>>/42838/
> I tried to find the exact composition of these units but I could not, however by this composition it seems they may not have that much organic recon(but I can't say for sure). Our reserve cavalry regiments specialise in recon as well(but in light vehicles) which maybe hints at a recon role for the cavalry regements in general.
So the cavalry effectively is two wheeled recon squadrons per brigade. The tanks are a single squadron for overall brigade support. Presumably they can be employed as a taskforce together with a mechanized infantry company. Brazilian pure tank and pure M113 battalions are expected to operate by breaking down into component companies and forming mixed taskforces.
>>/42842/
> Also NATO symbols and the logic behind them - how they combine the simpler sings into a combination of sign systems to mark modern unit compositions - also worth an investigation.
I often see unit boxes with text underneath giving further specification on what they are. That's a failure of the system which is meant for visual information.
>>/42839/
That looks a lot like the Brazilian mechanized infantry brigade. Three battalions of infantry on wheeled APCs and a wheeled recon squadron.
>>/42843/
>>/42845/
>>/42846/
>>/42847/
But if the brigade is the main level of autonomous command with operational autonomy and a fixed composition, there's no problem in using divisions with no particular designation (like "Army Division" instead of calling it infantry, cavalry or armored) as collections of a varying number of brigades.
Choosing between brigade and division has a lot to do with army size, an understrength army spread thin among many formations will end up with brigade-sized divisions and battalion-sized regiments. Might as well drop the pretence.