Armored Cav Tom Clancy Synopsis: the bestselling author of military fiction examines the special organization of the armored cavalry, its equipment, its soldiers, its leaders, and how it fights. The focus is on the 3rd, or the "Brave Rifles," regiment that took part in the Persian Gulf War. Included are interviews with two cavalry leaders from that war. Bestseller 1994. Bestselling Novels Include: The Hunt for Red October Red Storm Rising Patriot Games The Cardinal of the Kremlin Clear and Present Danger The Sum of All Fears Without Remorse Debt of Honor Nonfiction: Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment The views and opinions expressed in this book are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily correspond with those of any corporation, navy, or government organization of any country. ARMORED CAV A Berkley Book / published by arrangement with Jack Ryan Limited Partnership PRINTING HISTORY Berkley trade paperback edition / November 1994 All rights reserved. Copyright (D 1994 by Jack Ryan Limited Partnership. Cover photo copyright (D 1994 by Hans Halberstadt / Arms Communications. Author photo (D 1993 by John Earle. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission. For information address: The Berkley Publishing Group, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016. ISBN: 0-425-15836-5 Berkley Books are published by The Berkley Publishing Group, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016. BERKLEY and the "B" design are trademarks of Berkley Publishing Corporation. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This book is dedicated to the troopers of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Once again it is time to say thanks to all the people who really made this book a work to be proud of. At the start is my partner and researcher, John D. Gresham. Once again, he has literally traveled from coast to coast to assemble the wealth of material and experiences that are being presented for your enjoyment and enlightenment. His is a huge job with some deeply difficult tasks associated with it, and my best thanks go to him for his continued dedication and friendship. Also, the entire team has again benefited from the wise counsel and advice of series editor Professor Martin H. Greenberg. Laura Alpher is to be complimented again for her marvelous drawings which have added so much to the quality of the final book. This young lady is a major talent, so keep your eyes out for her work in the future. Tony Koltz, Mike Markowitz, and Chris Carlson also need to be recognized for their research and editorial support that was both critical and timely. A special note of appreciation goes to Greg Stewart for his fine photographic advice.Thanks also to Cindi Woodrum, Diana Patin, and Roselind Greenberg for their patience and support in backing the rest of us up as we went along digging out the bits and pieces of our little story. One thing that makes a book both fun and exciting to work on is support from on high, and this book was blessed with Army support that was, in a word, unbelievable. It is difficult to say thanks enough to the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Gordon Sullivan, U.S.A. This gentleman soldier, who looks like a kindly pet shop owner, is the driving force behind the technical revolutions that are currently being implemented in the Army. The Army and the country are blessed to have his leadership at this critical time in the history of our army. Also deserving special thanks is General Fred Franks, U.S.A., for his time and patience, as well as his friendship to all the members of our team. Thanks also to General Barry McCaffrey, U.S.A., and his wife, Jillfor sharing a special evening at their home with us. Down at Fort Hood, Texas, our appreciation goes out to my old friend, Lieutenant General Pete Taylor, U.S.A., and his replacement, Lieutenant General "Butch" Funk, U.S.A. Out at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, there was Brigadier General Bob Coffey, U.S.A., who took time out of his busy schedule to show us the world's finest ground warfare trai'ni'ng center. Thanks also to Brigadier General Harold Wilson, U.S.A., Ph.D., the chief historian for the U.S. Army. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Finally, there were three extraordinary young officers: Captains H. R. McMaster and Joseph Sartiano, and Ist Lieutenant Dan Miller, who shared their own Gulf War experiences with us. I think you will be as amazed as we were when you read them. Another group that was vital to our efforts, less well known but equally important, were the members of the various U.S. Army public affairs offices (PAOS) and protocol organizations that handled our numerous requests for visits and information. Tops on our list was Major Rick Thomas of the Pentagon PAO. Rick and his team helped grant virtually every wish for information and access that we had, and made the whole security review process a pleasure. Over in General Sullivan's office, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Coffey, U.S.A., helped lay out the Army's modernization plans. Out at Fort Irwin, California, Captains Franklin Childress and Len Tokar made our visit both memorable and livable in the incredible heat of September, 1993. Down at Fort Polk, Louisiana, Lieutenant Colonel Mike Trahan, U.S.A., as well as Dan Nance and Dave Bingham helped get the light cavalry story across to us. Down at TRADOC Headquarters, Colonel George Stinnett and Ray Harper worked miracles to support our efforts. Down at Fort Bliss, Texas, we had the honor of meeting as fine a group of warriors as you can imagine in the