Mechanized Infantry

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rick - I did not know this. What's the reasoning behind it? Are tanks now supposed to kill other tanks and that's it? If so, wouldn't the best strategy be to have no tanks at all? Then the enemy's tanks would have nothing to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ken - We'd certainly consider a "modern" CM. But we'd like to exhaust all interesting facets of WW2 before making the serious changes required to add weapons like guided missiles and helicopters and such. A modern game would be quite appealing though. (One problem is a lack of balanced "historical" scenarios, however).

As for time periods, I think Big Time will stick to WW2 and modern stuff for the near to mid term at least. The other developers working here at Battlefront (and some new ones that may get signed soon) cover a lot of the other interesting periods and do it well so I think Big Time will stick to 20th century at least for now.

Charles

[Guest Lokesa]

Ken, your post reminded me of the debacle that Chechnia was for the Russians. I guess a lot of the Russians really didn't want to be there and refused to dismount choosing instead to hide out in their IFV's. Needless to say it was a bad choice on their part.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this subject and getting back to WW2 I saw some russian post battle data recently which showed that on average 50% HE loads and 16% AP loads were used in tanks. This seems to support that tanks freely used HE to suppress infantry. Which is hardly suprising with all those Fausts around.

Fionn's post regarding german employment of halftracks certainly rings true from all that I have read. It certainly meshes with the persistence of anti-tank rifles and small calibre AT guns in unit TO&E long after their effectiveness vs tanks had become nil. Furthermore it enables rapid exploitation of local success.

[Los]

Ken wrote:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

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.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

This is not a Bradley or a BMP issue it is an issue faced by anyone who rides a vehicle in combat, be it a BMP, M113, half track or a truck. A BTR or an M113 is no more impervious to the perils of combat than a BMP or a Bradley, but has to stick it's neck just as far into danger. (Albeit with less armament of its own)

WHile no APC is impervious (BTW niether are tanks), I'll take the extra 25mm armor over the canvas tarp on a 2 1/ ton truck any day of the week!

Nor should anyone look at Grozny as some sort of deathnell to the viability APC or point out look how bad BMPs were. The handling of those (poorly trained) units by their commander was at best criminally negligent and downright stupid. You can have the most highest quality equipment in the world but if you are going to use it like that, you are going to lose.

The obvious thing to point out is that APCs/IFVs have been in combat now (inc half tracks) for getting close to sixty years and are a maintsay of virtually every army in the world. That ought to tell yone about how valuable the professionals thing they are. (That goes for helicopters also!)

also...

.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

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....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I don't know who came up with this but a few points are in order...

1. The only time you actually button up an APC/IFV (that is close all the roof hatches where you are normally free to hang over the edge and oogle at village females etc,) is either, on the final run in to combat where artillery is a threat or when it's aining/snowing.

2. Likewise it's not like troops drive around for days buttoned-up and find themselves right on the attack without advanced warning or prep times. Battles, regardless of how screwed up they become when the first firing start, or normally fairly extensively planned out etc.

A typical attack (say at the NTC) will have the bn come after an approach march of some length to a staging area or advanced assembly area, where the troops would then receive operations orders. The formations would then shake themsleves out of march formation into some other appropriate formation and cross the LD after some level of prep etc. WHile this could still posibly entail a movement of up to an hour, units will normally be unbuttoned until the last possible moment or at the first sign of indirect fire (For instance, it's too hot in the desert to be otherwise!) AT this piont everyone has already shucked off everything they are not going to need or Don whatever they will.

While the run in under buttoning is in itself pretty scary, it certainly is no more scary than walking in on the target. It's just a different kind of fear to be dealt with, and believe me there are plenty of flavors to go around. Inside the box they are usually appraised of what's going on becasue they need to be in order to react to the situation. You just don't suddenly stop and say "Everyone out", then they hop out and say, "Huh, what's this? Where's the enemy?"

In fact in most delibverate attacks troops dismount well before the objective, usually out of MAW/small arms range for the advance in, while the IFVs go to ground and support with their weapons (M113s uused to do this too before the Bradley, only all they had was a fifty cal). In fact the IFVs may fire and manuever to some extent following the troops

Even hasty situations invaribly afford minutes of pre time before going into the assault or at least the troops are aware that contact is likely. And anyway, trained units invariably inact well rehearsed immediate action drills that everyone is familiar with to deal with thsoe situations.

