How BRITISH Infantry Squads Evolved in 100 Years

[@jonny-b4954]

6:11 My man just popped up out of nowhere. As you can see, showing off the British Mk1 light camo blanket. Draped over the soldier, it provides near perfect camouflaged from a forward perspective.

[@culloden23]

Predator camouflage

[@FirstDagger]

@@culloden23 ; Missing 411.

[@stephen7571]

It’s great for hiding when the house needs cleaning???

[@kazu9343]

LOL 😭

[@marcs990]

@@stephen7571 😂😂

[@Armitage001]

The production value of these videos just keeps getting better and I love the retro futuristic aesthetic and level of polish. Outstanding work Brendan.

[@metalmaniac345]

Served with the Brits overseas! They treat their rifle sections like our MG sections with specific fire commands, so you always knew they were in contact when they were absolutely bellowing fire commands

[@tridentuk6885]

Ahem. CHARLIE FIRE TEAM, FUCKING CONTROL YOUR FIRE YA DICKHEADS. YOU'RE ON MY TEAM YA CUNTS. I was a lovely section commander. The lads were awesome. I can still feel my throat leaving the planet. If you have a Brit shouting at you, you are either doing something brilliantly or fucking it up so hard well, they're shouting at you. We have to control the fire as we' feel bad for the 2 I/Cs having to run ammo to all the fucking mad fucks firing off everything they carried. Someone needs to think of the 2 I/Cs and their poor backs.

[@outifyio4496]

do other countries not use fire commands at all in infantry sections then?

[@iatsd]

@@outifyio4496 Properly trained countries do. The Americans don't. They get too excited and lose the ability to think or talk. Or aim.

[@manticore4952]

@@outifyio4496 The US believe it is distracting and a waste of time.

[@Peter-lm3ic]

I well recall in the British Army that small arms weapon training cardres for NCO's always included sessions of fire command sessions sitting in a classroom facing a large wall chart of a varied countryside showing railways, bridges, roads, canals, woods etc and having to shout out fire commands acting as a Section Commander or Bren Group NCO. The Bren Group always having a specific duty relative to the Rifle Group. It was interesting!

[@_ob200]

15:05 - pronounced as Ali ( Ally ) as in an alleyway. Originally it ment Airborne Light infantry. Army slang for cool or something with swagger 👍🏻 - look at that ally bastard , that’s some ally kit But yes… 2x GPMG would be pretty ally

[@obvious-troll]

Ive heard rumours that it comes from an arabic work from when British troops were out there in the 50s/60s or that story could be all bollocks 🤷. "Legend has it that the 'way-back-when' origin of the word is a slang foreign language term meaning 'shade', probably a regional dialect variation on an Arabic word and discovered in Yemen during British military operations there in the 1950s/60’s, specifically in the Radfan Hills and Aden. During these operations, members of The Parachute Regiment would reshape their berets, pulling them forward so that the style of the beret not only hung over the right ear, but also peaked forward slightly to provide shade over the eyes from the harsh desert sun - this style became known as an “Ally Beret”. The beret was non-conformist (worn in a fashion other than that dictated by army regulations), yet functional, serving a purpose, cool, and an improvement on the standard issue. Eventually ally was used to refer to anything related to battlefield cool e.g an ally beret, an ally war story or 'he looks ally af' (not my words)

[@markfryer9880]

@@obvious-troll In the desert and trying to get some shade from a beret? You Mad Dogs and Englishmen should have gone with a sandy coloured giggle hat or some kind of slouch hat. If you need to talk about shade from the sun then talk to your Aussie mates! Mark from Melbourne Australia Ex Army Reserve

[@badgertheskinnycow]

'Originally it ment Airborne Light infantry' - who makes this sh*t up.

[@petemcphee2]

In my day Scots infantry never used Ally as a term. We used "Warry" as in war bunnet... Warfare

[@badgertheskinnycow]

@@petemcphee2 agreed buddy

[@ashleygoggs5679]

Wow holy shit!!! where did you get the photo at 12:28 this is my grandfather on the left. Was in the Royal Lancers, commanded a few tankies and was one of the people to help usher the challenger into service. Damn crazy

[@british_person-t34]

Dude must be a legend

[@ashleygoggs5679]

@@british_person-t34 He Was an awesome gentleman, he used to tell me stories growing up as my father was reme aswell. My granfather was based in Iran before the revolution and when iran was actually a decent country. He used to train the iranians in getting ready for Shir tank we was going to make for them (later became challenger 1 due to the revolution) they were based in Shiraz. He was also great friends with Timothy Purbrick who was one of the most renowned men in the reg, who ended up marrying The queens and prince phillips grand daughter. My mother told me how they would have tea parties etc. Purbrick was also actually the commander of challnger 1s in desert storm, the very same squadron that achieved longest intentional tank on tank kill. Sadly My grandfather passed at a young age getting alzhiemers at around 55 and sadly passing before reaching 70. However despite living in Australia at the time Purbrick sent my grandmother a few thousand pounds to tab at the bar for the wake so his and my grandfathers former squaddies that attended the funeral could get merry on his antics and stories. Its such a shame we lost him while i was young i would loved to have gone into more details about his accolades as a British Tank Commander.

[@peaceraybob]

The only thing I might add is a mention of how, once the Bren had been introduced and the Rifle Sections altered to adapt to it, every single rifleman in the Section carried two Bren magazines. You can see this is photos of the period, pretty much giving you a time-line of Bren adoption as their outwards appearance changed.

[@dogsnads5634]

In practice most of the riflemen ended up using their own ammo to keep the Bren going as well.

[@tridentuk6885]

As a Brit from NI, served here through to Iraq/Afghan, your breakdown is fantastic and factual. Please save me from the LSW. L129A1 saved the day. Although we used Sig Sauer P226 for a good while before the Glocks came in as side arms.

[@kurousagi8155]

Did you prefer the Glock or the P226?

[@tridentuk6885]

@@kurousagi8155 P226, just felt right, although a shorter barrel. Equally bloody annoying when it's bouncing against your leg when running because of the drop holster. Opted for the chest rig in the end, albeit it wasn't encouraged due to up-blast. I was lucky enough to still be able to decide which side arm to carry and not have it dictated.

[@Ditchy69]

I switched out from SIG to Glock just before I went to Afghan...was weird as it was so easy to clean and the safety was basically a trigger on the trigger >

[@adzthesaint]

I always quite liked the LSW! Makes no sense, but I just did.

[@tridentuk6885]

@@adzthesaint Bloody trouble maker!

[@Joe-uz7vd]

This is how edu-vids should be, relatively short whilst still keeping the important info, definitely earned a sub from me. Keep it up!

[@A.Steptoe]

If the info is correct yes......thats why my neice thinks stuff has happened when it never did.....and why the woorld is so fecked up right now......"People need to earn my resoect" NO, You should give your respect to everyone....its up to them to loose it....

[@DrLoverLover]

In the seventies the british squads were starting to be equipped with L1A1 mustasches

[@dermotrooney9584]

And some units still field them.

[@robashton8606]

Correct. And, as footage from the Falklands war shows, by 1982 they were standard issue across the board.

[@sam_uelson]

smashing

[@jamesbussey2911]

The 'taches faded out of service in the early 1990s after the Gulf War, as did the 1970s generation of British squaddies that won our wars for us in those two decades. Now that squaddie 'taches and full-bore rifles are making a comeback, as is the Cold War with Russia. 🤪

[@dermotrooney9584]

@@jamesbussey2911 Life's a Circle, as Belinda Carlisle probably said. 🌟

[@barryalexander2909]

Excellent video! I was a reservist infantry soldier in late 80s. In our unit the 84mm was passed around the section and all the section carried SLRs. Pl radio operator was the only man issued with SMG as far as I can recall. We switched to SA80 in 1991. Worked with infantry in Afghanistan in 2007, pre-sharpshooter, the recently replaced L96 sniper rifle was given to the best shot in a section as a sharpshooter weapon.

[@filipinorutherford7818]

Hi as an Aussie I find the topic of UK infNtry section armement alway interesting as it influenses Australian army doctrine as well. As Aussies we look up to the UK as a standard for army ops and we generally follow with local tweaks. You should do an Australian Army vid.

[@unbearifiedbear1885]

🇬🇧🇦🇺❤🍻

[@johnnyjohn-johnson7738]

The Australian Army (along with the Kiwi and Canadian Armies) used to be essentially a "Chapter" of the British Army during the Imperial age so it shouldn't be surprising.

[@filipinorutherford7818]

@@johnnyjohn-johnson7738 Although now that we have a regular rotation of Marines in Australia we will br heavily influenced by them.

[@johnnyjohn-johnson7738]

@@filipinorutherford7818 I think the Australian Army has been influenced by the US Marines for decades now, if you look at Battle Order's website and look at the Section structure used by the Australian Army from the late 80s up until the 2000s you'll notice that they had 3 man fireteams not unlike the Marine Raiders from WW2, also the legacy Auscam pattern is almost identical to the duck hunter pattern uniform used by the USMC during WW2.

[@filipinorutherford7818]

@@johnnyjohn-johnson7738 I would agree with that analysis.

[@greg_4201]

Minor point, mate; I was combat infantry from 2004 to 2020 and during that entire time the GPMG was unofficially but usually a section weapon... if an LMG was present so too was a GPMG, it wasn't just one or the other... but the GPMG was the more essential standard. so it didn't come back to make up for the lack of LMG so much as it was always there to begin with, but could be left behind in certain situations like mounted combat or when a dedicated guns group was preffered. maybe on paper it did 'replace' the LMG as section weapon, but the reality is it was never really absent from the section in any solid sense. after basic training I rarely went anywhere on exercise or on operations without every section having a GPMG gunner. hell, even the basic platoon setup for sleeping and admin has a GPMG on each of the three respective sentry positions at the corners of the triangular shaped harbour. I know that 'conventional warfare' doctrine had a Platoon guns group rather than one in each section for the attack, but we do only as much conventional training as we do all the other stuff too... and we mix them up. the point is it was flexible; the sections would each have one and if and when a guns group was required (usually it was for a deliberate and planned Platoon attack) they just pooled those guns and gunners for that attack. In Afghanistan (supposedly not conventional) I rarely went anywhere in less than Multiple strength, except bsck in 2007 'cause we were still kind of cowboys then doing whatever came to mind. The Multiple weapons were; 1 GPMG, 2 LMGs, 1 Sniper, 1 Sharpshooter, and the rest Riflemen with UGL... personalities like the Commander, 2ic and Medic, usually had UGLS.... and those who did not have UGL carried the 2 LASMS. Handguns were usually only carried by the Sniper and Sharpshooter for moving around alleyways and compounds. handguns as protection against potential grey on blue was a behind the wire thing and usually only Officers and people on guard... 'cause let's face it the average British infantry squaddie or NCO is intimidating enough to disarm a would be grey on blue attacker with a stern look... a company operation had 2 to 3 multiples + an HQ multiple, each of course with its own GPMG, and an optional seperate mobile FSG of even more GPMGs and/or Javelins or what have you... bear in mind that was 16 Air Assault, and modern British airborne infantry, conventionally deemed 'light infantry', are ironically the heaviest footsloggers on any battlefield for the sake of staying power behind enemy lines or opening new fronts/going to new places. bottom line; in my fairly long career when a British infantry section/multiple stepped outside the wire it had a GPMG and one or two LMGs.

[@BattleOrder]

Thanks for the info

[@w0rld_d]

Sorry, curious what "grey on blue" means?

[@hobosinamansion]

My dad did 22 in 1RIR and did NI a fair few times, Kosovo, Sierra Leonne, Iraq and Afghan and potentially others I'm forgetting but reading this is like talking to him after he's had a pint and I decide to ask one tactical question haha. Great read. judging by your photo and 16AA were you 5 Scots? I went to a military school down in Kent back in my school days and my best mate's dad and the school tailor among others were both 5 scots; you guys moved into Howe after us if i remember... Much preferred the housing in Inverness when we got there after NI and Canterbury!

[@mr.seaotter-1429]

@@w0rld_d Reference by Red on Blue and Blue on Blue term, It might mean Non-Identify Combatants action on Friendly Troops. During War on Terror era, It hard to distinguish/identify enemy combatants from non-combatant. Grey is represent the status of person in action.

