UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Section infantry weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Voldemort
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 15 Apr 2019, 21:35

In Finland all infantry are jägers. The most common type of infantry would be those in battlegroups. The BGs are over 2000 strong, jäger companies depending on whether they're mounted in XAs are 260-300 strong and have 3/4 jäger platoons each 40+ strong depending on vehicle type. Each platoon has command section with PL, 2IC, medic, signalist, two runners (most likely motorbike/ATVs), and driver, FO squad with FO, FO NCO, signalist and two FO enlisted, three jäger squads that are all 9 strong, each with 2 PKMs and the platoon also has one NSV which can be mounted on ATV. Weapons at platoon and squad level include RKs, PKMs, NSV, LAWs, APILAS for now (will be retired soon) and a whole bunch of mines. At coy level there are AT section with NLAWs, sniper section, extra FO section and mortar platoon with 3x 81mm mortars as what comes to firepower.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 15 Apr 2019, 22:01

Voldemort wrote:In Finland all infantry are jägers. The most common type of infantry would be those in battlegroups. The BGs are over 2000 strong, jäger companies depending on whether they're mounted in XAs are 260-300 strong and have 3/4 jäger platoons each 40+ strong depending on vehicle type. Each platoon has command section with PL, 2IC, medic, signalist, two runners (most likely motorbike/ATVs), and driver, FO squad with FO, FO NCO, signalist and two FO enlisted, three jäger squads that are all 9 strong, each with 2 PKMs and the platoon also has one NSV which can be mounted on ATV. Weapons at platoon and squad level include RKs, PKMs, NSV, LAWs, APILAS for now (will be retired soon) and a whole bunch of mines. At coy level there are AT section with NLAWs, sniper section, extra FO section and mortar platoon with 3x 81mm mortars as what comes to firepower.


As you can see almost everything is disposable making it easy to reinforce platoons and sections. Moving AT capability from one platoon to another doesn't mean weakening the other as it would if CG was the main weapon for the purpose but only reallocating mines and other AT weaponry. The company can use the NSVs together as a firesupport element and even the platoons can muster a very formidable firesupport element with 6 PKMs and an NSV.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 15 Apr 2019, 22:45

Suppression eats ammo at fearsome rate no matter what calibre. Suppression would only be used in an under fire extraction of personnel or in the final stage of a section assault. I think what we are referring to is covering fire, ie 'If i stick my head up I MIGHT get slotted' not 'Holy shit if you are up there then clear a space for me'. Effective enemy fire is relative to the recipient, the first time if a round comes within a 100m then you are doing your best snake impression (or at least I did), after that it needs to be danger close. Well aimed single rounds often have more effect than spray and pray. If our enemy thinks we can reach out and touch at 600m then they will stay down. If not then we need to work out how to carry more ammo.

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 16 Apr 2019, 12:01

jimthelad wrote:Suppression eats ammo at fearsome rate no matter what calibre. Suppression would only be used in an under fire extraction of personnel or in the final stage of a section assault. I think what we are referring to is covering fire, ie 'If i stick my head up I MIGHT get slotted' not 'Holy shit if you are up there then clear a space for me'. Effective enemy fire is relative to the recipient, the first time if a round comes within a 100m then you are doing your best snake impression (or at least I did), after that it needs to be danger close. Well aimed single rounds often have more effect than spray and pray. If our enemy thinks we can reach out and touch at 600m then they will stay down. If not then we need to work out how to carry more ammo.


I would like to see a golf bag approach being taken into use. Have varying weaponry in the section transport and take it to use case by case basis. Expecting grueling close combat built up terrain? Grab a few M320s or Milkors. Need heavy supporting firepower? Take out the M2!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2699
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Apr 2019, 13:54

I didn't say an individual I said the British Army.

I do like how the Finns have organised things, it seems they have a set organisation, and transport is used when applicable. As for the M4 CG, I see it as a supplementary weapon at Platoon or Company level, used almost as direct fire 84mm artillery with an AT capability.


Regarding the effects of enemy fire, the nearest I have got to being on the receiving end has been enjoying Paintball and Airsoft and even then once you hear "Rounds", impacting near you, you take cover ASAP.

As for Matador, does anyone actually know how many NLAW and Matador would be issued to a Section/Platoon on active service? Is it possibly the case that for every Matador issued a Section would lose a NLAW?

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 16 Apr 2019, 14:33

Lord Jim wrote:I do like how the Finns have organised things, it seems they have a set organisation, and transport is used when applicable


Organisation is set and transport is organic. Jägers in regional troops have either BVs, tractors or XAs as transport.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 618
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 16 Apr 2019, 15:21

Lord Jim wrote:As for Matador, does anyone actually know how many NLAW and Matador would be issued to a Section/Platoon on active service? Is it possibly the case that for every Matador issued a Section would lose a NLAW?

Anywhere between none and 16, depending on the requirements and logistics

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby whitelancer » 16 Apr 2019, 22:39

Voldemort wrote:I would like to see a golf bag approach being taken into use.


Couldn't agree more. Whatever the choice of weapon's allocated to sections, companies and battalions, it cannot suite all situations. What's required is greater flexibility in choice of weapon's and their relative numbers, depending on the type of terrain and nature of the operation being conducted.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 618
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 16 Apr 2019, 23:25

A golf bag approach would require more training, both in the weapons and to be able to make an informed decision about when to use what.
Though to a degree, there is already a golf bag approach, at least in terms of additional munitions and how the higher level assets are distributed. Keeping specialist kit in dedicated sub units that can be distributed out to other sub units as required ensures that the specialist kit is operated by people trained in its employment.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992 and 1 guest