troopers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Our first thanks go to the regimental commander, Colonel Robert Young, U.S.A. This lifelong cavalry trooper, who doubles as a peacekeeper and relief worker, is a man of amazing contrasts. Our thanks for sharing time out of the regiment's training schedule to school us on the ways of the 3rd's troopers. In addition, the regimental staff deserves some mention here. Command Sergeant Major Dennis E. Webster and the regimental executive officer, Lieutenant Colonel Luke Barnett, U.S.A., did a fine job of coordinating our visits to the regiment. And the regimental PAOs Captain Andy Vliet and 2nd Lieutenant Nichole Whitehead were fantastic in their tolerance and patience. We also want to recognize the assistance of the regiment's various squadron commanders: Lieutenant Colonels Norman Greczyn, Karl J. Gunzelman, Gratton Sealock, and Thomas M. Hill. And of course, there were the extraordinary efforts of Lieutenant Colonel Toby W. Martinez, the commander of the regiment's 1st (Tiger) Squadron. Toby is one of the best cavalry officers in the Army today. He tolerated having us there to watch his victories, his defeats, and his learning experiences. God bless, Toby. Many thanks are due to our various industrial partners, without whom all the information on the various weapons and systems would never have happened. At the armor manufacturers there was Carl Oskoian of General Dynamics, Ken Julian and Judy Mclivanie of BMY, as well as Bill Highlander and Madeleine Orr-Geiser of FMC. Among those at the helicopter builders were Russ Rumney at Bell, Jim Kagdis at Boeing-Sikorsky, Ken Jensen at McDonnell Douglas, and finally, Bill Tuttle and Foster Morgan of Sikorsky. The folks at the truck contractors were a wealth of data, with Walt Garlow and Lynn Jones at Oshkosh Truck, as well as the incomparable Craig MacNab at AM General, as standouts. We made many friends at the various missile, armament, and system manufacturers including: Natalie Riley at BEI, Russ Logan at Beretta USA, Cynthia Pulham at Boeing, Art Dalton and Brian Berger at Colt, Clementine Cacciacarro and Cheryl Wiencek at Hughes, Robert Clower at IDA, Tommy Wilson at Loral, Jody Wilson-Eudy at Motorola, Ed Alber at Olin, Jim Walker at Rockwell, Peter Jones of Tenebrex, and last, but certainly not least, Ed Rodemsky and Barbara Thomas of Trimble, who spent so much time and capital to educate us on the subtleties of the GPS system. Thanks to you all. Once again, our thanks for all of our help up in New York. To Robert Gottlieb at William Morris, thanks again for a great opportunity. And at Berkley Books, our appreciation goes out to our editor, John Talbot, as well as to Jacky Sach, Patty Benford, and David Shanks. To our friends like Ed Burba and Donn Starry, thanks again for your contributions and wisdom. To all the guys who took us for rides, thanks for teaching the heathens how things really work. For our families and friends, we once again thank you for having endured late dinners, broken promises, and missed holidays; please know that we love you always. And lastly, to the diminutive tank sergeant known as "Big Daddy," we say "...Thanks for going armor!" F YOU AIN'T CAV, YOU AIN'T..." Frequently displayed in conspicuous places, that trenchant soldier slogan reflects the cavalry trooper's perilception of himself and his outfit. This splendid book is about those soldiers. Specifically it is about armored cavalry and about one armored cavalry regiment, the 3rd (known as the "Brave Rifles"), soon to be the last such organization on the active rolls of the U.S. Army-an army which in the not-too-distant past boasted five such active regiments, and among whose most effective unit performances in the Vietnam War were those of an armored cavalry regiment, the Ith (known as "The Blaclchorse"). An army whose deployed armored cavalry regiments, the 2nd ("Toujours Prdt") and the 3rd, were among the most effective in the Gulf War, and in which there is a rich tradition of outstanding cavalry units and famous senior leaders who served as younger officers in those units. In this book Tom Clancy describes better than anyone yet why cavalry is what it is-why it is different-and why the nation is likely to need more, not fewer, cavalry regiments as we probe tentatively toward the 21st century. Like all military units, modern armored cavalry is a unique combination of soldiers and equipment-but most of all, it's the soldiers who are important. A persistent lesson of battle is that, however good the equipment, what wins an engagement is the combination of the courage of the soldiers, the excellence of the leadership, and the effectiveness of the training-individual and small-unit training in employment of the equipment according to well-thought-out and frequently practiced tactics and operational schemes. So it all goes together-tac- tics, equipment, training, and organization. All that is what this book is about: a special organization, its equipment, its soldiers, its leaders, and how it fights. It's not just in cavalry units that all that goes together, for it does so in many units. But several characteristics of cavalry make that organization perhaps "di more fferent "than other organizations. What are those characteristics? First are the traditional cavalry missions-reconnaissance and security. In other words you have to find an enemy force in order to inform a higher command; then you may have to take action to prevent that enemy force from interfering with friendly force battle plans. These historic cavalry missions demand great operational mobility, tactical agility, superb command and control, and