[@scott7892]

@@w0rld_d green on blue , its when partner forces attack our forces for example a rogue Afghan soldier or policemen shoots British or U.S troops for any reason could be an argument , he could be an insider threat or he's being blackmailed by Taliban

[@Sarky39]

When I served in the Legio III Gallica, we had 8 spears, long ones, and equiv to LSW we had catapult .. amazing bit of kit .. no sharpshooters except the tall bloke in the section who could see over everyones shield and shout bad words at the charging hordes. Gen 👌🏼

[@VaucluseVanguard]

Great video, and explained a lot of earlier history (1914 to 1938) that I was not aware of. Just one small thing. It is mentioned that when the SLR was introduced, the normal issue was 3 x 20 round mags (total 60 rounds). That was not my experience when I joined the Army in the 80s and we were using 58 pattern webbing. My section typically had a mag on the rifle and 6 mags in the two ammo pouches, so 7 x 20 total 140 rounds. Additionally we carried additional lose ammo for our rifles in our combat jackets, bergens, day sacks or even the old 58 pattern haversack, depending on the situation. It was also normal for every member of the section to carry 100 or 150 rounds of link for the GPMG, which we would give to the gun group when we arrived at the Form Up Point. This was in the immediate post-Falklands period, and I got the impression that we did this: 1. because of genuine lessons from the Falklands and, 2. a bit of willy waving to prove standard line infantry were as hard as the Paras and Royal Marines. I'll admit it all led to me realising I was not cut out to be an infantry soldier!!

[@wessexdruid7598]

As a British Infantryman from the 70s, 80s and 90s, it was always Rifle Group and Gun Group (Gun was MG, either GPMG or LMG) until Fire Teams arrived. And, being tall, I frequently lugged a MAW with an SLR, not an SMG. Good vid!

[@badgertheskinnycow]

Agreed all buddy.

[@johnheath128]

Nicely done! This is a great breakdown of the British Rifle section. I can add to this that during the early 1980's (at least until 1985 - beyond that I don't know) the infantry section in rural operations in Northern Ireland used 2 GPMGs, one per brick. There was also an American M79 Grenade launcher issued to each brick for rural ops. This was not confined to the Parachute Regiment, although they might well have pioneered this idea. This was only for rural patrol ops. The weight was not really as great a factor as stated unless things were getting hairy and people started grabbing every strip of link they could find.

[@tridentuk6885]

Went down to 1 x GPMG and and LSW, then a SAW. Had the delight of carrying 200 link for the shits and giggles anyway. The LSW was dropped for a DM (L129A1) rifle.

[@stevenbreach2561]

I can confirm the M79 ,as I,as L/Cp!I nabbed the M79 as if anyone had a pop,I wanted to ruin their day

[@tridentuk6885]

@@stevenbreach2561 aul bollocks :D before my time. Sorry to do you dirty lol

[@stevenbreach2561]

@@tridentuk6885 1981,Fermanagh👍👍👍🇧🇴

[@tridentuk6885]

@@stevenbreach2561 I was born in 82 buddy :D So yeah, take a +20 years on my comments lol. Same shite, different year, still lads and still brave :) Fair fucks to you :) Love talking to folks in the Legion about stuff before my time tbh. It's hugely interesting. Hope you're safe.

[@godfroi10991]

I was Australian Infantry in the late 90's - early 2000's. We had 9 man Sections broken into three Groups of 3, The Scout Group with Styer AUGs + 1x underslung GL and a Full Cpl Sec Commander in order to have the Sec Comm behind the lead scouts to have better situation awareness and comms. Then there was the Rifle Group (3x Rifleman all Pte's, armed with 2 x AUG's One of which was the Num 2 Gun + 1x Minimi LMG) This was generally the assault group led by a senior Pte with a UGL. Lastly the Gun Group, which contained the Sec 2IC with 1x Minimi Gunner (later changed to the MAG58) + 1x Rifleman/number 2 Gun. I found it to be a good size for most situations we encountered and flexible in most situations. Oh, also there were 2-6 66mm LAWs spread between the Rifleman. Mechanized units sometimes had a slightly different configurations of 2x 4man teams.

[@Hughesless4086]

I love content like this, informative interesting and about something as a brit im proud of, our forces!

[@bill-wd7zs]

As a Royal Engineer from the late 70's early 80's a 432 carried a section of 8 men. 6 SLR's, 1 LMG and 2 SMG's. As the driver I carried a Stirling SMG and was also responsible for the mounted LMG, quite a burden. We also carried plenty of beer!

[@Tony2438]

Dont forget the BV

[@A.Steptoe]

@@Tony2438 o7 Salute

[@A.Steptoe]

Salute sir

[@paparoach007]

Thank you for your service sir by a fellow Sapper o7 currently doing my royal engineering training in Kent been here almost 2 months, it's the hardest thing I've ever done but I'm enjoying it.

[@A.Steptoe]

@@paparoach007 JUst stick at it and dont let them mind play you :) it will be worth it mucca :)

[@Horizontalvertigo]

Another great video Brendan, being able to follow the evolution through new doctrine, weapons, environments, and conflicts was a great way to have a surprisingly nuanced overview of the force in question, very well done. Hope your wife has recovered by now, all the best.

[@archiegeorge3969]

Great graphics as usual and your production value just keeps getting better

[@richardn3387]

Great music. From the first brass notes, I recognized it as the Medal of Honor soundtrack.

[@awsomesauce8011]

The '1914' uniform you used for the thumbnail was ww2 British soldier, you can tell by the 39 pattern webbing and the desert uniform they were wearing. Also the Thompson sub machine gun with stuck magazine.

[@iainbaker6916]

06:13 I didn’t know we had predator cloaks back then 😜

[@macthemec]

Fascinating, i served in Canada and was always made the C9 gunner (minimi/lmg) because i was the tallest, out doctine was i provided cover/supressing fire while the riflemen did the attack. I know the soviet doctrine was having basically 6-8 less accurate AK-47’s doing a section attack and one sniper doing precision attacks not unlike the later British doctrine. Ultimately the best solution is mission specific.

[@legalosmumakilslayer]

I do like the later british doctrine of Marksman and Autorifleman providing area and point suppression though I wonder if one extra man in the support fire team for fire and maneuver would be better served? Thus having the extra bayonet strength as well as fire power for both teams.

[@macthemec]

legalosmumakilslayer i think it would really depend on the theater, the most effective but impractical section would be a bunch of guys with LMG’s, but then your range and patrol time would be severely limited

[@CallMeMrChainmail]

Why does you being tall mean you get the machine gun? I know height was a issue for grenadiers 200 years ago but don't you usually put your machine gun on the ground before you shoot it? Surely, if anything you should give the machine gun to the shortest man because he's marginally closer to the ground and can therefore deploy his weapon slightly faster.

