wee

+1. My point exactly. Shoot the building to the pebbles with as heavy shells as possible. Direct or indirect. So, that only thing your infantry needs to do, is walk easily to the ruins, smoke cigarrettes while kicking small stones and pebbles while looking for survivors.

If situation allows, try to use supporting infantry to eyeball the flanks of your armored units. Everybody supports and overwatches everybody. Infantry overwatches APCs, APCs overwatches infantry, Infantry and APCs overwatch MBTs, which give firesupport and overwatch for my APCs and Infantry... List could go on forever in similar manner. Also, I've always found practical to apply rules & thinking of the "rock-scissors-paper" game to various tactical games. Which unit in your pool used with right doctrine is the most effective countermeasure against enemy in current situation?

Slow pace, a lots of eyeballing and overwatch with other units, and I prefer minimun of 100mm shells for direct fire and Mortars for indirect.

Relikt or Kaktus ERA could be interesting on T72/90 and possibly effective counter measure against western sabot rounds, though not saving BMP-3 from them due to thinner armor.

Thanks Bahger. Looks like a good abstarct of basic infantry/armor/land force tactics. "Tuli ja liike" "Fire and movement" One unit moves, other unit supports & gives cover. KISS.

Thanks LukeFF! Oh, by the way, downloaded Mac version 1.00. Crappy picture in dropbox: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97333552/2015-02-08%2014.47.01.jpg

9.27mm "Makarov"? I think it's better to stick with C.I.P standards with ammunition nomenclature and not with actual bullet diameters. Or SAAMI specifications if it's preferred. My Ukranian infantry has the discussed ammo in first mission of "Shield of Kiev" campaign.

Must be Makarov ammo, can't be anything else. I'm with you animalshadow. Two pistols in squad with 3 magazines each I presume.

Pardon my possible ignorance, but when looking Ukranian infantry squad unit roster, there's listed 9.25mm ammo, usually 48 rounds in the squad? Being quite familiar with russian origin small arms, I've never heard of such ammunition. Possible typo, meaning 9x18mm Makarov ammo? 6x8 = 48 -> six 8 round magazines in the squad?

Excellent idea! "See, but not being seen" I think no army trains soldiers with a guideline, that when the movement stops, all the guys choose a stance where from they can't see a... poop. Most likely the opposite. Even I have received a training, where whenever movement stops, everybody in the squad or patrol try to take or choose as good cover or concealed postition, but still keep on spotting surroundings in commanded or chosen sector. This way even a small unit can easily monitor minimum of 180 degree sector (including rear and air or up) and most likely whole 360 sector. Keeping "heads up" is vital not only for the unit for monitoring surroundings, but also for single soldier. Literally, hitting your face in to the dirt will guarantee that you will most likely miss the hand signals of leaders and fellow squad members.

I find this interesting. Sometimes I find it disturbing, that physically supply & support is missing from most of the simulations. It kind of "floats" on the background without any units "visible" in the game. Not even in battallion or brigade level games, I haven't seen any supply formations in the games, no matter supply units are quite large in that unit level. Having suplly & support units in the game would be interesting and also give some tactical flexibility. For example, in Finnish company sized infantry unit supply & support (not firesupport) platoon is about 15 men strong. Force not to be overlooked in critical situations like in counterattacks in company firebase after enemy breakthrough. Company clerks, medics, drivers, cooks and mechanics. Give them proper infantry training and arm them with hand grenades LAWs, few LMGs, AT-mines and not to forget axes and machetes (Finnish "vesuri") from company stocks and you have a half-platoon strong counter attack force to fill the gap in the line. Or fresh cannon fodder to get chewed up like rifle platoons before them. For example, in the critical moment, as a commander you could give command, and in few minutes, few squads of ad-hoc infantry squads consisting supply & support personnel equipped with hodge-podge weapons would pop-up in some corner of the map. Maybe with standard issue military truck or armored prime movers if you are lucky.

Ah, the logistics. Critical factor considering victory. Professionals concentrate on logistics. For example, Germany have been defeated in two world wars with superior supply and logistics. Winning a conflict, logistics and supply is far far more important factor than the model of service rifle of the force. Every time when people get over-excited from future weapons and potential new models, I ask them to name me a recent war (in 20th or 21st century), which was won or lost because of the excellence or mediocry of basic infantry rifle? Latest conflicts have been won with totally different weapon systems than service rifles, and especially with superior supply and logistics. Not saying that all the armies should be equipped with bolt action Mausers, Lee-Enfields or Mosins. But saying that current small arms technology have reached a peak, where new substitutes for example for AKs or AR15s won't most likely make a big difference in ending results of possibe conflict. Especially if considering the huge expenses that massive re-armament would cause. Ps. Many recent conflicts have been lost because of lack of motivation to fight and because of politics.

Ahh... To say simply, excellent stuff. Basic, but excellent stuff in squad level. No army can't go wrong with AK74s, PKMs, SVDs, RPG-7s, RPG-22, RPOs, RGD-5s, GP-25/30s... Wouldn't want to be on the "customer side", no way in hell!

Difficult to say. Roughly 90% from infantry casualties are inflicted with fragmentation of somekind (primary or secondary fragments or incendiary agents) or pressure. About 10% are inflicted with small arms fire. At least consuption of ammunition have increaded I think. Firepower of the infantry batallions or brigades have have risen propably tens of times, and increase in firepower of infantry squad is propably ten times higher or little less than in WW2. At least five to six times higher I think. Survivability rate has also dramatically increased since ww2 becuse of improvements in casualty care in general (like training, procedures, equipment and logistics for example) and field surgery. Oddly, ratio between wounded and dead have been the same since WW1 until at least 1980s, about 1:3-4.

Casualties in AT have always been high, but I've always thought that the discussed life expectancy is more or less an army joke. Although shooting AT-4 or iTOW missiles towards tanks is hazardous profession I have to admit.

Excellent point. I think the effectiveness of ATGMs is little overrated in this topic and limitations are left little outside the discussion (haven't red all the replies yet though). 1. ATGMs. If deadly to targets, also deadly for operators. Especially older wire-guided systems. Operator needs to have good and unobstructed LOS to the target, and this means that target can also see the ATGM team. Relatively slow missile, needs to be guided to the target during the flight and this means that countermeasures against the ATGM team will be a serious threat. Lose the team and the missile will most likely miss. Missiles could also be evaded if the range is long and the missile is slow. If I remember right, average calculated/estimated life expectancy of Finnish ATGM team in combat (equipped with older wire guided missiles) will be less than one minute. 2. ATGMs and vegetation. Using wire guided ATGMs in area with heavy vegetation is a no-go most likely. You need to have unobstructed clear and good LOS to the target. If the wire will get grabbed to the tree, branch or bush, the wire might snap off and the missile turns into a rocket. Operator will lose the control of the missile. Fire-and-forget systems and especially top attacking missiles might be more useful, but I doubt that heavily vegetated areas, especially forests with thick vegetation and/or high trees will be problematic even to highly sophisticated top attacking missiles. Not only to protect the target, but also making the launch of the missile and flight in trajectory obstructed. 3. LAWs. Effectiveness against tanks increases in heavily vegetated areas and especially forests. More concealment and cover and better ambush possibilities for tank-hunter teams, just like in urban areas. Expect to need up to 4 to 6 hits with lighter LAWs to knock out modern MBT. LAWs are also effective especially if used with antitank mines. Finnish tactics emphasis a strong combined use of mines and LAWs. Immobilize with mines and shoot stationary targets with LAWs to maximize the possibility of hits. Avoid shooting frontal arcs, always look for sides and rear. Actually, nothing new with this tactic since WW2.

I know, but what that V stands for in acronym? Voyska, maybe?

I think you both are right. I think Dre means with "dismounted" that the Motostrelki fight dismounted, with close proximity of their BTR/BMP giving the needed firesupport. Guys, please tell me. MSV, what that acronym stands for? Motostrelki... something, or am I totally lost?

Ratnik is too damn heavy I think. Add rest of the stuff and equipment to it and the standard payload would be incredible. Only few men out of the many can still be fast and manueverable under that load. Rest of the guys will get fatigued, exhaused, slow and clumsy quickly. I presume that only the best of the best will get that Ratnik gear and rest of the guys will continue to fight with 1980s and 90s ballistic protective gear. Like old ssh40 steel helmets were still seen with russian soldiers (mostly sailors I think) during Crimean crisis in last May. I've been thinking the ballistic protective gear last years. You definetly need some for sure, but I think the equipment is getting too heavy and cumbersome, starting to hinder too much the average rifleman. Every kilo added to ballistic gear reduces soldiers capabilities to carry ammunition, various grenades, RPGs and water to the battlefield. And that's the equipment you primary need to repel the enemy. Ps. Nothing bad to say from ssh40. One of my favourite steel pots. Very comfortable to wear and chinstrap is very easy to use securely. I think it's more comfortable to use and chinstrap is more easily operated than the Finnish composite/kevlar helmets designed in 1990s.

What's the situation in US and RF basic motorized/mechanized infantry platoons with communication equipment? How many men have those? Only Platoon leader? Squad or assistant squadleader? Single riflemen? Specialists? Commos have significant impact on capabilities and performance of the unit, not only to lead the troops effectively but also to reduce leader casualties.

Dre and Weer, Not to forget that bigger fireteams not only have more firepower but those can sustain more casualties, before they start to fallback and drop their mission objective. Four man fireteam suffering two man casualty still have two man left while three man fireteam has only one. Two men have theoretically twice the firepower and better possibilities to achieve their objective compared to single man "last man standing". Four man fireteam can also be easily be subdivided to two patrols with two man each if needed, which means more dynamical capabilities in the mission and "more cards to play" from my, or squad leader's point of view.

Ah, the friendly debate is something I like and value very high, especially with sophisticated and cultivated people like you, Sir. I also never got any other feeling from your earlier post. An earlier posts, which I like very much. Let's also drop the titles and formatilities, you can call me Tapio if you like. -Tapio

No need for that from my behalf. I've shot both platforms a lot, and I simply love them both, and I see the benefits and advantages both platforms have over each other. My opinnion is that comparsion of AK and AR family weapons is very difficult and doensn't serve any real purpose. Personally, I have formed an opinnion that AKs are more like "heavy submachine guns" and AR family weapons more like "light infantry rifles", from standpoints of tactical doctrine where they were designed originally. I also never ment that Russian weapon systems and equipment (not to speak about personell and people) are superior to their western counterparts. I personally like their equipment, respect their design mindset and product characteristics. Same thing also applies with equally many western military hardware and products. I placed my words in earlier post little unclearly. I just like to pick up the good parts from both of the systems and military mindset, "east european and west european", so to speak. I totally agree with you about the western training standards. It seems to be more humane and personell (subordinates) are treated more better while the training is at least as good. I've heard "horror stories" over the years where russian conscripts have gotten beaten, teased and abused by their superiors, senior soldiers and older cadres. I've never understood what's the purpose of such old tradition and how it serves the development of team spirit and training results. I would never ever want to serve or be part of similar military tradition.