The 'Not the CR2 army leadership' thread

[Lifeboat21]

Iirc the original aim of Warrior, Bradley & Co was to wait til the RA/AAC/RAF had blatted the baddies, before advancing in support of tanks, then debussing on the objective to clear and hold it, not to act as a glorified apc.
The early warrior training film showed this, using its weapons on strong points that bombardment and tanks had missed, while the tanks continued to advance beyond the ( infantry's) objective.
Perhaps doctrine or usage changed?

I think it's a little of that. We seem to want to strap on more protection but then lose mobility.

Would a modern, protected and manoeuvrable FV432 not be better with 8-10 blokes in the back? Capacity, protection, mobility.

If it needs firepower that could come from a supporting armoured car, carrying no troops. Protection, mobility, firepower.

 

[oscar1whisky]

I think it's a little of that. We seem to want to strap on more protection but then lose mobility.

Would a modern, protected and manoeuvrable FV432 not be better with 8-10 blokes in the back? Capacity, protection, mobility.

If it needs firepower that could come from a supporting armoured car, carrying no troops. Protection, mobility, firepower.

It's possibly envy, having seen BMP 1 appear, everybody wanted something similar?

 

[oscar1whisky]

The differences/, changes in use of ifv/ apc seem to forget that Soviet/ Russian tactics relied greatly on their artillery keeping the opposition pinned while the tanks and infantry closed in.
Within NATO/ BAOR we never had comparable fire support.

 

[tiger stacker]

I think it's a little of that. We seem to want to strap on more protection but then lose mobility.

Would a modern, protected and manoeuvrable FV432 not be better with 8-10 blokes in the back? Capacity, protection, mobility.

If it needs firepower that could come from a supporting armoured car, carrying no troops. Protection, mobility, firepower.

The Bulldog was introduced to ease the pressure on warrior btns, remember this was before mastiffs became operational.

I mentioned soft top callsign requiring armoured qrf as a example of ch2 proving its worth, the warriors and ch2 working together can and have suppressed enemy enabling dismounts to perform.

Don’t forget the ability of 3 Scots to change from inf demo btn to armoured inf for Telic Four. The Americans loved the forty twa having their back at Fallujah

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Marine colonel lauds Black Watch

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[Lifeboat21]

The differences/, changes in use of ifv/ apc seem to forget that Soviet/ Russian tactics relied greatly on their artillery keeping the opposition pinned while the tanks and infantry closed in.
Within NATO/ BAOR we never had comparable fire support.

The Russian kit is insanely mobile in comparison. Amphibious (usually), capable of crossing large gaps and getting over vertical obstacles, usually with a lower ground pressure than a man, and (in the case of VDV) air dropaple.

It's also, usually, quite potent in the firepower stakes.

There is of course a downside.

I wouldn't want to be in a Russian IFV in a firefight. I assume that they have tactics to mitigate that or just rely on overwhelming numbers using Stalin's maxim of quantity having a quality of its own.

 

[Himmler74]

The Russian kit is insanely mobile in comparison. Amphibious (usually), capable of crossing large gaps and getting over vertical obstacles, usually with a lower ground pressure than a man, and (in the case of VDV) air dropaple.

It's also, usually, quite potent in the firepower stakes.

There is of course a downside.

I wouldn't want to be in a Russian IFV in a firefight. I assume that they have tactics to mitigate that or just rely on overwhelming numbers using Stalin's maxim of quantity having a quality of its own.

It still goes bang when hit.
Russia places very little value on taking causalities, hence there tactics.

 

[Cynical]

The Russian kit is insanely mobile in comparison. Amphibious (usually), capable of crossing large gaps and getting over vertical obstacles, usually with a lower ground pressure than a man, and (in the case of VDV) air dropaple.

Gap and step crossing is inherent ability of any tracked vehicle. The longer the track length and the higher the centre of the front idler (or sprocket) the better you do. NATO / Westertn / British vehicles generally bigger and thus more capable in these (narrrow) respects than Russian Equivalent.

Ground pressure driven by weight and track size. Russians have more snow to deal with, we have more protection. CVR(T) ground pressure was less than human - cue huge amusement as dashing cav commanders springs lithly to round form turret and sinks. It's not a particularly useful measure for anything other than recce (for those wise enough to do recce by stealth) or those in snow.

Key thing about Russian tactics is that they are simple and fast. Yup, probably take lots of casualties but if that wins battle quickly it's probabaly worth it in the longer run, particularly if Russians achieve high attrition. NATO (especially British) tend to over think. Classic example, probably still in use on JDSC is the TEWT where "You are commander of an armoured squadron / company group. Your lead call sign reports encountering BMP platoon. What do you do?"

