Mechanized Infantry

[Rick]

I have two questions the first is related to CM the second wargames in general.

1. Will mechanized infantry dismount when fired upon in CM? If so do they do this realistically or as soon as the first pistol fires at them? I may be wrong but it seems to me that if the incoming is very small caliber that there would not be any reason to stop trucking on to their destination.

2. Any tips on how to use mechanized infantry well? In other games I tend to either dismount too late and get may troops blown up in their half-tracks when they get knocked out by enemy tanks, or alternatively I dismount too soon and my troops can never march the rest of the distance within the time alotted.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Rick,

Yes, we agree that previous games have done a poor job with modeling vehicles and passengers. This is basically what CM does:

1. Guys will bail from their ride based on threat level. Here are a bunch of quick examples:

a. Troops in APCs are likely to stay in them. They have limited ability to see threats, so they have limited ability to react to them.

b. Units will likely bail if the vehicle they are riding is becomes immobilized.

c. If someone is on the back of a tank, and the tank is getting shot at by something heavy (i.e. not directed at the passengers) they are likely to bail.

d. The faster the vehicle is moving, the less likely the troops are going to bail.

e. Guys on backs of tanks are very likely to bail if being directly shot at AND the tank isn't going top speed.

2. You have to be very careful with your HTs. They are quite easy to lose, even to something as small as a German HMG 42. Best thing is to drop your troops off too early. But if you want to do an assault drive, then we allow you to specify where the guys should hop out. This means the HT will drive at top speed to x point, and once there passengers will hop out and follow their orders.

Steve

[Rick]

Sounds like you guys handle this pretty well. I'm not so sure that I won't keep screwing up. However, I feel that all the improvements you guys have made over previous games will assist intuitive play about such matters.

I think another HT problem with earlier games is due to IGO/UGO thing. In other words in SP you chose between moving an HT up first, probably get destroyed by an AT gun, and unloading the infantry for their better spotting ablities. Or you can move up a tank first, this will fair better against AT guns etc. but will be more vulnerable to infantry ambush. If all this is happening simultaneously the AT guns won't be able to single out your HTs as easily, and Tanks wouldn't be sitting on the road alone waiting for someone to put a bazooka or panzerfaust round into them.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This means the HT will drive at top speed to x point, and once there passengers will hop out and follow their orders<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice.

Can you also include with that order, a movement or fire order for the passengers?

Ex: HT goes to point w, passengers hop out, passengers run to point x, passengers crawl to point y, passengers fire on point z?(all in one order).

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

Yes to everything but the firing at point "z". You can only order your units to fire at something from where they stand at the time you issue the order. However, if you are targeting a unit, rather than an area, your unit will attempt to shoot when it gets into postion/LOS.

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Makes sense, thanks.

[Kevin Peltz]

Rick:

I know what you mean about the "should I or shouldn't I" dismount- from playing PiTS and ToP 2. I tend to dismount in cover now and move the tracks to some point where hopefully they can provide some sort of cover fire if necessary. It just seems a little safer to walk (in cover, hopefully).

[Rick]

I hate it when you think those careful methods are going to work and then there just isn't enough time to get where you need to go. I also usually want to unload in cover, at a distance from the OBJ where the chance of defenders is preumably small. Sometimes, this means that the scenario ends before I get there.

Like I said earlier, I am hoping that the simultaneous execution method and other realism improvements of CM make these decisions more intuitive. Of course, the bigger help would probably be if I can do recon better in CM. If one knows where the enemy is he can make a much better decision about where to dismount.

[Moon]

I believe it was SOP for mechanized troops to dismount as closely as possible to the enemy. I found it to be a good tactic to keep one part of my mounted infantry relatively close behind the advancing elements and dismount immediately when contact is established, while the other part follows a bit further away and serves as a mobile reserve.

In cases when long-range weapons engage my guys before reaching the MLR, I would usually keept he infantry back and out of sight while tanks or AT Guns or arty deal with the problem. However, often enough when there is not much time, you have to risk it and race the Halftracks forward. Well... good luck...

