Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The 'Not the CR2 army leadership' thread

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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

 
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.
 
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.
 

Latest Threads

Top