@@billpugh58 The army isn't shy about it's purpose. The language is to be more precise or sometimes appropriately broad. A lot of words which can refer to too many things can easily cause confusion.
@@JacobGreen-yp8brYes they fucking are, this is the woke generation. They are literally more afraid of offending someone's feelings than dying on the battlefield.
This new experimental arrangement seems like a good adaptation to the modern battlefield. It seems like the 10 man section will just fit inside the Boxer IFV, plus a driver, which is economical. The use of the systems operators will only get more important as the technological aspects of the battlefield get more advanced. One thing I don't think is being addressed in the two platoon company structure is the need for reserves in actual combat situations. So, for training purposes there is no problem with two full strength platoons, the reality in historical warfare is that units are chronically under strength due to attrition. The question becomes whether to hold reserves at the company or battalion level. And where we recognize that the urban battle is primarily a company and platoon level fight, it only makes sense to keep the reserves at that level as well. New soldiers will get cycled through the headquarters/reserve platoon for training and then rotate into the two main fighting platoons the current model practices with, and injured who can still function can be rotated back, all within the company. On the subject of injured, I didn't see any reference to organic medical personnel at the company level, and it seems like that would be necessary to cover the gap between battlefield first aid and medical evacuation with a dedicated medic capable of more skilled interventions, like an EMT or nurse. Also, the attachment of engineers at the company level is going to free the commander act with more initiative. The idea of machine guns integrated together with the pioneers is natural, yet this too needs to make it down to the company level as well if that is the level we predict the bulk of the command burden will be laid. For armaments: the light machine guns should probably be phased out of the fire teams and sections altogether, being replaced with a battle rifle/DMR for more effective fire and less ammo burden. The new fire team armaments should probably consist of three assault carbines and a battle rifle, with an additional M320 grenade launcher in stand alone configuration with one rifleman. The platoon MG should be a medium caliber, sharing ammo with the battle rifles. And the platoon should have a specialized drone capable of dropping a large mortar shell with pinpoint accuracy for targets that the Carl Gustav team can't hit because of obstacles.
It looks really like what we already have in the french army (except for the presence of pionners) with heavy machine guns, ATGM and 81mm mortar at the company level and 120mm mortar+reconnaissance at the battalion level However even with it we have 3 infantry platoons in the company
How would this new ten man squad be distributed around the vehicles. I believe that Warrior can take 7 plus vehicle commander, boxer may hold more but I not sure if the seating is being configured for an eight man squad
You can learn a lot from the Philippine Scout Rangers on Urban Fighting for they have tested their battle skills on more than five months on the Marawi Siege in the Southern Philippines just recently where the ISIS and the local Maute group and Abusayaf Muslim terrorist team together and tried to declare a Caliphate in the Southern of the Philippines in 2017. One Liuetenant of the Philippine Scout Rangers the Elite force of the Philippine Army described the brutal battle as every inch every room every house is contested and with booby traps everywhere and one thing they have difficulty with is the concrete houses and buildings in the Urban District where it serves as natural protection to the fighters and the rooms in the houses where the enemy is holdout they knock the walls of the rooms so they have 360 mobility in the buildings and houses k!
Before that seige in Marawi, the US and British have already knowledge with regard to how these insurgents work. Fallujah was the test bed when it was a full blown MOUT experience for the big Army/Marines as a whole. The battle in Marawi was basically the same with Fallujah. Fallujah was the catalyst in terms of accelerating TTPs with regards to FIBUA/MOUT. US SF pretty much trained the Philippines with regard to that. Especially the primary MOUT/CQB unit which was the LRC. What the Philippines did that made a lot of people impressed is they did a very good jobdespite technologically they have less compared to first world armies. But the US and Brits definitely have taken action to providing their armed forces comprehensive, standardized capability with MOUT. That is good and definitely will be useful for the allies in the long run.
like the section layout but don't like the idea of only 2 platoon and a support weapons platoon. With the casualty rate in urban warfare think its better to have 3 platoons and attach support weapon from the support coy.
One of the big things that could be important is how ai is integrated with unmanned ground systems, you don’t want your vehicles stopping cause comms got disrupted
The elephant in the room here is numbers and retention. Add into the mix budgetary constraints it will be interesting to see what will actually happen.
If the average range of the infantry fight is 50 metres, I’d seriously question putting 81’s as a coy level asset (yes it has more HE and could be used more for Depth targets) It’s got a 80m minimum range (which spreads out the coy and makes it harder to control) and a 35m killing area
Why do you imagine a Mortar would not be held back providing support from range as it has been used since inception? Mortars remain one of the quickest and most effective Artillery systems avaialble to a company sized unit. I pity a unit in action with out this.
