"Close infantry support for 1970s British infantry FV432?" Topic

Hi all,

I am building Soviet,British and later US cold war forces in 1/300th and I was wondering about the close infantry support that was available after the troops de-bussed from their APCs. Now the Soviet BMP1 had a 73 mm gun to assist the infantry I imagine, but what did the British and US forces have to support the FV432 and M113 which appear to have only a GPMG? Did they deploy light tanks such as the Scorpion or Sheridan within infantry formations or were they supported in other ways, such as with more highly armed variants of the FV432 and M113?I am not thinking about anti-tank weapons ,rather heavier weapons to assault enemy infantry positions or to provide defence if attacked.

I have very little understanding of cold war tactics so perhaps I am missing the point entirely as to the use of light tanks on the cold war battlefield.

Any help appreciated.

I think light tanks were more likely to be used in a scouting / recconnaissance role than for supporting infantry.

Scorpions and Scimitars were used for recce, not infantry support (unlike now). There were of course exceptions, such as the Falklands which was bit boggy for Chieftans:) No idea what the US did with Sheridans, sold them for scrap?

FV432s (and M113s) were APCs not IFVs, the infantry got out and assaulted in traditional infantry fashion by fire and movement supported by infantry heavy weapons at company and battalion (oops, 'battlegroup') level. Some FV432s were fitted with turrets and might perform an intimate support role. The Sovs were rather keener on mounted assault than our chaps, it partly depended on the weight and type of supporting fires (particularly use of chem and nukes). In Afghanistan both BMPs and BTR groups were used as bronegruppa (sp?), mobile fire support groups anyway.

Mechanised infantry usually operated as part of a combined arms combat team and would draw intimate support tanks from the supporting MBTs. The parent battlegroups were usually cross attached combined arms units too, as were task force/brigade formations.

Warpac types had tanks from their regimental tank battalion and their regimental artillery battery/battalion. Bear in mind that BMP units were in a minority, Motor Rifle divs only had one regiment and Tank Regiments in Tank Divs were often lucky to have a single company, if any at all.

Think of both as armoured busses with their MG's being used to support dismounts as SFMG's would ( in cover firing from beyond effective small arms range 600m plus ideally). Even the BMP's hung back, but would have probably been handled roughly by NATO infantry and supporting armour.

Some good links

link

Bottom line, just because you have tracks does not make you a tank, a truism some M2 Bradley crews frequently forgot during exercises.

To back up Martin's post about cross attachment

YouTube link

YouTube link

Very informative, Martin. But "intimate support" is more often used in the context of women's underwear. Are combined operations Victoria's secret?

"But "intimate support" is more often used in the context of women's underwear"

Well, that was the specific terminology used, see the training videos above.

In the 80s the light Tank – CVR(T) was a recce vehicle and would not be used in an infantry support role. The 2 vids Milites links too give a indication of how the Platoon would operate and use of the MBT (Chieftain) in the intimate support role,

Tally Ho!

Thanks gents,

It seems obvious now that combined operations was the way. The video was great to watch and good to see an FV432 with a Rarden turret. Also the artillery observer to call in fire from the Abbots. I guess that was what was missing from my plan as the artillery gives the fire support.

Loved the very British – make sure that the infantry are out of the way when the tanks are "jockeying" about bit. Damn right.

Also liked to see the plan being chalked on the side of one of the chieftains.

Also read the PDF about the US way of doing things. No mention of more heavily armed M113s or light tanks.

I take it Martin that the Sheridan was not much cop then?

Vietnam proved how flawed the Sheridan was and it was done away with progressively throughout the 70s. The last unit using them, the 82nd Airborne, retired the Sheridan in 1982. They've since soldiered on as range targets.

I thought they dumped the remaining Sheridans in the sea off Florida to create interesting dive sites.

The 82nd kept them till 96 and many of their commanders appreciated the organic fire support they offered. The 152 beehive round was a murderous weapon in Vietnam and the M551 had superior mobility compared to the M-48 but the design was compromised by the gun/missile system, and paper thin armour. This meant that it could be KO'd by an HMG and highly vulnerable to HE fire.

Milites, you're right. I had forgotten that a few made it as long as the First Gulf War

The only reason the 82nd kept them is because there wasn't a replacement for a lightly-armored vehicle with big gun. Kinda critical for what was the other 9-1-1 force for the Americans (primary emergency/rapid deployment force is the Marines).

There still isn't a replacement, but the US has more strategic airlifters now. Interestingly enough, the old Future Combat System would have been just as light as the Sheridan (ie, airdroppable from a C130!), but was intended to replace the Abrams.

The Sheridan was airdropable in theory. It only ever happened once, in Panama, and of the five that were dropped, two were smashed to pieces on landing.

Krop, be aware that after that film was made the 432 with Raden turret only served in Berlin.

An infantry Bn will have a support Coy with an A/Tk, Recce, Mortar and SF GPMG platoons (Usually the drums) and the snipers. These chaps will be allocated as required, although recce are there as the eyes and ears of the commander.

The ability to call fire in the British Army is there down to Platoon/Troop.

Tally Ho!

The US really didn't use light tanks much. The Sheridan was suppose to have been used with our cavalry regiments, but they were too light and buggy. In the end only the 82nd kept theirs. The ACR's ditched them for M-60 and M-1 MBTs. The infantry never had tanks for their own use. Instead infantry and tank battalions were paired up and traded companies who then swapped platoons aka Team Yankee. So you would then have two mech heavy companies (with two mech platoons and a tank platoon) and two tank heavy companies (reverse) Sometimes only two companies made the switch so you had a tank pure company, a mech pure company, and two mixed company "teams".

Grab Harold Coyle's Team Yankee novel. It's pretty accurate about how the US did things during the mid 80's when ROAD divisions were replaced by DIV80. (?) style divisions and Air-Land Battle.

Thanks all,

Never really put it together that the MBT was called that because it was the only tank-fulfilling a number of roles.

So I'm going with Chieftain and FV432, M60A1 and M113 and T62 with BPM1 for my 1970's forces mainly .

I am trying to use the HOTT Modern variant to do this. At the moment I have played 2 games and I guess I'm just checking out how they play.

link

What I will try out next is a mixed deployment.

Tank-APC/Infantry-Tank-APC/Infantry and so on, to reflect the combined nature of the force with artillery/air cover in the rear.

The HOTT rules (for any period) are a huge abstraction, but the 2 games I have played have been fast and decisive with both sides,British and Soviet, scoring decisive wins over each other.

Thanks for all your help guys, if any one wants to know how playing HOTT with modern forces works out I'll let you know.

Nick

There were a number of uparmed FV 432s. One had a WOMBAT, andother had a Fox turret with a 30mm RARDEN cannon. These were appearently issued to the battalions on a limited basis

tsofian. Wombat was used until superseded by Milan, although the shells remained in use as punishment!

The Version with the 30mm turret was only found in Berlin,

Tally Ho!