Understanding British infantry
Moderators: IronMikeGolf, Mad Russian, WildCatNL, cbelva, IronManBeta, CapnDarwin
Understanding British infantry
This guy gets it
- Attachments
-
- monty.jpg (29.21 KiB) Viewed 169 times
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
RE: Understanding British infantry
Who was it said The British Army are lions led by donkeys
Cheers Danny
RE: Understanding British infantry
What I don't understand, is that in RS British infantry doesn't have integral ATGM's distributed on the platoon level. Due to that, the Brits have significantly smaller firepower against the tanks than Americans and Germans.
Lest we forget.
RE: Understanding British infantry
We've always been a astep to two behind when it comes to giving infantry the capability to fight tanks, the tankies have always argued its their job to fight tanks and that infantry fight infantry.....someone paid too much service to that, look at the new IFV the British Army are getting that STILL doesn't have ATGM capability. We've got to be one of the few modern armies that doesn't equip its IFV with ATGM.
Not quite, the brits have some of the best (if not the best) handheld AT weapons - pre mid-80's with the Carl Gustav, and post mid-80's the LAW80. Use them in ambush positions in urban and woods and they will make any tankie regret the day.the Brits have significantly smaller firepower against the tanks than Americans and Germans.
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
RE: Understanding British infantry
An important element to consider when mounting an ATGM system on a vehicle is the time/space it takes that system to engage the enemy. Assuming the ranges are the same if it is significantly longer than the time it takes a MBT with its gun to engage you, then things aren't going to go well. You would be much better off hiding in a bush.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
RE: Understanding British infantry
In RS, Infantry are all you can rely on as the British, since your Chieftains get eaten up by a stiff wind [:D]
-
Mad Russian
- Posts: 13255
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
- Location: Texas
RE: Understanding British infantry
You have to give the British forces some love. The British government didn't.
The British have the toughest job in the game. They are asked to do the most with the least.
Their budget restrictions are in full view here to see what they lacked in comparison to other nations.
They are forced to fight on the North German Plain, where there is a decided lack of cover. Numbers do matter here more than anyplace else in West Germany.
They have little to fight with and they can't hide. So, there you go.
When you think you are the reincarnation of Patton take the Brits for a spin.
Biggest shock we got when the game started to come together was the effectiveness of the armies.
In my own ranking I have them:
1)West Germans
2)US
3)Soviet
4)UK
Good Hunting.
MR
The British have the toughest job in the game. They are asked to do the most with the least.
Their budget restrictions are in full view here to see what they lacked in comparison to other nations.
They are forced to fight on the North German Plain, where there is a decided lack of cover. Numbers do matter here more than anyplace else in West Germany.
They have little to fight with and they can't hide. So, there you go.
When you think you are the reincarnation of Patton take the Brits for a spin.
Biggest shock we got when the game started to come together was the effectiveness of the armies.
In my own ranking I have them:
1)West Germans
2)US
3)Soviet
4)UK
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
RE: Understanding British infantry
ORIGINAL: Tazak
Not quite, the brits have some of the best (if not the best) handheld AT weapons - pre mid-80's with the Carl Gustav, and post mid-80's the LAW80. Use them in ambush positions in urban and woods and they will make any tankie regret the day.
In the game they are not very effective in the close range combat. What I'm just suggesting, is that the ATGM's should be artificially redistributed down to the infantry platoon level, in the same way as it was done with the US and German infantry. The independent ATGM platoons should be disbanded. There are many simplifications in the OOB's ( for example in reality the APC's like Bradleys don't carry entire infantry squads ), so same should be done with the British ATGM platoons. On paper they're separate units but in reality they would be redistributed down to the lower level.
Lest we forget.
RE: Understanding British infantry
It's just jarring to see such a tank as the Mk.11 get chewed up so easily, even by older tanks. Mostly due to the fact that (seemingly) only glacis armour is taken into account when deciding the tank's armour values - 360mm-375mm in the Chieftain's case, but the Mk. 10 and Mk. 11 had, IIRC, around 540mm on their turret.
