Cold War/Falklands War availability of night vision equipment for infantry?

[robh]

How were the limited amount of night vision sets allocated within Infantry units during the early 1980s?
Did that vary for Special Forces units?

Both sides seem to have been so equipped during the Falklands War, but I can't find details of how they were distributed. Has anyone got a reference they could point me to?

[Rick]

The only thing I know for sure is that the Argentine forces complained bitterly about the British fighting at night as they obviously had far more night vision devices. This is actually untrue; both sides had similar numbers of night vision devices - it's the distribution of those that became key - as far as I'm aware (and please, as always, tell me when I'm wrong - I can take it!) Argentine forces tended to centralise the NV kit with command and observation teams, whereas British forces distributed theirs to GPMG and marksmen/snipers, on the whole. This may have been a contributing factor but also British troops have been trained for night fighting since at least WW2 and were facing troops that hadn't been trained to that high a standard.

[ulverston]

My memory is hazy but back in 83 on exercise we would occasionally be given the cumbersome starlite scope thing... I was told at the time one per platoon with snipers etc also getting one. I didnt like it as it was a faff.... having said that I am sure it was a very handy piece of kit in an actual shooting situation.

[carlos marighela]

The SF elements of the task force had access to AN/PVS 4 (scope) and AN/PVS 5 (goggles) These were second generation passive, image intensifier scopes. These provided a better image quality than the earlier  1st gen 'Starlight Scopes' like the IWS. Much of this kit was wrangled by the SAS dealing directly with contacts in the USSF at the outbreak of the war.

The infantry battalions had the IWS in small quantities. Probably enough for 1 or 2 per platoon. I've read an account of 42 Commando at Mount Harriet which had them centralising the NVE and providing most of it to the snipers. There was a small element of SF attached during the attack and apparently 42 Commando had some access to their night vision kit.

[carlos marighela]

Good blow by blow account of night fighting during 3 Para's battle for Mount Longdon, recorded three years after the action, so fresh in the mind of the officers recounting it.

[robh]

Thanks, we seem to be finding the same references.

Unless playing 1 to 1, when tracking who does or does not have night vision is feasible, I don't think the distribution was wide enough to make any impact rules wise.

One less thing to consider!

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Possibly apocryphal but infantry night vision was supposedly vulnerable to overload when exposed to bright light (not so the night vision on the Scorpions and Scimitars).

Tactics included British troops not using their NVG initially, using flares to blind/neutralise the Argentine NVG, then assaulting with NVG. The vehicle NVG being used to maintain surveillance on the Argentinians.

Of course it might have been from the Falklands supplement for Command Decision (GDW).

[carlos marighela]

In theory, a very bright light source could damage the receptors of the first gen scopes and will certainly fuck with your night vision. I was given a Vietnam era Starlight Scope for a patrol on Ex K89  with no other instructions than not to break it and in typical overexagerrated form told that I would go blind if I pointed it at a vehicles headlights, blah, blah, blah. Bright light sources will cause the scope to bloom and you'll get poor image quality as well as degrading your normal night vision.

The bigger problem for those old first gen scopes is that they need a decent bit of ambient light to work in the first place. The moonlight or starlight they rely upon must be visible for them to be worthwhile. Such conditions were not a reliable factor in the Falklands, so to that end para flares would probably have been required to use the early kit.

[italwars]

Interesting topic.
I was researching the same subject related, principally, to the allocation of such devices to the Argentinian Army. I can confirm very few ones were available..which, as a wargamer aiming to most detailed historical reconstruction ,  is not so bad cause as i'm building up armies  in 1/72 or 20mm, principally plastic conversions, such small and fiddly to scratchbuilt piece of equipment would have been a pain to make in great numbers.

