"British Cold War TO&Es?" Topic

I've been reviewing some of my old WRG TO&E books, and in them, it suggests for the British that they should get 2 x FV-432s with mortars as a support section, and/or 2 x FV-438s (not sure it even mentioned these – probably listed Strikers instead, but I recall the Swingfire being the optimal ATGM launcher back in my day, when growing up) as well.

IIRC, these vehicles were usually organized in (US term here) platoons of 4 x vehicles, or so each.

Perhaps the section of 2 for each is the proper ratio for a company of British Chieftains, or the same of FV-432s, however, I'd like to know how they were really organized for the larger units too, if appropriate.

Thoughts?

Also, what amount of artillery support could they reasonably expect, in both direct and general support, if on the defensive, and expecting imminent enemy attack?

Enola's World Armies for 1981 gives a UK mech battalion a mortar plt of 4 sections of 2 mortars and an AT plt of 4 sections of 4 MILAN launchers. Strikers turn up in the AT battery of the divisional artillery group along with FV-438s.

24 Milan firing posts (launchers) in a mech bn from c1982. By c1987 one of the sections (in many Bns in Germany) replaced their ground posts with 4 Spartan APCs fitted with the new twin Milan turret.

The Swingfires were deployed in a couple of ways. First the Armoured Recce regiments had some in Striker form- 1 troop of four per Recce squadron (a company sized unit of course in UK). The UK based Recce Regt was a bit different in that all of its Striker Swingfires were grouped into a single guided Weapons Squadron.

Also- the FV438s and remaining Strikers not with the Recce units were firstly (up to c1981-2) grouped into battalion sized (c30-36 vehicles) Divisional anti tank units. They were operated by the Royal Horse Artillery at that time. After c1982, those units were broken up and the vehicles taken away from the Artillery and divided amongst the MBT Regiments in a single large Troop (Platoon size in US) of 8-9 vehicles for each.

Having said that, division commanders running FTXs etc would still sometimes take the 438s and Strikers away from their parent tank regiments and group them into adhoc anti-tank units. Presumably this was the war plan too.

One point is that the Swingfires, although in many ways similar in capability to the M901, were never really intended as anti-tank capability for the infantry. If anything- that role was fulfilled by the Spartan with milan turret- see above.

I believe the FV438 were originally intended for issue down to regimental / battalion level with the armour and infantry, and some old publications from the late 1960's / early 1970's list the mech infantry as having a section of FV438 swingfire. I don't think this ever happened – and during the Task Force period the Royal Artillery took over all the Swingfire ATGW with Striker and FV438, before they were handed back over to the RAC in the 1980's. I have some old Battlegroup orders from exercises I did with a mechanised infantry battalion in the early – mid 1980's which gives a pretty good rundown of attachments from other arms. I don't know if the swingfire vehicles were parcelled out in pairs / sections like some wargamers seem to love; better to keep the long range atgw concentrated IMO but I could be wrong.

I was chatting a few weeks ago to a mid-1980s Armoured Regt CO and he was clear that in war, he didn't expect to have much contact with his Swingfire Troop in a general war situation. They would be grouped together with the other troops in the Division and used as an ATGW battalion equivalent in a counter penetration role. I think this was under command of one of the officers with a peacetime BAOR RAC staff role- one of the chaps working for BRAC.
Definitely no intention to split them up in bits between BGs- partly for concentration of effect effect and partly because of QM reasons as the missiles themselves were such heavy and temperamental (if extremely powerful) beasts. Or so I was told.

Thank you for the replies and info.