Even the Army Doubts Hugging the Ground

Stop throwing panties at UAVs and give the Army back its armored cavalry!

I see we are back in a "we don't need to fight for information" trend. Because drones! I'd give good money to get back Army armored cavalry squadrons and regiments. Drones (unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) can enhance ground formations. Not replace them.

This is a ... [checks notes] ... Army perspective on ground reconnaissance:

Dougherty questioned the value of armored ground reconnaissance survivability with the availability of low-cost drone strike capabilities. Though he qualified his criticism, saying that there may be aspects he’s not fully considered.

“There are a whole lot of other ways to do reconnaissance that don’t involve sending out a platoon of tanks or Bradleys,” he said.

The purpose of a cavalry squadron, Richardson said, is to enable the division to contact the enemy “on our terms” in large-scale combat. The squadron will continue being the “eyes and ears” of the division.

I understand that we don’t want to pay for first contact with blood. But there are limits to force protection in the inherently bloody business of war. Drones fly over enemies. Enemies hide. Enemies shoot down air targets. Weather is sometimes bad. Blood flows to overcome that. If what you are fighting for isn’t worth bleeding, don’t go to war or don’t wage that battle.

And when enemies advance, what stops their ground recon elements that hug the ground if our troops aren’t standing on the ground? Our recon units not only get information, they stop enemies from getting information. I'd give good money to get modernized armored cavalry regiments (ACRs) back:

Slowing down the enemy is a mission of our cavalry, too, and if cavalry units are strong enough to compel an enemy to deploy rather than overwhelm our cavalry screens from virtually a road march formation, we buy time and information.

Indeed, it frustrates me that the Army clearly misses the capabilities of an armored cavalry regiment because it is trying to build an ersatz armored cavalry regiment without just admitting what we need and building it.

And the division squadrons (battalions), of course.

The ersatz ACR involves upgunning a Stryker brigade in Europe. I appreciate the effort. But it’s not the same thing.

A frequent peacetime trend when we forget about large-scale combat operations is lightening the cavalry units. It all becomes PowerPoint slides preaching "agility" and "speed". And now that describes low-cost drones, eh?

War experience tends to bring back the need for protection and firepower so ground forces can fight for information and fight to keep the enemy from getting information. Because burning light vehicles aren't very agile and tend to have zero speed after rocketing up into the air and hitting the ground again.

And this attitude infects the Army more broadly:

Better battlefield mobility is yet another element of transforming in contact. Lighter squad vehicles enable faster repositioning of forces[.]

The need for engineering reconnaissance to cope with enemy defensive belts is a related recon issue that the Winter War of 2022 has highlighted:

The Army’s engineer reconnaissance manual outlines the capabilities and limitations of the engineer reconnaissance team (ERT). ERTs have generally been task-organized, with a cavalry squadron assigned tactical control.

Another reason to restore armored cavalry to the Army.

Don’t forego protection in the futile hope of relying on agility and speed to survive on a battlefield that is increasingly transparent and filled with precision weapons.

To repeat, I’m not dismissing small drones. I wrote about defending against small drone swarms against our bleeding edge maneuver companies many years ago in Army magazine. But the drones aren’t silver bullets. They will evolve into just part of a complete combined arms breakfast.

NOTE: Photo from Defence Times.