I can contribute, for the Argentinian, whit what i find,  trough my sources in Spanish or thanks to Argentinian veterans forums, but, at a glance, comparing what i had collected from Argentinian sources and  if the statement from Carlos referring to British forces is reliable :
"The infantry battalions had the IWS in small quantities. Probably enough for 1 or 2 per platoon.",  the Bristih forces seems to have been  lavishly provided with night vision equipment if compared to the Argentine ones.

what i did found so far:

- Admiral Busser who lead the conquest of the Island during "Operation Rosario" 1st April 1982, had distributed to his troops around 12 night visors some of which had been previously reconverted to be used on FALS and Machineguns . As you can also detect in the famous picture of  the surrendering Royal Marines  in Port Stanley, the  comando anfibio Jacinto Batista who is shepherding them, sports, on his chest (see white circle), a  night vision goggles. The model is , probably , the US one  coded  "AN/PVS-5 de segunda generación" AN/PVS stands for  "Army Navy /Portable Visual Search" used BY US Army since 1972

- Major Castagneto, of the Compania Commandos 601, also used a privatly purchased night visor.

- Another SF operator, from the Grupo de Operaciones Especiales, Primero cabo  Walter Abal , had his privatly purchased night visor.

- Few ones where allocated to conscript infantry units and, generally , assigned to soldiers on night guard duty

- According to an account  from a Marine Infantry sector commander,
"night visors where of 3 types ..head type one from a brand named "Goggles" (i think they mistake the actual name of the device with what they supposed to be was a brand) , the type for the SLR (FAL) from the brand "Litton" and a model to be used with 12, 7 HMG called "Mizza".
The 12,7  HMG Company (Marine Infantry) was allocated :
- 1a Sección;  BIM 5 (Marine Inf Battaillon) : 3 night visors for HMGs  and 6 head googles
-2a Sección operating in Mt Longdon): 3 visors for HMGs, 5 visors for FALS
and 12 head visors
-3a Sección (attached to Infantry Regiment  RI 25): 3 HMG visors, 2 for the FALS and 11 head visors"

The whole infantry Regiment nr. 7: received just a few obsolete ones (3) of the eve of 11 june

According to my extremely detailed Argentinian sources (books ecc) about the  Battle of Goose Green/Pradera del Ganso, the commando trained 25 Inf. regiment half company that valliantly fought at there, including the Lt Esteban section/platoon  which was the best equipped and trained  one (they even used some LAWs captured from the Royal Marines during the conquest of Port Stanley) despite being being heavily engaged in the night defense of Darwin lamented to had not been provided with any night device to see , in time, the coming British paratroopers ; so i suppose that the full garrison of Goose Green had no night visors at all.



According to a book from a veteran belonging to the Pebble Island Marine Inf. garrison that put just a token defence against the SAS succesful raid, the author tells that they had been, without any doubt,  observed troughout the fight by an ennemy (SAS soldiers) equipped with night visors.."every movement we made where met with a hail of bullets"

Lt Lautaro Jiménez Corvalan, who defended Mount Harriet with a platoon of B Comp., 4 Inf. reg. and  also author of an excellent book that i own (probably the most detailed among Argentinian sources and a must for wargamers with plenty of maps ecc) said that his unit received:
B Company : 2 night visors type "Litton" (head googles) allocated just before the battle. During the night , with one more visor borrowed from another company NCO, he succeeded in executed the counterattack. . In general he can remenber that his maximum allowance of night devices for his unit was 2 visors (head type) among 120 men. which, according to him, was totally inadecuate for night fighting. In short, just one or two officers could enjoy a night visor for observation purposes.

From another source of which  i cannot find the author, it seems that:
" in addition to having a larger number of rifle-mounted night vision devices (distributed among the defenders' five rifle companies, most of which were new and operational), the Argentines also had two AN/TVS4 (GEN2) long-range observation sights, which allowed them to spot the British at over 1,200 m in less than ideal conditions (2,000 m in moonlight). Even so, the British managed—using what they had at their disposal as blinding means, such as flares, machine-gun fire, and MILAN missiles—to deny the Argentines' superiority in night vision equipment and take the position".
"If I remember correctly, six 12.7mm Browning M2B heavy machine guns were captured in the fortified positions of R.I.7 (Marine Infantry weapons and crews attached to the conscript inf. units) on Mt. Longdon, all fitted with passive night sights, half a dozen individual sights and 3 FAL-mounted NV sights (with which the Argentinian riflemen were able to fire so accurately that the British thought they were snipers). The Argentinians also had more 2nd generation individual NVGs (AN/PVS4 and PVS5) at their disposal than the British (in the case of the British, these were mostly allocated to special units, while the Argentinians even distributed them among engineer companies)"

A pair of type AN/TVS 4 tripod mounted Argentinian long distance night visors where, effectivly,  captured by British troops in Longdon.


