Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:I’d go for NEMO in the mortar sections myself, mainly because it would give you a direct fire capability the formation would otherwise lack and a means of delivering precise HE much cheaper than guided munitions.

Which highlights the lack of ATGW support other than the liberal (and somewhat expensive) sprinkling of Javelins.
Spike
W
Would agree on both accounts;
- on the latter either the 1-km Spike light or NLAW should be the Javelin back up... Javelins to where the threat is expected (and of course it will turn up somewhere else, in which case the more limited range is likely to be of lesser concern, with the cheap-and-plentiful Spikes or NLAWs).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

I thought the abbreviations were pretty self explanatory and none are made up unless someone doesn't know what an HMG refers to when talking about the British Army or in the same vain an MG.

I messed up the Platoons, Each should be comprised of a Boxer armed with a CTA 40mm Autocannon mounted in a Remote Weapon Station together with between tow and four Javelin Anti Tank Guided Weapon and carrying the Command Group, and three Boxers armed with a Remote Weapon Station mounting a M2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun and a single Javelin Anti Tank Guided Weapon, each carrying an eight man infantry Section.

Each Company should also have an Engineering Platoon of three Boxer Engineering Vehicles each carrying a team of Engineers.

The Air Defence Platoon in to provide close air defence against aerial threats ranging from helicopters to UAVs. It would comprise of three Boxers with a manned turret housing equipped with the appropriate FCS and sensors. It could use the CTA 40mm Autocannon or an alternative weapon with a higher rate of fire.

The reason for the proposed organisation was that people did not like the organisation put forward by a Think Tank a while back where each Company was permanently made up of a mini all arms battle Group. The proposed organisation allows for that if required or a multitude of alternative options.

Nemo is an option but is far more expensive than the BAe/SAAB twin mortar turret being introduced into the Swedish Army. I am sure I have read somewhere on here that the direct fire capability of breach loading mortars is limited, and the direct fire capability of the CTA 40mm autocannon is pretty impressive is used with the sensor fused ammunition and a short burst will easily make a hole big enough in a wall for a man to get through.

As for a lack of long Range Anti Tank Guided Weapon such a Non Line of Sight systems, I had to draw a like somewhere. I also think it would be more appropriate to attach any Non Line of Sight system to the Ajax units to provide overwatch as they scout ahead of the Mechanised units. Of course these could also provide support for the latter if needed. I am also pretty sure round for round, Javelin is cheaper than the majority of Non Line of Sight Systems, but I would want the Mechanised units to have as much Anti Tank firepower as possible, even if limited to a range of around 2500m.

It is important to remember that the new Mechanised Infantry Units are not going to operate like the Armoured Infantry, just with wheeled vehicles rather than tracked. Their role is going to be totally different, as is the way they will fight.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by mr.fred »

"ARV" "AEV" and "DSAA" were new ones on me this time around. Based on Lord Jim's explanatory post, I'd guess "Armoured Recovery Vehicle" and "Armoured Engineering Vehicle" for the first two but I'm still lost as to what the "DS" in DSAA is for. Assuming AA is anti-aircraft.

A four vehicle platoon does make more sense, though putting the command group in the obviously different vehicle strikes me as hazardous since if that is taken down then you lose both your firepower and your leadership in one fell swoop.

The air defence platoon for drones and helos: I would suggest that it would not be too much use against helicopters as most helicopter ATGW outrange gun systems by a substantial margin. That leaves drones, and what are these specialised vehicles going to do when not engaging drones? I think a better option would be to increase the size of the recce sub-unit (from 4 to thirteen in a direct re-purposing) and make all these vehicles capable of counter drone operations. If you want defence from helicopters, a launcher capable of firing HVM/LMM (Starstreak and Martlet) would give you the reach. This would put your anti-air vehicles closer to incoming theats to your main force and mean that they have a role when your opponents do not have air threats.

Nemo is more expensive, but it can fire accurately on the move in a direct fire mode.


A mousehole in a wall is all very well if you are willing to put a man into that building, but there will be some structures that you just want rid of. In these situations 120mm HE is more appropriate than CT40 or ATGW and direct fire is more accurate than indirect. If you are concerned about cost, you wouldn't be dishing out Javelins like sweets on Halloween. At £100,000 a shot simply stripping some of the vehicles of them would cover the cost of NEMO in pretty short order. (£2.4m per unit ammunition load if you send the IFVs out with 2 rather than 4 missiles, for example)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Jake1992 »

Does anyone know when the first orders are being placed with first expected delivery ?

