Warrior IFV...tradition?

Discussion in 'RAC' started by Ronin(GE), Jul 4, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So here's my question:

    Are the armoured infantry units in the UK considered part of the armoured troops or as part of the infantry?
     
  2. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    I would say infantry
    They are Mechanised Infantry Battalions and ride in Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles
     
  3. Mechanised infantry travel in Saxon! - or more exactly Bulldog, Or even more exactly Mastiff Ridgback, Cougar, Husky, Jackal, VIxen and sometimes Warthog.

    Armoured infantry travel in Warrior or more exactly Mastiff Ridgback, Cougar, Husky, Jackal, VIxen and sometimes Warthog.

    When Battlegrouped AI join AI battlegroups, and Mech infantry fall into the cracks as they are "useless" And then we all end up as Light infantry for ops anyway, though tere is a case htat the amount of protected mobility that is used makes them mech all over again.

    In answer to the original question, Armoured infantry are Infantry.
     
  4. For that matter I've seen lots of tankies who ended up as light infantry ;-)
     
  5. "Tankies" is the word you are looking for, Tankers fill up tanks in our world.
     
  6. Noted and corrected...
     
  7. Thanks for the replies so far.
    Looks like the british attitude is the same as in the US.

    For germany the destinctions are between "leg-Inf."=> Jäger and "armoured Inf"=>Grenadiere.
    For example the NCOs and officers from Jäger units train at the infantry school, while Grenadiers get their training at the tank school in Munster.
    One could argue that we are in the tradition of Dragoner (Dragoon?) units, for the ability to fight "mounted and dissmounted".

    In the UK the units equiped with the Warrior take their tradition from rifle or fusilier units?
     
  8. The Warrior was introduced (to replace FV432) as an MICV or AIFV depending on your point of view. This idea in itself was based on your Marder and the Soviet BMP / BMD / BTR varients. The US had already been working on Bradley in all its varients (as a replacement for M113) and if I remember correctly Warrior and Bradley appeared at about the same time. However, being British, we decided that rather than have dedicated Armoured Inf, let alone dedicated Battalions, we would continue with the Arms Plot.

    This meant that one week you were Armoured Inf, next you were airmobile, mech, trucked or light depending on which Brigade you were posted too (for between 2 and 6 years but this in itself was subject to very short notice change); within the Arms Plot big picture.

    As a result we have never developed truly integrated Battle or Combat Groups let alone the idea of a Brigade actually dedicated to a job (other than Air mobile, assault or whatever the next name will be).

    The British Army way has always been; train with one unit fight with another. The current deployment programme in Afg is testament to that.

    In the early 90's the idea of taking the Warrior under RAC control was a real possibility, dedicated RAC personnel to man Warrior. However, without a real shift in Regimental system policy this idea was doomed to failure on all sides.

    So where does Warrior AICV tradition come from, simple; whatever Battalion gets it next.

    But I agree with earlier posts, the Afg situation has led to a such a wide range of different vehicles; each with different capabilities (and each as an UOR) and at the same time a belief in LI rather than AI or Combat groups that you would be forgiven for wondering why we bothered to equip any Btn or Regt prior to hostilities.

    And sorry I should add that the US system is not at all like ours, they have dedicated units, Bdes and Divisions equipped and trained together. The ACR (Armoured Cavalry Regiment, in fact Bde strength) is a great example, but look to the Stryker Bdes also).
     
  9. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

    Leaving aside any oddities we have seen on operations over the last decade, WR is part of an integrated infantry weapon system. It is crewed by infantry soldiers, who are first and foremost dismounted infantrymen. How long this remains the case for is anyone's bet. I suspect a closer relationship between infantry and RAC might be on the cards.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. He says that a lot...
     
  11. Ok, lets see if I got that right:

    So you don't have dedicated "Warrior-Inf." (I do not use the term "Grenadier" as it has a different meaning in the UK) units. What you've got is Infantry units that happen to be equiped with the Warrior...but this may change on occasion.

    What about the job description?
    Our main task (doctrin wise) is to protect the tanks against ATGM and ATM fire(idealy by knocking them out first), and to be the "eyes and ears" for the tanks in more difficult terrain.
    So usually there is allways a tank (PzBtl) and a PzGrenBtl stationed in one garrison, who train with each other constantly.

    The other "infantry stuff"comes (somewhat) in 2nd row, but still with an emphasis quickly changing between mounted and dissmounted operation...staying mounted as much as possible.
     
  12. Broadly speaking you understand correctly, less for the last point.

    We have Armoured Infantry (AI) Battalions which are indeed equipped with WARRIOR. The crews are drawn from the Bn but are and remain infantry soldiers first and foremost. (In later career stages, these soldiers can be promoted on the basis of AFV based courses that they have completed, but still remain infantrymen rather than Armoured Corps soldiers.)

    Each AI Bn will have a slightly different ethos in terms of it's desire to operate mounted or dismounted, however, it's principle role will remain to close with the enemy and destroy him on foot. This means that the dismounts remain the primary part of the integrated weapon system (dismounts and WARRIOR) with the vehicle being there to transport, protect and support the dismounts. What this means is that the ground and tactical situation will dictate exactly where and when the dismounts will get out of the vehicle, but they will nearly always do so to deliver the required effect. The WARRIOR is not fought in the manoeuvre sense as a tank is, therefore it will tend to move from hide to hide and provide close and direct support to dismounted troops instead.

    As a result of all of this, WARRIOR crews have a very different (less AFV specific) skill set to tank crew.

    What may happen in the future, I suspect, is that the infantry and armoured corps may align more closely (under DCbt) and within the organisation develop into a mounted combat and a dismounted combat career stream, where all AFVs are crewed by mounted stream soldiers (be they infantry or RAC cap-badged) and dismounted roles are conducted by dismounted stream soldiers (again be they of whichever cap-badge).