In conclusion, according to a post war interview to an egineer captain , it seems that no more that 1 in 100/200 soldiers in Malvinas where provided with night visors  and, above all, according to various   sources  it seems that the only units that received quite a few night visors were the Marine Infantry ones..,it s also seems that those few night visors that where allocated to Army Units came, again , from the Navy stocks.

[Rick]

So the conclusion appears, Italwars, that both the British and Argentine SF similarly both went out of their way to acquire (privately) the latest NV gear from the US and, despite the untrue rumours that the British forces were universally 'lavishly' equipped with NVG, the devices were thinly spread amongst both forces with only 1 or 2 per company?

[carlos marighela]

Great info!

[italwars]

So the conclusion appears, Italwars, that both the British and Argentine SF similarly both went out of their way to acquire (privately) the latest NV gear from the US and, despite the untrue rumours that the British forces were universally 'lavishly' equipped with NVG, the devices were thinly spread amongst both forces with only 1 or 2 per company?

Obviously i cannot claim better knowledge if compared to expert and British wargamers , here in the forum, as concern UK armed forces and military doctrine  ..but from what I understand if a British platoon , that’s to say , in wartime , around 25 men , was equipped with about two night vision devices ..plus their SF forces were probably equipped with more than that ..I remenber accounts of  Pebble Island and Fanning Head for example  ..while the  Argentinians , according to the scant infos I collected , enjoyed around 1 night vision per 100/200 men ..the SF that invested Port Stanley , on the 2 of April,  had some 12 devices, major CAstaneto from company commandos 601 had one visor that he kindly borrowed to an helicopter pilot while the other SF operator from a unit that never fought had another one ..that s all ..I think that if we compare the numbers involved in the two forces , we can say that the British were “lavishly “ provided with such visors and , as you rightly underlined, they where well trained in night warfare and, in my opinion, they , consequently, carefully planned, in advance , the execution of night offensives ;consequently   their land troops (if not all specials at least all elites ) had been equipped accordingly.

[carlos marighela]

TBH, I think for most purposes NVE played a fairly minor role.

[robh]

Thanks Pier, that is an excellent summary of the Argentine forces.

I think there could be a good 1 to 1 night patrol skirmish scenario for the 20/28mm guys set in this era using something like the RPGinc "Recon" or Bennet Lacey's incredible "Final Combat" rules as they are designed to incorporate such detail.

I have only researched Pebble Island in any depth but did see anecdotal reference to at least some of the D Squadron SAS guys from the Support Group having Night Vision Equipment.  Which coupled with the surprisingly bright moonlight would give their suppressing fire an accuracy the Argentinian garrison could not match.
We actually played through the final version of my 10mm scenario for the raid yesterday, I hope to post it to the Piquet iO group eventually.

[Rick]

Obviously i cannot claim better knowledge if compared to expert and British wargamers , here in the forum, as concern UK armed forces and military doctrine  ..but from what I understand if a British platoon , that’s to say , in wartime , around 25 men , was equipped with about two night vision devices ..plus their SF forces were probably equipped with more than that ..I remenber accounts of  Pebble Island and Fanning Head for example  ..while the  Argentinians , according to the scant infos I collected , enjoyed around 1 night vision per 100/200 men ..the SF that invested Port Stanley , on the 2 of April,  had some 12 devices, major CAstaneto from company commandos 601 had one visor that he kindly borrowed to an helicopter pilot while the other SF operator from a unit that never fought had another one ..that s all ..I think that if we compare the numbers involved in the two forces , we can say that the British were “lavishly “ provided with such visors and , as you rightly underlined, they where well trained in night warfare and, in my opinion, they , consequently, carefully planned, in advance , the execution of night offensives ;consequently   their land troops (if not all specials at least all elites ) had been equipped accordingly.

No, British forces had nowhere near that amount of NVG in the regulars. It seems to be a tired and untrue cliche that the British were 'lavishly equipped' with NVG (or many other things for that matter) which simply isn't borne out by the facts - both sides had minimal access to early NVG (which appears to have little impact) but the British had a huge advantage in terms of training and combat experience in night fighting. Repeating an oft-repeated untruth will not magically turn it into truth, however hard some might wish it so.