@@nickwake5484 if it’s further back it is harder for Coy Comd to control and resupply, I’d argue therefore that potentially makes more sense for 81 to be held centrally (as in stay in Supp Coy) and have 60s in the coy
I was thinking about minimum ranges too. I found it odd he was talking about bounds of engagement being 50m and the need for the platoon to stay compact. Then talk about a weapon (120mm) with a minimum range of 100m.
Some ideas to consider: - Add a few loitering ammunition launchers to the M.U.L.E. Loitering drones will give you broader possibilities for retaliation, especially "over the horizon", or into specific vindow turned in a different direction, than your people are. - Tons of cheap and simple killdrones will do better work than one superexpensive and tougher one. Sugesting simple wheeled drones, able to scale (or jump) stairs, with inbuild claymore mine. - Use (as main gun) for bigger UGVs (like Ripsaw M5 is) a recoilless gun (like Carl Gustav). The ammo storage will not be plenty, but even 10 + canon shots will be enough.
The Americans have already stated they plan to mount Raven guns (think modern improved recoiless guns) on lighter vehciles and even have a 105mm raven gun ready for the job.
The Brits had an LMG and got rid of it because they deemed it to be as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. They also had a 60mm mortar at platoon level and got rid of it. With regards to support elements like assault pioneers and MMGs, they could still be in platoons at battalion level for admin and training purposes, perhaps under a staff sergeant or WO1 (rather than an officer), and spread out to the companies for tactical employment.
We do these small 61mm mortars but you need it in numbers. You kinda need to put a hand into the pocket and pull such mortar. The same whenever you put a hand into the backpack - the mortar awaits you. All APCs and IFVs keep at least one. You visit the toilet and there is one 61mm in a stool. I know Russians hate this multi-peppering with mortars. God, they hate it beyond imagination.
I dnt think it will work. Urban warfair like clearing buildings you be looking to expecting at least 25% casualties. I didn't hear the guy mentioned anything about additional medical support ! At the Section patoon level. He only talked about chipy medical support. The PL commander being the (rock star) will not work !. 2 LT the most junior officer with the least amount of experience being a (rockstar) no chance. Man power/recruitment and retention in the British army has been an issue for a number of years now and is still an issue to this day. Making the platoon size bigger will be unsustainable. In addition with female infantry members and also trans members a lot of them being undeployable. Most leading power militaries have done research and the pregnancy rate of female soldiers on deployment is very high. When I was in the British army infantry we were told that there was nothing small unit about urban warfare minimum battalian level !
I would say that because of the global urbanization more and more people live in cities, and that is the reason why it is a good idea to invest in urban warfare capabilities. Further, i can advice a sledgehammer, and a staff to get through walls and create firing ports in buildings. Sandbags; taking a large rucksack full of sacks to fill with sand is a good idea to fortify a building. Regular bullets can get through walls easily. Both the sledgehammer and staff, and the sandbags are seen in Syria during the war against Assad. Good results were noted. Explosives to blast holes through walls. You don't want to use the street if you don't have to. Grappling hooks and telescoping ladders to get onto roofs and saws, sledgehammer, or explosives to get an entrance to a building and clear it from the top down (which is said to be better (in the manuals)). Carpets or sheets hanging on ropes to block the view through the street. Actually one not described in manuals is: the capability to dig tunnels underground. Having a team that can dig tunnels from one building to another like the people digging for electricity, water, and gas in cities are the people that can make these tunnels. If a conflict around a city takes a long time, you can get one of these tunnel boring machines that digs sewers can be very helpful to get under buildings and blow them up from underneath. That method was also used in the war in Syria, and has had good results. The ability to create living space underground is very valuable and has been used in Syrian urban conflict and has caused groups to keep holding on to parts of cities (Idlib for example). Further in some urban warfare manuals portable or vehicle mounted flamethrowers and gatlingguns like the m61 vulcan were mentioned. Also the thermobaric launchers used by the Russians were seen as a very valuable tool to clear buildings. I am sure that if these methods and tools are used in urban warfare, you will get the upper hand. But urban warfare doctrine has to be used, as well as all the methods described. We have not seen the full potential of urban warfare(recorded) in Ukraine. In Syria it seems that there were some very good methods employed (and recorded), lessons should be learned. Greetings, Jeff
Ukraine war, Sudan War and Palestina war reminds us how important to have vertical protection against drone or swarm of drones to armour unit or anything else. It yet anticipated with more effective way
Why Javelins for urban combat? Surely NLAW's are more suitable for urban warfare. NLAW's are cheaper,, more portable, safer to fire from within buildings, and have a superior minimum-range fire capability. Javelins will be severely limited at close range.
