Falklands Island defence force

[RobWilliams]

How is British infantry doctrine is holding back the FIDF from punching above their weight? The FIDF is fully funded from the Falklands Government, they define the equipment requirements for their force and they by default dictate the force structure.

You're not just proposing 'freeing themselves from the British infantry doctrine', you're proposing a fundemental reform on the FIDF.

 

[1805]

How is British infantry doctrine is holding back the FIDF from punching above their weight? The FIDF is fully funded from the Falklands Government, they define the equipment requirements for their force and they by default dictate the force structure.

You're not just proposing 'freeing themselves from the British infantry doctrine', you're proposing a fundemental reform on the FIDF.

British infantry has to have a versatility that only a few have to match: armoured infantry, peace keeping/internal security, low intensity/high intensity etc. The FIDF doesn't have to do any of these, it can focus on killing a long range, they don't want to consider closing with enemy. Its useful to have the AUG, for personal protection, but I would focus on 7.62x51mm and heavier. They would need a bit more hitting power, 81mm mortars to greet an invader on the beach or landing ground. But really the more relief you can provide on the UK the safer they are?

 

[RobWilliams]

Side note, with British doctrine they get trained by the British Army, including - supposedly - the secondment of a RM WO stationed there permanently. Where will all this new training come from? They'll have to pay either to have advisors sent or pay to send a core of the FIDF away for training. Or try develop their own doctrine which would basically be a waste of time and resources in comparison. Or as the UK to pay to deploy gunners and the like there, but the goal is to reduce UK costs so.

Killing at long range is great, until the reasonable belief that eventually the long range element will become more short range sooner or later because if the FIDF trained primarily for long range engagements, If I were an Argentine marine commander I would close the distance ASAP.

British infantry is flexible as it creates the most efficient and effective fighting unit when scenarios don't pan out how the planners plan on it going, I can't imagine not following the same philosophy with the FIDF would provide a better force.

It depends on the probability of an invasion I suppose, which is reduced with the British presence by a country mile.

 

[1805]

Side note, with British doctrine they get trained by the British Army, including - supposedly - the secondment of a RM WO stationed there permanently. Where will all this new training come from? They'll have to pay either to have advisors sent or pay to send a core of the FIDF away for training. Or try develop their own doctrine which would basically be a waste of time and resources in comparison. Or as the UK to pay to deploy gunners and the like there, but the goal is to reduce UK costs so.

Killing at long range is great, until the reasonable belief that eventually the long range element will become more short range sooner or later because if the FIDF trained primarily for long range engagements, If I were an Argentine marine commander I would close the distance ASAP.

British infantry is flexible as it creates the most efficient and effective fighting unit when scenarios don't pan out how the planners plan on it going, I can't imagine not following the same philosophy with the FIDF would provide a better force.

It depends on the probability of an invasion I suppose, which is reduced with the British presence by a country mile.

You might feel that there is no better infantry offering than the British Army, however I work on the basis most things can be improved. A force focused just on their specific defence needs is likely to be better than a more generalist one. As for outside help I think we would actively support moves for the FIDF to be the best it can be.

As for alternatives, I would look at other Commonwealth countries, and maybe Israel. If they spend near our GDP % funding should not be to much of an issue.

The UDR provided a significant contribution in NI, these people face a serious and credible threat, only held off by massive UK forces, which have been questioned. OK no Tory Government would abandon it, but when you think of the commitment/investment we make for an independent nuclear deterrent, for a very remote threat (which I fully support).

I don't really understand your insistence on the status quo...it sounds a bit like French Generals in 1940.

I should think closing the distance when people are shooting at you is easier said then done.....now you're sounding like British Generals in 1916...all in good humour ;-)

 

[RobWilliams]

Not an insistance for the status quo, more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of thinking, not change for the sake of change without any real requirement for change. The real 'threat' to the islands - if we're talking militarily here - is Argentina, we're not seeing the sort of military technology revolution of equipment and doctrine as in late '30s Europe so it's a bit of a false comparison

No, I wouldn't say that British infantry is the best infantry in the world, simply because i'm not in a position to make such a judgement. What I will say is British infantry is of high quality and well regarded.