Otherwise yes, the British are rather poorly equipped. Soviet ratings did place them at one of the smallest threats- only us Canadians were smaller (infact, we were the smallest threat!) [:D]
Otherwise yes, the British are rather poorly equipped. Soviet ratings did place them at one of the smallest threats- only us Canadians were smaller (infact, we were the smallest threat!) [:D]
RE: Understanding British infantry
Don't forget the Chieftain when it was first introduce had some first in class design features in the case of tank design (laid back driver seat reducing the height of the tank and 120mm gun as standard), sadly that was in the 1960's and since then the civil servants let things slide downhill
In game terms I have made a alterative brit OOB that is similar to the WG OOB where there is a ATGM unit incorporated into the infantry platoon level but I'm looking at releasing that once 2.0.10 is released (along with some other items)
In game terms I have made a alterative brit OOB that is similar to the WG OOB where there is a ATGM unit incorporated into the infantry platoon level but I'm looking at releasing that once 2.0.10 is released (along with some other items)
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
RE: Understanding British infantry
Well, that is the late 60's. The Chieftains were rather sub-par as more advanced designs (Namely, they were first surpassed by the T-64B) emerged in the mid-to-late 70's
Alternate OOB sounds great. Reminds me that I should fix up some things with my East German OOB... (Which is funny, the first scenario I played with them had them facing the British, and the T-72M1s (T-72AV stat clones) clubbed the Chieftains like baby seals.)
Alternate OOB sounds great. Reminds me that I should fix up some things with my East German OOB... (Which is funny, the first scenario I played with them had them facing the British, and the T-72M1s (T-72AV stat clones) clubbed the Chieftains like baby seals.)
RE: Understanding British infantry
I think Monty's statement is typical 'bull'
anyone serving in the Forces is 'fighting for a reason eg. Regiment, survival, homeland, best mate next to you etc...
I must be on a different Planet but I've found the Brit Mech Inf tough cookies, either using them or against them.
Typical Mech Co. is 3 Mech Plts backed with 30mm auto cannon Warriors, Milan Plt, Mtr Plt.
I have a healthy respect for those concentrated Milans - in Heavy woods or built up areas, Swingfires & Chally's/Chieftains in ambush do the rest.
Having ATGM's mounted on MICV's as per Marders/Brads just make them 'Glass Cannons'
anyone serving in the Forces is 'fighting for a reason eg. Regiment, survival, homeland, best mate next to you etc...
I must be on a different Planet but I've found the Brit Mech Inf tough cookies, either using them or against them.
Typical Mech Co. is 3 Mech Plts backed with 30mm auto cannon Warriors, Milan Plt, Mtr Plt.
I have a healthy respect for those concentrated Milans - in Heavy woods or built up areas, Swingfires & Chally's/Chieftains in ambush do the rest.
Having ATGM's mounted on MICV's as per Marders/Brads just make them 'Glass Cannons'
Heia Safari
-
Deathtreader
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:49 am
- Location: Vancouver, Canada.
RE: Understanding British infantry
ORIGINAL: HeinzBaby
I must be on a different Planet but I've found the Brit Mech Inf tough cookies, either using them or against them.
Typical Mech Co. is 3 Mech Plts backed with 30mm auto cannon Warriors, Milan Plt, Mtr Plt.
I have a healthy respect for those concentrated Milans - in Heavy woods or built up areas, Swingfires & Chally's/Chieftains in ambush do the rest.
Having ATGM's mounted on MICV's as per Marders/Brads just make them 'Glass Cannons'
Well said, that's been my experience also........
Rob.
So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
RE: Understanding British infantry
ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
ORIGINAL: HeinzBaby
I must be on a different Planet but I've found the Brit Mech Inf tough cookies, either using them or against them.
Typical Mech Co. is 3 Mech Plts backed with 30mm auto cannon Warriors, Milan Plt, Mtr Plt.
I have a healthy respect for those concentrated Milans - in Heavy woods or built up areas, Swingfires & Chally's/Chieftains in ambush do the rest.
