>>42830
That's not intuitive. It's like using "heavily armed" to mean heavily armoured.

>>42831
>I don't know how big a squadron is but considering the Australian army only has 50 Abrams it cannot be that big.
Squadron is the cavalry's fancy name for a company, like the artillery calls them batteries. A Brazilian cavalry squadron or armored infantry company has 3 platoons of 4 of its main AFVs each. For 50 Abrams and 3 Australian tank squadrons that'd be 16 each, that's close.

So you have
>Armoured/light horse: 67% wheeled APC 33% tank
>Mechanized infantry: 100% tracked APC

One military opinion piece noted that our "armored infantry" (M113s) would in another country be just mechanized infantry, with armored infantry left to an IFV. But then what would the 100% wheeled APC units be called? The Portuguese-language literature I've read on the subject, reflecting the doctrine of a still robust cavalry branch, appears to have the following consensus:
>The infantry's only AFVs are for transport;
>Cavalry is defined not by the horse but by certain traits and missions;
>The tank retains its shock value, lighter AFVs retain its flanking, recon, vanguard, etc. value;
>Every infantry and armored brigade has its own mechanized cavalry squadron for recon and the like;
>The armored infantry and armored cavalry brigades are the same, two tank and two armored infantry battalions;