a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

News and discussion threads concerning defence personnel and their units.
Post Reply
J. Tattersall

a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

Post by J. Tattersall »

The Reconnaissance Corps was formed out of infantry battalions during World War 2 to carry out what we would now call light cavalry missions, but also with a light infantry assault capability. Its battalions were subsequently renamed regiments and it was merged with the RAC, but effectively disappeared when traditional cavalry regiments and the RTR took precedence within the RAC.

It did occur to me that line infantry battalions might be re-roled into a modern day version of the Reconnaissance Corps to provide a light cavalry capability to 16 Air Assault bde and the 1 Div infantry bdes.

Any views?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

Post by whitelancer »

That is the role of the Light Cavalry Regiments within 1st Division, equipped with Jackal. Whether it would be a good idea to have some mounted infantry battalions using similar vehicles working alongside them, well they would at least be more deployable than the Strike Brigades.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

Post by BlueD954 »

whitelancer wrote:That is the role of the Light Cavalry Regiments within 1st Division, equipped with Jackal. Whether it would be a good idea to have some mounted infantry battalions using similar vehicles working alongside them, well they would at least be more deployable than the Strike Brigades.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

Post by downsizer »

BlueD954 wrote:
whitelancer wrote:That is the role of the Light Cavalry Regiments within 1st Division, equipped with Jackal. Whether it would be a good idea to have some mounted infantry battalions using similar vehicles working alongside them, well they would at least be more deployable than the Strike Brigades.
That my friends is why you work hard at school.....

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:Whether it would be a good idea to have some mounted infantry battalions using similar vehicles working alongside them, well
The tweeting does not open for me (have I lost out on anything :D ), but as for the above @TD did a feature on Light Strike Bdes
... can't remember anymore what the man said (therefore it must have been :?: :lol: half baked)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: a future Reconnaissance Corps ?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This
06.09.2009

The Times newspaper is reporting that the British Army is to deploy up to 900 new elite troops to Afghanistan.

Rather than additional SAS,SBS,SRR or SFSG troops, the Army plans to raise a company-sized cadre of around 150 elite troops for each of its 6 frontline manoeuvre Brigades. These new units will fulfill a similar role to 3 Commando Brigade's Brigade Reconnaissance Force ie reconnaissance in depth and probing attacks ahead of the main force.

Brigades on Operation Herrick have previously formed Brigade Reconnaissance Forces from amalgamating existing units. An example of this was for Herrick VII when elements of 4/73 Sphynx Battery, Honourable Artillery Company and the Recce Platoon from the 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment formed the BRF for 52 Brigade. Such formations are, however, broken up when the Brigade's 6-month roulement ends. "

was good thinking. But as with any such, did not last long (from the same source):

"These new units are going to be permanent, meaning they can attain a level of unit cohesion that was previously impossible.
It's reported that the new BRFs will include FAC specialists for calling in air strikes, spotters for calling in artillery fire, snipers and EOD specialists."

This of course was a response to there not being a readily recognisable FEBA, with or along which to organise recce efforts, and therefore the types of units needed - normally drawn from whichever type of unit engaging (although there was a MND in A-stan, we never engaged much above a bde's level).

Before that, this is what the manuals said of what the OpFor could be expected to do (must do better ourselves?):

"a. Detailed Reconnaissance Zone. The depth of this zone is determined by the effective range beyond the FEBA of the weapon systems commanded by the headquarters.
b. General Reconnaissance Zone. Within this zone the headquarters must be able to monitor enemy activity sufficiently to ensure its own plans are not disturbed by unexpected enemy moves.
c. Rear Reconnaissance Zone. Within its own rear area the headquarters must be able to monitor enemy activity, particularly the use of chemical strikes or air mobile forces.
d. The width of the zone of detailed reconnaissance responsibility broadly equates to the headquarters’ frontage of operations, but in the general re­connaissance zone may overlap into the zones of flanking elements."

Going back to the "new thinking"
=must include FAC specialists for calling in air strikes, spotters for calling in artillery fire, snipers and EOD specialists.

I think we got as far as 42 trained FAC teams (rotation did exist, for some less than for others) so practically every unit engaging needed one - because of the predominance of air.

No counter air there, though. Not a realistic assumption, going forward?

So, how do other armies (other than the Generic OpFor in our manuals) do it? - Discuss :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply