Why do recon units often have different vehicles than mech/motor inf units?
What advantage does having a light vehicle like an humvee or picrel give compared to the same apc or ifv the rest have?
Recon units
Why do recon units often have different vehicles than mech/motor inf units?
What advantage does having a light vehicle like an humvee or picrel give compared to the same apc or ifv the rest have?
Because recon units generally prioritize mobility and concealment over raw firepower and protection, especially since the entire point of their mission is to stay ahead of the main forces.
So they act as a “moving screen” but unlike a defensive screen they go around and actively look for PIR, enemy positions, find routes, so that the main body and the commander can then decide what to do based on that?
And also make contact with the enemy in case they’re moving towards the main body and give early warning
But what I ask myself is, if they got such light vehicles they can only do silent recon and observe, if they do recon by fighting they’ll likely get attrited since they got little firepower and protection
Is the need for mobility because that way they can zoom forward faster than the main body? But couldn’t the main body just wait or go slower?
Or maybe it’s so that they can go to more places in a given time compared to a slower vehicle and thus get more info?
Your instincts are correct. Light wheeled recon units get shredded at the start of every war.
The original idea was they're small and not as noisy as a tank unit (remember this is ww2 era thinking through cold war) but even then officers realized they died constantly compared to putting tanks in the lead.
The goal changed to using infantry to scout after the cars took them forward in short hops, but again, the problem was infantry doing recon correctly (stealthily) takes 5-6hours which is too slow for a mechanized force; and in the invasion of iraq this was realized again with the doctrine of fighting for information.
eventually the militaries recognized they had to use tanks no matter what cope they invented, and right about that time drones became good enough they didn't need to after all.
Why do the French still make new models of recon vehicles and buy them in large quantities? I'm taking about Jaguar/Serval vehciles.
Isn't that because fast wheeled armored cars are well suited to operating in Africa?
They're all for COIN in northern africa.
>if they do recon by fighting they’ll likely get attrited since they got little firepower and protection
Modern indirect fires are effective, fast and accurate enough for that to not be a massive problem for lighter recon. ATGMs are plentiful and capable of taking out enemy armored vehicles. There's plenty of firepower that will allow them to disengage and report. Especially, since the recon units are most likely also going to be only facing enemy screening or recon forces themselves.
>But couldn’t the main body just wait or go slower?
That would frick up operational tempo and allow the enemy to react, instead of staying inside his OODA loop. Once you're out of his OODA loop, you're facing a fair fight, which will severely attrit both sides and likely knock even the victor out of further operations.
>That would frick up operational tempo and allow the enemy to react, instead of staying inside his OODA loop.
This was a big thing in the Gulf War actually. IIRC the armored divisions in the west were proceeding at 50 km/h or more constantly without pause (except for resupply) specifically because they knew the Iraqis had no airborne or satellite imagery and thus were only able to locate the divisions by contact or recon. If you're going at 50 km/h, by the time the enemy knows you're in point X you're probably 25 km or more away from that point. Speed is life isn't just a thing fighter pilots say turns out.
the soviets must be moronic, did they expect the enemy to just not send out advance scouts or something
Did the fact that their world famous "Deep Battle" doctrine that relies on tactical nuances such as
>Outnumber your enemy
>Attack everywhere
>Outnumber your enemy some more
not clue you in?
Just look at Cav in Heavy units then. My Squadron has 3 troops of Bradleys and 1 of Tanks with some dismounts to basically get out of the vehicle and peak over the next hill before you drive over it.
Reconnaissance in force brother, we fight until we encounter a force we cannot defeat, then we know we've got the enemy's main body.
>compared to the same apc or ifv the rest have?
I mean the US has recon Bradleys, the M3. It's just like the normal Bradley except the cabin has space for more TOWs where the dismounts would go.
I know you’re right
But then what’s the difference in doctrine?
I imagine the m3 recon units do recon by combat and occasionally observation, they mainly probe the enemy, try to destroy their screen and get to the main body/ main defense line
Also recon is done not only by specific recon units but also by smaller maneuver units, at the company or platoon or even squad level, what’s the difference between them?
My understanding is that recon units are tasked at a higher echelon level and are used to get a broader operational picture, while organic recon at lower echelons is done to get more specific info in a more narrow frontage usually when performing a task different than recon
Unfortunatly the Bradley and "split section" Cav (Teaming M3 CFV's with Humvees w/ LRAS3 for a stealthier option) has been abandoned in favor of just giving a Cav troop like 14 M2 Brads and increasing the number of dismounts per vehicle.
>increasing the number of dismounts
Hold on hasn't the US been b***hing about recruitment numbers for years?
Use yo brain homie
What do recon movements entail that regular combat or supply movements don't?
Little truck go fast
Anyone got a webm of one of those crazy Humvee assaults in Ukraine?
>humvee
was actually intended as a behind the line vehicle, got pushed into frontline duty and predictably fricked. don't want that sort of fuel consumption in a recce vehicle either
nice
It's like they smashed and slammed a Cadillac Gage.
How do its internal organs work?
>The automatic transmission and transfer unit provides selectable 4WD and limited slip differential. The H-layout of the driveline allows a very low height, with the power being transmitted to the wheels via angular and wheel gears.
The hell is an H-layout
I always liked these, the idea is to park it behind some kind of cover and then extend dong with rangefinder, cameras etc. Really cartoonish
>What advantage does having a light vehicle like an humvee or picrel give compared to the same apc or ifv the rest have?
lighter vehicles with mounted medium or heavy machine guns are more of a standard scouting and reconnaissance. Scouting units with IFV's or Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles usually do reconnaissance-in-force, and are meant to actually engage the enemy to gauge their strength and composition, but not usually intended to push on and do full assaults.
Theyre not supposed to fight, so having lighter vehicles makes them faster, harder to notice, easier to supply, more resource efficient, lighter and thus able to traverse harsher terrains, etc.
In terms of strategic speed (how much distance they can actually travel in a warzone in a given time), the physical speed of their vehicles, their ease to resupply and less terrain restrictions, lets them cover alot more ground than a mechanized infantry unit.
You replace them with IFVs and even if the IFVs have the same max speed and acceleration its going to have to refuel more often and for longer, and wont be able to take shortcuts a lighter vehicle can
>not supposed to fight
But in the end you’ll get spotted most likely since you’re still driving a car around and thus be shot at
you'll get shot at and you'll shoot back but its not supposed to stay in the fight and charge the enemy position. You return some fire and get the frick out. The nice thing about being light is that youre faster than alot of things that shoots at you, minus air frames because we're operating under the assumption of classic US air supremacy
It pisses me off that people don't get this. Yes, recon is a high threat job, and yes, recon troops are most likely to die to sudden firefights, but recon in the form it is now is the best of many bad options. You can lose some recon troops and vehicles or you can have two main bodies slam into each other, it's your pick.
>You can lose some recon troops and vehicles or you can be utterly fricked by having the enemy main body ambush you
FTFY
the US recon vehicle was the Humvee until about 10 years ago
I don't know about elsewhere, but in Mexico recon units are meant to be small heavily armed go anywhere units. Most in the Mexican army are quick amphibious VBLs with a 40mm GMG and an ATGM and signals equipment for a mix of anti personel and anti vehicular duty. Though they primarily are supposed to be focused on Intel gathering they are also used for hit and run armed recon against armor. They used these as checkpoint vehicles against narcos early in the drug war but some narco attornies argued that using grenade machine guns and rockets against "civilians" (narcos) was a human rights violation and the government actually agreed with that. It's a shame because MILAN rockets go bad after a few decades and these have been sitting since the early 90s. Should send them to Ukraine and replace them with Akerons IMO.
Bruh is the Mexican government that infiltrated ?
Being a cop or soldier there must be a suicide, and also get your family kidnapped and videotaped
It has less to do with being infiltrated, it's just that Mexican liberals are straight up moronic. A pretty big chunk of Mexicans are actually sheltered weenies who think the narcos will stop being violent if the government stops attacking them. They're like dumb children. I also remember seeing a poll years back about how in Mexico 90% of women wanted to end the drug war and ban guns but 80% of men wanted the armed forces to pursue the narcos even harder and for it to be way easier for normal Mexicans to get guns. You could argue that naive voting habits of Mexican women are also a big contributor.
>You could argue that naive voting habits of Mexican women are also a big contributor.
Yet more evidence that women’s suffrage was a mistake
>is the Mexican government that infiltrated?
Go look up Genaro Garcia Luna.
You also need to remember: Mexico has a long history of banditos being folk heroes. Fighting against the Federales makes you a cool guy, see Pancho Villa, etc. The wives and girlfriends of cartel bosses also live very plush lives.
Now combine that with a worldview that blames all of your problems on America. This is the AMLO voter base, remember. The drug use is not their problem, it's America's. The cartel murders are their problem, yes, but they think the cartels are only violent because Bush Jr. pushed Calderón to go to war with them.
>The cartel murders are their problem, yes, but they think the cartels are only violent because Bush Jr. pushed Calderón to go to war with them.
There is some truth to this. The violence only got to this level once a power vacuum was created when the earlier cartels got dunked on by the armed forces the first time.
After a few years the Mexican government did get crime rates way down though. It wasn't until EPN got into power and undid these changes did stuff get even worse.
AMLO shook hands with a certain drug lord’s mother.
because they're cool
give me 1 reason why that cast iron piece of junk is a bettery vehicle for it's role than this would be
>tripgay
>is a homosexual
pump and dump
Goofy ass vehicle.