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 | UK | Scotland | Marine colonel lauds Black Watch

 

[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.