Having ATGM's mounted on MICV's as per Marders/Brads just make them 'Glass Cannons'
Well said, that's been my experience also........
Rob.
I wish they had an extra tank in their platoons, but I have hosed the Soviets pretty well playing the Brits. Never have had to use the nukes in Thor's Hammer. Hell's Crossroad is a turkey shoot. And so on.
-
battlerbritain
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:11 am
RE: Understanding British infantry
Allied to understanding the Brits is understanding the names given to British soldiers and their ranks.
Borrowed from a post over at TMP but gives a good feel for British naming practice's.
Army ranks – know your oppos
"The rank system is really quite simple." You see, all people in the Army are soldiers, all privates are soldiers, but not all soldiers are privates. Some are officers who are commissioned, but some are officers who are not commissioned.
Obviously if every private was called ‘Private' it would be confusing, so some privates are called things like trooper, driver, gunner, craftsmen, sapper or signaller. Not all of the drivers actually drive because some of them cook, but we don't call them cooks. For that matter, not all drivers are called drivers – some of them are privates or gunners.
Gunners, as I'm sure you know, are the blokes that fire guns, unless of course they are drivers or signallers in which case we call them gunners rather than drivers or signallers just to make it clearer. All gunners belong to the Artillery, except that in the Infantry we have gunners who are called privates because they fire a different sort of gun, for the same reason we call our drivers and signallers private as well.
A mechanical battalion has drivers, crew commanders and sigs, but are still soldiers.
Some Infantry units have soldiers who are musicians that are still soldiers, but referred to as ‘Pipes and Drums' meaning they are soldiers who play bagpipes and drums. Not the hard rocking AC/DC-type drums, more the side slug drums for marching on parade, and cat-squealing pipes like in Scotland, not peace pipes or plumbing needs. But they can also do the hard rocking AC/DC stuff if needed at dining-in nights at the Officers' and Sergeants' Mess, which isn't really messy, except after Mess footy, which is another story.
So yes, a piper, drummer or bugler is still an Infantry soldier who plays music, but isn't band corps, otherwise that soldier would in fact be a musician, who is still a soldier but non-combatant. Whereas pipers, drummers and buglers are still combatant soldiers who are Infantry Corps that play music for the battalion, but aren't musicians. Pipers, drummers and buglers are also referred to as ‘stretcher bearers' which can confuse some to thinking they're medics, which is understandable seeing as they wear the red cross brassard and perform first aid, casualty recovery and work with the medics, who are also soldiers.
A Lance Corporal is called Corporal unless he is a Lance Bombardier then we call him Bombardier to distinguish him from a full bombardier, who is just like a corporal. All other ranks are called by their rank for the sake of simplicity except that staff sergeants are called Staff, but they are not on the staff, some warrant officers, who are not officers, are called Sergeant Major although they are not sergeants or majors.
Some warrant officers are called Mister which is the same thing that we call some officers but they are not warrant officers.
A lieutenant is also called Mister because they are subalterns, but we always write their rank as Lieutenant or Second Lieutenant, and second comes before first.
When we talk about groups of soldiers there obviously has to be clear distinction. We call them officers and soldiers although we know that officers are soldiers too. Sometimes we talk about officers and other ranks which is the same as calling them soldiers.
I guess it is easiest when we talk about rank and file which is all the troops on parade except the officers and some of the NCOs – and a few of the privates – and the term is used whether everyone is on parade or not.
A large unit is called a battalion, unless it is a regiment, but sometimes a regiment is much bigger than a battalion and then it has nothing to do with the other sort of regiment.
Sub-units are called companies unless they are squadrons or troops or batteries for that matter. That is not radio batteries and don't confuse this type of troop with the type who are soldiers but not officers.
Mostly the Army is divided into corps as well as units, not the sort of corps which is a couple of divisions but the sort which tells you straight away what trade each man performs, whether he is a tradesmen or not.
