Cavalry and Recon, how do you use them?

[Aleksandr2033]

Hello Battlefront forum!

It's been a year since I last appeared to give a question about CMSF stuff, and now I would like to have a deeper view into Cavalry and Reconnaissance units inside the CMSF and CMBS worlds.

In regards to CMSF:

-US Stryker and Armored Cavalry.

In regards to CMBS.

-Ukrainian Brigade/Corps Reconnaissance Company/Battalion.

-US Stryker/Bradley Cavalry Troops/Squadrons.

-Russian Reconnaissance Battalions.

 

How do you use these kind of units??? They are mostly designed and equipped for reconnaissance missions, skirmishes and sort of delicate situations. Most Combat Mission battles involves conventional combat, so where would the Cavalry/Recon units have advantage at? Since these battles don't take more than 2 hours maximum and are designed for the player encountering and fighting the enemy, how useful are the M1127 Strykers, or the BRM-1K and other reconnaissance platforms? 

Cavalry/Recon is suited with vehicles specialised in enemy detection, they have more special cameras in exchange for firepower and passenger capacity. Cav/Recon infantry is equipped with less heavy weapons, but in exchange receive better signals(radios, PDAs) and sighting(NVGs).

So, what are these kind of units good for in the CM universe? Can they be used as units for scanning and clearing large maps lightly defended as their real life counterparts? Can they be used to engage larger more powerful formations to give rear units more time to retreat-counterattack? And how would that be done trying to survive a Russian BTG using M1127s with a few squads armed with FGM-148? The only times I do really feel as a Cavalry troop commander is when selecting huge maps with some unconventional rebels scattered, or harassing Russian forward echelon units.

 

[danfrodo]

thanks for starting this post.  I won't insult the forum by pretending to be any good at this kind of tactical combat.  I often struggle w these kinds of forces, still.  I'm definitely looking forward to what the smarter folks have to say.  

[Chibot Mk IX]

This has been discussed before. reconnaissance missions are crucial at operational level , unfortunately that is out of CM's scope

So, in CM battles, most of the recon units you mentioned above don't have a unique or a significant advantage compare to other units.  Feel free to use them as cannon fodder in CM. The only exception is Ukrainian Reconnaissance troops, BRM-1K with GSR is quite handy to see and fire through IR-blocking smokes. Each recon squad has 3 NVGs, while the regular UKR squad has none.

 

 

[Aleksandr2033]

14 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

This has been discussed before. reconnaissance missions are crucial at operational level , unfortunately that is out of CM's scope

So, in CM battles, most of the recon units you mentioned above don't have a unique or a significant advantage compare to other units.  Feel free to use them as cannon fodder in CM. The only exception is Ukrainian Reconnaissance troops, BRM-1K with GSR is quite handy to see and fire through IR-blocking smokes. Each recon squad has 3 NVGs, while the regular UKR squad has none.

 

 

I've used Ukrainian Recon units most of the time and the BRM-1K looks good on paper, but it requires certain skill. It can spot and engage targets far away but their aim is terrible. When used at medium-close range, they are quite handy.

 

Also, for any UKR Recon formation, I tend to dismiss BTR-4Es in exchange for BMP-2s. The main reason being, individually bought BMP-2s in the UKR side already include 2 NVGs for the crew.

 

Now I'm trying to learn how to use US-NATO(if any) CAV units. So far, I love the M1127 Stryker CAV formations. Although it needs some extra infantry. Regarding other NATO countries, they have little to zero cavalry-reconnaissance units, besides some Dutch-German Fennek...

Edited July 26, 2022 by Aleksandr2033
extra info.

[Vacillator]

Although I play WW2 (all titles) only so far, I'm interested in this.  In WW2 I try to avoid the sadness of 'recon by death' but at the same time I also try to get some recon intel.  But as for whether recon troops have better capabilities for this than others, hmmm, not sure...

Edited July 26, 2022 by Vacillator

[domfluff]

It's important to distinguish US Cavalry from that of other nations. Where the typical roles of Cavalry are screening, reconnaissance and exploitation, US Cavalry have a fourth role, that of economy of force missions (i.e., using them as a more conventional force, when the need arises). That's almost unique to the US, so it's not a "normal" capability in broader terms.

Some of the typical Cavalry roles are indeed above CM scale, and will therefore play a role in scenario design. Many of the missions in CMCW use Cavalry units, because they're likely to be first to the fight in a Fulda Gap scenario.

Nevertheless, *all* of the cavalry roles are also important on the scale of a CM battlefield, and that would be true regardless of equipment or time period.

To understand reconnaissance units in general, it's important to understand what they're for. Most reconnaissance units are equipped with fast vehicles and good optics - whether that's just a jeep, a pair of binoculars and a radio, the large open windows of the BRDM giving excellent vision whilst under cover of armour, or sophisticated suites of thermal optics and satellite communications.

Any armament they have is often secondary, but it's typically designed to deal with the threats they are likely to encounter - that of other reconnaissance units.

The British Scimitar is a great example of a reconnaissance vehicle. A company-sized force might have a pair of them in the Cold War, and this pair would roam ahead of the formation, possibly dismounting to spot when appropriate.

The job of this pair would be to screen - get advanced warning of the incoming enemy, and to do so in positions which do not give away their position to the enemy. They would do this by screening forward of the friendly positions, using their speed to get well forward.

Then, the first enemy they would be likely to see in this context would be a Soviet recon platoon - perhaps three BMPs. In this situation, the 30mm Rarden is in it's element, and two Scimitars fighting from successive hull down positions are a serious overmatch for three BMPs. 

So consider this scenario from the perspective of the Soviet player. They've sent forward their recon platoon, with the hope of finding the enemy position. Instead, a pair of Scimitars has engaged them from a position entirely unrelated to their defensive lines, and further has destroyed their recon platoon without giving anything more away.

That means that the only option for the Soviet player would be to turn their CRP from a force that's creating the conditions for the main body to operate - perhaps seizing key terrain or starting to shape the battlefield with artillery - and instead has been relegated to a probing force, slowing inching their way forwards without the information that the recon platoon should have provided.

This tiny screening asset has just had an outsized impact on the way this entire battle will unfold.

The "how" of Recon is better described by Bil than me (https://battledrill.blogspot.com/2014/01/reconnaissance.html), but there are two fundamentally different approaches to how you employ intelligence to shape your course of action. One is that you're relying on recon assets to form the plan - the entire early portion of the battle will be led by those assets, and you're intending to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy before you make decisions. This is the safer, more flexible option, but it's also very slow. It also represents the typical approach that a NATO force might employ in most situations. The latter method is that you lean heavily on your terrain and enemy analysis, and use recon elements in a much simpler role - to firm up that picture. Typically these would roam ahead of your force as per the Soviet example above, with the much simpler goal of working out where the enemy are. This is a lot more dangerous, but it's significantly faster, and it's therefore the approach that the Soviet armies should be using in CMCW.

Neither is "recon by death", although both obviously involve accepting some risk. Sometimes knowing where the enemy aren't is more important than knowing where the enemy are, and making sure that a route or a terrain feature is clear from enemy can be equally or more important than actually seeing them.

Edited July 27, 2022 by domfluff

[chuckdyke]

33 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Sometimes knowing where the enemy aren't is more important than knowing where the enemy are, and making sure that a route or a terrain feature is clear from enemy can be equally or more important than actually seeing them.

Never truer words were spoken. Also known as pathfinding. 

[Erwin]

15 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

reconnaissance missions are crucial at operational level , unfortunately that is out of CM's scope

On the largest maps, one can get an almost operational-style game in which recon is useful - esp by vehicles.  On smaller maps as some notes, recon vehicles are not so useful as one may as well dismount and proceed on foot (in the game).  Recon by death is all too common in the game and may be a factor of too short time allowed.  Many of George MC's designs have huge maps and 2-3+ hour time limits.  In those missions, one can have a lot of fun doing recon,

[chuckdyke]

Taskforce 3-69 BS makes a decent attempt to start with a recon. Kudos to the designer, I thoroughly enjoy this campaign.