I do concede it's easier said than done, the lack of cover on the islands caused problems for UK forces in '82. But close quaters encounters did happen, we know they happened. To train the FIDF to think they only really need to worry about long range encounters - to me - seems more like a case where a more general approach would create the more flexible unit.

 

[StobieWan]

Not sure what your point is here - they're mustering 100 rostered personnel from a population of say, 2,500. The UK's Army figure is 85K from 60 million.

The FIDF will provide recon, intel and perhaps some limited harassment activity - that's about as good as it gets for an irregular force of (essentially) weekend warriors.

Give up GPMG? Why? It's the best section support weapon in service.

 

[1805]

Not sure what your point is here - they're mustering 100 rostered personnel from a population of say, 2,500. The UK's Army figure is 85K from 60 million.

The FIDF will provide recon, intel and perhaps some limited harassment activity - that's about as good as it gets for an irregular force of (essentially) weekend warriors.

Give up GPMG? Why? It's the best section support weapon in service.

Is the current UK permanent peacetime army really a fair comparison? These people were invaded in living memory and face a threat from a state that has very recently demonstrated limited respect for property rights and international obligations.

The GPMG does what it says...a general purpose weapon, its does not always sit well as a LMG, and the LSW (I assume they don't have anyway as they use the AUG) is a bit light. The 2 weapons I quoted are modern weapons I think fit more in the LMG role.

The British Army at the end of WW2 was aspiring for 1-4 ratio on Bren's, the rest of the section was largely their to feed them. I don't see the AUG offering much for the FIDF.

 

[RobWilliams]

IIRC the FIDF do have access to the LSW config Steyr AUG. Longer heavier barrel + bipod, easy enough barrel change to swap the role I think. Looks like a pair of 'em in this pic of the FIDF.

Google Image Result for http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/6696/45147300ce6.jpg

Thing is, Argentina (currently and in the near future) doesn't have the physical means to back up their rhetoric. So whilst they are acting the way they are, without the muscle to back up that kind of talk it's just posturing. So it's not a great comparison.

If they had a proper operational and active armed forces, that'd be one thing. But that doesn't exist, either now or the forseeable future.

 

[1805]

IIRC the FIDF do have access to the LSW config Steyr AUG. Longer heavier barrel + bipod, easy enough barrel change to swap the role I think. Looks like a pair of 'em in this pic of the FIDF.

Google Image Result for http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/6696/45147300ce6.jpg

Thing is, Argentina (currently and in the near future) doesn't have the physical means to back up their rhetoric. So whilst they are acting the way they are, without the muscle to back up that kind of talk it's just posturing. So it's not a great comparison.

If they had a proper operational and active armed forces, that'd be one thing. But that doesn't exist, either now or the forseeable future.

Agreed they have no capability now, but that not reason to be unprepared, although it probably makes it less of a priority.

 

[Cadredave]

Focused on long range firepower, snipers/marksman and ditch the GPMG, split the role between the 50 cal Browning and a return to a modern Bren type LMG (Negev NG7 or Pecheneg) chambered to 7.62x51mm, with a very high ratio of guns to infantry of say 1 to 3-4.

Some of your assumptions are fundamentally misguided and wrong

GPMG has two roles:
1. Light role: 0 – 800m,
2. Sustained Fire Role:
a. 800m – 1800m direct role using iron sights
b. 1800m – 3000m indirect role using C2 sight and Map predicted fire (to a degree) SFMG guns always operate in pairs,
a. Normal RoF: 100 rounds per minute
b. Rapid RoF: 200 rounds per minute
c. Front Line: 5000 rounds per gun
d. When mounted in SFMG role can rotate 360 degrees.
e. SFMG have three positions in Defence - Primary posn, Secondary and alternate posn.

L7/Mag 58 is the principle Light Infantry Support weapon due to the fact it is so versatile when sighted correctly to maximize its beaten zone for mutual support to others.

M2QCB – Point Weapon,
Used in the Point role only to take out bunkers, other crew served weapon systems and light vehicles. Due to the massive vibration when fired it beaten zone is unpredictable even when used with a soft mount. Combine this weapon with a Area weapon like the HK GMG and you now have the Battalion heavy hitters.
a. Have three position just like the SFMG.

LSW C9 7.62mm:
Light role only: 0 – 800m 3 to 5 round burst only,
a. Front line: 1000 rounds, 600rds carried by the No1 rest spread out amongst the section.

I would keep the AUGs solely for personal defence, of support troops

The Steyr is there to provide accurate individual and section fire,
a. Individual fire: 0 – 300m
b. Section Fire: 300m – 600m,
c. With a 20inch barrel, modern Sights like the ACOG plus a heavier round have given this weapon the ability to engage as an individual wpn way past what is standard practice now into what use to be termed section fire ranges.

Out of all the weapons above the one that would provide you exactly what you are looking for is the one that you have proposed to get rid off.

My Trade is a Rifleman however I have specialised in two roles within my trade and they being Support Weapons and Assault Pioneer both have given me a unique insight into Battalion Battle procedure. In my time I have trained on all Support Weapons from the SF/84mm combo, 50 QCB/40mm GMG combo and finally Javelin.

All these systems have a couple of things in common they require a large logistics tail and a lot of riflemen to provide security, protection and horse power to carry all the ammunition to feed these systems. I can honestly say that your ideas of providing a lot of MG for the FIDF is unworkable no amount of fire is going to keep out a determined enemy. The Falklands is Light Infantry country its restricted terrain at its best there is not enough Islanders to cover all approaches to Port Stanley hence the UK commitment to its defence.

CD

 

[1805]

Some of your assumptions are fundamentally misguided and wrong

GPMG has two roles:
1. Light role: 0 – 800m,
2. Sustained Fire Role:
a. 800m – 1800m direct role using iron sights
b. 1800m – 3000m indirect role using C2 sight and Map predicted fire (to a degree) SFMG guns always operate in pairs,
a. Normal RoF: 100 rounds per minute
b. Rapid RoF: 200 rounds per minute
c. Front Line: 5000 rounds per gun
d. When mounted in SFMG role can rotate 360 degrees.
e. SFMG have three positions in Defence - Primary posn, Secondary and alternate posn.

L7/Mag 58 is the principle Light Infantry Support weapon due to the fact it is so versatile when sighted correctly to maximize its beaten zone for mutual support to others.

M2QCB – Point Weapon,
Used in the Point role only to take out bunkers, other crew served weapon systems and light vehicles. Due to the massive vibration when fired it beaten zone is unpredictable even when used with a soft mount. Combine this weapon with a Area weapon like the HK GMG and you now have the Battalion heavy hitters.
a. Have three position just like the SFMG.

LSW C9 7.62mm:
Light role only: 0 – 800m 3 to 5 round burst only,
a. Front line: 1000 rounds, 600rds carried by the No1 rest spread out amongst the section.



The Steyr is there to provide accurate individual and section fire,
a. Individual fire: 0 – 300m
b. Section Fire: 300m – 600m,
c. With a 20inch barrel, modern Sights like the ACOG plus a heavier round have given this weapon the ability to engage as an individual wpn way past what is standard practice now into what use to be termed section fire ranges.

Out of all the weapons above the one that would provide you exactly what you are looking for is the one that you have proposed to get rid off.

My Trade is a Rifleman however I have specialised in two roles within my trade and they being Support Weapons and Assault Pioneer both have given me a unique insight into Battalion Battle procedure. In my time I have trained on all Support Weapons from the SF/84mm combo, 50 QCB/40mm GMG combo and finally Javelin.

All these systems have a couple of things in common they require a large logistics tail and a lot of riflemen to provide security, protection and horse power to carry all the ammunition to feed these systems. I can honestly say that your ideas of providing a lot of MG for the FIDF is unworkable no amount of fire is going to keep out a determined enemy. The Falklands is Light Infantry country its restricted terrain at its best there is not enough Islanders to cover all approaches to Port Stanley hence the UK commitment to its defence.

CD

I am probably being a bit hasty saying ditch the GPMG in favour of the 0.50 Browning. But would I be right is seeing the GPMG filling more of the support role (previously filled by the old Vickers Medium MG) and the LSW C9 7.62mm filling the squad LMG role?

Can I ask which army you serve with?

 

[Cadredave]

I am probably being a bit hasty saying ditch the GPMG in favour of the 0.50 Browning. But would I be right is seeing the GPMG filling more of the support role (previously filled by the old Vickers Medium MG) and the LSW C9 7.62mm filling the squad LMG role?

Can I ask which army you serve with?

Yes and no to a certain degree in all honesty nothing modern has been designed to replace the Vickers, current section MG in our Army is now the C9 7.62mm one calibre for both section and Battalion MG.

Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment or RNZIR for short.

 

[Loski]

Is the current UK permanent peacetime army really a fair comparison? These people were invaded in living memory and face a threat from a state that has very recently demonstrated limited respect for property rights and international obligations.

The GPMG does what it says...a general purpose weapon, its does not always sit well as a LMG, and the LSW (I assume they don't have anyway as they use the AUG) is a bit light. The 2 weapons I quoted are modern weapons I think fit more in the LMG role.

The British Army at the end of WW2 was aspiring for 1-4 ratio on Bren's, the rest of the section was largely their to feed them. I don't see the AUG offering much for the FIDF.

As far as Im aware the DF have the LSW version of the AUG and the GPMG,

 

[StobieWan]

As far as Im aware the DF have the LSW version of the AUG and the GPMG,

Functionally, a direct overlap of the SA80 and the Engager LSW plus GPMG basically. Seems reasonable - a 5.56 weapon for individual infantrymen, a longer barrelled weapon with a larger magazine for squad support.

For a small formation intended to support regular infantry, to find, fix or delay larger conventional formations, providing intel and recon, seems appropriate.

 

[1805]

As far as Im aware the DF have the LSW version of the AUG and the GPMG,

I think the FIDF benefits from a limited and define role, that it does not need the flexiblity offered by 5.56mm. GPMG is a bit heavy for a squad LMG, but new weapons at 7.62mm have come on to the market and would be worth a look.

Keep the AUGs, but supplement with a 7.62mm LMG and maybe a modern battle rifle. Something exotic and I don't know if practical but worth a look might be Kel Tec RFB, which I ran across by typing bullpub 7.62mm.

RFB | Rifles | Kel-tec

Looks a great weapon for marksman maybe worth trying some of the longer barrel versions. There are probably lots of reasons why such a weapon would not suit an army with a varied role, but for the FIDF, it is probably best to sit back out extend the range.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think the FIDF benefits from a limited and define role, that it does not need the flexiblity offered by 5.56mm. GPMG is a bit heavy for a squad LMG, but new weapons at 7.62mm have come on to the market and would be worth a look.

Keep the AUGs, but supplement with a 7.62mm LMG and maybe a modern battle rifle. Something exotic and I don't know if practical but worth a look might be Kel Tec RFB, which I ran across by typing bullpub 7.62mm.

RFB | Rifles | Kel-tec

Looks a great weapon for marksman maybe worth trying some of the longer barrel versions. There are probably lots of reasons why such a weapon would not suit an army with a varied role, but for the FIDF, it is probably best to sit back out extend the range.

Now I have not admittedly fired the Kel Tec RFB or other Kel Tec fire arms, they tend to have a rather poor reputation in terms of Q/C, and service lifespan. As an example, some of the Kel Tec pocket .380 auto pistols owners/users are recommended to replace them after firing 200 rounds. If they have not already had a failure prior to that point which rendered them unusable.

