Tank desant

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Every infantryman had a ride and, as others have pointed out, this would have been an extremely lethal battlespace with NBC and masses of artillery.  The BMP series was designed to reflect this reality.  Strain all you like, but it would have been a suicide tactic.   From an implementation point of view, it was discussed and discarded.  The coding is done and from similar discussion held on the CMBN forums over the years, it is a PITA to implement and I doubt Battlefront will revisit this original design decision so unfortunately it is one of those things you're going to have to live with.

Ok cool but add scout helis! Use the code from CMBS and CMSF. That would be way cool and easy to do I'd imagine. 

[domfluff]

32 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

My understanding is that troops riding outside their BTRs/BMPs in Afghanistan/Chechenia were doing that only where mines were considered a more likely threat than AT weapons and small arms fire.

Yup. COIN operations are not high-intensity invasions of Europe - a given squad in a BTR might *never* make small arms contact ever, but IEDs were a constant threat.

It's also not the most pleasant ride in the world, and it gets pretty warm - I could see it from an ergonomic point of view as well.

[dbsapp]

2 hours ago, Amedeo said:

My understanding is that troops riding outside their BTRs/BMPs in Afghanistan/Chechenia were doing that only where mines were considered a more likely threat than AT weapons and small arms fire.

The Soviet Military Encyclopedia (published 19776-1980, thus very relevant to the CMCW timeframe) clearly states that tank riding tactics lost their importance in the postwar period because of the introduction of armoured transports. Of course the practice didn't totally disappear, but I guess that tank riders in the Soviet Army of the '70s/'80s were more likely to be found in propaganda photos than on the field. I'm not saying that it wouldn't never ever happen, but, well, if we are talking about the first days of a hypothetical WW3 in Central Europe, I don't expect to see a Soviet assault with tank riding infantry.

Yes, it could be a nice feature to have but, as already pointed out, it would be too much a pain to implement, given it wouldn't be an expected/viable tactic. I think there are a lot of more urgent/relevant features to add.

As far as I know, riding on top of BMP de facto became the main method of travelling for mechanized infantry at least since Afghanistan war throughout both Chechnya campaigns and up to conflict in Georgia. 

The major reason was that BMP\BTR unfortunately not only proved to be extremly unreliable in terms of mines protection ( and they caused severe casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya) but also were insufficiently protected against light machine gun fire.

It was generally believed that if BMP comes under direct enemy fire (especially RPGs) the chances to survive were much higher for those who were on top, while infantryman inside were much more vulnerable, because it isn't easy to escape from the crippled car stuffed with ammo. 

Besides, BMP lacks comfort, it is very densely packed, if it has any room it is a room for improvement (pardon my pun). So no wonder they prefered to be on top while driving through zigzag roads in the mountains.

 

[Bufo]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

 US armoured infantry did ride directly on tanks sometimes, but not into actual combat

You have trucks and can mount infantry inside. They would never ride it into actual combat yet you can do it.

[MikeyD]

I recall one book about tank combat in Vietnam, an anecdote about an infantryman catching a ride on a M48 tank. His trouser leg got snagged by the track and the drive sprocket pinched his foot clean off.

On the front line infantry tend to not like being very close to tanks as they're magnets for mortars, artillery, missiles and air strikes. In WWII British troops in Italy complained about Sherman's auxiliary generator meant to power the radio. It was too loud, gave away their position and attracted mortars. Its worse in modern war. Explosive reactive armor blocks, the lethal blast of the big tank guns, and active defense systems that might go off at the most inconvenient moments. Give tanks a wide berth.

Edited July 13, 2021 by MikeyD

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, dbsapp said:

The major reason was that BMP\BTR unfortunately not only proved to be extremly unreliable in terms of mines protection ( and they caused severe casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya) but also were insufficiently protected against light machine gun fire.

BTRs against heavy machinegun fire sure. BMPs aren't 100% proof against heavy machineguns, but you are still definitely safer riding inside the armor than outside of it if you are getting shot at by an HMG. Neither BMPs nor BTRs would be terribly concerned about light machinegun fire.

[Howler]

So, we want to waste time implementing riders to further impede the effectiveness of APS, ERA, optics, weapon systems, etc...?

Or, are we just asking for additional passenger dots with no penalty to maneuverability or combat effectiveness?