[@macthemec]

@@CallMeMrChainmail it was just handed to me, I didn’t choose it.

[@CallMeMrChainmail]

@@macthemec I know. I just assumed you would have known why since you mentioned it.

[@Amin-js4en]

I am a simple man. I see a Battle Order video I click.

[@PremeTeamTX]

The stylization through eras is probably one of the coolest things I've ever seen

[@brabhamfreaman166]

Really nice illustrative presentation with clear, to-the-point and cogent commentary. Good choice of topic to optimise video length. I’ll be looking out for more with a sub. Thanks.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

Would of been interesting to see from 1500 a.d till ww1

[@MrTangolizard]

I was a rifleman in a rifle platoon and often we would hand in our LSWs for GPMGs and often we would be issued a pistol as well and it wasn’t uncommon for everyone to have a LAW 80

[@commando552]

Small correction to the 2018- onwards sections, although developed the new grenade launcher for the A3 was not adopted. The problem is that although mounting on the bottom rail makes it more modular, it means that it hangs significantly lower than the UBGL on the A2 to the point where it is the lowest point of the gun so restricts how low you can go in prone. It also feels very ungainly as it moves the weight of the launcher away from the barrel and also slightly farther forward. They have indicated that there is no imminent plan to adopt it as the newer MLOK A3 handguards omit the UBGL mounting clearance hole as people were accidentally touching the barrel through it and burning themselves, although it can still be machined out at a later date. The current situation is that there are A2s still in use for the UBGL role. I believe that the A2s that are used are actually ones that have the improved A3 receiver, as the A3 receiver actually predates the L85A3.

[@mrgingerninjadan]

you fit the UGL to the A3, the handguard and mounting bracket have to be removed, then you put the UGL on like you would a A2 Hangaurd, the A3 gas block may not have a foresight mount, but it does have a the handguard pin hole in it. mounting the UGL to the A3 is done by the Unit Armourer. if a Unit is/has moved over to A3, then A3s will be used

[@snack-e-chan5394]

Great video. As a former infantry soldier from Canada I can say we are quite similar to the UK set up. For us a fire team is two men. An assault group is two fire teams and a section is two assault groups. The fire teams are identified A through D, C being the most junior. A having the IC and signals, B having one LMG and rifleman. C having two Rifleman and D having the 2IC and second LMG. M203 and other AT kit are scattered through the section as seen fit. This allows for section, group and fire team movement as the situation calls for it.

[@Peter-lm3ic]

When I served in a cold war Infantry Battalion in the early 1950's a Section was: Cpl+6 rifleman+ Bren team of L/Cpl+Nos.1 & 2. Each platoon had three Sections plus one 2 inch Mortar team of L/Cpl +Nos.1 & 2. Plus Radio Operator. Plus Platoon Serjearnt. Plus Platoon Commander. The Battalion Support Company comprised: 6 x 6pdr A/T guns later 17pdr A/T guns, 6 x Vickers .303 Medium Machine Guns, 6 x 3 in Mortars, 6 x Universal Carrier Wasp Flame Throwers and trailer. The towing vehicles was the Universal Carrier(Bren carrier) but for the 17pdr A/T gun the Oxford Carrier was used. All Platoon rifleman carried the Energa Rifle Grenade A/T launcher on the waist belt. The Energa launcher was issued in the Summer of 1951 as I left the Army as a National Serviceman in Jan 1952. Happy days!

[@jsuen8415]

Having served in the Singapore army (former British colony), I found the modern infantry squads very similar to the British. During my time around 2010, a section comprised of one Sargent, two saws (lmg), 2 sharpshooters (marksman), and two M203s (grenadiers). The only difference was that the 2IC would be a M203 (I was one of them). So a section would be 7 men instead of 8.

[@paulevans7742]

Thats more like the US Army where the Sergeant is deployed at the section level. The British army deploy them at the platoon level - the equivalent of a section Sergeant in the US Army would be a Corporal in the British army.

[@czwarty7878]

@@paulevans7742 British ranks are weirdly compressed in my opinion. US ranks always made more sense to me, everything is clear cut and easy to understand

[@raymondbenedict]

good video, looking forward to an video on the evolution of the organization of British armoured units

[@spencerh.4513]

I hope your wife is doing better and you are doing well! I know medical situations can be difficult, but don't forget to take care of yourself too during this! Love your videos, some of my favorite on KZbin, great work!

[@mtgAzim]

6:10 For just a second there, I thought that man had the most effective camouflage I've ever seen...

[@saadkhaion9234]

+100 year and the cameraman still alive... What's a legend! Anyway that's a really impressive work you got there. Really need someone to post such information these days

[@chriswerb7482]

A wonderful video - just a couple of additions. Firstly are you sure EY No. 1s were used in Malaya? The No. 94 Energa may have temporarily replaced PIAT's capability, but I don't think PIAT was a section weapon. PiAT was replaced in the early 1950s by the American M20 3.5" launcher which was in turn replaced in the late 60s by the L14A1 Carl Gustav. Prior to Matador there was an interim anti structure munition based on the AT-4 in service. This served alongside Matador in Afghanistan together with I-LAW. I am not sure if M20 was a platoon or section weaponor transitioned from thd former to the latter. X-8 series FALs served in Malaya prior ro L1A1 adoption. Ar15s had been issued in counterinsurgency environments since c 1963, to regular infantry, not just SF. The Glock was preceded by a SIG which was found to be unsatisfactory and was literally scrapped. By the way ALLY is pronounced ALLEY :)

[@BattleOrder]

Hi. For the EYs in Malaya, it's based on an article written by a British Army officer from 1951, and I've seen the EY referenced in other places from around the time. Whether they mean literally the EY cup discharger or it's just a colloquialism for grenade launchers in general I'm not sure. And for the Energa note, I initially thought the Energa came in *slightly* before the 3.5", but re-reading I've just noticed the 1950 manual lists the 3.5" as a Platoon AT weapon. I think the M20 probably stayed as a platoon weapon because pamphlets from the early 1960s specifically reference an anti-tank weapon team in the Platoon HQ with the 3.5" while the Energa was the section AT weapon by that point, and then the Carl Gustav came in the mid-late 1960s. And my mistake on ally, I've only ever seen it written lol

[@dogsnads5634]

The AT4 purchaed were AT4 CS with the HP round (it was purchased initially as an interim anti armour weapon as LAW80 was not safe to use and NLAW wasn't ready). It was fielded under the designation of I-LAW (Interim-Light Anti tank Weapon). AT4 was used but was quickly supplemented by M72A9 made by NAMMO in the LASM configuration (Light Anti Structure Munition). Matador took an age to arrive and was not seen that often. Think the UK has sent most of them into Ukraine (they were the first RGW-90 seen in Ukrainian hands). The SIG pistol were mainly P226, they were bought to replace Browning Hi-Power in Afghanistan due to Green on Blue, but they didn't cope with the dust well and had some issues around the safety I believe.

[@dermotrooney9584]

🌟Ally-Alley all important.🌟 In 1944 NWE many units upped to two Bren per section but seem to have been forced back to one to increase mobility. In Feb 45 some divisions got two Sten per section. I'll dig out refs.

[@flyboy22b]

Really enjoyed this - one linguistic point - I think you said ‘ally’ in a context where the British slang pronunciation is ‘allee’ - I think it comes from how cool the Airborne Light Infantry ‘ALI’ looked in ww2 onwards - good stuff Also sig P226/229 we’re the first widely issued sidearm i think. Well I and everyone else had one when I deployed 👍🏻

[@Michael_OBrian]

Yet another excellent video as always. Keep up the great work!

[@bullet-catcherhohoho250]

As a army cadet we got to trial the L98A1 Cadet GP Rifle, bolt action in the early 80s, we went to the Royal small arms factory but never got any of them issued to us latter, so we stuck with the 303 Lee Enfield, big old kick for a kid. When i joined the Army, years latter we had the SLR. I remember my last shooting competition at Bisley, where we were firing SLR iron sights against others regiments who had SA 80s with optic sights. And i was also firing the good old LMG iron sights (Its not that light when your are running around with it). Plus with a large metal ammo box against other regiments with the LSW with optic sights. We were told this was fair since these were or issued weapons - Hmmm - Nope we did not win anything. One of the better shooting contests i did was a joint shooting comp. We had to shoot other nations weapons - It was at a German army camp, being run by the Yanks and we had Dutch and another lot there. We were firing the M16, Uzi machine gun and 9m Browning. What was even better but a bit strange was that there was a Beer tent on the range. So in between firing you could get a drink. Anyway we won the 4 man M16 shoot, nice big trophy - The Yanks were alright with it, but we did not let them forget the whole night. We had no luck with the Uzi with one of our SMs firing the whole mag into the ground, but missing all our feet. (Too much time in the beer tent). As for the 9m Browning, we were never given any whilst i was in, but could hit a man target ok, but that could mean the foot on one shot the next being your head, or maybe a ear, kneecap perhaps, but i would hit you so best to run if you see me, and that meant friendly's.

[@mynameismin3]

I noticed the Australian army using a 7.62 minimi called maximi which seems like a good idea to get full auto 7.62 down range.

[@liamgoggs3665]

Just came across this video, and hey ho, there's my grandad corporal Dave on the left, at 12.28 the 17th/21st lancers! Grandad this video on the internet has given you immortality! ❤️

[@kalliste23]

Great overview, concise and to the point.

[@MisterBridges]

Top class analysis of the infantry section evolution... Well done!

[@davidrendall7195]

You missed out the communications element. The profusion of radios from 1940 to 2020 was a major driver of section command.

[@juliantheapostate8295]

And a massive advantage for the Germans from the start of the war, particularly in their mobile divisions

[@davidrendall7195]

@@juliantheapostate8295 Not for infantry units below Battalion, which is what this video looks at. The British probably had the most widespread use of radios in the early war, they were the only participants who used them down to platoon level in 1940. By 1942 US Army signals had grown beyond both, and with the British went down to section / squad level. No German Infantry squads / sections (gruppen) or platoons (zug) had their own radios. Infantry Company's had to be reconnaissance or tasked with special roles to have a radio section. This changed in the late war period when companies got a radio section of x4 Torn.Fu.d2. This change was forced on them to maintain control during the endless and fluid withdrawals and retreats. Prior to that German radio comms were strictly controlled by department within the fixed orbat and formation - good when things go well, less so when things break down. The chaotic retreat from Ukraine in 1943 / 44 was largely due to the break down in communications with small units. Many were left behind to straggle and get cut off. Specialist fire control, Luftwaffe and artillery observers had radios down to section level, but Germany had a genuine problem with the way they went about building radios - for specialist task, not general purpose - they had so many systems, using so many separate frequencies they couldn't talk to each other without going a couple of levels up the chain of command. Battalion and Regiment were where radios began to play a difference. The benefits of the diverse system net were marginal (smaller factories could make more of a contribution, and their comms nets tended to be less congested) but they put up impossible barriers between artillery, armour, infantry and echelon units, which required very strict operating rules. The Luftwaffe had their own problems. Again all worked well, when it worked well, but wasn't particualary resilient. While Panzer units had radios in individual tanks and most Grenadier platoons and artillery troops (like the British and Americans) most garrison units and those in defensive positions relied on telephone lines, runners and motorbikes / horses. If you're thinking about Enigma, that was a tool for Divisional and Corps commanders and above. It also wasn't a radio, but only a encoding device. Very few units below Division had their own, and then only those tasked with the assault. Most static and rear area divisions used tertiary signals units for their daily returns.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@davidrendall7195 You could add that the British Army really lead the way on radios in the 1990's when they introduced the PRR. Every infantry man had a radio. US didn't reach that point until 20 years later, similar with optical sights. Both were a revolution that the British Army doesn't really get credit for.

[@bullpupgaming708]

I love Battle Orders commentary from 18:55-19:00. He sounds like an accuracy by volume kind of guy lol

[@elroacho5807]

Been wanting to try and build a game set in a post apocalyptic 1980s Britain and this video has saved me so much research on the weapons used by the British Military. Thank you so much! (Also liked and subscribed!)

[@richthompson1234]

I attended the Infantry Firepower Demonstration at Warminster, Wiltshire, UK in 2009. The infantry section also issued a Combat Shotgun to one of the riflemen in addition to his SA80!

[@SacClass650]

Great stuff, as ever. I love your presentation.