[Rick]

Moon,

The mobile reserve sounds like a great idea, I wonder why I haven't thought of using it in this situation - I use it quite frequently in others. I especially like to use a group of tanks or tank killers, in defense as a group that waits until the main weight of the attack reveals itself and then tries to attack the flank.

I definitely feel that Mech infantry should dismount as close as feasible, since their main advantage is speed. I just need to improve on knowing where that reasonable point is. Sounds like the reserve idea would help, at least if your lead elements get pounced you could offer them some help.

[Brian Rock]

IIRC, mobile inf generally dismounted a reasonable distance from the FEBA. The idea of the halftracks wasn't to get them in sight of the enemy, all guns blazing, but to get them to their assembly areas intact.

The mobility was intended more for operational mobility than tactical mobility. Too many direct fire weapons can kill a HT to treat it as an infantry fighting vehicle.

Now, it's been a while since I've read up on this, so I may be waaaaay wrong...

[Fionn]

No, you're right in a sense..

Like all combat situations the rules sometimes had to be broken though of course. Generally speaking the HT was utilised by the Germans (whom I believe used this arm of service to its best overall effect) to bring troops right to the outer extent of the enemy's MLR..

From reading some infantry tactics accounts a long time ago (in some infantry tactics book which name I forget right now) it seems to me that the Germans would deposit their infantry from their HTs just outside effective enemy rifle fire range (say maybe 300 to 400 metres (given fog of battle, smoke, covering fire etc that is right out to where I would expect enemy infantry to be able to fire) ). The HTs would halt and give covering fire while the infantry would make a breach in the enemy's defensive line.

As follow-on infantry waves advanced intermingled with tanks the supporting HTs would move up and create a sort of hedgehog position in the breach (pouring HMG fire into the flanks of infantry still in their positions) while their own infantry rolled up the positions on either side of the breach..

That way they got their infantry close to the enemy without exposing them to the massed artillery fire which could shred them, brought their own HMGs into close-range for covering fire purposes and generally got there quicker and with more bang than they would have if they had walked it..

Remember that even Panzer Grenadier units generally had 2 truck-borne units for each HT-borne unit (special favoured divisions notwithstanding of course) so I would hold that the trucks were just for mobility while the HTs were for mobility AND the battlefield assault role (as outlined above). I'd HATE to have to try to conduct a mounted assault in trucks .. It'd be a real killer..

Hmm might make an interesting scenario though to teach effective covering fire tactics.

How's this choice grab you?

IF you dismount in cover and advance slowly the enemy will be reinforced and you will fail..

If you rush them without covering fire you WILL be shot up but just might get enough guys into range to achieve your objectives. (But that's highly unlikely)..

Proper solution: Rush your guys in relatively close UNDER the covering fire of your tanks and artillery.. Dismount and advance under smoke and direct tank fire support.

(Of course, the scenario maker wouldn't give you enough tanks to use them to breach the lines... AT minefields should suffice to stop anyone rushing in with tanks )

[Rick]

Fionn,

Lots of info in your reply. I'll have to remember this thread for future tactical use.

I have often wondered if HT were used as fire support. I use them that way in games, but that doesn't mean much.

What is everyone's opinion of the evolution of this idea into the modern IFV? I remember arguments from my JROTC instructors back at the time of the introduction of the Bradley. Most of them weren't too pleased with the idea. Personally I think the idea is good for the most part, but the way I understand it, the army had to reduce squad size for it to work. The reduced squad size could be pretty bad though.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn - those sound like good tactics to me. I think the crucial difference between what you said and just rushing HTs into the thick of it is that the HTs hang back just long enough for the enemy AT weapons to be dealt with either by assaulting infantry or maybe friendly tanks. Then, once those threats are (mostly) gone, the HTs can move up and pour on the MG fire from close range. Seems like it should work.

Rick - I thought that squads had shrunk simply because modern firepower has grown so much that a squad just doesn't need as many men anymore. But that was just my guess.

