Company Challenge: UK Armoured Infantry is out for Patrons!
Added 2025-10-10 07:00:11 +0000 UTCAnd... well. The UK Infantry Company in FV432s is exactly that. No weapons platoon, no ATGMs, no mortars, nothing meatier than GPMG and Carl Gustaf. And it shows.
Still interesting for all that. I'm not sure how useful putting the Canadians through the challenge or upgrading to Combined Arms is going to be... I'm feeling increasingly like the current setup has run it's course.
We'll see.
Comments
The big idea for Brits anti-tank doctrine for Cold War was that ATGM is meant to be part of a setpiece defence similar to how you use Vickers machineguns during WW1. Infantry protects the ATGM and the ATGM protects the infantry, it’s meant to be fought on battalion level
Ben Kerry
2025-10-11 14:27:22 +0000 UTCEverything is better with tanks!
Matthew Redfearn
2025-10-11 07:38:24 +0000 UTCYep. And without having been part of BAOR, it's hard to know the degree to which Company Teams/Battlegroups were normalised for training and supply and how much the TOE in CMCW is purely administrative
Matthew Redfearn
2025-10-11 07:38:14 +0000 UTCI suspect trying to deal with the farm at arm's length with only small arms would go somewhat sideways when the c/atk turns up. At least I was on the objective when that happened in this run...
Matthew Redfearn
2025-10-11 07:36:03 +0000 UTC'sTwo main thoughts: 1) I'd really like to see this same company attack made with more attacks by fire from range. Surrounding the compound with infantry and shooting everything would not have been good for the Communists. 2) The Brits seem to have the same focus as the USMC in SF2, firepower at range, without the benefit of having modern small arms. It would be interesting to see how they would fare. You'd probably have to invent a formation and mount them on Amphibs for something analogous, or maybe give them a couple fire support HUMVEE's with .50's.
Nicholas Shaler
2025-10-11 04:28:32 +0000 UTCThere are two important “off map” considerations to achieving a combined arms mix through attachment or cross-attachment, rather than through organic units. The first is training. Units that don’t “live” together don’t get to train together as often as they would if they were billeted together. The second is maintenance and logistics. Homogenous units are easier to sustain. For example, it is easier to conduct resupply and maintenance on tanks if they are all in one unit instead of being parceled out among many scattered units.
Ray L
2025-10-11 02:57:19 +0000 UTCWatching this reminded me of your British campaign missions where the tanks were off somewhere else. You're technically gaining ground, but the ground would be a lot less blood-soaked with some Centurions around.
Andrew Jones
2025-10-10 18:13:53 +0000 UTCI'd be very interested to see howbthe canadians do. The shift from the GPMG to the HMG will make a difference in suppressing buildings in the break in phase of an assault. It kinda in between the US Mech Infantry and the UK Armored Infantry. But both those forces (Brits and Canadians) are really missing that "task organized, fit for purpose" formation you would expect to see IRL. And so a combined arms approach would be a better feeling for how these formations are supposed to be used. If it's the type of fight they would actually get themselves into is another question, but the brits (and Canadians) are still very much in that WW2 set piece battle mindset. Artillery to prepare the battle space, armor to support the assault, Infantry to close with and destroy. Emphasis on the close with phase: use the standoff distance of a Carl G and the SLR to defeat a dug in position before close assault
Jeffrey Allan
2025-10-10 17:39:08 +0000 UTCStorm groups? It’s one of the more fascinating aspects of Soviet doctrines. I have yet to find any “official” concepts of such for Cold War scenarios. But it’s always interesting to think of the potential for “bottom up” doctrinal innovations. And sturmgruppe is also a German thing, I remember West Germans also have similar doctrines. Really, I just love ad hoc squad setups. I remember PLA during Sino-Vietnamese war also utilised task organised storm groups. And Vietnamese army also does that during their operations in Cambodia. (Always think there should be a way to “task organise” units in Combat Mission)
Ben Kerry
2025-10-10 15:42:54 +0000 UTCThat looked frustrating to play. I concur that for the Soviets and the UK the attachment of units/assets to conform to a more combined arms capability would be generally advisable. The doctrine of 'cooperation' was a thing within the Red Army from WWII on. Special groups would be formed with whatever available assets or units offered the best chance of success. Besides Forward Security Elements and Forward Detachments, Assault Groups were probably even more common. I kind of see that assault with the woods leading to a set of buildings and a follow-up counterattack as a sort of cool 'test' for combined arms capability. You have the 'mobility test,' so now you have a combined arms test!
GLG
2025-10-10 08:48:48 +0000 UTCBritish suffers!
Ben Kerry
2025-10-10 07:45:19 +0000 UTC