As far as being safer to fire in buildings, both NLAW and Javelin launch from the tube in a manner that doesn't produce the backblast of an AT-4 or Carl Gustav. The real issue with Javelin is fleeting opportunities since it requires about 30 seconds to lock onto a target, that is to say unable to be fired at a moment's notice, the range is kind of irrelevant if you can't manage to successfully lock on to a target that's trying to not present itself. That said, it's not like they're going to bring Javelin into a situation where they're well within the minimum distance, they don't carry them around willy nilly without consideration for fields of fire. If they don't need them they won't bring them. They'll be allocated in a way that fits into the unit's plan of attack or defence. Both present their strengths and weaknesses and the flexibility of having both is preferable than eliminating one or the other. Average engagement distance doesn't mean every single fight takes place at that prescribed distance across the entire platoon. The CLU for Javelin is also good for target acquisition anyway, so it's not like the platform is completely useless in an urban setting. Screening actions still matter in an urban environment which is what Javelin is arguably better at than close-contact assaults which is why they're not being allocated at the squad level in this organisation.
You need numbers in urban operations to systematically clear buildings rapidly, gain a foot hold and provide overwatch whilst other companies' eschelon through the flanks
Lots of ideas. But in UK no adequate funding, no critical mass of forces, minimal ammunition, and no casualty replacements. And we don't want to join the meat grinder wars. Our role should be to provide the sophisticated fires, intelligence and surveillance, , air power and naval assets - with meaningful weapons stocks. Not to retain an infantry heavy army to justify cap badges and an inflated officer corp.
The way I read the preliminary proposal, possibly one team is led by the 2IC who is a LCpl, but i think that sort of personnel management stuff is a later problem
It can be shouldered left for shorter ranges whilst still holding it in a right handed manner, to be fair. The height of the backup sight means the rifle itself is quite low. Not ideal but better than often claimed.
The lack of funding and manpower in the entire British military means that the British can think what they like, but they won't be able to operate anywhere outside of the UK with out massive US support. It may be arguable that it would be dangerous to use the British military in any large scale operations overseas.
Me thinks the formation should be similar to 3 sections, fire support section and a separate drone support group as drone group will essential be the brains of the platoon and some fire support. If one section is annihilated , suppressed , one is then limited to only one other option which is a big fail. The section number of 10 is good but manpower is alway essential . Platoon closer to 40 men much better
I wonder if the increased training also has to do with the coming social and economic instability. I guess they expect to be fighting in built up areas for a reason, and the implication is disturbing. Soldier, terrorist, insurgent, freedom fighter are just based on perspective.
You gotta laugh at this nonsense…fancy nu name & 2 extra soldiers in a section and a couple of lecy vehicles which is why you need extra 2 troops to drive them…and no longer shooters…and they call this advances, sell the concept and be surprised when it doesn’t work in real combat…but let’s be positive…we can spin this …wow factor …utube generation will dig it…the real sale is smaller military to be able to afford vehicles…smaller more versatile…instead of U.K. skint can’t get people to join up…relocate regiments nu names and as yank say”no longer tier 1 partner…can’t provide enough troops to provide a brigade” etc etc might as well call up salvation army or girl guides for recruits…or simply call up special forces female regiments…for political correctness…no wonder we lost last 3 wars
I don't see why UK Army keeping the Hiluxes would be a bad thing. They're cheap, available in large quantities, and reliable. Sure, they're not IED resistant, but adding bomb proof APCs means your light infantry are now mechanized infantry, with all the logistical hurdles and inertia of such a heavier unit. Toyota War 2 Boogaloo!
In fact, I'd say they *need* their Hiluxes. British Army has a lot of "light role" infantry, or dismounted infantry with straight-up no transports. And that is absolutely ridiculous.
Given the sheer number of Land Rovers, Pinzgauers et al that they use, a fleet of Toyota Hiluxes would be a huge boost to day to day capability. You can also get up-armoured Hiluxes too, from various companies.
It will depend on how they're used. With how easy it is to rapidly deploy mines en masse, as seen in the Ukraine war, the way vehicles that aren't mine resistant are used would matter significantly. Last thing we need is mobile coffins. But these vehicles can still be used.
