at 70,000 feet intended to be undetected by radar, starting with overflights of Mos- cow and Leningrad in 1956. Despite Soviet radar detection and a prior U.S. plane loss in 1959, the flights continued without pub- lic acknowledgment.46


The downing occurred on the eve of the Paris Summit, causing its cancellation after U.S. President Eisenhower initially denied knowledge and offered a cover story, but later acknowledged his personal approval of the program. Technological Threat: Tech superiority being mistaken for tech invulnerability leads to massive shocks when the tech is finally defeated – a lesson directly applicable to any over- reliance on UAS or AI as infallible ISR.47


The Battle of Lang So’n (1979) shows China’s PLA, relying on infantry and artil- lery without modern reconnaissance, ambushed by Vietnamese forces in moun- tainous terrain, suffering approximately 20,000 casualties due to undetected de- fenses.48 49 Ground RSS could have re- duced losses.50


Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada, 1983) saw U.S. forces rely on air reconnais- sance with limited ground scouts. Cuban ambushes at Point Salines airfield caused 19 U.S. casualties, delaying capture.51 52 Ground RSS could have secured approa- ches.53 This case is particularly relevant given the parallel cited in Article 1: the 82nd Airborne Division, which played a central role in Grenada, is now seeing its own cavalry squadrons inactivated under the 2030 restructuring. Technolog- ical Amplification: Night-vision devices and radios enhanced scout effectiveness in Grenada, improving nighttime recon- naissance.54


VII. When Reconnaissance Was Preserved and When It Was Not: Desert Storm to the GWOT


Desert Storm (1991): Mechanized Cavalry and Information Dominance; GWOT Drones: Continuous ISR and Persistent Blind Spots


The Battle of 73 Easting (1991) reveals RSS gaps. Post-Cold War cavalry reduc- tions limited ground scouts, and the 2nd ACR faced unexpected Iraqi resistance due to incomplete reconnaissance.55 Robust RSS could have reduced risks.56 Technological Amplification: M3 Bradley


Spring 2026 CAVALRY & ARMOR JOURNAL


vehicles with thermal sights revolution- ized RSS, enabling rapid reconnaissance in desert terrain.57


The rise of Predator and Reaper drones created a belief in the unbeatability of Continuous ISR. In reality such ISR assets were mitigated by the use of tunnels, caves, civilian vehicles, and the bustle of city life.58 Drones failed to see the full picture, meaning that troops on the ground ended up relying on HUMINT, in-person recon, and presence patrols to pick up on patterns of life and insurgent activ- ities if they wanted to make accurate and informed decisions.59


During the GWOT, Predator and Reaper drones provided persistent surveillance and strike capabilities, but adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan countered them with low-tech methods like tunnels and urban camouflage.60 This forced reliance on ground RSS for comprehensive intel- ligence, demonstrating that drones alone cannot overcome environmental com- plexities.61 The integration of drones with human scouts maximized effectiveness, but overconfidence in UAS highlighted vulnerabilities against adaptive foes.62


At the end of the day, having well-trained and disciplined recon forces working with modern assets was the best recon force for the GWOT warfighter.63 That conclusion – earned through two decades of hard combat experience – is precisely what the Army’s 2030 restructuring risks discarding. Article 1 of this series docu- mented those cuts in detail; the GWOT record presented here shows what is at stake.


VIII. Technology as Both Threat and Force Multiplier: Why Recon- naissance Fails When Humans Are Removed


A. When Technology Threatened Elimination of Ground RSS Late 19th Century (Repeating Rifles): Increased infantry firepower reduced cavalry in campaigns like Manila.64


World War I (Machine Guns): Rendered mounted charges obsolete, nearly elimi- nating cavalry at Audregnies.65


Interwar Period (Tanks/Aircraft): Led to cavalry’s 1942 abolition, impacting Kas- serine and Leyte.66


World War II (Fixed Defenses): Maginot Line overreliance dismissed Ardennes recon reports.67


Vietnam (Helicopters): Nearly eliminated LRRPs, as seen in the Tet Offensive.68


Vietnam (Sensors): Igloo White confused data with awareness, wasting resources.69


Cold War (High-Altitude Aircraft): U-2 in- vulnerability myth led to capture shock.70


GWOT (Drones): Assumed continuous ISR failed against tunnels and urban camouflage.71


The pattern is unmistakable: from repeat- ing rifles to drones, each generation’s transformative technology has generated an institutional argument for reducing or eliminating human-led ground RSS. Each time, battlefield reality has reasserted the requirement. The current restructur- ing is the latest – not the last – chapter in this cycle.


B. When Technology Amplified RSS World War I (Motorcycles/Armored Cars): Enhanced mobility in the Hundred Days Offensive.72


World War II (Mechanized Cavalry): Jeeps and M8 Greyhounds improved RSS in the Pacific.73


Vietnam (Air-Ground Integration): Heli- copter-supported scouts revolutionized RSS at Ia Drang.74


Desert Storm (M3 Bradley): Thermal sights amplified reconnaissance effec- tiveness.75


GWOT (Integrated Drones): Combined with ground recon for optimal impact.76


IX. The Enduring Requirement for Ground Reconnaissance in an Age of Automation


From Manila to the GWOT, neglecting ground RSS led to operational failures, while technology both threatened and enhanced these capabilities. In every era, the temptation was the same: a new technology appeared capable enough to render the human scout redundant. In every era, that temptation proved costly when tested in combat.


The U.S. Army’s 2030 restructuring – re- viving division cavalry (DIVCAV) squad- rons in select armored divisions for divis-


21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52