Out of curiosity what variants and numbers of each variant do others on here think are needed to give the strike brigades what they really need to be along with fitting out any other formations others may think Boxer should be in ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Sorry DSAA was keyboard troubles, should have been SPAA. My brain sometimes sees one thing whilst typing another :oops:

The reason behind the AA Sections in preference for increasing the Recce to Company size is the specialist nature of the turret compared to the RWS I would fit to the Recce and IFV variants. It will need a more advanced FCS and sensors to detect areal threats. Some have also recommended a 30mm or 35mm autocannon with a higher rate for fire for this role, but I was trying to keep things to a single weapon type even if in a different turret. Of course we could also follow the example of others and have the turret carry not just the autocannon but also a launcher for one or more Starstreak/LMM, which would be controlled by the same FSC and sensors.

Speaking of Starstreak/LMM, well at present we only have a single Regiment equipped with the SP version so maybe a couple of Batteries could be allocated at Brigade level that could be sent forward. I would however transplant the Firing Unit onto a Boxer Module from the existing Stormer chassis, for ease of maintenance and logistical support.

Again do not under estimate the direct fire values of the CTA 40mm autocannon with its more advanced ammunition. A burst will certainly create a hole bigger than that needed for a mouse and also turn anyone inside a room to pulp. If money is no object then we might as well also include a Mobile Gun System Boxer variant with a 105mm like the US Army have within its Stryker Brigades. I am also worried that if you have a 120mm Mortar system that can be used in a direct fire role it will be at the front of any action and end up being used almost like a tank, making it very vulnerable. Remember these vehicles are the Company's artillery first and foremost.

Yes Javelin is not cheap but the Mechanised and Cavalry units need the most anti tank fire power they can get, something we have been very poor at historically. The Mechanised Brigades would be tasked with screening NATO forces for example, whist the heavier units arrive and move in to position, whist avoiding taking enemy armoured units head on. Without the Javelins this task is impossible, with them it is difficult.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:the specialist nature of the turret compared to the RWS I would fit to the Recce and IFV variants. It will need a more advanced FCS and sensors to detect areal threats. Some have also recommended a 30mm or 35mm autocannon with a higher rate for fire for this role, but I was trying to keep things to a single weapon type even if in a different turret.
That was the reasoning for CV90 Mk1... a single weapon type for all of those uses
- of course no one else bought it (exc. the Swedes themselves)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by mr.fred »

Given the limited utility of gun armed anti-air these days, the need for a specialist gun isn’t so compelling.

Equally, the state of modern fire control on all vehicles means that the difference between gun handling on dedicated AA vehicles and the run-of-the-mill vehicles is less than it has been in the past. Similarly sensors are much improved and the tendency towards “plug and play” system architecture means adding alerting and scanning sensors to a vehicle is fairly simple. Taking that in mind, most turrets would only need the addition of an extra sensor or two to become a reasonable AA asset, with the added bonus that these sensors would also be valuable in the recce screen for use against land targets.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Agree with the above and would just add that missiles are not the answer to drones. And that in addition to all those things that start with an "e" we will need guns, too.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

If it is really that simple to change a IFV into a capable SPAA then I am all for it. However I see the need for AA to be dispersed throughout the Battalion rather can concentrated in the Recce Company so we sort of end up in the same place. This is made more important by the planned dispersed nature in which the units will operate. At a minimum each Company will have to be a self contained unit and there are arguments that this should be devolved down to Platoon level. So have the same platform equipping the Recce Platoon and the three Air Defence Platoons, but having the advantage that all are multi role in their capabilities though have and train for different roles as their primary function. The addition of a SAM component was to make the platform more effective against Helicopters and aircraft as it was pointed out that Helicopters have a consistent range advantage over SPAA platforms armed only with guns.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by mr.fred »

The Administrative arrangement doesn't have to mirror the tactical arrangement, so if all your dual-roled recce / anti-air vehicles were concentrated in the recce platoon, you can still deploy sections to the companies as required.

