Whither the 2d Cavalry?

terms of both money and equipment, is the replacement of the TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the antitank troops, and the M198s in the howitzer battery with M1A1s and M109A6s, respectively. The squadrons of the 2d Cavalry will then be organized with three cavalry troops, a tank company, an SP howitzer battery, and the HHT. The Regimental Support Squadron (RSS) would also receive M88 recovery vehicles and turret and hull maintenance personnel. The regiment’s current and future home of Fort Polk and the JRTC make this organization viable in terms of training. By FORSCOM regulation, the regiment must provide a squadron per JRTC training rotation as OPFOR augmentation. 2d ACR must also fit its unit training in between the training unit rotations at the JRTC; this means during weekends and clean-up time at the end of a rotation, as well as holidays. The training of three tank companies and three howitzer batteries is infinitely more manageable than coordinating the gunnery of an entire heavy regiment. For the foreseeable future, Fort Polk’s primary reason for being will be the JRTC. The Multi-Purpose Range Complex at Fort Polk can easily handle the gunnery requirements of a few companies of armor. The tank companies can also fit into the BLUE FOR training rotations as augmenting forces. This step would save transportation dollars for CONUS units. The addition of tanks and self-propelled artillery will require the replacement of some wheel mechanics by hull and turret maintenance personnel in the squadron HHTs and the RSS. The support platoons will need to exchange some 5-ton trucks for fuel and cargo HEMMTs. The RSS Supply & Transport troop will also require PLS. The RSS Maintenance Troop will also require the addition of M88s and turret and hull mechanics. The regiment’s ASL will need to reflect the addition of tanks and SP artillery. All of these additions to RSS will somewhat affect the tactical mobility of the unit, but not materially affect the strategic mobility. The modifications to the 2d ACR’s MTOE, as stated above, allow the regiment to retain an element of strategic mobility via air while increasing the lethality of the regiment to perform the cover and guard missions outlined in FM 17-95, Cavalry Operations. It will strain, somewhat, the RSS, but no more than the current level of support required by the regiment across abroad front. The Army also retains a unit which can operate, without major reinforcement, across the entire continuum of conflict.

Let us theorize a regional contingency in a desert environment. Corps-sized counterattacks and ripostes leave open flanks. The 2d Cavalry can guard these flanks with its armored HMMWVs, tanks, self-propelled artillery, and OH-58Ds. The cavalry troops equipped with armored HMMWVs can range across the flank in screening observation posts or a moving screen. The air and ground scouts can put eyes on target, confirming or denying information the corps receives from airborne sensors. The scouts can also provide terminal guidance for precision munitions delivered by either the corps artillery, corps Apache battalions, or Air Force aircraft. The addition of the SP artillery ensures the regiment has agile artillery which can maneuver and then mass fires at the decisive point. There is also commonality between the howitzer batteries of the regiment and any reinforcing field artillery. The tank companies provide the squadron commanders an effective means to strip away enemy reconnaissance and force the deployment of enemy forces, all the while buying time for the corps commander to respond to a threat to his flank, the traditional role of cavalry. A peacekeeping or enforcement commitment is also within the range of missions for the 2d Cavalry. The regiment does not now and will not put exclusive peacekeeping missions on its METL. The 2d ACR found that the discipline required for combat makes it easier to transition to the tasks and discipline required in OOTW. In short, albeit intense, training periods, the regiment can train to standard and then deploy on these missions, as it proved in Haiti. In the regiment’s experience, PEO and PKO missions require the presence of overwhelming firepower, or the potential to mass such force as needed. Potential bad actors need to know the PEO/PKO force can crush them, if required. A regiment armed as proposed can accomplish this mission. The armored HMMWVs can effectively patrol city streets or country trails with the tanks and air cavalry providing the ultimate in quick reaction forces. The artillery provides an unmistakable touch of menace, the steel hand inside the velvet glove of the PEO/ PKO force. The best way to keep the peace on these missions is to ensure all potential bad actors know the cost of breaking the peace or attacking the enforcers.

The Army will continue to downsize. The units the Army retains must be able to respond to missions across the operational continuum. These units must be able to deploy by air and land or use the prepositioned afloat stocks available. The primary warfighting focus — our two potential major regional contingencies — require forces which can contribute to the fight. The 2d ACR can conceivably be called on to fight in either region. The hybrid organization I propose can significantly contribute to the fight in either prospective theater and make use of the full range of strategic deployment, including prepositioned stocks. It can also, and just as importantly, effectively and efficiently train at the regiment’s current home station.

Corps commanders, Army commanders, and CINCs all require information obtained by reconnaissance units. The 2d Cavalry with M1114 armored HMMWVs, M1A1s, M109A6s, and OH-58Ds can fulfill this requirement. The regiment will also have the wherewithal to fight for information through terminal guidance of precision munitions, agile artillery fires, or the killing punch of the best tank in the world. The Army and the Armor School have the time now to evaluate this proposal quickly and then make a fielding decision which will retain a strategically mobile, operationally useful, and tactically lethal force.

That is one cavalryman’s opinion. ARMOR — 21 LTC Kevin C. M. Benson is currently serving as a planner on the Third U. S. Army/ Army Forces Central Command staff. Prior to this assignment he served as the regimental executive officer of the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment. He also deployed with the 2d Cavalry to Haiti on UN duty. He served in armor and cavalry units in the U. S. and Germany, and as a planner on the XVIII Airborne Corps staff. He is a graduate of the Army Command and Staff College and the School of Advanced Military Studies.