New Regimental/battalion role specialization

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: New Regimental/battalion role specialization
Worcester 2/2/2005 11:55:47 PM

Has anyone seen a breakdown of the ORBAT for the infantry battalion role specialization by light/medium/heavy? I note the CGS said last week that battalions within the Field Army brigade org would now increase from 19 to 23 presumable with the new fixed roles. It's fairly easy to figure out the slots available but I wondered if anyone knows who will go where precisely?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

flamingknives 4/20/2008 1:50:10 PM

Thermals you can add. Stabilisation you can't. Protection against blast or snipers you can't, unless you add a turret. Fire control you can't.

As an argument against RWS, logistics or cost may be reason enough, but to argue that jamming is that much of an issue (how often does a GPMG jam anyway?) or that ammunition enough for two minutes sustained fire is insufficient for a transport vehicle weapon system is stretching it a bit.

I suppose it depends on the role of vehicle mounted MGs. If you intend them to be a fire support vehicles, like the WMIK, then access to more ammo and the gun workings may be more useful. If it's a vehicle defensive weapon, then keeping the gunner safe from ambush would probably be more important.

However, if you are operating in the fire support role, you can have a crewman open the hatch in a support (and secure) position to feed ammo and clear jams while the gunner remains on station within the vehicle to fire the weapon.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 4/20/2008 2:16:39 PM

Thermals you can add. Stabilisation you can't. Protection against blast or snipers you can't, unless you add a turret. Fire control you can't.

A weapon is a weapon - you don't have it only for defensive use or only for fire support use. GPMG's don't jam that prolifically, however they have to be looked after - they have to be oiled, link has to be cared for and untangled, they have to have stoppages cleared, they have to have barrels changed etc etc. Doesn't work if the gunner isn't with the gun. That isn't to mention the limited situational awareness of the gunner under armour.

I can see a lot of benefits from RWS in certain scenarios, such as on MBT's in addition to the co-ax, however I don't think them suitable for trucks and WMIK's etc.

Just my opinion of course. We will have to see how they work in practice.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 4/20/2008 3:40:08 PM

Yimmy, I hate to say this but, you really are talking the most frightful horseradish.

A gun has to be oiled? During firing? I don't think so. There's nothing about a RWS that makes maintaining it any more difficult that a pintel mount.

Untangling link? Maybe on a ground mount, but considering the length of time that feed systems have been in use, one would hope that it was possible to design one that doesn't tangle the link. In fact, with the powered RWS, you can have more mass and carefully designed feed systems.

Stoppages? Are they that much of an issue. AIUI the mean number of rounds between failures (any kind of stoppage) is in the range of thousands for infantry use. Let alone on a vehicle which isn't battered so much.

Changing barrels - Heavier barrel, being as it's on a vehicle anyway? Again, is it that much of an issue?

Situational awareness may be a problem.

Most of your complaints are rather along the lines of those raised against new technology throughout antiquity to more modern times. No sense in these infernal fire

arms sire - too susceptible to the weather. No sense in magazine rifles sir - the men will waste ammo. No sense in these unreliable tanks sir - cavalry is much better.

Trucks and WMIKs are perhaps unsuited to RWS, but the gunner is little safer in the vehicle than head-out, in most cases. These, however, are armoured.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 4/21/2008 7:01:13 AM

Give me some credit flaming - I do know about machine guns - and they certainly do have to be oiled during excessive fireing. Live rounds don't jam as often as blanks, however they still jam periodically, and so a gunner needs immediate access to the weapon.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 4/21/2008 1:57:33 PM

I don't doubt that you know about machine guns, but most of the points that you raise tend to be minor in the extreme and kind of reflect a machine gunner's point of view in the same way the points raised against tanks reflect a cavalryman's point of view.

What is "excessive firing"? Is it something that you would really want to drive a specification or a once-in-a-blue-moon event? Can you even supply that much ammunition to a vehicle mount.

Is immediate access to a weapon for the rare jam that much more important than not getting shot in the head by a sniper or getting blown up by a roadside IED? Bear in mind that if you are carrying out sustained firing operations, it's more than likely that you will be in a (relatively) secure area and you can have someone head-out tending the gun.

Intended use does define the mount. There's a reason that the SA80 doesn't have a tripod and T&E mechanism, or that the GPMG tripod doesn't have a vast amount of elevation, or that a mortar doesn't have a shoulder stock.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 4/21/2008 2:57:18 PM

Well flaming, speculation aside, lets just wait-out and see what the rumour mill produces on them when they are in service on operations.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 5/7/2008 5:43:09 AM

According to Defence Aerospace, we've just ordered 157 4 x 4 Cougars for the MMPV role.

There's a JDW article dated 2 May stating that we've ordered 157 more Cougars. Does anyone know if we've doubled our original order?

Quote Reply

interestedamateur FRES Decision 5/8/2008 3:39:39 AM

Article nicked from Bug over at T5C.

GD Vehicle Picked for FRES

By andrew chuter Defense News

Published: 7 May 16:25 EDT (12:25 GMT)

Hardly a surprise...............

LONDON - General Dynamics UK will be confirmed May 8 as the winner of Britain's Future Rapid Effects System armored vehicle competition, sources said.

http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories40/dn040708fres.JPG" border=0>
The Future Rapid Effects System program has decided to develop the Piranha V. (General Dynamics)

The government is expected to announce in Parliament that the company has beat out rivals Nexter and ARTEC to become the provisional preferred bidder to develop the utility variant of the multi-billion-pound FRES family of medium-weight wheeled vehicles.

GD UK will receive a two-year development contract for the Piranha 5, a proposed version of its big-selling Piranha line of vehicles, sources said.

Neither the MoD nor General Dynamics could be contacted before this story went to press.

Up to 2,000 of the vehicles are expected to be built as the cornerstone of the British Army's air-transportable armored forces.

The vehicle was to enter service in 2012, a date that may slip as much as two years due to funding constraints.

The decision will come as a bitter blow to Nexter. French government and industry officials mounted a major effort in recent weeks to turn around the Army's preference for Piranha. They even offered to give Britain 120 VBCI vehicles due to be delivered to the French Army next year, should London want to procure vehicles early under an Urgent Operational Requirement while it awaited development work on the FRES platform.

__________________
Regards,

BUG

Quote Reply

flamingknives 5/8/2008 1:14:46 PM

http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/FRES/docs/FRES_Update.pdf

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer 5/8/2008 8:13:06 PM

I think thats actually quite a sensible decision. Should definitely be the least risky. I woulder how much tech transfer from GD Land Systems (GDLS) in the US there will be? Do any Stryker varients fit UK FRES requirements? Heck if they do just go off the shelf purchases of the varients that fit.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT