Jump to content

Rebs

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Rebs's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Sadly, ArmA 3 still doesn't have the terrain absorbing any heat, which means that humans and vehicles glow like flares in the dark even on a sunny day in the desert
  2. I'm up for this, in PBEM if that works for you. I can also generally do a turn a day. Details in PM's?
  3. You don't need Javelins to be a large threat to armoured forces. On a desert and large open plains they truly are a must, but in a more restrictive terrain, eg. forests and urban environments, infantry can easily engage and destroy armour with NLAWs and other AT weapons that lack the range and top attack quality that the Javelin has.
  4. It's really all about the tactics We basically let the enemy get into our depth, as it has to stay on roads in our heavily forested/swampy terrain. The mechanized forces are then ambushed from multiple points of the "column" simultaneously. Basically we try to gain a momentary superiority of fire, blow up a few of their precious vehicles, 'cause havoc and panic. Then we disengage and disappear into the woods and arty starts falling on the stopped mechanized units. It's not perfect and it's more likely to just slow down the enemy attack rather than stop it outright but it causes a lot of losses to the enemy. I'll just let the official video with english subs explain @Currahee Yeah, Light infantry on the offensive against mechanized units is the stuff I'm most interested about. To be honest I'm having trouble imagining light infantry even taking urban areas or bocage country without taking heavy losses. I mean, if the defending mechanized unit has had any time to prepare every suitable approach is going to be covered by a 20mm autocannon or at least a PKM. Only terrain I can even imagine infantry having a fighting chance is a dense forest, Urban combat is a slaughterfest anyways. Going deeper into modern airborne tactics, how do the NATO airborne units fight? All I know about western airborne operations I learned in World War 2
  5. @Currahee Holy **** that's a wall of text So basically it doesn't radically differ from our use, the finnish way that is, of light infantry. The main difference of course being that the majority of our land forces are made out of infantry companies with nothing more than trucks or at most wheeled APC's for transport. Our terrain also offers more advantage to light infantry than the Ukrainian steppe or the Fulda gap, our eastern border being mostly forests and swamps. @Nidan I doubt that US marines in Iraq can really be taken into account here, or anything in Iraq due to the curbstomp nature of the war. The Iraqi army can't realistically be compared to a fully motorized/mechanized force like the Russians. I was also under the impression that the US marines ride into battle on vehicles that have a bit more armour than your average HMMW. @Antaress That surely helped a lot in context of conventional warfare, like when you are fighting against a mechanized russian force. Oh and also funnily enough I was trained to take on a mechanized company that has arty and air support and modern equipment with a light infantry platoon. I guess i'm dead * So knowing that defense with light infantry isn't much different in the big world from our way of doing things. (we just let the enemy into our depth and then chop them to pieces) what about attacking. How about using infantry, like paratroopers in offensive operations. How would light infantry and airborne units be used in large scale offensives. I'd rather hear more about the NATO side of things as I'm somewhat familiar with the way the russians do their tricks.
  6. Hey! I've been thinking about the role of light infantry, or regular non mechanized infantry, on the modern battlefield. As far as I know very few countries even have such units anymore, except for airborne and special operations units. How would such units be used on the field, what kind of tasks they would be given? What roles would they fill? Basically how, where and why would they fight. I am rather familiar with the new finnish doctrine that focuses on the infantry doing aggressive strikes on enemy mechanized units retricted to roads in the rough wooded terrain. Then disengaging and calling artillery on the road. Would an airborne unit use similar tactics or would they fight in a more conventional manner eg. Making a clear defensive line? So. Let's just take a british airborne unit as an example. How would it be used in a third world war like situation against a conventional capable mechanized force, where would it be used, what role would it fill in the greater scale of things and how would it fight? This post was written on a mobile device towards the end of a 15 hour nighr shift. It might not be entirely coherent.
  7. I don't think the series portrays the germans as being "forced by hitler and his gang". Wilhelm goes to war out of sense of duty towards his fatherland, not because he totally just has to. Friedhelm is reluctant, yes but then again: how many US citizen soldiers were a bit reluctant to cross the atlantic ocean and maybe die far away from home fighting the German bloke? You are not supposed to have pity on them because they have done horrible things but rather because the war has changed all of them and their world profoundly, because the world they lived in no longer exist. No matter if the world was based on a big lie by old Adolf or not, it still makes you feel bad. Everything "normal" in your life, destroyed by your own ignorance.
  8. The first time I played this one it went into overtime and on the last minute I managed to get a fireteam inside the monastery to capture it. Thankfully the germans had been routed by mortars and supression. I remember it being tremendously challenging (I think it was the first CMFI scenario I played, also damn that reverse slope MG42) but it was also very rewarding to get those beat up rangers from hilltop to hilltop
  9. How I've seen this whole debacle is that due to the events at Maidan Putin was forced to act in Ukraine before the phase II was ready. The annexation/forming of Novorussia had been in plans before but due to the political situation rapidly changing Putin had to put it into action when they still didn't have enough support in regions other than Donetsk and Luhansk. I personally believe that all this was supposed to take place after the reforms of the Russian army, at least concerning the land forces, were ready. Had they been succesful, IE without Maidan, we might be looking at a truly divided Ukraine now. I have to say that it was most interesting to be doing my time in the national service, training to be an infantry officer with all this going down and escalating rapidly during the summer (april - august). I remember sitting at a table in the middle of the night and reading news on my phone about Russian tanks crossing the Ukrainian border and just going "oh ****". It gave a different sort of motivation for the training, after all the reserve officer school is a stones throw away from the Russian border here in Finland.
  10. Yes, give me a combat mission game where I have to dodge pesky anomalies, flank bandits and fall back when facing an entrenched controller! Then again, we remember how well faction wars worked in Clear Sky From the things we will most probably see I'd like to have the brits, especially Paras, in the game first. I just like myself some light infantry.
  11. I would love to see the conflict escalating into the Baltian States and Finland. Mosty because I'm Finnish and I want to see how my wartime Infantry company would actually perform against a russian mechanized force in the forest terrain
×
×
  • Create New...