With all of this, it sounds like you are trying to make an infantry battalion into a formation recce regiment? Why not start with a formation recce regiment and work from there

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Well the two Ajax equipped Cavalry Regiments in each Brigade already have that role with the Mechanised Infantry complimenting them. Exactly how these two new Brigades will work is not known, except that they are to operate in a manner far different to existing formations. For a start the frontage they will have to police will be far greater then would be expected from a formation of this size. It is assumed by some that to achieve this the Formation will need to break down into Platoon sized Battle Groups with, for example, one Cavalry Regiment out front with the two Mechanised Infantry Battalions behind with the second Cavalry Regiment in reserve. The Brigade will probably have to operate in a very fluid manner, keeping in touch with the Enemy, assessing their intentions, exploiting any opportunities to engage on favourable terms and try to funnel the enemy into zones where they are more concentrated and artillery and air support can engage most effectively. Of course the Enemy cannot be counted on to be co operative hence the fluid nature of operation by the Brigade.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:need to break down into Platoon sized Battle Groups with, for example, one Cavalry Regiment out front with the two Mechanised Infantry Battalions behind with the second Cavalry Regiment in reserve. The Brigade will probably have to operate in a very fluid manner, keeping in touch with the Enemy, assessing their intentions, exploiting any opportunities to engage on favourable terms
That really sounds like the Strike Bde is a bigger version of a recce rgmnt? However, recce formations (the latter day cavalry) have mainly been about economy of force: to preserve the fighting power of the main formations (AI Bdes?) and get them into the right spots before they engage. Let's look at what the US army manuals said about ACR (at the time when they still existed):
" The ACR performs a variety of offensive operations in support of the
corps scheme of maneuver. The primary missions of the regiment are reconnaissance and
security operations. During these missions, especially offensive cover, the regiment
may perform movement to contact and hasty attacks to destroy enemy reconnaissance, security, and main body forces."
- advance guard,
- rear guard, or
- to prosecute the battle away from the preformed main confrontation area.

The disciples of ACR, in Stryker Bde Groups, are meant to be capable of dispersed battle and being "self-supplied" from within the bde's resources for 30 days
- but nobody is talking about platoon-sized BGs
- the 7 manoeuvre units (available to the commander) are not far off from bns
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree with most of what you have pointed out and whilst an ACR had as you say sever manoeuvre groups it had to cover the frontage of one of the US Army Corps at the Fulda Gap. Our Strike Brigade will be covering a Divisional frontage at least and so need to be broken down into smaller units. Mind you when talking about Platoons I am actually referring to reinforced Platoons something like this;

1x Boxer IFV carrying Platoon HQ
1x Boxer IFV Carrying half an Infantry Section
1x Boxer Recce/SPAA carrying half an Infantry Section
2x Boxer APC each carrying a fully Infantry Section
1x Boxer 120mm Mortar Carrier

This gives you a full Platoon of dismounts, supported by 2x 40mm Autocannon, 2x 12,7mm Heavy Machine Guns, a Double Barrelled 120mm Mortar and five Javelin launchers of which two can be dismounted if required. Obviously this is the way I could see things moving towards, but what the Army actually deploys once it has finished all its trials, made request for kit and hopefully gained the funding is one of the great unknowns.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Mind you when talking about Platoons I am actually referring to reinforced Platoons something like this
Tried to count and that would come to close to 44 which one of the Finnish contributors here (can't remember which one) informed us is the strength of a protected mobility type of Jaeger platoon of theirs.
- so a real-life phenomenon
- and I guess in their case (with the doctrine of dispersed operations) the rationale is the same as what you are after: to be capable of fighting afar from company's support assets (if and when necessary)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by mr.fred »

I wonder what these platoons are supposed to face. What terrain and what adversaries?
The Finns organise for their terrain, so what terrain are we planning on sending our units into?

I can’t help but think that these mini battle groups are going to be very vulnerable to being locally outnumbered, operating in unfamiliar terrain and having cut themselves off logistically.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Tis is where in the new way of fighting comes in. The idea is not to get pinned down by superior numbers but to keep moving whilst staying in contact. As for the Logistics, this again will need to be flexible, fluid and decentralised.

All of this is something like what the Army is aspiring to with the new Strike Brigades but whether they achieve it is another matter.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: what the Army is aspiring to with the new Strike Brigades
Brings to mind that Rommel's 5th D was actually "Light" rather than Pz and he used it to a good effect. Even though he did not have a full Corps, in which the Light divisions were known as fast (Schnelle) troops, and in a Panzerkorps they were to enable deep thrusts for encircling ops.
- so we have come a full circle, just having two types of bdes, rather than divisions, combining
- I am saying this just to underline the earlier: that Strike Bdes should not be seen as enlarged Recce Rgmnts, but rather infantry based formations
- as mr. fred was saying, an enlarged platoon might be effective on its own in enclosed terrain, but change to more open country and bn size (BG) quickly becomes more practical. Strike bdes will not be an early-entry force, but will, rather, fill the gap between early-entry forces and heavier follow-on forces and will need to be agile enough to dominate combat during that interval.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

A lot is going to depend on the area the Brigade and especially its two Mechanised Infantry Battalions are going to have to cover. With one of the Cavalry Regiments up front keeping tabs on the enemy the Infantry are going to have to ensure there are no "Big" holes in the lines. Maybe someone here can help, but what frontage would an Armoured Infantry Battalions expected to hold under current doctrine? Whatever this is the Mechanised Battalions will probably be expected to operate on a frontage at least 50% greater if not more. What level of dispersion is needed to cover the necessary frontage will obviously vary, and the infantry can be reinforces by the second Cavalry Regiment if needed.

All of this is going to be very new. We have not trained let alone fought a high intensity conflict with much of the technology now available to ourselves and the Enemy. The level of ISTAR capability shown by Russia in the Ukraine for example was a great surprise to NATO, as was the level of co operation between the different branches of its Military. That conflict has shown that concentrating ones forces is now very dangerous. The new Mechanised Brigades are going to be fighting a new type of warfare. The largest formation will probably be a company level Battle Group rather than the Battalions or great sized formation we are used to using.

For high intensity conflicts these two new Brigades will in all likelihood be our first responders and our early entry forces are not suited to engage enemy Mechanised and Armoured Formations. If deployed these formations would be more suited to operations in urban areas where there superior light infantry skills could be put to good use. Mobility is going to be key to engage mobile enemy forces as will be the ability to hit hard from ambush and retire before the Enemy can bring their superior firepower and number to bear. Smaller formations should be able to manoeuvre more stealthily and be able to get into advantageous positions.

Unlike some other nations who have medium weight formations we intend to use ours against heavier opposition in high intensity conflicts, to buy time for heavier friendly formations to come into the line. This is totally new to the British Army and not covered by the existing training manuals. We do not know how the theory being developed will work in practice and my proposed organisation was just one suggestion to start a discussion on this.

If anyone has any detailed information on how the reinforces US Army Stryker Combat Team is organised and how it plans to operate I would be very grateful as this formation is probably the closest at present to how we may operate in the future. How is this formation to operate once heavier units arrive form the USA? how will it co ordinate with them?

Has anyone else got any ideas on how the Mechanised Infantry Battalions could be organised and operate? What variants of the Boxer do we still need? How would you integrate the tracked Ajax with the Wheeled Boxer? The discussion is open to the floor.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:holes in the lines.
runs sort of contrary to the thought of dispersed battle?
Lord Jim wrote:All of this is going to be very new.
Researching the primary sources for the subject of “light infantry” the puzzling fact is that there are little or no references to the subject. Ancient historians like Thucydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, do not refer to “light infantry” troops, instead they use term peltast. It appears that the term peltast signifies a “light armoured warrior” as opposed to the heavy phalanxes and to the light infantry of the time that would slip through "the lines" in a guerrilla fashion and then destroy the enemy's crops (i.e going after the 'logs tail' - command centres were (then) off limits as they were within the main formations).

As for the modern-day-newness of light, armoured formations, I see that in addition to the agility (ref: previous post, includes 'quick to action, and then able to act' against heavier enemy, as per LJ) they are also an attempt to rectify the low numbers of infantry in armoured manoeuvres... what isn't armoured these days?