[@billwilliamson1506]

Love the clear and factual delivery of this channel. I always expect the next video to be better than the last!

[@GeneralCormy]

Love that you used the Royal Fusiliers for the cold war and early modernisation diagrams. They can trace their history back to 1685!

[@notlizard5797]

Best regiment in my opinion other than paras because they have p coy

[@gjfjfk]

@@notlizard5797 p company is overrated battles and wars are won by gun skill and tactics not by who does alot of fitness .

[@Tony2438]

Me too 1RRF

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thank you for the interesting overview of the development of the British Army infantry organisation.

[@nickdarr7328]

What's important to remember is that the standard infantry load out for a section included 2 clips for the Bren gun along with their Enfield stripper clips. People tend to think the German MG 34 and 42 had such an advantage. But just look at those poor guys on the MG team running around with what looks like very heavy luggage. And the way the MG was such a group effort and focus that if the MG went down the section stopped fighting or ran. But if you had an 8 man section you'll have no problem carrying 600 rounds. And a Bren team might have 2 gunners and a corporal in charge but 1 man could operate it no problem. I'd much rather be in a British section on the Bren rather than a German on the MG. The MG team is the focus of everyone, and not just the enemy. If I have a bad feeling and decide to hide with my Mauser no one's going to notice. But if I get cold feet while I'm supposed to man the MG everyone notices and I have to fight or get shot as a coward

[@muskett4108]

Just read your post on the WW2 British Bren based Section. Germans feared them as the Bren with its accuracy easily suppressed their MG at range; and that left the assault team ample chance to work round and close for grenades. The British just put more firepower out from a greater area from more men firing than a German Section tied and feeding the one position. Doesn't mean the German MGs weren't dangerous, but experienced troops were able to deal with them.

[@nickdarr7328]

@@muskett4108 oh absolutely the MG 34 and 42 were great. Look at the American SAW, squad automatic weapon, the M60. You can see the influence just on sight we took from the German MGs. They might be looking for a new SAW these days but first entered service in 1957. The irony is casual history fans will always think of the Germans when it comes to mechanized, lightning quick strikes involving all sorts of vehicles and storm troopers. But in real life the Germans mostly used horses and pack animals. And almost the entire 10 man section fed the MG position and not just the 4 who were supposed to. The American BAR seems to have sucked. With just 20 round magazines and 5 or 6 magazines it's not making an impact. I'm just impressed by the British equipment and that the standard riflemen load included 150 Enfield rounds and 2 Bren magazines. So everyone is carrying the weight and not lugging crates and heavy ammo belts. Also the lee Enfield and bren used the same round

[@muskett4108]

@@nickdarr7328 I carried a GPMG for over a year so understand the MG concept. In sustained fire role too. It is the feeding of them with dispersed light infantry that is the issue. Have a vehicle then not such a big deal. But infantry tied to vehicles limits their dominance options on the ground. Interestingly the British are going to a Designated Marksman with fully auto select fire Magazine fed 7.62 rifle. Basically a Bren with an optic! Well, accurate deliberate fire over spray and pray. When a contact might take several hours to manoeuvre then accurate fire at a measured rate has far less is ammunition possible expenditure. Less needy. However, the first contact seconds still needs the firefight won, which is all the firepower that can be got. Ha Ho, fun chat.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@nickdarr7328 I know i'm a bit late but what would the approach be to counter a German machine gun nest, German anti tank guns, artillery and German tanks by a British squad? For MG's for example I have read stuff ranging from the British army using mortars or snipers in order to take out a German machine gun nest.

[@markaxworthy2508]

A very clear exposition of a complex evolution. Good work.

[@lb5170]

If you look carefully, in one of the clips of the LSW being fired its being fired by an army cadet. nice to see the representation ( even though I think it was unintentional ) Great video.

[@lb5170]

16:48

[@kvngmt]

Song is Medal of Honor Allied Assault Menu background... It was 20 years ago... those notes are forged in my youth...

[@daddust]

Very wrong about the Royal Marines integrating Brens for the Falklands. They already had them. And the Argentinians would have easily suppressed their light firepower. They were told by a Normandy and NE vet to take loads of belt fed guns instead, which they did. Which led to a complete rebuild of British infantry squad tactics.

[@chrisemmett8635]

I don't know which unit it was but the Army took the Bren gun from my school's cadet force to take to the Falklands (and while I'm typing, if one is going to do a video about British units, they're lef-tenants not loo-tenants :) )

[@MaxKingsley72]

He literally said if u open yer ears that they already had it in their inventory as an alternative are u deaf pal

[@PaddyInf]

Patrolling in multiples was ideal in NI. It allowed depth and mutual support. This meant multiple units could cover a fairly big area which made the paramilitaries nervous, as it reduced options for escape after a shoot. It also allowed a couple of multiples to meet up at pre-designated points to create 2x 6 man bricks, an 8 man and 4 man team, throw up impromptu checkpoints etc. This could cause deception to onlookers as it can give the impression of larger numbers of units on the ground.

[@theltlexay]

Love the leap of logic that the Minimi was too much of a weight burden for not enough effect, so it should be swapped out with an even heavier MAG at a section level. The Maximi is a perfect compromise for that.

[@PaddyInf]

It wasn't so much the weight as the ineffectiveness at doing what was needed, i.e. suppressing at 600m. The cost/benefit of weight vs effectiveness just didn't add up.

[@gilevi]

@@PaddyInf i can easly suppress at 600m. The beaten zone is not much different then a gpmg at that distance

[@PaddyInf]

@@gilevi The L110 used by the Brits was the short barrelled para model of the Minimi. Extensive testing during the platoon weapon mix research programme in 2016 showed that the GPMG is more than twice as accurate than the L110, has a tighter and more predictable beaten zone at all ranges and has considerably better terminal effects round for round. This vid suggests that the decision to remove the L110 was based on the opinion of one officer, however the paper produced by SO2 Lethality used research based on in depth testing as well as after action reports and vignettes from troops who used it.

[@dalemckenzie2828]

SLR riflemen in the 80s and 90s (prior to full SA80 uptake across teeth and support arms) carried 6 mag of 20 7.62 and carried 180 rounds in total having 60 boxed as spare for re-org.