On the defense it's even less of an issue becasue trooops will be dismounted in postions (hasty or prepared) near their vehicles. (some might be out ahead on ambushes/ OP/LPs, etc.

The IFV will fire and relocated after one or two shots to other postions even if they're only 20-50 meters away and when the time comes everyone either hauls ass to the track or dies in place as the situation dictates.

Cheers...

Los

p.s. personnaly I still prefer LPC over APC

(Leather Personell Carriers)

[Rick]

This thread is getting real interesting.

I meant to say that western doctrine is moving away from tanks engaging infantry. I believe Russian doctrine really has not changed. I have read that western tanks are carrying squash head, heat, APFSDS, and other anti-armor ammo; and little to no anti-personnel rounds.

I may be completely wrong on this, but I have read stuff to this effect.

[Harold Jones]

US doctrine is based on the idea that the best antitank weapon is another tank. Tanks carry a mix of kinetic energy rounds and HEAT rounds. Sabot(kinetic energy) rounds are best against tanks and tank like targets. HEAT is used to destroy light and unarmored vehicles. The newest HEAT rounds are duel purpose and are also effective against infantry and bunkers. In addition to the maingun the tank also has three machineguns although the loader's weapon is of marginal utility. The coaxially mounted machinegun is aimed and fired with the same fire control system as the maingun and is amazingly accurate because of this. Also, an M1A1 carries over 2000 rounds of ammo in the coax ready box. Although the M1 is optimized to fight other tanks it is still an effective killer of infantry.

------------------

If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

[Rick]

After reading replies about the not engaging infantry with tanks idea, I relooked at the source. It was a little ambiguous, but it might have meant that US tank doctrine discourages using the main gun against infantry. Comes closer to what everyone is saying here, and makes a lot more sense to me.

Like people have said elsewhere on this forum, didn't we learn in WWII that tanks must be able to engage essentially all weapon types they might encounter on the battlefield.

[Moon]

Isn't the use of the tank main gun against infantry targets (unless they have AT capability) actually outlawed by the Geneva convention, or something?

[This message has been edited by Moon (edited 06-30-99).]

[Fionn]

Yeah I think that's correct. I remember a tanker laughing as he told me about that.. Something about "They can bring me up on charges AFTER the war . "

[Los]

"Isn't the use of the tank main gun against infantry targets (unless they have AT capability) actually outlawed by the Geneva convention, or something?"

The use of a tank's Main gun against infantry IS not against the Geneva convention (they carry AP). Though using AT rounds to snipe at individuals would probably earn you a kick in the head from your TC for wasting such a valuable round on a target like that, That's why they carry machine guns!

Cheers...

Los

[Fionn]

So what tank weapon are they not allowed to use (supposedly) ?

Maybe in WW2 they weren't supposed to as I do remember hearing it before and some tanker friends of mine have mentioned it in passing at times.

Anyone have any ideas?

[Moon]

Hmm, I guess it would take two days to go through all my books and find where I read it, but I seem to remember that Steel Panthers 2 had even a restriction on the use of main guns against infantry in the game? But honestly, who would ever stick to this? I mean, you can always claim - gosh, that MG REALLY looked like an AT rocket to me

[CRourke]

I think there's also a similiar myth about the .50 cal MG. Supposedly the geneva convention only allows it to be used against vehicles and equipment. Therefore, a friend of mine had a DI tell him to always aim at the enemy's flak vests.

Chris

[Rick]

I had heard that about the 50cal also, as well as White Phospherus (Sp?) grenades. They told us that in some of the very little tactical training we had in JROTC.

[Moon]

I guess that the Geneva convention bans a lot of things which seem laughable for anybody who has a certain understanding of what war is about. One thing I KNOW of (because it's part of my job to know it) is that it bans the use of night vision gunsights for military snipers! The reasoning is that with todays sophisticated sniper rifles a sniper could under the cover of darkness take out a whole company without any chance of being found.