The Infantry Corps has all the infantrymen for example and the Artillery Corps has all the gunners. Both these corps also has signallers and drivers except those who are in the Signals or Transport Corps. In fact the Signals Corps is not a service at all because it is an arm.
Arms do all the fighting, although Signals don't have to fight too much, rather like the Engineers who are also an arm but they don't fight too much either So you see, it's really quite simple."
[:D]
Borrowed from a post over at TMP but gives a good feel for British naming practice's.
Army ranks – know your oppos
"The rank system is really quite simple." You see, all people in the Army are soldiers, all privates are soldiers, but not all soldiers are privates. Some are officers who are commissioned, but some are officers who are not commissioned.
Obviously if every private was called ‘Private' it would be confusing, so some privates are called things like trooper, driver, gunner, craftsmen, sapper or signaller. Not all of the drivers actually drive because some of them cook, but we don't call them cooks. For that matter, not all drivers are called drivers – some of them are privates or gunners.
Gunners, as I'm sure you know, are the blokes that fire guns, unless of course they are drivers or signallers in which case we call them gunners rather than drivers or signallers just to make it clearer. All gunners belong to the Artillery, except that in the Infantry we have gunners who are called privates because they fire a different sort of gun, for the same reason we call our drivers and signallers private as well.
A mechanical battalion has drivers, crew commanders and sigs, but are still soldiers.
Some Infantry units have soldiers who are musicians that are still soldiers, but referred to as ‘Pipes and Drums' meaning they are soldiers who play bagpipes and drums. Not the hard rocking AC/DC-type drums, more the side slug drums for marching on parade, and cat-squealing pipes like in Scotland, not peace pipes or plumbing needs. But they can also do the hard rocking AC/DC stuff if needed at dining-in nights at the Officers' and Sergeants' Mess, which isn't really messy, except after Mess footy, which is another story.
So yes, a piper, drummer or bugler is still an Infantry soldier who plays music, but isn't band corps, otherwise that soldier would in fact be a musician, who is still a soldier but non-combatant. Whereas pipers, drummers and buglers are still combatant soldiers who are Infantry Corps that play music for the battalion, but aren't musicians. Pipers, drummers and buglers are also referred to as ‘stretcher bearers' which can confuse some to thinking they're medics, which is understandable seeing as they wear the red cross brassard and perform first aid, casualty recovery and work with the medics, who are also soldiers.
A Lance Corporal is called Corporal unless he is a Lance Bombardier then we call him Bombardier to distinguish him from a full bombardier, who is just like a corporal. All other ranks are called by their rank for the sake of simplicity except that staff sergeants are called Staff, but they are not on the staff, some warrant officers, who are not officers, are called Sergeant Major although they are not sergeants or majors.
Some warrant officers are called Mister which is the same thing that we call some officers but they are not warrant officers.
A lieutenant is also called Mister because they are subalterns, but we always write their rank as Lieutenant or Second Lieutenant, and second comes before first.
When we talk about groups of soldiers there obviously has to be clear distinction. We call them officers and soldiers although we know that officers are soldiers too. Sometimes we talk about officers and other ranks which is the same as calling them soldiers.
I guess it is easiest when we talk about rank and file which is all the troops on parade except the officers and some of the NCOs – and a few of the privates – and the term is used whether everyone is on parade or not.
A large unit is called a battalion, unless it is a regiment, but sometimes a regiment is much bigger than a battalion and then it has nothing to do with the other sort of regiment.
Sub-units are called companies unless they are squadrons or troops or batteries for that matter. That is not radio batteries and don't confuse this type of troop with the type who are soldiers but not officers.
Mostly the Army is divided into corps as well as units, not the sort of corps which is a couple of divisions but the sort which tells you straight away what trade each man performs, whether he is a tradesmen or not.
The Infantry Corps has all the infantrymen for example and the Artillery Corps has all the gunners. Both these corps also has signallers and drivers except those who are in the Signals or Transport Corps. In fact the Signals Corps is not a service at all because it is an arm.