a special ability to operate effectively over vast distances. Additionally, they require the ability to concentrate quickly to meet a threat or to take advantage of an opportunity. In sum, they require an ever-present need to seize the initiative. The history of battle teaches the importance of seizing the initiative. For whoever takes the initiative usually wins-regardless of who may outnumber or be outnumbered, or who attacks or defends. Cavalry missions require units organized and trained to take the initiative, all the time, from the very beginning, every time out. Second, cavalry organization is quite different. The need for mobility and agility, and for economy of force over vast distances, has caused modern cavalry to be organized around combined-arms teams at the lowest levels of command. Postwar armored cavalry units from the platoon level up consisted of a built-in mixture of scouts, infantry, tanks, and mortars for indirect fire support. Thus, an armored cavalry second lieutenant commands a full spectrum of combined-arms capabilities in his own little piece of the Army. With several such platoons, the cavalry troop commander can use the platoons as is, or he can group tanks, infantry, mortars, and scouts from all platoons in a combinedarms team at the troop level. In squadrons of armored cavalry regiments, a tank company and a self-propelled artillery battery give squadron commanders yet a stronger combined-arms team. With three cavalry squadrons, an air cavalry squadron of scout and attack helicopters, combat engineer and chemical companies, and a combat support squadron providing organic logistics support, the regimental commander has a truly imposing independent combinedarms force. An armored division several times the size of such a regiment would be required to provide an equal capability. As we shall see in Tom Clancy's account, with the advent of more complex weapons systems, levels at which combined arms are grouped have moved up from platoon to troop. But the result is the same-from their first day of duty cavalry leaders think combined-arms warfare. And that is a major reason why they are different, for battle experience teaches that the most difficult task to learn is the art-and it is an art-of knowing instinctively how to employ combined arms. Cavalry leaders are forced to do just that every day of their lives. In Tom Clancy's book we meet two Persian Gulf War cavalry leaders who are masters of that art-one an armored corps commander, the other a cavalry troop commander. We learn that the corps commander, General Fred Franks, was once himself a cavalry platoon leader, later a squadron commander, and still later commander of a regiment, the 11th. The cavalry troop commander, Captain H. R. McMaster, Jr., began his own career as a second lieutenant in a cavalry unit. Fach, at his own level, is a master of the art of combined-arms warfare. The outstanding battle record of armored cavalry in the Gulf War is an important part of Tom Clancy's account, especially in the interviews with General Franks and Captain McMaster. It is well to remember the equally outstanding battle performance of armored cavalry in the Vietnam War, for there it was originally perceived that the nature of the war, the enemy, terrain, and climate would make it impossible to employ an.1, armored units. Consequently, infantry divisions initially deployed to Vietnam without organic tank battalions and armored cavalry squadrons. But after some experience, the infantry commanders already in-country sent home for those units. With some misgivings, a regiment of cavalry, the 11th, was deployed to Southeast Asia. The misgivings proved unfounded. The 11th did very well. Other units were sent, and they also performed well. Later, a special task force sent to evaluate the performance of armored units in Vietnam concluded they were the most effective, certainly the most cost-effective, of the war. And when the war ended, cavalry units were among the last to redeploy home@ they simply represented more combat power for the least investment in manpower that could be had. As a result of this experience, it was quite clear that cavalry was a force ready-made for the less-than-all-out wars that became the norm at the end of the Cold War and during the years that followed. Changes to organization and equipment suggested by cavalry commanders were the basis for post-Vietnam cavalry reforms, and for the success of splendid regiments like the 3rd that were so effective in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Now our once-familiar world has changed. The traditional threat of more than five decades' standing has come asunder. And no one can reasonably say what will eventuate. A Russia there will be, but what kind? And what may be its relationship(s) with the other former Soviet republics? Four of those republics are now proud owners of thermonuclear weapons and the means to deliver them inter- or intra-theater. Meanwhile, militarization of conflict in the Third World continues apace. Indeed it is at a new juncture, with the advent of ballistic missiles and the drive by rogue dictators in resource-critical regions to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. Economic interdependence, an inescapable fact of our "modern" world, makes all nations, especially developed nations, vulnerable to mischief by Third World miscreants. At the same time, domestic economic uncertainty and national priorities now aimed at medical, educational, urban, and environmental dilemmas make it difficult to garner support for military forces to counter these new and unfamiliar threats. The United States historically