One thing which I do not understand though is why/where the drive would be to switch from the 5.56 to the 7.62 round? Unless the expectation is that members of the FIDF are all going to be 'dedicated marksmen' and take long-ranged shots at an enemy, I do not see an advantage to switching ammunition to a larger, heavier round which would result in troops carrying less shots for the given weight.

-Cheers

 

[1805]

Now I have not admittedly fired the Kel Tec RFB or other Kel Tec fire arms, they tend to have a rather poor reputation in terms of Q/C, and service lifespan. As an example, some of the Kel Tec pocket .380 auto pistols owners/users are recommended to replace them after firing 200 rounds. If they have not already had a failure prior to that point which rendered them unusable.

One thing which I do not understand though is why/where the drive would be to switch from the 5.56 to the 7.62 round? Unless the expectation is that members of the FIDF are all going to be 'dedicated marksmen' and take long-ranged shots at an enemy, I do not see an advantage to switching ammunition to a larger, heavier round which would result in troops carrying less shots for the given weight.

-Cheers

That's does sound horrific....it did look to go to be true.

I would just re-use the 5.56mm for support roles. The FIDF doesn't need to worry about the things a true assault rifle is suited for (urban or jumping in/out of AFVs etc.) The FIDF are never going to be RM Commando fit, but they can be as accurate as a Boer Commando. If they train everyone to fire a battle rifle from 16 in 10 years you should have so very good shots. Lets face it the Falklands have little to fear at the moments, but who knows in 20+ years.

[Mod Edit: This is your final warning for your continued failure to apply logic and reason to your posts, across numerous threads. You have a track record of derailing countless threads, where you attempt to apply unworkable ideas, despite being told that your basic concepts are wrong.

Once again, you have presented yet another of your strange ideas that has been comprehensively debunked by others in this thread. You will NOT continue with your current behaviour. Tolerance for the continued defence of your illogical point of view ends, here. Any further replies to this thread, by you, will be deleted.]

 

[Todjaeger]

That's does sound horrific....it did look to go to be true.

I would just re-use the 5.56mm for support roles. The FIDF doesn't need to worry about the things a true assault rifle is suited for (urban or jumping in/out of AFVs etc.) The FIDF are never going to be RM Commando fit, but they can be as accurate as a Boer Commando. If they train everyone to fire a battle rifle from 16 in 10 years you should have so very good shots. Lets face it the Falklands have little to fear at the moments, but who knows in 20+ years.

You still have not explained how/why you expect the 7.62 round to be better than the 5.56 for the FIDF.

Do you expect that the FIDF could manage to keep an engagement with Argentinian troops at an optimal range for 7.62 but not 5.56? I ask because IIRC the effective range of a non-SBR chambered in 5.56 is sufficient to require some decent optics at the outer edges. This in turn means that decent optics would be required to properly utilize a rifle firing the heavier 7.62 round out to even longer ranges.

As for taking Falkland Islanders out and teaching them long-ranged rifle shooting starting at the age of 16... Just how many people is that, really? And of that number, how many realistically will end up joining the FIDF? Remember, there are something like 3,000 Falkland Islanders in total... Also, the skill only has combat and sport target shooting use, since there are no native large game animals to hunt.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

I really thought Cadredave explained things sufficiently as to make continuing the topic about as much of a dead end as can be... but no, now the Falklands needs a 7.62mm LMG and Kel-tecs (seriously? Kel-tecs?) because the GPMG is "too heavy", again...

 

[StobieWan]

Well, we know from operational experience that it's easier to get rounds on target with 5.56 with less training - the UK had to raise it's marksmanship score when the SA80 came in because it was just that much easier to park rounds in the right place.

Given that, I'm baffled as to why anyone would recommend shifting from 5.56 to 7.62 for a volunteer part time formation with no tradition of marksmanship.

As for Boers, well, I think the war might have gone a bit differently if they were facing light armour and air support. Which the FIDF would be..

If you really want a lighter GMPG, get the titanium ones, saves a couple of KG at the cost of reduced lifespan. Probably doubles the cost but meh...we're in fantasy land anyways..