Para - how do you spell BMP?
Lt Role Inf - take cover and do an appreciation / estimate
Mech / Armd Inf - follow the cav dust cloud util someone tells us to debus.
RAC - "Fin BMP on. Problem solved."

 

[Kitmarlowe]

The Russian kit is insanely mobile in comparison. Amphibious (usually), capable of crossing large gaps and getting over vertical obstacles, usually with a lower ground pressure than a man, and (in the case of VDV) air dropaple.

It's also, usually, quite potent in the firepower stakes.

There is of course a downside.

I wouldn't want to be in a Russian IFV in a firefight. I assume that they have tactics to mitigate that or just rely on overwhelming numbers using Stalin's maxim of quantity having a quality of its own.

Their tactics start with massive amounts of deception followed by Battalion plus Artillery from outside NATO ranges followed by Battalion plus assaults.

It's all very well saying Russian IFVs go pop when poked with anything larger than a pencil. What happens when you have 5 pencils and there are 30 IFVs ?

And don't forget half their thinking is influenced by the fact they are concerned the Chinese may push north one day....

 

[Hairy-boab]

@Cold_Collation, I think you may have meant 'annals' rather than 'anal'. Although your version would probably be more interesting.

My (non English native) wife's PhD thesis made heavy reference to the journal Annals of Botany. One examiner put a neat red line through every citation to "Anãl. Bot.", and a rather stilted conversation was held in the viva!

 

[Cynical]

My (non English native) wife's PhD thesis made heavy reference to the journal Annals of Botany. One examiner put a neat red line through every citation to "Anãl. Bot.", and a rather stilted conversation was held in the viva!

just be thankful conversation not held in vulva...

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

So, in many cases, we're caught between dinosaurs, mediocrities and those who seem determined to dismantle the system from within.

^ I really like what they've done in USA and would like it to be implemented in UK.

I'm thinking for Sub-unit OCs and COs, and their associated WOs this would be fantastic. Those who were unsuccessful in passing would be moved to the General Staff branch and be promoted along the SO route, abley supported by WO SO3s.

Might have to bring in some sort of robust examination for staff work.

I really like the peer and subordinate review for those wanting a command position. A proper Phys test and the blind interview is mega.

You’d like to think every officer should have ‘command’ potential, it’s why they were selected in the first place.

There’s been a pretty ‘robust’ examination for staff work for many years and it works - @jJohnG failed it.

 

[Kitmarlowe]

You’d like to think every officer should have ‘command’ potential, it’s why they were selected in the first place.

There’s been a pretty ‘robust’ examination for staff work for many years and it works - @jJohnG failed it.

Yet the report on the handling of the war by the Div HQ and their respective staff in GW2 was less than complimentary...

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

Yet the report on the handling of the war by the Div HQ and their respective staff in GW2 was less than complimentary...

Well you can’t have it both ways. A critical report is good, no?

I remember visiting HQ 1XX just before G-Day - they looked pretty swept up. Appearances can be deceptive of course.

 

[Kitmarlowe]

Well you can’t have it both ways. A critical report is good, no?

I remember visiting HQ 1XX just before G-Day - they looked pretty swept up. Appearances can be deceptive of course.

If the report was anything close to 100% correct then the Staff was functionally useless and potentially dangerous.

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

If the report was anything close to 100% correct then the Staff was functionally useless and potentially dangerous.

Whose report was it?

 

[Just_plain_you]

This report?

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

This report?

Thank you - I’d seen excerpts but not that releasable version. Can’t argue with any of that and it reminds me of a chat I had as a young Captain back in the early 90s with a Brigadier who told me his grandfather had commanded a brigade in WW1 with only 6 officers.

 

[Just_plain_you]

Thank you - I’d seen excerpts but not that releasable version. Can’t argue with any of that and it reminds me of a chat I had as a young Captain back in the early 90s with a Brigadier who told me his grandfather had commanded a brigade in WW1 with only 6 officers.

It's good to share the knowledge

 

[Himmler74]

Why does the Army operate on up or out for officers? Our is that what i see from the light blue side? After all we on this site are routinely informed by passed over Majors, not a dig, I had and have the opportunity to stay at O4, didn’t want to leave the job I love, even When promotable to O5, the RAF seems to get that people are happy doing what they do, sharing the experience, only if you pass the fitness standards for the role, If I deploy again I will have to meet the standard, which considering my knee injury will not happen unless Russia invades.

The Army seems to replace Majors with LE Majors, a recent social media post which would make saint glenn cringe just goes to prove that.

 

[Kitmarlowe]

Thank you - I’d seen excerpts but not that releasable version. Can’t argue with any of that and it reminds me of a chat I had as a young Captain back in the early 90s with a Brigadier who told me his grandfather had commanded a brigade in WW1 with only 6 officers.

And the Germans could plan BG level ops from the back of a half track with 3 or 4 blokes in attendance...