Charles

[Kevin Peltz]

Rick:

I think the modern IFV is a mixed blessing: the added firepower, especially versions carrying ATGM's, could make it too tempting

to tangle with things that lightly armoured vehicles are not meant to handle, like MBT's. On the other hand, they become useful multi-purpose vehicles, capable of troop carrying, recon, flank security, and as shoot and scoot defensive equipment (the last two only when conditions are suitable, like good cover, and fall-back positions).

[Rick]

Definitely see your point about the temptation to engage MBTs. However, I think one of the good points of the IFV is that they are not guaranteed dead meat against an MBT where the old fashioned APC didn't have much chance.

As far as the decreased squad size, I am not sure of the cause. I do know that a Bradley can't carry as many people as the US's old APCs, but only having that info brings up a chicken or the egg question. I have read from many sources though that increasing mechanization is a prime factor in rifles becoming lighter and smaller as well as leaving LMGs behind in favor of SAWs.

I am under the impression that the Soviet Union originated the idea of the IFV. Does anybody know if this is correct?

[Fionn]

Yes it is...

They developed the BMP-1 a hellacious little development with a 73mm cannon and an AT missile launcher (very poor access hatches though IMO but they needed to be to keep it low to the ground)...

As usual the Soviets did it first and then the US did it better ..

Same for smoothbore cannon, IFVs, tank defensive measures (I'm just assuming here since I haven't heard much about active US anti-anti-tank missile defensive systems) etc..

Ps... I think the more correct way to look at it is that the advent of APCs and IFVs caused the squad size to fall which was compensated by increasing the number of LMGs given (each Soviet squad should have two by the last TO&Es I'm familiar with + 1 HMG in the IFV )...

Personally speaking I think the chain of events was... APC (big and carrying about 10 guys (1 squad) ), IFV carrying only 6 to 9 men (compensated for by giving them lots of automatic firepower).

But, to answer your question the Soviets made the BMP 1 some 15 years before the Bradley came into service.. Imagine what would have happened to the M113A3s which ran into those BMP-equipped units

Still, it's interesting to note that due to cost functions they are basically sticking to the 1 BMP, 2 BTR regiments per infantry division (generally)..

The Soviets love making favoured divisions etc so of course that changes some.

[Kevin Peltz]

Rick:

I read a couple of books written on small unit tactics by some infantry fellows who act as OPFOR at Ft Irwin, California. Although not specifically mentioned, I got the distinct impression that the unit of choice at minus platoon level is the fireteam- about half a squad. This read out (at least to me) that with the advent of more easily portable weapons (SAW's and shoulder fired AT, SAM's),

more flexibility could be had right down to squad level. Whether this was in conjunction with the IFV carrying fewer men is hard to say- I suspect it may have a lot to do with

"more bang for the buck," hand-in-hand with general force reductions due to cut-backs, etc (referencing the the US situation).

[Rick]

The way this thread has gone recently, kind of reminds me of this guy I recently worked with. He was a temp at my place of work, he just came here from Bulgaria, and he was totally convinced that Russian military equipment was far superior to western tecnology. The one place where I felt he might be right is the SU27.

[Guest Big Time Software]

As is typical in US vs. Russian fighter jet design, the Su-27 (and MiG-29) have better power-to-weight ratios and generally better ruggedness than their US counterparts. On the other hand, the western avionics and (IMO) the missile systems are vastly superior.

Charles

[CRourke]

With regards to russian motorized infantry, I've heard that the BTR (APC) squads carry alot more dismounted fire power than the BMP (IFV) squads, which in fact makes them more effective in rough terrain, despite being moved around by a wheeled vehicle. For a country like russian, I think the BTR is still a pretty good solution (well, at least the later models).