[Aleksandr2033]

21 hours ago, domfluff said:

Nevertheless, *all* of the cavalry roles are also important on the scale of a CM battlefield, and that would be true regardless of equipment or time period.

To understand reconnaissance units in general, it's important to understand what they're for. Most reconnaissance units are equipped with fast vehicles and good optics - whether that's just a jeep, a pair of binoculars and a radio, the large open windows of the BRDM giving excellent vision whilst under cover of armour, or sophisticated suites of thermal optics and satellite communications.

Thank you sir for this long and dedicated answer!

I understood that this Scimitar vs BMP example is usually in a random Encounter where both sides have not yet established solid defensive lines, in the opening hours-days of a WP invasion. Same can be done in CMBS in a US-UKR Cav/Rec meeting with Russian forwards elements, just as in CMSF2 where NATO Recon engages Syrian troops in the outskirts or in the movement between their main cities. 

But... Regarding operational theatres where solid fronts have been built, how does Cav/Recon plays there? In CMBS the only thing that comes to my mind are these scenarios; 1- Routinary harrassment of enemy screens and forward bases(30min time before QRF comes in force). 2- Same but while defending(1 hour, let's make things difficult). 3- Sudden enemy breakthrough and you have to cover your brigade's retreat by engaging an enemy reinforced BTG(2 hours).

And in CMSF2? What kind of scenarios come to mind as an occupying force? Clear the desert and scan for insurgents in lonely villages? You will usually blow them up, least you have some very unlucky ATGM hit(which actually happens a lot if you like to spice up things)... I don't, anyone has any idea??? 

Not just scenarios for US Cavalry and Russian/Ukrainian Recon, also something improvised with NATO armies...

[domfluff]

20 minutes ago, Aleksandr2033 said:

I understood that this Scimitar vs BMP example is usually in a random Encounter where both sides have not yet established solid defensive lines, in the opening hours-days of a WP invasion. Same can be done in CMBS in a US-UKR Cav/Rec meeting with Russian forwards elements, just as in CMSF2 where NATO Recon engages Syrian troops in the outskirts or in the movement between their main cities.

So, not really, since the above example was intended to be inside the scope of a CM battlefield - within perhaps 4 or 5km. The point of the forward recce element there is to screen and protect your main positions - which really means concealing them from enemy observation, indirect fires and making it as hard as possible for them to build an effective attack.

22 minutes ago, Aleksandr2033 said:

But... Regarding operational theatres where solid fronts have been built, how does Cav/Recon plays there? In CMBS the only thing that comes to my mind are these scenarios; 1- Routinary harrassment of enemy screens and forward bases(30min time before QRF comes in force). 2- Same but while defending(1 hour, let's make things difficult). 3- Sudden enemy breakthrough and you have to cover your brigade's retreat by engaging an enemy reinforced BTG(2 hours).

And in CMSF2? What kind of scenarios come to mind as an occupying force? Clear the desert and scan for insurgents in lonely villages? You will usually blow them up, least you have some very unlucky ATGM hit(which actually happens a lot if you like to spice up things)... I don't, anyone has any idea??? 

Not just scenarios for US Cavalry and Russian/Ukrainian Recon, also something improvised with NATO armies...

"Solid front" and modern combat are more or less ideas in opposition to each other. Even in current-Ukraine, the scale of the area means that the actual front is a lot more fluid than that, and it matters tremendously which 1km^2 box you're currently occupying, or even which exact treeline you're in. "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" and all that.

But the other examples you give are good reasons for the "and exploitation" part of "screening, reconnaissance and exploitation". Cavalry-type forces are small (and therefore easy to get moving in an operational sense), highly mobile, and usually have a vastly disproportionate firepower for their size. That means that they're usually going to be available and on-call to respond whenever this is needed. In a hybrid environment like CMSF then they're not going to be able to perform their intended role as efficiently as intended, but then that's true for every other part of the conventional warfighting apparatus, which is the whole point of asymmetric warfare, and the key challenge of CMSF.

For a WW2 example, consider the Commonwealth Carrier platoon. A carrier section consists of three Universal carriers, each carrying a small team. Each team carries a Bren light machine gun, one team carries a light mortar, and one a PIAT. The platoon consists of four of these sections.

That means that your Carrier section has about as many men as a regular Rifle section, but with a mortar pushed down to the squad level, a PIAT with every section, and three times as many light machine guns. That means that a platoon-sized element has significantly more firepower available to it than an entire rifle company, and has radios, mobility, and the ability to move under armour. Further, this element is embedded at the Rifle battalion level, so it's a very useful, powerful, and highly flexible asset which the battalion commander will be able to call on as an organic, ever-present part of his force.

The roles this formation can play are the same - screening, reconnaissance and exploitation, and the flexibility that this can provide as a mobile reserve to plug a gap, relieve a base of fire, or to take advantage of a fleeting opportunity are all CM-scale tasks that this kind of light, over-powered formation can provide, and the same applies to Cavalry and Cavalry-like formations up to and including the present.

It's certainly true that in some situations you're forced to go with what you've got - the entire theme of the British module in CMSF is that you're making do with what you've got to hand, rather than having the tools you'd actually want. Likewise the Stryker campaign in CMBS is challenging because you're trying to use medium infantry to confront a peer opponent. This is a real-world challenge and something of an unsolved problem, so it's certainly not "unfair", but it's no less difficult because of that. 



 

[Chibot Mk IX]

On 7/26/2022 at 4:46 PM, Aleksandr2033 said:

I've used Ukrainian Recon units most of the time and the BRM-1K looks good on paper, but it requires certain skill. It can spot and engage targets far away but their aim is terrible. When used at medium-close range, they are quite handy.

I am ok with that, they have 2A28 smoothbore gun so precision shooting is not the skill they are good at.  In fact I think the shooting trough smoke agility is a little gamey, their surveillance radars don't have fire control abilities.     

[Apocal]

On 7/27/2022 at 1:54 AM, Aleksandr2033 said:

So, what are these kind of units good for in the CM universe?

Usually better spotting capability of one form or another. Sometimes better comms gear that helps with calling in fire missions. Also sometimes they are positioned in the organizational chart to give them an advantage with information sharing or calls for fire.

On 7/27/2022 at 1:54 AM, Aleksandr2033 said:

Can they be used as units for scanning and clearing large maps lightly defended as their real life counterparts?

Yes, they can. They aren't necessarily ideal for it but most of them work fine. However so does almost everything else, so it really isn't a big point in their favor.

On 7/27/2022 at 1:54 AM, Aleksandr2033 said:

Can they be used to engage larger more powerful formations to give rear units more time to retreat-counterattack?

Not really. Larger, more powerful enemy formations can just mallet them or shove them aside at CMx2 scale, unless you get lucky. Strykers are especially anemic; the Bradley-based ones are better but still can get bullied by tanks.

On 7/27/2022 at 1:54 AM, Aleksandr2033 said:

And how would that be done trying to survive a Russian BTG using M1127s with a few squads armed with FGM-148?

Pray your opponent is too dumb to use his artillery effectively. If they are, you can score a few times with the Javelins and hopefully intimidate the rest of the armor into shying away, which should allow you to use the Strykers and MGs to hold back and/or kill off his dismounts.

But if they know what they are doing with combined arms, you're pretty much just ****ed. A Russian BTG vs. Stryker cav platoon goes exactly one way if your opponent has enough brain cells for a collision. Artillery holds down Javelins and almost nothing else in the (default) Stryker cav force can hurt a T-90. Unless the stars align in your favor, their artillery flat misses everything and the player behind the keyboard is blind, it is going to be a hard loss, unless you shoot and immediately retreat off the map.

A lot of the ability to be sneaky and pull off ambushes without getting plastered by fires doesn't really work because the REDFOR knows, with absolute certainty, that your cav/recon force is somewhere on that particular map. Some maps are big enough to help mitigate against but with some terrain analysis and a bit of CMx2 experience, most decent players can figure out where the dangerous zones are and either preemptively bombard them, block them off with speculative area fire or have a TRP placed near there.

It is just a (necessary) limitation of the game.