[The_Capt]

Heh, well I don't think we really have any interest inserting this into CMCW ( I am tracking the scout tac aviation).  First Soviets in AFG and Russian in Chechnya are not aspirational military historical examples, no matter what they did or did not do.  In terms of CMCW, I think it would be suicidal (as has been mentioned) if for the amount of artillery in play alone, to the point that if we modeled it accurately (and I like to think that we would), no one would use it after the first try or two.  DPICM is bad enough on infantry when they are inside the vehicles...outside is bordering on silly.  

FYI, over the last 20 years NATO troops fought in some of the most mined/IED's parts of the world and we never rode on vehicles as a matter of SOP.  Being inside a burning vehicle is bad...being under a burning vehicle that has been flipped on top of you is worse.

[dbsapp]

Well, I didn't mean that you must implement it in CW. 

It would be a nice, but unnecessary feature. 

CW is more about theoretical combat as it was envisioned by military planners of that time, not about actual soldier getting sick in trembling vehicle.

[The_Capt]

46 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

CW is more about theoretical combat as it was envisioned by military planners of that time

I will give you this on the TO&Es and equipment we only have what history has left us and few can remember.  As to "sick in trembling vehicles"...heh, I think we have enough experience on the team to get that into the scenarios and campaigns at least at some level.  Probably why some people see things as "unfair" at times, to which most of the old vets respond..."you have no idea..."

Either way CMCW is a game at the end of the day.  We want it to be as accurate as we can get it but it is still always going to have to accept levels of abstraction.  We can only hope people get enjoyment and maybe a little education out of it.

[dbsapp]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I will give you this on the TO&Es and equipment we only have what history has left us and few can remember.  As to "sick in trembling vehicles"...heh, I think we have enough experience on the team to get that into the scenarios and campaigns at least at some level.  Probably why some people see things as "unfair" at times, to which most of the old vets respond..."you have no idea..."

Either way CMCW is a game at the end of the day.  We want it to be as accurate as we can get it but it is still always going to have to accept levels of abstraction.  We can only hope people get enjoyment and maybe a little education out of it.

Every PC game inevitably has some level of abstraction. 

So many hardcore sims fiercely claim that they simulate real life 100% and release some game-changing patches every few month (e.g.DCS). 

[SergeantSqook]

On 7/14/2021 at 12:57 AM, Bufo said:

You have trucks and can mount infantry inside. They would never ride it into actual combat yet you can do it.

That's how you get ammo out of the trucks

[M.Herm]

First of all, thank you very much for your answer. @ The_Capt

I should have phrased my question more precisely.  I meant theoretically only the transport (hitchhiking) of infantry on armored combat vehicles. Not the special form of a combined attack of infantry and tanks that was carried out specifically by subunits selected, equipped and trained for this purpose. You clarified this as well.

Regarding the scenario of the Cold War, I could add that, for example, in the manuals of the eastern german army NVA, this tactic is not mentioned at all (to my knowledge).

 

And Modern Russian instructions explicitly forbid "riding" on armored vehicles for obvious reasons.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 7/13/2021 at 2:10 PM, dbsapp said:

As far as I know, riding on top of BMP de facto became the main method of travelling for mechanized infantry at least since Afghanistan war throughout both Chechnya campaigns and up to conflict in Georgia. 

The major reason was that BMP\BTR unfortunately not only proved to be extremly unreliable in terms of mines protection ( and they caused severe casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya) but also were insufficiently protected against light machine gun fire.

It was generally believed that if BMP comes under direct enemy fire (especially RPGs) the chances to survive were much higher for those who were on top, while infantryman inside were much more vulnerable, because it isn't easy to escape from the crippled car stuffed with ammo. 

Besides, BMP lacks comfort, it is very densely packed, if it has any room it is a room for improvement (pardon my pun). So no wonder they prefered to be on top while driving through zigzag roads in the mountains.

 

Same goes for M113 ACAVs in Vietnam.....TBH I'd say using 'Open Up' with infantry aboard models this well enough for game purposes.

I doubt sitting on top gave much extra protection once a mine goes off (unless the fighting compartment's full of sandbags, which they often were), but at least you could find cover quickly when the shooting starts.

[Combatintman]

7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Same goes for M113 ACAVs in Vietnam.....TBH I'd say using 'Open Up' with infantry aboard models this well enough for game purposes.

I doubt sitting on top gave much extra protection once a mine goes off (unless the fighting compartment's full of sandbags, which they often were), but at least you could find cover quickly when the shooting starts.

Unless being flung into the air dropped you on top of the opposition of course  - then I figure it would have been somewhat problematical.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Just can't see Battlefront implementing 'Rag-Doll Physics' any time soon TBH, fun though it would be, given my predeliction for BIG explosions.