follows successful military ventures by destroying the very strength that provided victory-only to find it necessary to rebuild on short order with the arrival of new and previously unforeseen threats. The first battles of the next war thus find us paying the tragic price for our unpreparedness in the commodity we can least afford to expend-the lives of soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. Now we are at it once more. The situation of this last decade of the 20th century is reminiscent of the thirty years following the American Civil War, when shadowed remnants of a once-proud army were completely overcommitted in campaigns to tame the American West and its Indians. Now, the "wild savages" of the American West have been replaced by religious fundamentalists and other types of "hostiles." Though they are geographically far away, their weapons put them relatively closer than those now all-but-forgotten frontier "badmen." Yet the drive to disarm continues. The American Congress is frequently blamed for this state of affairs, and not without justification. For the Congress, for better or for worse, has to determine the size of the armed forces in budget terms-numbers of people, of bases, and of kinds of equipment. On the other hand, structure-the numbers of divisions, air wings, carrier task forces-is a responsibility of the services: Army, Navy, Air Force. And that is where the services have an opportunity to exercise creativity and initiative. The Army after the Civil War, driven to draconian measures by Congressional restrictions on manpower, all but abandoned larger formations-divisions, corps, armies. Operations during those grim, lean years were in the hands of some very capable, if understrength, regiments of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. It is a paradigm that we would do well to study; Tom Clancy's superb book is a good place to begin. Donn Starry, General, U.S. Army, Retired, 41st Colonel of the Blackhorse, and Honorary Colonel of the Regiment When did mobile warfare start? That's hard to say-but probably not long after somebody realized it was possible to use a horse to move things or people. And it was definitely going strong on the steppes of Central Asia by the third millennium BC. Recent excavations by Russian archaeologists of Bronze Age grave sites on the Kazalch steppes (dated around 2200 to 1800 BC) have unearthed the earliest known remains of chariots. These were invented as high-tech platforms from which warriors could shoot arrows or hurl javelins. And yet it's quite possible that mobile warfare goes farther back than that. Bones from even earlier sites in the Ukraine suggest that the long love affair between humans and horses may have started more than six thousand years ago. Archaeologists debate the issue, but horses may have been ridden bareback long before they were harnessed to wheeled vehicles. What if the first use of the horse in battle was for reconnaissance? Sitting astride a horse you can see farther than you can while standing on your own two feet. And the horse has four legs, which has advantages, too. More fleet of foot than a man though only for short distances, and only if properly treated-the horse can give his rider the ability to locate the enemy, approach him, count his numbers, perhaps harass him a little, and then escape unhurt to report to the chieftain. And so from time immemorial, these two missions have been the main missions of the cavalry: to locate the enemy, and to sting him. Cavalry has rarely been a decisive arm by itself. For one thing, the size of the horse gave cavalry troopers lower combat density than the infantry. The breadth of a horse's chest and the space needed to avoid crushing a rider's legs against his neighbor's mount meant that two or three infantrymen occupied the same frontage as a single horse and rider. Two or three spears, swords, or bows in the hands of foot soldiers confronted each warrior on horseback. Less appreciated is a horse's unwillingness to plunge headlong into a barrier it cannot see through. Though a horse might not be the smartest living thing on earth, only men will knowingly hurl away their lives. Third, a horse is not a machine. To operate and perform properly, it needs food, water, and rest. Denied those things, it dies; and all the spare parts in an Army inventory can't fix that. And so it was a rule of the American West that on any long-distance trip of more than five days, an infantry company could outmarch a cavalry troop. A horse afforded a trooper a relatively high dash-speed, but only over fairly short distances. A man sitting on a horse also made an easy target, especially after the development of firearms. And yet, despite these drawbacks, the horse remained important in war for three millennia. More precisely, the horseman performed several crucial missions: find the enemy; prevent the enemy from finding you; collect information on the enemy before your main force collides with his; harass his flanks and communications; pursue him in defeat; screen your own forces when you are forced to withdraw. Today the horse is used mainly for parades and ceremonies, but the missions it once performed remain as vital as ever. Though today's cavalry "companies" are called "troops," and the "battalions" are called "squadrons," the troop ers (otherwise called "soldiers"-traditions do die hard, especially when John Ford made so many great movies about the glorious horse-soldiers) ride to battle not on Front Royal remounts, but mostly within sophisticated fighting vehicles. Always the Army's proud arm, the socially prominent arm, the "pretty" arm-and for all