Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Company Challenge: UK Armoured Infantry is out for Patrons! (Patreon)

Published:
2025-10-10 07:00:11
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Videos

  • 545682734.mp4

Downloads

Content

And... 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.

Files

Comments

Ben Kerry

British suffers!

GLG

That 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!

Ben Kerry

Storm 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)

Jeffrey Allan

I'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

Andrew Jones

Watching 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.

Ray L

Would have been cool for CM to have included a squad editor.

Ray L

There 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.

Nicholas Shaler

'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.

UsuallyHaplessVideos

I 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...

UsuallyHaplessVideos

Yep. 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

Ben Kerry

Yeah, I was thinking about how to effectively portray task-organization and adaptation under fire. One idea is to give “task organization” points to any task organization you want to make (different factions have different amount of points given doctrine and modularity). Ad-hoc groupings can exist (and you can finally attach weapons from upper echelons to lower units) but for units that lacks quality communication and leadership would take hits

Ben Kerry

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

And the ever-persistent threat of mortars. One thought I always had (also allegedly present in the Eike Middeldorf book, someone on a Chinese forum did a translation of a chapter) was that a dismounted attack must be resolved before the enemy can dial in indirect fire onto the attackers.