Of 'big men on big horses' 
Thanks for answer. A discussion about 3 o 4 troop squadron between Canadian soldiers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,54588.0/all.html
Thanks for the link....interesting discussion.
What it is particularly interesting for in view of the tradition that armour units in Commonwealth countries use cavalry terms to describe their formations, is that they rarely mention cavalry!
A tank is just a really sophisticated version of the cuirassier.
The AUSLAV is actually a very sophisticated version of the hussar/lancer.
IFV mounted infantry are just the 'new dragoons'.
When one thinks of the debates in these simpler terms it readily becomes apparent that there is no debate.
Cavalry regiments during the horse era were used to perform specific tactical manoeuvres to achieve specific results. The choices were limited.
Cuirassiers were rarely used as independent squadrons, in part because they were habitually short on men and horses.
Light cavalry didn't begin to perform in close order until armies started to run out of 'battle' cavalry during the Napoleonic wars. Their successes in countering 'battle' cavalry are noteworthy if only for their rarity.
Most of the cavalry tactical work was done by dragoons. The most versatile part of the cavalry arm, they were good for mounted and dismounted combat; were economical to equip, and did not require specially selected mounts.
Interestingly enough Australia never fielded ‘cuirassiers’ which, where they existed, had become just another type of mounted infantry. The same fate betook the flashy hussars and lancers.
Australian cavalry had always been Mounted Rifles, even the Lancer regiments.
So it comes down to ‘dragoon’ tactics really as I see it, because ‘cuirassier’ tactics are really in the Cold War Central Europe league well outside of Australian needs or wants.
From this perspective every ‘dragoon’ regiment had their ‘grenadiers’, and it seems to me that although Australian Army regiments may want to perpetuate their historical legacy, in terms of tactics the tanks will always remain in just such ‘grenadier’ role as AD points out above.
From this, the conclusion seems fairly obvious to me. To achieve tactical objectives, a given unit assumes a tactical formation appropriate to the mission just as they have always done. Where the tank ‘grenadiers’ deploy within the ‘dragoon’ troops and squadrons will always be dictated by the CO and not those making decisions on the equipment purchase, and given historical knowledge, there will never be enough of either ‘dragoons’ or ‘grenadiers’, or ‘lancers’ for that matter.
It seems to me then that the debate over size of this troop is immaterial, and the Army approach to training is the right one given Australian doctrine.
From this very simplified perspective it does however become very clear that what the Australian Army really needs is ‘horse’ artillery, and that is also in the 'works'.
However of far greater concern is the adequacy of 'mounts' for the Australian 'mounted rifles'. It seems to me this was realised 20 years ago through Whaler.....
Cheers