those reasons despised by the infantry-the United States Cavalry' is not-and never was-just fashionable. It grows and changes. And so in the 1950s and '60s it mutated into a shock-arm. In those days, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR)L was tasked with covering the Fulda Gap, an historic invasion route into western Germany. The job of the 11th ACR was to slow down, break up, and generally obstruct the advance of an armored formation as large as the Soviet Third Shock Army (about twelve times its size). That job demanded a new kind of unit, different from one designed for reconnaissance. Consequently the armored cavalry regiment evolved into something like an unusually robust brigade, or even a mini-division-a superbly balanced combat formation, containing a little bit of everything the Army has, under the command of a full colonel. In due course, the ACR became a plum assignment, where successful stewardship was the passage to greater things. In fact, the top ranks of the U.S. Army are packed with men who have served in, and commanded, the three ACRs that operated during the Cold War. This growth process, whose purpose was simply to give the unit designated to be the first target for the Red Army a modest chance at survival, ended up producing a military organization with unusual relevance for the world that is now emerging after the fall of Communism. Relatively small in size, the ACR is heavy on "teeth" and short on "tail"-a weighted fist with deceptive agility on the battlefield. It has global mobility, and the greatest concentration of firepower of any land combat force yet created. As we will see, the marriage of weapons and mobility, added to the coming revolution in battlefield-information technology, will transform the ACR yet again into a form that will make it the most important land component in the U.S. military's continuing mission of keeping the peace-and punishing those who violate it. And that will continue to be the legacy of those who stir to the sound of "Boots and Saddles." Ever since the first warrior padded himself with leather to ward off the blows of a rival's weapon, there has been an endless struggle between those who fashion armor to protect soldiers and those who build weapons to penetrate and destroy it. Later, when man began to forge metal into plates, he beat it into improved armor for his breast and head, to better ward off enemy spears and arrows. A well-armored warrior could close with his enemies, survive their attacks, and then destroy them with his own weapons. When sharp iron is flying around a battlefield, armor protection can be the difference between life and death, victory and defeat. The knights of France fell to the archers of King Edward Ill of England at the Battle of Crdcy ( 1346) because the armor a horse and rider could bear did not stop the arrows fired by longbows. The first British tanks were impervious to the machine-gun bullets fired by German soldiers during the Battle of Cambrai in 1917. The world of the armored warrior is an ever-shifting balance between armor and firepower. The way these two elements interact, as well as the skill of the operators, determines how well any armored fighting vehicle will do in combat. Let's take a quick look at the state of the art in the complex science of armored warfare. Armor-The Hard Shell Armor is the tank's reason for being, not mobility or a big tin, although both are desirable and will compete with armor in a tank's design. Armor is designed to keep the crew, and the weapons capable of inflicting punishment upon an enemy, safe. Tanks were born in World War I out of the desperation of trench warfare. In September of 1914, after the Battle of the Marne, the defeated German Army fell back and dug into a system of trenches and defensive positions so strong that the Allies could not dislodge them. In the years that followed, machine guns and artillery inflicted hideous losses on both sides; the war bogged down into a stalemate. The addition of several hundreds of miles of barbed wire created a deadly zone between the opposing armies (called "no-man's-land") where infantry and the now-outdated horse cavalry (they just didn't know it yet) were mowed down by the tens of thousands. Allied commanders demanded more and more artillery to beat down the German troops and destroy their barbed wire and entrenchments. That didn't work. The only result was to turn a good portion of northern France and Belgium into terrain resembling a barren moonscape. Something new was needed. Something that could crawl right up to the machine-gun nests and destroy them, without being destroyed first. The solution was a combination of steel plate (from naval ship armor), the internal combustion engine, caterpillar tracks (from early agricultural tractors), and machine guns or light cannon. Enter the tank. Because they were originally called "land ships," many terms in the tank vocabulary-turret, hull, hatch, deck, periscope-are naval metaphors, but not the name "tank" itself. That comes from a British cover story: They concealed their construction from the Germans by calling them storage tanks or boilers. During World War I the typical Allied tank had armor between 10mm (about .4 inches) and 25mm (about 1 inch) thick of hardened steel plate. Only a 12mm (about .5 inch) thickness of armor was sufficient to stop German armor-piercing bullets at point-blank range. This was also sufficient to stop most artillery shell fragments, although a direct hit was usually fatal. By the beginning of World War II, tank armor was between 30mm (about 1.2 inch) and 70mm (about 2.75 inches) thick; and the front section was