The decision/competition on which pickup the MoD goes with to replace LR & Pinz will be interesting . Huge contract for someone. Toyota, Nissan, Ford etc
One of the biggest challenges in FIBUA training is the cost and lack of facilities. Urban warfare is dependent on the ability to shoot through walls, floors and ceilings, as well as creating your own doorways and access points, the complete destruction of entire buildings to improve positions and fields of fire. The use of tunnels and culverts is also vital for fire and manoeuvring, and consequently the destruction of those avenues of approach. That is very expensive to train, and near on impossible from a logistical and health and safety perspective. It's not going to be solved by fiddling with platoon composition.
some points for your man first point - 2 Yorks are lizards so your data is practically worthless 2. - Copehill down is F-ing tiny how your going to influence Army urban doctrine based on a area of about 300m is anyones guess, needs to be some serious investment in a substantial training area in which a whole battle group would operate and be tested in the confines of an urban enviorment. 3. - idk who you been talking too but a section commander should'nt be clearing rooms his job in a building is command and control - In urban as a section commander I run as third man in my section assigning doors and threats its then in the Rfns control how they clear the room and ask for assets from me to enable them, they need extra manpower or want no further action until they clear - my mind is on the threats ahead and how far I am willing to exploit before I require relief in place the following section should be providing a link man to pass information back and the commander of that can inform PL Commader of whatever info he sapposidly needs im not gonna be on my comms to him im busy and thats dumb. - in a building the section should not be split into fire teams, its command and bods, Im grabbing who ever is available not on an immediate threat to be pushed forward to a door grated weapon system can be a motivator but that comes down to training or preplanning. My opinion on the layout of the section in a traditional sense is Section commander Charlie with 3 Rfn, 2ic Delta with 3 Rfn and then a fire support ancillary with GPMG and Sharpshooter who sit where I decide situation and ground dependant whether that's two in one fire team split between or as their own element, capitalising of their range and firepower. 4. GPMG will never be replaced/ should never be it is an absolute force multiplier but sheer incompetence of junior commanders and lack of understanding of its capabilities by senior ranks has seen a steep decline in training and building of confidence by its operators means it is relegated to section dribblers instead of those with the ability to use it to its full might, I would 100% encourage its inclusion in a section during urban operations.
No lmao. What you think they turn around and go back to swap loadouts? Buy a red dot upgrade and a skin 😂? They go with what they've got. Certainly they'll have different jobs, ideally, but they're both carrying guns.
His proposed solution is to adopt an LMG that is more portable for maneuvering in a building, in lieu of the GPMG in the light role mode as is used now, and adopt a separate more capable MMG for sustained fire above section
@christhorpejunction8982 I appreciate that. The US used to do it with M1 Garands or 20 inch barrel M16. But that’s not the current trend at all. A unit designed specifically for Urban warfare, I assume, would also see the problem. While both an LMG and DMR would be very useful suppressing a building while entry is made, that leaves only 6 men out of eight to clear it. But only 3 per fire team. So you end up with two 3 man teams, or 3 two man teams, one team made up of members of two different fire teams. Having the full 8 in the building would be a plus, and while a LMG or DMR could cover hallways and entrances, access to shorter lighter weapons would give them four teams of 2 and more flexibly to enter room and clear them. Some British units already have the option to access different weapons at the company or platoon level to customize their needs for a patrol or mission. Taking a GPMG instead of a SAW, or not taking any MG’s for more DMR’s. Doesn’t seem like a stretch for an urban unit to do something similar.
As IFV’s are having trouble carrying 8 troops, why in hell would you seek to increase section numbers back to the problem point for previous for IFV’s. 2 IFV required to move a section when the new IFV’s can now carry a 8 man section.
We will travel on top of BMP-1s cuz we don't have anything from this century ready in any numbers here in Poland. Maybe a dozen of Borsuk tracked IFV. 8x8 Rosomak we have more than a thousand of it. But, man, it is a fat ass machine. 120mm RAK 8x8 mortar is even bigger than that.
So what I'm wondering is which countries do currently have units designed for urban warfare, if any. It seems to be a thing that comes up consistently in warfare and is solved through all kinds of attachments, but I'm kind of surprised if there already aren't dedicated units for it.
@@nosamsemaj9150I’d question your use of ‘very well’ when describing russias performance in urban operations. The two most prominent in the current conflict are bakhmut and Mariupol, both of which were drawn out affairs characterised by heavy reliance by Russia on heavy artillery assets and both reportedly resulted in heavy casualties for the Russian army and its aligned paramilitary forces.
Canadian light infantry maintained Coy specifically to exploit the Mech Brigade groups limitation in urban/complex terrain. Light infantry battle order is pretty well in-line with the Phalanx. USMC were, at the Coy level very well suited to urban operations being a resilient, infantry centric organisation exceedingly capable of bringing relevant systems to the fight. At this point they bring/brought so much ass to a fight any lose in capability may just not matter. Brazil seems to favour being good at urban warfare as it translates to how close in the jungle can be. UK has the biggest MOUT training center in the world, 30,000 Acres. They had a counter insurgency warfare center in N Ireland for a while. In '46 France built a facility for urban warfare and built a second in 1997. UK/Anglo forces used the facilities for like 20 years as well.
