After the Covering Force Fight, Then What?: The Armored Cavalry Regiment in the Corps Defensive Rear Battle,
Michael D. Heredia
Abstract
Michael D. Heredia
Abstract
This monograph examines whether or not the Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) has a useful role to perform in the Corps defensive rear battle. Its genesis lies with the appreciation that the Soviets have tremendous capabilities for deep attack but that US doctrine does not seem to have a workable counter to this threat. The ACR seems well suited to deal with the rear battle problem, but is given no doctrinal mandate to do so. The paper first looks at Soviet deep attack doctrine and capabilities in order to place the threat in perspective. It then reviews US doctrine in light of the threat to determine its adequacy. Then, three historical vignettes are presented to see if a force similar to an ACR has shown utility in fighting the rear battle in the past. Finally, a critical analysis of US rear battle doctrine is undertaken in order to illustrate how an ACR can be employed to correct the shortcomings noted. Various considerations in deciding when to employ the cavalry, as well as the costs and benefits of doing so are discussed, however, the monograph concludes that there is a definite place for the cavalry in the rear battle. The mission of the dedicated, tactical combat force should be doctrinally recognized for the Armored Cavalry Regiment as its organization, equipment, training and operating methods ideally suit it for the task.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This monograph examines whether or not the Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) has a useful role to perform in the Corps defensive rear battle. Its genesis lies with the appreciation that the Soviets have tremendous capabilities for deep attack but that US doctrine does not seem to have a workable counter to this threat. The ACR seems well suited to deal with the rear battle problem, but is given no doctrinal mandate to do so. The paper first looks at Soviet deep attack doctrine and capabilities in order to place the threat in perspective. It then reviews US doctrine in light of the threat to determine its adequacy. Then, three historical vignettes are presented to see if a force similar to an ACR has shown utility in fighting the rear battle in the past. Finally, a critical analysis of US rear battle doctrine is undertaken in order to illustrate how an ACR can be employed to correct the shortcomings noted. Various considerations in deciding when to employ the cavalry, as well as the costs and benefits of doing so are discussed, however, the monograph concludes that there is a definite place for the cavalry in the rear battle. The mission of the dedicated, tactical combat force should be doctrinally recognized for the Armored Cavalry Regiment as its organization, equipment, training and operating methods ideally suit it for the task.
Key concepts: Battle, Doctrine, Military doctrine, Law, Mandate, Order (exchange), Engineering, Military strategy