It's a good point when you ask me, but - seriously - does anybody here believe that in a war one side would say: hey, here we have the chance to kill lots of the other guys but it's illegal - let's not use it?

[Doug Beman]

Moon said,

"It's a good point when you ask me, but - seriously - does anybody here believe that in

a war one side would say: hey, here we have the chance to kill lots of the other guys

but it's illegal - let's not use it?"

Isn't it illegal for the US to "assassinate" foreign leaders? I'm certain this is the case; many times during Desert Storm people would call Larry King or NPR or whatever and ask, "why don't we just send in a CIA wetworks team and off Hussein?" The response was that we have a law against it. We aren't allowed to send in snipers and just whack some foreign leader who pisses us off. We have to crank up an entire combined-arms military operation and throw expensive explosives all over hither and yon.

This is one reason why Milosevic is still alive, I think. Also Qaddafi, etc etc.

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

Except when you can get really bad PR or retaliations, I agree. Stuff like poisioning water supplies, biological agents, and nukes are all great at killing people, but not so good if the other side can get an advantage from it.

This reminds me of the Gulf War when specially designed AFVs burried the Iraqi front line positions. I remember some peace activists saying this was horrible. My reaction was, "duh, that is war". They wanted our guys to dismount their tanks and politely ask the enemy if they wanted to surrender first, and if the answer was no, fight them the "normal way". This is why I don't want civilians running wars. They do enough to start them, so let the professionals do their job after it gets started.

Steve

[Harold Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This reminds me of the Gulf War when specially designed AFVs burried the Iraqi front line positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were standard M1's with mine plows attached. The plan was that after we breached the mine field, we would destroy any bunkers and trenches in our sector as we advanced. Mine plows are horribly inefficient earth movers but if you do it right you can do a number on a trench with one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I remember some peace activists saying this was horrible. My reaction was, "duh, that is war". They wanted our guys to dismount their tanks and politely ask the enemy if they wanted to surrender first, and if the answer was no, fight them the "normal way". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We started doing this the second day of the ground war. We would dismount and check the bunker for occupants before we crushed them.

Moon asked

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't the use of the tank main gun against infantry targets (unless they have AT capability) actually outlawed by the Geneva convention...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have heard variations of this applied to the .50 cal, white phosphorous, and auto-cannons. The confusion comes from a clause in one of the conventions that make up what is generally called the Geneva convention. It states that no weapon that is designed to cause increased pain and suffering is legal. This is meant to apply to hollow points, deliberately damaging the nose of a round to make it expand or applying poison to a projectile. It does not prohibit firing an 8" howitzer round at one man if you are so inclined. In the US Army manual that explains the law of land warfare there is a statement that basically says that all US weapons fall within the Geneva conventions and can be used to engage enemy soldiers.

------------------

If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hmmm... I thought the rigs on the M1s were "special", not something standard. Learn something new every day Yes, I know that surrender first was the policy on the second day. This makes sense because by then we realized that none of the regulars wanted to fight. At the beginning of the first day though, all bets were off and no chances should have been taken (and weren't). This was what I was illustrating. Killing an opponant (on purpose) who you are fairly sure is likely to surrender, without giving them a reasonable opportunity to do so, is not something a professional soldier should want to be a party to.

Steve

[Rick]

I personally, was against our involvement in the gulf war. However, I feel that if we are to fight a war then we must play for keeps, figure of speech not meant to say it was play. Further, military leaders should be given full control of how to accomplish the goals that have been set in the operation. It is when we try to make the military do things in a non military manner, or make them pursue goals other than military ones that things get ugly.

As far as the law against assasinations, it seems crazy sometimes, like Kososvo. However, I do understand the need for the law. In the past the CIA went around killing and trying to kill people that they had no business killing. Basically, in a democracy such huge policy decisions should be up for public debate, but can not be because of the need for secrecy.

[Mike D]

I'm pretty sure the US did try to take out Khadaffi in Libya several years ago. Don't remember the exact year, but it was sometime in the mid 1980's I believe. Actually bombed his personal residence and killed one or two memebers of his family. Hey, why bother w/ snipers when the Navy or AF can do the job w/ laser guided bombs and missles, right? In any event I believe he was not there at the time of the attack, or otherwise escaped harm.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Rick]

One could probably claim that his death would have been a perfectly legal case of war related casualties in that case.