[@DevilbyMoonlight]

In my time it was 6 men in the rifle group and 2 mean in the gun group , riflemen carried 6 mag's each for the SLR 120 rds not 60 , 3 in the front left pouch 2 in the front right pouch plus 1 on the weapon the lancejack (l/cpl) was a the gun controller for the jimpy (GPMG) sometimes this could be 2 lmg's with 1 in each fireteam- we were taught to fight in pairs while bounding - later on when the L85s came in why had 1 lsw per fireteam - no-one thought much of it in that role but it found another use as the LSWs were even more accurate than the l85's :/ historically ' Light infantry' has a specific meaning in the British Army - and is different to infantry in the light role - the 2 are not the same, more is expected of one than the other through training - this is one of the things drummed into me as a recruit in 1984 in the light division depot in winchester

[@edwardkenway8183]

Am so happy and hyped by music you added in this video as I can hear from Medal of Honor Frontline and Rising Sun perfectly hits to the topic and videos coming in great job !

[@riccardogemme]

I am absolutely biased in asking this, but will you ever cover something relative to the Italian Army? Not sure if there's anything actually interesting to talk about in there since I myself know next to nothing about it.

[@JoinMeInDeathBaby]

+1 on that. Please more less covered topics. America, England, Russia, China are interesting but they are everywhere.

[@itellyouforfree7238]

I agree, it'd be really interesting to learn how the _Alpini_ threw snowballs at the Austrians during WWI

[@barrybeebenson8102]

Bersaglieri regiments would be interesting

[@jono_cc2258]

Fantastic video, appreciate the effort, thank you!

[@ratchet2505]

As a Brit I want to say thank you for this video

[@zulubeatz1]

Excellent video. Spot on.

[@rabidspatula1013]

Hope your wife feels better soon!

[@eddie4324]

I think the best take away point is that the section has to be flexible. Commanders and men have to be trained to alter the platoon/section as required for the task in hand.

[@notmenotme614]

If you think the platoons changed much. One of the things I noticed the most about serving in the British Military is everytime a new Officer was posted in, they’d change things. Sometimes this years new Officer would change things and then his replacement in 3 years time would change it back to how it was before. The problem was they’d only be in post for 3 years before moving onto becoming Assistant Programme Director for the Regulation and Certification of Purchasing Pencils. So they never had to live with mismanagement.

[@billyponsonby]

I’m very impressed and proud of the British Army’s professionalism and effectiveness.

[@blacklisted4885]

how come this Lewis had so many guns

[@diskopartizan0850]

Did anyone ask him if it was ok to borrow them?

[@dermotrooney9584]

He needed them for his work with Inspector Morse.

[@roncatman6236]

The medal of honor vangaurd theme was a nice touch.

[@nedimharacic1809]

Another great video, keep it up man. Wish you all the best.😃🤌👏

[@fleurdetristesse5218]

Always found it a little funny that often in combat that the rifle section reverts back to its WW2 form. Suppose we and the Jerries got something right. And speaking of which, would you consider doing a similar video on German rifle sections? I reckon such a video would do quite well seeing as how many Deutchesarmee simps there are.

[@ethanseldiakov7551]

We need more of these videos for every country

[@ding24_]

excellent content as always sir. ps do you mind doing a video on the Singapore Armed Forces? I believe it will be informative and I hope interesting

[@jsuen8415]

It will be very similar to @17:13 except that the section commander is a sergeant and the 2IC is also the M203 gunner (grenadier) so a section would be seven instead of eight men.

[@ding24_]

@@jsuen8415 ahh then the l86 will be replaced by the ultimax SAW?

[@jsuen8415]

@@ding24_ No the LMG (minimi) will be replaced by the saw. The L86 was the "marksman rifle" that will be replaced by the SAR 21 sharpshooter with 3x zoom instead of the standard 1.5x. The sharpshooter also takes a MATADOOR (anti-tank/door breacher)

[@ding24_]

@@jsuen8415 ah then the squad leader takes the sar21 mms?

[@jsuen8415]

@@ding24_ yes the section leader. Squad would be four men

[@darrenberry2037]

Fantastically done.

[@mickwful]

The Para in the late 60 early 70 went through a period of platoons being split into 2 fifteen men strike groups, which in turn could be split into three 5 men groups. When serving in Ireland we had two armoured pigs per platoon so platoons were split in two. These formations get adapted to the ops or the men available.

[@cg2bx264]

I left the Royal Marines in 2010 and up to them the gpmg never left the section level battle order. Heavy bit of kit but Fantastic weapon.

[@doctorscoot]

the jungle infantry organisation was learned by Australian Army from 1942-45 in New Guinea area not necessarily in Malaya, that'll be where the Brits first encountered it (although they had similar stuff in Burma, not quite like the Malaya Emergency)

[@xcrockery8080]

The British Army in Burma looked very closely at what the Australians had achieved at Milne Bay and Buna Gona as a result of their Jungle Warfare Centre training (setup in 1942) and the first British trainees arrived from India in October 1943.

[@SHADOWFRENZY92]

That Conflict: Desert Storm music was a very pleasant surprise. You have good taste.

[@alext474]

Yessss I was just like. Wait a second. Is that music what I think it is.

[@SHADOWFRENZY92]

@@alext474 It took me a second to realise it was not my music playing in the background.

[@Will-mj2lr]

The word the British army squaddie uses to mean 'cool,' is pronounced 'al-ee' like 'alley', rhymes with 'happy''. Its not pronounced 'al-eye' though it is often written as 'ally' (British soldiers aren't known for their spelling...)

[@SirZanZa]

But they are known for being incredibly well trained and a nightmare to fight against.

[@SuperRip7]

That GMPG is a beast of a gun to carry.

[@gooner72]

In 1988, as a 15 year old Army Cadet, I fired the original .303 calibre Bren gun whilst on exercise and it was absolutely phenomenal. The Bren was changed to 7.62mm but we had the original. 303, I knew it was the older calibre because it had a flared muzzle break on the end of the barrel.

[@alistairhackney]

Thank you for this. I left service in 2021 and this is spot on for the time i served [i can't vouch for anything past as i'm only in my 20s]

[@Noone35791]

I was a FN Minimi gunner for 6 years and no, it’s not accurate up to 250 meters only. You can easily hit target up to 600 meters. Just don’t hold the MG too hard and use an aimpoint sight rather than a magnified sight.

[@dermotrooney9584]

Brits used short barrel version and weapons took a lot of hammer. LMG gunners encouraged to spray/suppress in trials too, biasing results.