AI as a concept grew from the necessity of having (protected) infantry, capable of advancing with tanks, and thus shielding them from opposing infantry's ambushes
- to do this, small numbers were acceptable
- however, as western armies have shrunk (BA included) we have reached the situation where only three AI bdes could be fielded (with a sprinkling of artillery from the single arty bde) onto a modern battlefield. How many bayonets in 6 (to be 4) infantry bns?
- suddenly we will have those 4 plus another 4 from Strike bdes (if anyone knows about the equipment plans for the paired reserve bns that would be welcome info as we seem to be struggling to field = kit out even these regular ones)
- once you have more dismounts you can actually secure e.g. high ground in pinch points through which the heavier parts of the bdes will need to pass, in order to bring their effect to bear somewhere "ahead". Having 16X attached to our "warfighting" 3rd D is a good thing, but it is itself short of infantry (and half of 'its' Apaches are nowadays "attached" to the early entry forces... where ever they might be "at the time") - having to take each hill top with a helicopter load of troops may not always work
Lord Jim wrote:Unlike some other nations who have medium weight [1] formations we intend to use ours against heavier opposition in high intensity conflicts, to buy time for heavier[2] friendly formations to come into the line. This is totally new to the British Army
I would say this is exactly what O'Connor did in N. Africa with [1] Bren carriers and light tanks and brought the few [2] lumbering Matildas to bear only when the situation on the ground had been "shaped" by preceding manoeuvre

All this might sound like writing a field manual, but the starting point is not to have (only) Puma/Lynx/the proposed AJAX troop carrier like vehicles @ £6 mln a pop and with 7 dismounts (each then comes @ almost a million £££s; no wonder we keep running out of money)
- BUT also the more spacious (in our case) Boxers... that can race ahead, and do what they are supposed to do. Whatever that might be as the Strike Bdes still only exist as an experimental unit. Just a thought, to relate to Recce Rgmnts: they were never meant to hold ground... as they did not have infantry in them
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

I suppose I am assuming that a concerted attack by heavy formations is going to be able to advance against a Mechanised Brigade and eventually create a hole for further units to exploit. The dispersed, fluid nature of the Mechanised Brigade is that it will bend and not break, being able to still stay in contact with enemy formations and harry not just the first echelon but those units following up. I believe that their dispersed nature will allow these Brigades to be combat effect when more traditional formations are forced to retire to retain cohesion. OF course if they are hung out to dry and no reinforcements arrive then they would be in a world of pain so it is safe to say the Mechanised Brigades have an expiry date when fighting against heavier opposition in a peer level conflict.

The reverse would be true in lower level conflicts where the Mechanised Brigades will probably be the reinforcing force for our rapid deployment units such as 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault. This is one of the key advantages of the Mechanised type formations we have been lacking.

Regarding "Peltast", they originally were light troops, named after the shield they carried, and originated in Thrace. These were very effective troops, armed with Javelins and shields, in rough terrain and used often to support the more rigid formations of Hoplites or Phanagites. The Thracian Tribesmen had a very fearsome weapon called the Rhomplia (check spelling!), a two handed reverse curved blade that could easily remove a mans leg with one swing and were justly feared at the time. They hired themselves out as mercenaries to all the major power throughout this period in history including Alexander the Great and right up to the end of Greek military power at the hands of the early Roman Empire.

As for other light troops of the period, for its archers and Alexander used Agrarian Tribes men as Special Forces in difficult and mountainous terrain, armed with javelins and shields.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by mr.fred »

More Nemo:

Amongst other things.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Nahh...

One of these, https://armyrecognition.com/images/stor ... en_003.jpg
which could keep firing while in the water
- direct fire only, though
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

I am pretty sure there are a few of those still lurking around in Swedish Reserve Depots. Maybe we should make them an offer :D


Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Voldemort »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Mind you when talking about Platoons I am actually referring to reinforced Platoons something like this
Tried to count and that would come to close to 44 which one of the Finnish contributors here (can't remember which one) informed us is the strength of a protected mobility type of Jaeger platoon of theirs.
- so a real-life phenomenon
- and I guess in their case (with the doctrine of dispersed operations) the rationale is the same as what you are after: to be capable of fighting afar from company's support assets (if and when necessary)
45 soldiers in a XA mounted platoon. They're more of a offensive unit so they wouldn't fight dispersed. Three squads of 9 plus vehicle crew of two, 3x11, FO squad of five and command squad of six plus platoon leader. Finland has different sorts of terrain and money is limited so saying they're planned with only specific type of terrain in mind would be a misjudgement.

Post Reply