log . Resupply RV's...the US tends to be different than most of it;s NATO allies.....Canada, the Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Danes and Brits seem to operate smaller, more lightly equipped Recce Vehicles in small groups and generally avoid contacts as much as possible.......
Yes, that is my point. The US armed their recon Bradley to defend themselves but to the commander, they are armored car that can kill tanks. Using a jeep/humvee to do recon while it would suck for the recon when a fight do happen, they would be send on recon since the lost of fire power aren't that great. A IFV that can kill tanks however, letting them sitting in some wood somewhere over yonder providing information while useful, it can kill a tank. So some commander would drop off the infantry for recon then pull it into fighting to provide fire support.
It is the same for us when playing games like Wargame tbh. I can put a jeep into a wood and forgot about them cause they provide information, not fire power. A Bradley however, they do have excellent scouting ability, some armored to shrug off attack and a TOW missile that can kill tanks. If i don't have tanks to spare, those poor bugger would be leading in their place
Well, OK...I guess if it works in games...I don;t know...I only have real military service and experience to go by. Lets just say that I will disagree all the way till Sunday about the Bradley being remotely good for Recce........in my opinion, the are WAY too loud, too tall, too large and an absolute waste of a vehicle that has ZERO original planning as a Recce Vehicle, and is in fact a troop carrying IFV........
Again, in my humble opinion...a HUMVEE is another useless tool of a thing to try and use as Recce....UNLESS it is totally stripped of the roof, doors and only mounts a few GPMG's, lots of cam netting and crew of three...THEN it could perhaps run as a light Armoured Recce.....run very fast, and do the sneak and peek routine......
AS I see it, the issue and major trouble comes from trying to slap inappropriate vehicles and untrained ( in Proper Recce) troops in a recce tasking and sending them out...just a fool hearty move ......
I just dont; see ANY "excellent" scouting ability in a bloated, overweight IFV trying to do Recce.....they are totally ill equipped for the task, the crew has neither Surveillance suite or mast for it...they have limited vision and next to no hearing in them.....the ONLy way to do the job properly is to either have speciality vehicles like the Brit Scorpion and Scimitars, Canadian Coyote, the German Fenek or the new French Jaguar ( a new heavier class recce vehicle)...or the LIGHT versions which include the Land Rover WHMIK's and Jackals, the Belgian Iltis and FOX, even stripped down HUMVEE's or G-Wagons with a few MG's and shoulder fired A.T missiles and some light Rocket systems, can do the Light role...WHY?...because the Recce Crews will be less "eager" to get into contacts, they can SEE and HEAR all around them...and put in a small target...quieter and less obtrusive...........SNEAK and PEEK.......like I said...there really are two trains of thought...the heavier, well equipped Surveillance suited Recce's or the lighter , faster eyes and ears, more old school version........each have their place......some Nations utilize alot of single or pairs of motorcycle riding "scouts"...such as Finland, as does Singapore......each to their own needs and means...but I can NEVER say that a Bradley is a good choice.....
After all, Recce penetrates DEEPER and STAYS Longer ;)
Stay Golden.....
I agree with Recce are suppose to be light, mobile and easily conceal. Military doctrine are ever changing and nation like US prefer to over equip their unit to deal with multiple kind of scenario and that let the crew get the unlucky stick of driving their overly armed vehicle into front line combat cause command that day can't afford such a vehicle on recce duty. The other problem of specialized vehicle is the matter of supply. US has based all around the world and creating another vehicle for 1 branch of unit inside the armed forced would be a logistic nightmare. Same for the M4 concept, it might not be the best tank for the Soviet and UK but for US at that time, M4 is the perfect solution. Transportable on ship, fit in with the current logistic system, can cross civilian bridge, easily repair and replace. Bradley imo is seeing the same treatment. A good IFV to do whatever is required at hand.
Interesting......Light Infantry Regiments here tend to have integral "Patrols Platoons".....not usually anything more than their regular IFV/ APC's, in our case, the LAV III's, now the LAV 6.0's as well........but most of the "recce" they conduct is foot patrols..........
In MOST NATO Nations, it seems far more common to have Actual Armoured Corps units "attached" to Battle Groups of Brigade levels.......from these usually the Light Armoured Recce, which for MOST Nations is the lighter, faster, smaller vehicles and specially trained crews that conduct the vast majority of the Recce required......VERY little in the way of heavy Armour used for Recce exists..........and RECCE is a resource that Brigade and higher command is NOT thrilled to get shot to pieces...it takes time and alot of effort to properly train Recce Crewmen.....and the Operators for the Surveillance Suites even more so.......so NO, I will disagree that a). Commanders don;t generally send Recce units belonging to Armoured Corps units to "Probe enemy lines" etc.......Recce's job is to go and observe the enemy, find out WHERE their lines are, access routes, routes of possible advance, enemy defenses, dispositions etc.......... and run / protect the flanks of the advance etc...........
The terminology "mechanized Recon" is something that is a differential MOST NATO member nations don;t use........and almost across the board, having the MBT's to simply toss away on Recce is not often an option......Heavy Armour, the MBT's are generally kept and utilized to spear head a combined arms thrust along with the "Mechanized INFANTRY", those that are in units that use various APC's / IFV's, such as the British Warriors, the Canadian LAV III's or the German Marder's, Boxers etc. or the Italian Dardo or the CV-90's used by the Dutch, Estonians and Norwegians etc...........
Generally speaking even the terminology "Heavy Brigades" is a bit of a curious one......one that for most NATO Nations don;t have specific "Heavy Brigades".....the Brigades being simply comprised of the Mech. Infantry, supporting Armour and attached Artillery, Engineers, Log's etc.......There are often what are referred to as "Battle Groups", essentially a Brigade with either some of the attached support NOT present, or simply a reduced number of troops IN the B.G. This seems to be far more common in NATO or UN deployments overseas for Peacekeeping , during the Afghanistan deployments etc........
Again...the shear differences in the US Military, how they operate and simply HAVE, are far different than the rest of the world essentially......
Cheers