The Cavalry Planning Process
Synchronizing and Conducting Effective Reconnaissance and Security Operations in Large Scale Combat Operations
CPT Zach Newman Introduction
FM 3-98 states that Cavalry formations exist “to set conditions for successful operations of their higher headquarters,” and asserts that reconnaissance and security (R&S) operations play a crucial role in shaping the operational environ- ment for a brigade combat team (BCT).1 To effectively conduct such operations and provide shared understanding, re- action time, and maneuver space for the brigade, Cavalry doctrine stresses the need for organizational agility and flex- ibility on the part of not only individual Troopers and collective units but within the systems and processes that comprise those units. A squadron’s (SQDN’s) plan- ning process must demonstrate the adap- tiveness and efficiency necessary for Cavalry formations to effectively colla- borate with adjacent units, disseminate simple mission orders, and synchronize warfighting functions. For Cavalry squa- drons, these planning activities must oc- cur with the formation one step in front of its higher headquarters (HHQ) in plan- ning and with elements in front at the HHQ forward line of troops, conducting continuous R&S operations.
However, no planning process currently exists to serve such forward-leaning for- mations. ATP 3-20.96 Cavalry Squadron asserts that squadrons will likely not use the military decision-making process (MDMP) as their primary planning meth- odology, instead claiming that the rapid decision-making and synchronization process (RDSP) represents a better solu- tion.2 However, the RDSP provides its own difficulties when used by Cavalry squa- drons in planning R&S missions. The RDSP requires units to compare their current situation to the existing order; but because the nature of R&S operations requires squadrons to cross the line of departure (LD) before the BCT completes its plan- ning, capitalizing on transitions, often- times no order yet exists. Furthermore,
Spring 2026 CAVALRY & ARMOR JOURNAL
squadrons attempting to operate in am- biguous environments must often deve- lop plans built upon more than just the adjustment decisions that RDSP seeks to produce. Cavalry squadrons, by virtue of their unique and nuanced mission set, require a purpose-built and deliberate planning methodology to ensure the suc- cessful execution of R&S operations during large scale combat operations (LSCO).
This article was written in response to the author serving as an OC/T for 24 rotat- ions on the Cavalry Squadron Training Team (Cobra Team) at the National Train- ing Center, witnessing each squadron struggle with the same problem – how to conduct an abbreviated but effective form of the MDMP in a timely manner. It advocates the adoption of a standardized abbreviated planning process amongst those units charged with conducting R&S. This methodology – the Cavalry plan- ning process, or CPP – seeks to gain effici- encies by promoting increased collabo- ration between commanders and staff and facilitating expedient planning built around directed courses of action (COAs). It is NOT a replacement for the MDMP, but a standardized way to truncate selec- ted steps of the MDMP where appropri- ate, and at a squadron commander’s discretion. Like all planning processes, the CPP experiences systemic tension as it trades granularity and thoroughness to gain time – the one element that Cav- alry squadrons cannot afford to lose. The CPP offers an adaptable framework for squadrons to deliberately remain in front of their BCTs, driving decisions and secur- ing transitions.
Assumptions
Certain fundamental assumptions under- pin the Cavalry planning process, just as in the MDMP and RDSP:
Assumption 1: The commander will fully participate. Continuous squadron com- manding officer (SCO) involvement repre- sents the most important assumption that underlies the CPP. Though FM 5-0 declares
that “commanders are the most impor- tant participants in the MDMP,” the pro- cess does not truly insist on continued command involvement.3 Conversely, the CPP demands commander involvement during every step to ensure the process proceeds efficiently and sets conditions necessary to effectively plan during ex- ecution. To this end, the CPP revolves around a commander’s visualization ses- sion and the issuance of a holistic directed COA to the entire squadron staff – not just to the S3 or specific troop commanders.
Assumption 2: Units have conducted the MDMP. Use of the CPP assumes that both BCT and squadron staffs demonstrate a basic level of proficiency with the MDMP, since it borrows and modifies several MDMP sub-steps. Just as importantly, the CPP assumes that BCTs and squadrons have completed a full MDMP iteration with an emphasis on a thorough mission analysis. This “base layer” of the MDMP – often conducted by units during recep- tion, staging, and onward integration (RSOI) activities or at home station prior to arriving in the area of operations (AO) – provides the framework necessary for a successful CPP execution.
Assumption 3: The unit’s area of the op- erations and general situation have not changed considerably since the MDMP. For example, a unit that has conducted the MDMP focused on the National Train- ing Center’s (NTC’s) terrain can use the CPP effectively regardless of whether operations take their elements into the Northern Corridor, Central Corridor, or western pass complexes. If that same unit’s operations take them outside of the “Box” to Twentynine Palms however, the unit should execute another round of MDMP to account for changing circum- stances before attempting the CPP.
Assumption 4: The current tactical situ- ation allows for face-to-face planning. Though distributed planning methods have value, they cannot contribute mean- ingfully to a planning process that empha-
37
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