Chris

[Los]

Re:

Squad sized, yes they have been dropping in many armies for a while. Oh well, Personally I thik the mech infantry are much better off with the firepower of the bradley. (BTW why is it that the only people that complain about Bradley's are people that don't use them, that should tell you something?) Any notion about "Oh it might make one more tempted to take on a tank" is nonsense which I suppose comes from playing computer games or something. When it's your ass on the line I can assure you that you are completely free of such ridiculous temptations, and a quick reminder that a TOW armed bradley has an immensely greater reach than a Tank (over a Klick) but that assumes the Iraqi billiard table terrain, obviously ymmv. However a Bradley and a BMP can go around nicely. IMO tanks have a heck of a lot more to fear from competently handled infantry than visa versa.

BTW the BTR (a cool looking vehicle) is a maintenace DOG. (to go against the misperception that Russain stuff is somehow more rugged or field capable than western stuff). There are a number at both NTC and JRTC and they have this complicated two engine design which leads to constant headaches and breakdowns. But heck a wheeled vehicle is inherently more reliable than a tracked vehicle so it makes sense that you see 2 fer 1 in MRDs.

I do like and have been in/driven/ and seen fired the new BMP-3. The Kuwaitis bought a bunch to make friends with the Russains. For firepower it has a 100mm smoothbore cannon which fires (I think) its spandrel or Spiral (I forget) missle through the bore. It also has a coax 23mm cannon. (These also had some french thermal sights.)

BTW as a big SU27 fan (Flanker 1.5 is still one of the best and most realistic (FM-wise)simulators ever realeased.), I would point everyone interested to the August "Flight Journal" (put out by Smithsonian), which has an extensive flight test published on the SU27. (By a Marine test pilot which has a lot of experience in a number of other Russian AC also). WHile it is a great plane it has some key quirks and does not score nearly as well in the pilot friendly handling regime (Read:flying qualities) as it does in the book=performance qualites. The former is what pilots guage the effectiveness of the AC buy, the latter is what the rest of us chairborn types normall guage a plans capabilities by.

The SU27 is no silver bullet. (though I still think it's the most beautiful of AC!!!)

Cheers...

Los

[Rick]

I am under the impression that modern tactical doctrine is moving away from tanks engaging infantry and thus the weapon load outs are including fewer anti-personnel weapons. I believe I have read that the US and other western nations are following this path more so than the Russians.

Good to see someone defend the Bradley. I knew it couldn't be as bad as some say if most nations are using similar vehicles.

[Anthony]

The Bradley has the cannon, TOW, and 6-man capacity because it was designed by the same team that brought us the camel. The Army brass kept adding stuff to it until the designers couldn't fit 10 guys inside. There's an excellent, and funny, HBO movie based on the Bradley development and the whistleblower that called attention to its weaknesses (many of them have been fixed).

[Ken Talley]

This is a very interesting discussion. My doubts concerning the IFV either BMP or Bradley or any other has to due with the poor surviveability of the IFV and the large casualties suffered if the infantry is still in the vehicle when destroyed. Assuming the vehicle is attacked by ATGM's, aircraft, helicopters, smart artillery munitions or MBT's, an IFV outfit loaded with infantry could suffer castastrophic losses very quickly. During the Gulf War, both loaded Bradleys and Warriers were hit by friendly air forces with heavy losses. I believe the Russians had some problems initially in Grozny when caught with mounted infantry. If I remember correctly, the Syrians suffered massive IFV losses with loaded infantry in the Golan heights during the '73 war. Although I don't believe there are many examples of IFV's being in combat against equally matched opponents.

I have also read that there is concern over the extreme psychological strain of being in an enclosed vehicle in combat conditions for long streches of time. The infantry cooped up in their tin boxes would have little to do and no concept of what is occuring outside. Just sitting there with their imagination running wild....

But I guess those are trade offs for the speed, heavy firepower and protection against traditional artillery/small fires. However God help them if they are caught by AT weapons while they are still loaded.

Which brings up a question. Would BigTime in the distant future consider a CM style game covering the same time frame as SP2:1955-2000. I guess an even better question is what historical time frames besides WW2 interests BigTime? Napoleonics, Ancients, Modern, etc.... Just curious.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 06-29-99).]

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 06-29-99).]