[@Noone35791]

@@dermotrooney9584 So did we. I’m just saying - it’s not an inaccurate weapon for being an MG

[@dermotrooney9584]

@@Noone35791 I'm just saying Brit accuracy figures were biased. Some people just wanted rid of the Minimi.

[@Noone35791]

@@dermotrooney9584 I missed the last part of your first post as I was on my phone, apologizes.

[@OddlySpecificGaming]

That click sound effect on the slides is the sexiest

[@stormyprawn]

8:15 Hope she's alright btw 👍

[@roentgen571]

The bit about sections carrying more than the officially-allowed number of LAWs seems to be the sort of thing armies do in crisis. When I was in (early 1990s), the M79 grenade launcher and M72 LAW were obsolete, replaced by the M203 and AT4. But I remember my company CO telling us if the balloon went up in Korea, we'd each get one of each, plus a bandoleer of grenades for the M79, because they still had hundreds of them in the armory warehouses, and no reason to leave them behind. Besides, we were light infantry, and the Norks would be mechanized infantry (IFVs and tanks), so every bit of anti-armor ability we could bring along would be lifesaving.

[@VhenRaTheRaptor]

Exactly. If you don't watch soldiers, they'll take extra of everything out of the armory. And if anything has been obsoleted from general use but is still sitting in the armory... someone is going to get inventive and help themselves to it. LAW might not do so hot against modern armor... but if someone is running old tanks it'll work. And it'll still kill APCs.

[@Avera9eWh1teShark6]

I believe both the evolution of the British army section and the USMC Rifle Squad demonstrated in your videos help lend credence to explain why the US Army is going back to the battle rifle. Everyone looks at the XM5 and the NGSW program as a whole as a step backwards without seeing the big picture.

[@flamingsmore5904]

The funny thing about that, the XM5 is being looked at as one of the rifles, that could replace the L85. In 2025.

[@malkomalkavian]

Simple, clear information, thank you

[@Eragonollie1]

“As ally as two GPMG’s might be…” It’s pronounced AL-EE not AL-I 🤙🏻

[@madsbahrt8222]

You mention Lend Lease around 4:25 . As the Lend Lease program was not enacted until march 1941, I think the Thompsons arriving in late 1940 are actually "Cash and carry Thompsons"

[@user-ns3vs3bp3e]

L85A3 is going in 2025 (well it’s being replaced in 2025 with a new rifle contract but the new one likely won’t go to all unit until like 2030 knowing how slow roll outs always are for new shit) I’d imagine it will be a similar weapon to the new US military selection since it was said the choice of round will be influenced by that + the UKSF teams + marines + the new SF support battalion all scrapped the bullpup in exchange for C8’s. Seems there’s a very common “we hate that thing” mentality amongst the elite troops who have the small numbers and budget to buy something else for themselves, I don’t imagine the military will be continuing the bullpup idea any longer but then again when have top brass ever listened to what the people actually using the kit are saying 😂

[@szymonziemba4666]

God damn good film brother.

[@K_Kara]

The fact that GPMG was brought back is very relevant to the US Army's adoption of the new .277 chambered M5 and M250. 5.56 is not enough!

[@norbi1411]

Depends for what.

[@dermotrooney9584]

But is long 6.8 too much?

[@bravosbricks]

Fun Fact: The BREN gun is weapon originaly from Czech (Czechoslovakia that time) that was manufactured in UK. The weapon is even carrying the shortcut of the name of armory which designed the gun in Czechoslovakia - BRno ENfield => BREN. (Brno is Czech city located in Moravia region)

[@juliantheapostate8295]

Czech weapons and tanks were some of the best in the world. The German Panzer 38t was a Czech tank. We made a big mistake allowing Hitler to get his hands on those arms and excellent factories like the Skoda works

[@paulcharlwood702]

It is interesting that you do not go into the aimed fire versus weight of fire argument as it is very relevant to the topic. My understanding is that the British army always prided itself in training its infantrymen to perform rapid single accurately aimed shots. This fitted well with the overall concept of strategic aggression to gain position but fighting battles defensively to reduce losses. In such defensive battles killing or wounding the enemy is much more important than simply keeping his head down. That philosophy continued well into the Cold War and was one of the reasons why the British Army chose the single shot SLR version rather than the pure FN rifle with its full auto capability. Again my understanding is that the shift to the L85 had much more to do with standardising to the NATO 5.56mm (thanks America!?) round and the shift to relying on automatic fire had more to do with that round's inherent inaccuracy compared to the heavier and longer ranged 7.62, after all we were still expecting to mainly fight the Soviet hordes from defensive positions. If aimed fire is 'so last war' why are the USMC going back to it?

[@norbi1411]

The goal was to make infantry squads more mobile witch is very important for light infantry like USMC. Besides they can afford that due to their big squad/platoon/company structure. Another thing is introduction of NGSW by the Army witch USMC will probably do to.

[@HO-bndk]

The US Marines know that weight of fire is just wasted ammo. There have been many studies conducted.

[@stevemariner6768]

Not exactly but fairly accurate. After WW2 the British Army conducted extensive trials on new ammunition and was looking very closely at intermediate size rifle ammunition. It was actually American influence that kept everyone standardised to 7.62 NATO. The Americans then adopted 5.56 after their own experience in Vietnam. However, probably due to cost issues the Brits stayed with the SLR. Possibly experience from the Falklands war got people to realise that they needed automatic fire and longer, heavier 7.62 rifles are not always optimal, especially in close quarter battle scenarios. 5.56 is not inherently inaccurate at all, the issue mostly is penetration. It does not have the same punch as 7.62 nor does it behave very consistently on contact with the target. Often 5.56 will “tumble” and cause horrific injuries and sometimes it will pass cleanly through. It does however, offer certain advantages. It’s easier to train with, you can carry more of it, you can actually fire on automatic if necessary and it’s generally effective out to most ranges the infantryman will likely need. These rifles are shorter, lighter and handier than the “battle rifles” of the Cold War. Aimed shots never went out of fashion, it’s just that every military in the world is trying to figure out better ways to utilise support weapons. Bear in mind the amount of counter insurgency work going on the world, the availability of body armour to just about everyone nowadays and the speed at which technology and threats are evolving, it’s a very natural time for militaries to start looking again at the calibres they use and the organisation/tactics of infantry sections.

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

The BREN 1 was a beauty, and to this day is a formidable piece.