Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Denmark Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Danish Army introducing snipers and re-introducing mortars
Schackleford    9/2/2006 7:35:38 AM
I always felt that the lack of IFV's, snipers and mortar teams in our army was a major Achilles heel. Sure, none of them was very helpful during your average peace keeping mission. But for infantry combat, they are essential. IFV's were acquired on the latest Defence Budget, though. And now, the first army snipers are being trained at The Royal Life Guards. The rifles being issued is the SAKO TRG42, caliber 8,6 mm Lapua. The rifle is already used by Finland and is by all accounts an excellent weapon. It is planned that the new sniper units will get to train with AKS, Jægerkorpset and Frømandskorpset. In addition, mortars are being re-introduced. All I know about that system is that it is Spanish in origin and of 60 mm caliber. That leaves only one major gap in our army equipment: we still do not have ANY KIND OF UAVS WHATSOEVER!
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Thomas    Light/medium infantry   9/3/2006 8:59:34 AM

I for one have long seen the need for light mortars in light and medium formations. I'm looking forward to seeing the organisation of the infantry companies.


The introduction of the sniper rifle does indicate a change in role for Jægerkorpset and Frømandskorpset.


Tårnfalken has been something of a mystery to me; but try and read the budget statement - there are indication that the problem is being solved in a different way.


Quote    Reply

TAC II       9/3/2006 11:29:54 AM
The need for light mortars was realized early on in Iraq and this is the response to this requirement. They will come in very handy in Afghanistan, where they will be deployed with the next rotation.

The new 60 mm mortars will have a range of 6 kms and the rounds will have the effect of 1990's vintage 81 mm rounds.

The SF have had snipers all along and that includes antiterror/SWAT units like AKS. The re-introduction is for army infantry and will be used differently than specialised snipers would do.
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       9/3/2006 2:57:17 PM
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       9/3/2006 2:57:33 PM
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       9/3/2006 2:59:02 PM
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/3/2006 4:03:59 PM
Both mortars and sniper rifles are such capable weapon systems, and so cost effective compared to the level of damage they can cause, it seems absurd not to have them.

Quote    Reply

TAC II       9/3/2006 4:09:14 PM

Yimmy said:
Both mortars and sniper rifles are such capable weapon systems, and so cost effective compared to the level of damage they can cause, it seems absurd not to have them.

That's the Danish way. Cutting entire classes of weapons systems. Like all mortars, both heavy and light or snipers (cuts the number of systems to train on is the logic). Then later realising it is very nice stuff to have anyway. :D

C'm Reefdiver. You can make it. ;)
Quote    Reply

Thomas    transition   9/3/2006 4:09:18 PM

Yimmy; You've got to consider, that for say 50 years the main threat to the Danish army was masses of Russian armour rolling their way. Dismounted infantry was a definate secondary consideration.

The Danish army is rediscovering the strength of light forces.



Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/3/2006 7:53:39 PM
I do realise that Thomas, but I would have thought the cost effectiveness would negate any reason to do away with them.

At the end of the day, sniper rifles cost peanuts, while mortars and their ammunition cost little more. Compared to the cost of armoured vehicles, it simply makes no sense to try and make savings by sacrificing them.

Also, the weapons effectiveness is outstanding compared to the price paid. A company of riflemen are of questionable combat effectiveness without the instant fire support of unit organic mortars or the precision killing of snipers.

Quote    Reply

Thomas    Yimmy   9/3/2006 8:21:28 PM
I couldn't agrre with You more on the tactical level.
My point is that the military service (for want of better word) during the cold war was so short, that the training was so narrow that there wasn't time for training. I know the explanation is idiotic, but there You are - I never claimed Danish officers and NCO's of the era were able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
I wrote to the Commander of the Air Station - after my socalled "national service" - that his "infantry" didn't serve any military purpose whatsoever. That what were trained for was probably guarding POW; but that was not the pretext for wasting our time. I will not get into the TACTICAL errors, as they still 25 years later make me lose what little temper I have.
Funny thing - though - a year or two later they reorganised the "infantry" according to the guidelines I wrote. I haven't heard I had anything to do with it - even if I had, I wouldn't have heard.
Quote    Reply
1 2