Sometimes, I wish we could just assasinate foreign leaders, like Milosevic. However, I do think that law is necessary despite the problems it causes sometimes.

The weird thing about this discussion is with the nature of the internet, Milosevic himself could be reading this. Not that I think he is, but it is within the realm of possibility.

[Marko]

I think it's simply naive to think that killing Milosevic or any other leader of a pariah state will improve things and specifically lead to a replacement leader who is better. At least you should do your research first! Case in point: a dead Milosevic might be replaced by a man called Vojislav Seselj--a name which sends shudders down the spines of people in surrounding countries.

Marko

[Guest Big Time Software]

Killing the leader of an enemy state in time of war is perfectly acceptable in my book. Imagine how different the world would be if someone had taken out Hitler after the war started (even better, if the FM Beck plot had succeeded in 1938!). But democratic people are squeamish about assasinations through overt means. Hell, from the little I know the US military and public didn't even want the army to have snipers! In each war this century, until the 1970s, sniper schools were set up (late) and were then disbanded after the war and its members looked upon as "murderers". So sending in some covert agent to whack someone will not go over well at least in the US. But if we can pay some faction or other to do it... that is different

To set the record straight, I do not support assasination in the usual sense. The CIA used to be allowed to do this and proved that they were incapable of it (Castro) or offed people that could do questionable harm to the US at best. But in time of war... I say do whatever will shorten the war and lower the body count (for all sides). If there is a few guys causing the problem, I say get a nod from Congress and take 'em out. But don't try and sweep it under the carpet.

Steve

[Fionn]

Umm guys, just because there's some law "outlawing" assasinations don't think it doesn't happen.

America's a grown-up country now. Assasinations are another way of achieving political ends when politics fail and I'm absolutely certain that if they are called for they are carried out. Just remember that if Qhadaffi was shot by a sniper it'd be very blatant and would cause trouble at home. For little despots who are less well known a Barret rifle and a single round make a very nice "political settlement" indeed.

Also, look at the US history with Castro to see if there are any people there really following the legal course of things. Poisoned cigars etc..

Just like many Americans aren't aware that people like Los are running around backwater countries in Africa "advising" platoons in combat many aren't aware that there are many nasty little wars with assasinations and deaths galore going on all over the world in which the US and other major nations are involved IMO.

It happens its just not really in EITHER SIDE'S interest to make it public IMO...

As for the bombing of Qhaddafi's personal residence in the early 80s by F111s based in England that is an example of a crime against humanity IF you follow legal readings. Look at it from another point of view... After provocation (and some illegal acts by America) enemy planes take off from Cuba, skim the ocean and pop up over the Whitehouse. They drop guided and unguided bombs killing a relative of the Clinton's and a whole host of nearby residents. NO state of war had been declared and no advance warning of this surprise attack had been given in which civilians died.

That's an illegal act and reminds one of Pearl Harbour.. That's pretty much what happened with Libya. You should all remember that in a court of law how much you were provoked does not matter in deciding if you committed a crime. (It does have a bearing on sentence if you are found guilty.)

Also, by the standards imposed on the German Army post-WW2 those pilots and bombardiers should ahve refused to fly that mission since it was basically a criminal act and are war criminals (although of course no court of law is going to indict American servicemen as war criminals.) What happened to the Dutch soldiers who are shown to have tortured Somalis and captured it on videotape? They were disciplined by their own army. IF a serb had done it he would have been hauled before the human rights Court in The Hague.

Now, after having said all that this mission and its sequelae are an example of REALPOLITIK. It's a big bad world out there and in war and near-war/clandestine-war situations you don't have time for all these legal niceties. You do what you have to do..

Sure a lot of what goes on is downright nasty and disgusting but it is war which is a nasty and disgusting business.

I wouldn't condemn the bombing because basically I think that it was war and **** happens (including the accidental and accepted killing of civilians as collateral damage).

The only point I would disagree with in the whole saga of bombings, assasinations etc is the treatment meted out to German soldiers post-WW2.. Double standards were enacted and many real soldiers were punished for following orders when a failure to follow those orders would have meant their own deaths.