Arms do all the fighting, although Signals don't have to fight too much, rather like the Engineers who are also an arm but they don't fight too much either So you see, it's really quite simple."
[:D]
Somerset, Uk
RE: Understanding British infantry
aggh that's a wall of text...
very similar to the explaining cricket one [:)]
very similar to the explaining cricket one [:)]
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
-
battlerbritain
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:11 am
RE: Understanding British infantry
Edited to make it a bit easier to read....
I'm ex-RAF but had to work with various British Armoured troops when later working as a Scientist.
It got really confusing when talking to a 'Corporal-of-Horse' who wasn't a Corporal but actually equivalent to a senior Sergeant. Apparently it was something to do with the fact that the founder of his Regiment was some Royalty who didn't want any of the ranks in their Regiment to be classed as 'servants', as the term 'Sergeant' means 'servant' in Latin, or some other long-since-dead language. So they made up their own rank structure just for that Regiment.
Then there's the difference between a Sergeant and a Serjeant…
You 'Yanks' have it so much easier. We Brits have to live with this cr@p…
I'm ex-RAF but had to work with various British Armoured troops when later working as a Scientist.
It got really confusing when talking to a 'Corporal-of-Horse' who wasn't a Corporal but actually equivalent to a senior Sergeant. Apparently it was something to do with the fact that the founder of his Regiment was some Royalty who didn't want any of the ranks in their Regiment to be classed as 'servants', as the term 'Sergeant' means 'servant' in Latin, or some other long-since-dead language. So they made up their own rank structure just for that Regiment.
Then there's the difference between a Sergeant and a Serjeant…
You 'Yanks' have it so much easier. We Brits have to live with this cr@p…
Somerset, Uk
RE: Understanding British infantry
it missed Colour sergeant's just to add to the confusion
from wiki - Historically, colour sergeants of British line regiments protected ensigns, the most junior officers who were responsible for carrying their battalions' colours to rally troops in battles. For this reason, to reach the rank of colour sergeant was considered a prestigious attainment, granted normally to those sergeants who had displayed courage on the field of battle. This tradition continues today as colour sergeants form part of a colour party in military parades.
from wiki - Historically, colour sergeants of British line regiments protected ensigns, the most junior officers who were responsible for carrying their battalions' colours to rally troops in battles. For this reason, to reach the rank of colour sergeant was considered a prestigious attainment, granted normally to those sergeants who had displayed courage on the field of battle. This tradition continues today as colour sergeants form part of a colour party in military parades.
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
-
TheWombat_matrixforum
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:37 am
RE: Understanding British infantry
In re anti-tank stuff, when I was in Berlin at the tail end of the Cold War, a British tank commander (Chieftain), and one of the largest individuals I've ever seen crew a tank, was chatting with me at some event at Templehof. We were talking about the French wheeled AT vehicle nearby, one with a 105mm gun. The Chieftain commander's view was, if you give a vehicle a weapon capable of killing tanks, some idiot will send you to kill tanks with it. If you don't have any armor, you'll wind up dead, quickly. So, leave the big guns on big tanks, and everyone is happier. Whether or not that's good or bad advice, it certainly was heart-felt by this fellow (who, while talking with me, was idly tossing an (inert) 120mm shell back and forth as if it was beanbag).
RE: Understanding British infantry
Well, couldn't be terribly relevant in Berlin where your life expectancy would be less than 30 minutes anyway.
Eitherway, most of the "Glass Cannons" have evolved on the modern principle that "First Sight is First Blood", that being who ever sees the other guy first will shoot first, and the guy who shoots first generally kills first.
You can really see the gulf between, for example, the Leopards 1 and 2 however. The West Germans figured out that you might not always get your perfect ambush and will need to tank fire [:D]
Eitherway, most of the "Glass Cannons" have evolved on the modern principle that "First Sight is First Blood", that being who ever sees the other guy first will shoot first, and the guy who shoots first generally kills first.
You can really see the gulf between, for example, the Leopards 1 and 2 however. The West Germans figured out that you might not always get your perfect ambush and will need to tank fire [:D]