The redundancy of US Infantry

[Euri]

I made some videos  playing the 1st mission of US Campaign to demostrate the following point: That, except for urban warefare and in the capacity of Javelin bearers, US infantry is absolutely redundant in the game, and it is almost always a mistate to to anything with them

QED:

 

 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Euri

[Euri]

 

 

[Codename Duchess]

I didn't watch the videos besides the opening, but this is just how infantry are in the modern battlefield. There's some things only infantry can do well (close quarters fighting) but otherwise yeah a vehicle is going to have better optics and weapons. With thermal sights everywhere infantry aren't so hidden. Plus they're extra squishy.

I'd say that US Infantry are the least bad in that they generally enjoy better optics and longer range weapons. But the Russians and Ukrainians have some great firepower too. Either way, I'd say all are equally vulnerable on the battlefield. Expect much higher casualties than other games. US infantry do at least have javelins, whereas the others do not.

 

Edit: put another way, US vehicles are awesome and can carry a lot of the weight of a fight. But that doesn't mean infantry don't have a place, or that the RUS/UKR forces wouldn't have the exact same if not worse problems. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[z1812]

I find infantry to be deadly in Black Sea. Americans included. Almost every infantry unit carries some sort of AT weapon and is quite dangerous. Particularly when hidden and/or in ambush.

Edited November 14, 2015 by z1812

[Vanir Ausf B]

I didn't watch the videos but I think the gist is true. But there are a couple of caveats. One is that it is likely to be at least marginally less true in future versions of Black Sea. The other is that urban terrain is ubiquitous in Black Sea battles.

[mikeCK]

Well in essence you are saying that if you don't have to fight in a town or woods, infantry are useless. Yes. But try bringing armor into the woods or a town without infantry and that armored vehicle will be useless. Both have a role

[Abbasid111]

Interesting statement Euri. if i extend it to it's logical conclusion you are stating that all infantry is redundant on the modern battlefield and hence, in the game. Would you care to further expand on the reasoning behind you statement.

Or if I my conclusion is wrong and it is only US infantry that is redundant why is that so, and Rus or UKR infantry are not?

[Euri]

I am cluless about modern battlefield. I am speaking about the game (when the terain is not dense urban) and in particular about the US. If playing the Russians vs US I always want to get into a firefight 

[Codename Duchess]

I am cluless about modern battlefield. I am speaking about the game (when the terain is not dense urban) and in particular about the US. If playing the Russians vs US I always want to get into a firefight 

Modern weapons have progressed to the point where open terrain is extremely lethal.  Not just to infantry but to all units.  Quick detection times followed by first round accurate mission kills are highly likely.  Airburst rounds and thermals mean there isn't cover where there used to be.  But again infantry can now only be effectively used in dense urban and wooded terrain.  Even then you will see high casualties.  They are far from useless though.

[grunt_GI]

Well, I guess the trick is whether to fight mounted or dismounted...something I have tangled with since CMSF.    If the infantry is mounted then the firepower of their IFV rules...however, as other commenters have noticed, US infantry with Javelins...or a good set of binoculars and a radio can be deadly.  That is part of the tactical challenge I suppose, at least for me...how to best use infantry on a highly lethal battlefield.  

And that assumes a fully combined arms battle...in an infantry heavy scenario...with or without vehicles, that would be another challenge.

I have never found infantry useless...just very soft targets dismounted. 

[Kinophile]

Yup,  it's a matrix of intra-support.

Infantry die easy if used badly. 

[Battlefront.com]

Echoing what everybody else said, infantry in the open is not all that useful if there isn't armor parity between the two sides or there isn't armor in that particular part of the battlefield.  In real life armor is not always going to be available in all fights all the time, but in Black Sea... not many want to play that way   But there are plenty of situations where infantry is critically important.  Even in non-urban environments.  The key thing is to make sure they have adequate overwatch so that if an enemy vehicle turns up they can deal with that thread.  US infantry with Javelins are nasty.  I remember many a time in CMSF (a far more open environment than CMBS) decimating a much larger mechanized enemy force with infantry.

A good example of how much one tank can ruin a day is the LPR video footage from the summer of 2014.  This is the one with a bunch of BTRs and dismounted infantry trying to cross a field similar to the first video.  One Ukrainian tank destroyed 2 or 3 BTRs (I forget what the final count was) and killed quite a few infantry, despite being hit by two RPGs.

That's just the way things are these days.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You need to us infantry to clear built up areas, woods and trenches. They must be used as part of a combined arms approach. The same of course was true in WW2 

[Euri]

My point is that most of the time you don't. The AI will resign before this "clean up" phase in most scenarios. And I am only speaking about the game and US in particular.

[Euri]

I meant "surrender". "Resign" is chess jargon (my main leisure obsession :-))

[rocketman]

(snip)

In real life armor is not always going to be available in all fights all the time, but in Black Sea... not many want to play that way   But there are plenty of situations where infantry is critically important. 

(snip)

Just wanted to say that infantry only H2H games in CMBS is a lot of fun. Currently playing a QB in dense urban setting with US vs Russian infantry and it is a lot of fun and full of tactical decisions. And boy, the firefights are much more intense than tank battles IMO.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

My point is that most of the time you don't. The AI will resign before this "clean up" phase in most scenarios. And I am only speaking about the game and US in particular.

Depends on  the scenario though. Some actually cover an infantry action such as tasking you to clear a BUA. You could set up a game  requiring the clearance of a  defensive position, set, perhaps during the NATO counter offensive. It is the  infantry's job to clear trenches, a task not best suited to tanks or IFVs though they will be supporting this mission. We just haven't seen very many published scenarios of this sort  as yet.

In other situations such as an open field tank battle which would be fairly common in the depicted conflict we tanks. IFVs and ATGMs will be common. However, i the campaign mission depicted in your first video you might choose to employ infantry to clear the Russian held factory buildings on the US left flank. Arguably this is an important position being located on the high ground. Taking this location gives you a good position to locate Javelin armed infantry to defend against the Russian armour counter attack that comes later in the battle.

In one of the later missions of this campaign I recall crushing a Russian tank attack using a combination of tanks, helicopter gunships. IFVs and dismounted infantry using ATGMs to set u a killing zone along a road in the center of the battlefield. It often depends on the mission and how you choose to accomplish it

 

Edited November 18, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05