They can do better in op level campaigns, where you can treat them as a kind of utility unit that doesn't instantly pop to any enemy whatsoever. All those security, screening, reconnaissance missions they handle just fine. It is really just loading into a game of CMx2 against something like a reinforced enemy company or full BTG where you think, "Damn, I really wish I had a heavy battalion for this..."

On 7/28/2022 at 5:38 AM, domfluff said:

Cavalry-type forces are small (and therefore easy to get moving in an operational sense), highly mobile, and usually have a vastly disproportionate firepower for their size.

Stryker Cav definitely does not have disproportionate firepower for its size, especially in CMx2. I don't think the Ukrainian or Russian ones do either. The kinda exception is the US armored cav, but even then it can get blown out in CMx2 by T90s of an equivalent formation.

[domfluff]

So obviously the response was a more generic one than for any specific formation, there will always be exceptions.

Stryker Cavalry is firmly not one of them. They absolutely have disproportionate firepower for it's size - as Cavalry they'll typically have far more CAS and artillery support per-man than that of the rifle formations, but even on the level of an individual platoon, you're looking at three five man squads with two M240Bs, and one javelin per squad. 

That's 16 men, two GPMGs and three ATGMS, not counting the Strykers themselves. Compare that to the Stryker infantry with 37 men and the same number of weapons, and the cavalry unit is disproportionately powerful for it's size - it has twice as many weapons per man as a Stryker platoon.

The Bradley platoon comparison becomes even more stark, since the Cavalry Bradley squads are four men, with the remaining space being taken up by extra TOW missiles.

[Apocal]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

So obviously the response was a more generic one than for any specific formation, there will always be exceptions.

Stryker Cavalry is firmly not one of them. They absolutely have disproportionate firepower for it's size - as Cavalry they'll typically have far more CAS and artillery support per-man than that of the rifle formations, but even on the level of an individual platoon, you're looking at three five man squads with two M240Bs, and one javelin per squad. 

That's 16 men, two GPMGs and three ATGMS, not counting the Strykers themselves. Compare that to the Stryker infantry with 37 men and the same number of weapons, and the cavalry unit is disproportionately powerful for it's size - it has twice as many weapons per man as a Stryker platoon.

The Bradley platoon comparison becomes even more stark, since the Cavalry Bradley squads are four men, with the remaining space being taken up by extra TOW missiles.

I don't measure or compare formations' firepower divided across headcount. I measure it against other formations of equivalent on the org chart -- platoons against platoons, companies against companies, etc. If the game had headcount limits anywhere, then driving firepower per-man higher would be important, but there aren't any limits like that in CMx2. But there is a limit in context of CMx2 -- points -- so I also measure effective firepower against points/rarity costs.

A Stryker cav troop costs ~4200 pts, a Stryker rifle platoon costs ~4600, options depending in both cases. The difference between a mech rifle company and a mech cav troop is ~500-600, similar to the previous, but at least in that case I'm getting more TOWs out of the deal. Also, I'm not sure if there is an update (I use the Steam version of CMBS) or I just picked the wrong units, but my Stryker cav scout platoons have zero M240s. I was under the impression they did as well but checking in-game they have nothing but rifles. It isn't a huge deal but definitely does them no favors in the firepower department.

Finally, "as Cavalry they'll typically have far more CAS and artillery support per-man." Not in CMx2. You either pay for it or you don't get it. That's why I mentioned default units; anyone can add (or fail to add) any number of attachments to bulk up the cav/recon force. In CMx2, it is a good idea to do that. It doesn't make cav/recon inherently more suitable. Any unit type can take attached units, without restrictions.

[domfluff]

In what possible context did you think this was about Quick Battle points?

All points-buy systems are bad, and CM's is no different - typically they're a least-worst option for design. If you're going to shift the goalposts to discussing the formations in QB efficiency terms then sure, only a minority of possible units and formations and unit are actually going to be worth taking, this is why they're bad. 

Quick battle points have no influence or meaning on the CM model, campaigns, scenarios or any PBEM which are outside of the context of Quick Battles. That might be the only thing that matters to you, but it's a minority of what CM actually is.

[Apocal]

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

In what possible context did you think this was about Quick Battle points?