Wow ,a lot of misinformation about what firefights are like. Especially the urban fight. He passes a lot off as fact, when it's really just speculation.
❤. Secondly. In 2027. A. D. There. Was. A. Internal. M.O.D. Directive. Est. To. Massively. EXPAND THE. 👩🏼⚖️👩🏻⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️😌. 🇬🇧TERRITORIAL. ARMY🇬🇧. Or. “. Civil. Defense. Force .and the. Adoption of. Armed. Police. Officers. 👮♂️ and. Riot and. Swat. Teams. All 🇬🇧👮♂️🇬🇧. 😄.
It seems to me that the presentation indicated a much larger technological impact at lower levels of organization. Which means a greater level of service support required. The war in Ukraine seems to indicate a process of movement through forested lines in order to seize built up strong points. Is this sudden emphasis on Urban training and organization reflect this reality?
Increase training allotments of ammunition 10 fold and make sure your soldiers are at peak cardiovascular fitness and teach all soldiers to be leaders. That is all,
Brittan should be a decade ahead , Should be world leaders in urban troop manouvers , Armored troop carriers , patrol tactical moves and leadership, ..
Who are you talking to?? These aren’t airsofters in the video they’re soldiers in the British Army. Now I have no idea what experience you have in urban combat but I’m assuming you don’t know as much as the lad in charge of training these soldiers so maybe hush it.
@Sollapoke considering I done my training in winnie Hill twice and was the best section out of two plts and wad taught to not shoulder the rifle but have it in the centre I think I might know. The reason is there is more plate at the front than the side so more chance of taking a hit under the arm if you stand side on
@@connorlee5873 I know that there is an advantage to shooting with the plate facing the enemy and I don’t have nearly as much experience as you from the sounds of it however I still think that is the British Army are teaching their soldiers to perform CQB with a shouldered rifle then they must have a reason for it.
@Louis-ej1lx I've done plenty research into how the us army works. In the US "squad", there's a commander. Beneith him, there are various teams, roughly with 2-5 men each with their own leaders. Look at the 1956 US Army Rifle Squad onwards. The next thing we'd be doing is making sure the Section IC is a Sergeant, and the Fireteam commanders are Corporals. This is sort of like how the US Army looked like after WW1. Then we'll be making the Section IC a Staff Sergeant, and team leaders Sergeants. Oh wait, this is exactly how the US Army squad is nowadays. Funny that!
..good concept, half ass implementation, increase maneuver units to three platoons, historically combat experience shows that urban warfare saps manpower astronomically therefore have reserves be organic.
Looking at the footage from that conflict it's all drones and artillery. The men rarely get close enough to shoot at each other. Gun battles are happening on the fringes where defences are weak, but most of the losses are from shelling. Eyes on the battlefield 24/7 with thermal cameras and as soon as you are spotted boom. This is a new era of warfare.
Is that a poor joke? This training is so that our army can fight enemy soldiers in towns, not thousands or millions of our own civilians in our own towns.
Urban combat, who are they expecting to fight in these urban areas, their own population, what about real field combat like we are seeing in the Ukraine, Nato trained troops are not doing too well there
Considering that the NATO trained troops only received a sped up programme and are fighting an entrenched enemy, all the while without air supremacy. They've actually done quite well, all considered
I think uk army can keep the old 8 man section. Here is my concept you just give the recon drone to the grenade launcher guy and give the loitering ammunition drone to DMR. Since grenade launcher can’t hit so far they should have time to do recon on drone, with the DMR already has long range capabilities he can send out loitering ammunition flying on top the target follow by recon drone laser targeting or by laser link when flying a high arc.
I don’t think they will operating the drone they just need to carry it and know how to launcher and know how to use it manually. In the battlefield someone with the UGV team will use them well than two man, since the ugv can power AI and long range antenna for the forward group to knowing the enemy.
This drone control by UGV and Man idea a coming from my experience with playing parrot mambo drone and the parrot mambo controller. They both need to link to your phone and you also can use phone not controller to fly it, so I think why not the soldiers phones link into the UGV first just give the AI a controller and you still can see what happens in your phone or just let the AI in the UGV tell your what happens.
@@sidewalks29 I don't really understand what you are talking about now. My question is why is the duty of drone operating being put onto the grenadier and marksman when you can have two dedicated drone operators?