The context in which that's the only way formations are balanced against each other in any way in CMx2. You can say all points-buy systems are bad but headcount is worse, since it matters literally nowhere in the CMx2.

But fine, putting points aside, Stryker Cav still wouldn't be disproportionately powerful compared to any other formation of the same size (not meaning headcount) in the game. Any other formation meant for brawling outguns it, some of them grossly so. The only way you can make them hit above their weight is by assigning other assets. American mech cav does better but still usually loses against a competently-handled and adaptive (i.e. not the AI in most cases) Russian player with a heavy (tank or mech) combat formation.

Certainly the Russian and Ukrainian recon formations aren't hitting above their weight, now that I look at them.

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

Quick battle points have no influence or meaning on the CM model, campaigns, scenarios or any PBEM which are outside of the context of Quick Battles. That might be the only thing that matters to you, but it's a minority of what CM actually is.

They aren't the only thing that matters to me, but they are a measure with some degree of objectivity. You or anyone else can look on your screen and see the same/similar numbers. You can also crack open any scenario and give an undernourished cav troop second helpings of attack helicopters and 155mm artillery. That doesn't require my permission or approval.

I'm just saying that, in the context of CMx2 battles -- the subject of this thread -- there are better formations for winning brawls and the real advantages of a cav/recon unit aren't really reflected in the relatively constrained battles we get.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Apocal

[z1812]

What works for me is a small troop section with binoculars, and a cover arc, which I do my best to sneak into a covered area with a good field of view. If I am delivering them by vehicle, then of course, you want as best a covered route as you can find.

I find many scenarios don't allow enough time for proper recon to be done, so I may also edit the scenario to add more time. Which is fine if you are playing against the AI. If playing H2H of course your opponent needs to agree to any changes.

[chuckdyke]

Use thermals and other fancy stuff for overwatch. The boots on the ground need to attract fire but should live to report back. 

Place a waypoint on the area you like to spot.

Go to POV and you see the unit is out of LOS with the waypoint.

Use the W-Key to move along the movetool line till the POV is with the waypoint. 

The bottom of the screen is the spot where the original waypoint should be moved and modified. Highlight it and drag to the bottom till the mouse pointer disappears. 

The new move command. The unit has not been on a recon by attrition mission. 

[Thewood1]

One of the issues around recon is scenario design.  An entire CM scenario should be about recon.  That's at the scale CM plays at.  In larger offensive scenarios, recon should enter the map many turns ahead of a main force with the role of detecting enemy disposition and pushing them back from the entry point of the main force.  In a defensive large scenario, they should be doing the opposite.  The better use of recon units is as the opening scenario in a campaign/operation.

With exceptions, if your recon elements end up in a  heavy firefight, they've done something wrong.  With scripting capabilities beyond me in CM, if recon elements end up heavily engaged, they should be pulling back and asking for reinforcements or support fire.

[chuckdyke]

One video about recon.

 

[Thewood1]

The amount of time needed for all of the movement and observing would be an entire CM scenario length.

[danfrodo]

18 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Use thermals and other fancy stuff for overwatch. The boots on the ground need to attract fire but should live to report back. 

Place a waypoint on the area you like to spot.

Go to POV and you see the unit is out of LOS with the waypoint.

Use the W-Key to move along the movetool line till the POV is with the waypoint. 

The bottom of the screen is the spot where the original waypoint should be moved and modified. Highlight it and drag to the bottom till the mouse pointer disappears. 

The new move command. The unit has not been on a recon by attrition mission. 

So you are saying don't set waypoints farther than what you can see?  this is to avoid stumbing into bad guys?  and just keep doing this from sighted point to sighted point?  Interesting.

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

So you are saying don't set waypoints farther than what you can see?  this is to avoid stumbing into bad guys?  and just keep doing this from sighted point to sighted point?  Interesting.

I was inspired by the 'Hull Down' move for armored vehicles and now do something similar with the 'Hunt Move' for infantry. 

[chuckdyke]

50 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

The amount of time needed for all of the movement and observing would be an entire CM scenario length.

IO or intel operations are ongoing for the length of the scenario.