Cant get maximum effect out of my infantry?

[Switch_Back]

Ive tried and tried, but the only infantry I can actually make any use of is my ATGM and SAM units....

All the rest I cant find a use for, or if I do find a use, they always get mauled the moment they dismount, plus getting a vehicle close enough to dis-embark the infantry and do some damage is a rarity, because the vehicle usually get eliminated before it gets close enough. Basically meaning my tanks and APC's seem to be doing everything?!?!

Can anybody give me some pointers on making my infantry more effective? :confused:

[Intruder13]

Unlike WWII, modern warfare doesn’t consist of troops marching into the enemy position beside their tank; instead, they are primarily used for hit and run tactics or sweeping up remaining OPFOR elements.

Infantry are very useful spotting for artillery because they present a smaller aspect. The .50 cal, 7.62, and SMAW teams are excellent for ambushing armored vehicles if you set their fire control to a lower range. It is important that the infantry acquire and hit many targets simultaneously because their position will be compromised when they fire. Used correctly, a MG or SMAW team can utterly rape a convoy of vehicles, before they ever know what hit them. Just wait until the OPFOR’S lead elements pass your position, then you can open up on their sides and rear. It is important to have a vehicle nearby to relocate them before OPFOR artillery can triangulate their position, and you will want to use forest/smoke to cover your withdrawal.

As you have noticed, personnel carriers may be armored, but they are not designed to ferry troops during an intense firefight. When assaulting a position with PCs, you should always use cover – be it smoke or trees – so that you can close the distance with your opponent. In almost all cases, you want to unload APCs when they are spotted via SOP; therefore, you want the infantry to be close so they can return fire as they receive fire. Hopefully you are in a position near bunkers, a tree line, or beside a cliff – these will greatly protect your troops. Infantry should be supported with armor and fast movers (helo/fighter), so they wont be isolated, and picked off.

[ March 22, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Intruder13 ]

[Switch_Back]

Thats really helpful, before I was completely stumped as to their use, but you have given me some great ideas there, ill be sure to put them into practice during my next game.

I take it however that I need to keep my APC's and tanks back when my infantry go after the other infantry, because the OPFOR infantry seem to be deadly against vehicles when I get them too close.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

Walking infantry take more time to do things.

Don't stack infantry markers. Spread them out a bit so that effective fire on one marker does not cause all the other markers to also go to ground.

[Redwolf]

The trick is to have your infantry where the enemy will want to go in the future and deny that terrain to him.

It is also important that even if you are not moving and you are in cover that you limit exposure to long-range highly destruction weapons, namely tanks, artillery and especially directly firing artillery.

Other uses include flank guards, in particular against helicopter flanking attempts (even a M16 can be pretty effective shooting at a NOE helicopter flying over it).

On the attack you will need your infantry to clean out enemy infantry who is already occupying terrain you want to go into. The key here is support, the infantry can't be expected to clean out established enemies on their own without heavy losses.

[Switch_Back]

I think I need to be thinking about making my attack run harmoniously with infantry and APCS moving into attack under cover and smoke, while the thermal sighted tanks and Artillery bombard the target keeping everyones heads down.

Also your point Redwolf about taking down helicopters with assualt rifles, It has to be said that has happened quite often, mainly to my own AH64's

Some fantastic Ideas there from Redwolf and the Major!! your help is fantastic.

[Tory the Magnus]

You said in another post that you where a Combat Mission player, which is a WWII simulator right? If this is the case then you are probably familiar with Russian military doctrine in attacking an enemy position? You know, masses of infantry moving forward with tanks in support while the enemy position is being constantly bombarded by artillery to keep them suppressed. This same tactic works well in TacOps, suppression and speed are the key.

[Switch_Back]

Well I did'nt think of doing that, good point!

Yes CM is WWII, ah the joy of WWII wargaming.

I do use the tactic of overwhelming Axis positions with large numbers of infantry and armoured vehicles covered by mortars and Maxim guns, but I really didnt think it would be overly effective in TacOps 4.

Because my train of thought belived that a mad rush at an enemy position guns blazing would just be sliced apart by superior modern weaponry, Which is basically the Russian WWII tactic "CHHAAAAAAAAARRGGEEE!!!!!"

[Intruder13]

Originally posted by Tory the Magnus:

You know, masses of infantry moving forward with tanks in support while the enemy position is being constantly bombarded by artillery to keep them suppressed. This same tactic works well in TacOps, suppression and speed are the key.

I have never had “masses” of anything – be it tanks or infantry – that aren’t easily slaughtered by ICM or cluster bombs. The computer uses the Soviet “siege” and “rush” tactic, and that often results with long trains of burning T-80 wreckage. I’m sure that, with enough infantry, tanks and howitzers, one can diverge on a certain point and overtake it; however, that tactic is extremely costly, but it might be authentic to play as OPFOR that way. Personally, I am not satisfied by losing half my men just to take a point; instead, I’d rather shell them all day – if that’s what it takes – so my infantry can sweep up. When I’m playing DeGoey/Dingman, I found out that it is possible to shell the first town until the tanks try to escape. When the enemy comes out to play, I try to outrange them with my “superior modern weaponry.”

Don’t get me wrong, the Soviet tactic has its place, but I never use them unless I HAVE to rush because of time constraints.

For your entertainment:

Here are a couple of videos of ICM being shot: http://www.usma.edu/dmi/mt/Branches/FA/VideoClips.html (copy & paste)

Just think of what a full battery of these puppies could do to a “massed” slow-moving infantry assault. IRL, it takes only 75 seconds for a Paladin to stop, receive coordinates, and fire a mission.

[Tory the Magnus]

When I said masses, I meant massive amounts, not massed together. But I see your point. I too try and conserve as many men as possible, that is only sound strategy, but Switch_Back seems to want to take or destroy the enemy positions rather than bypass them and the standard Soviet tactic seems to work well in that case.

[Switch_Back]

Well as a slight correction, I would rather bypass enemy positions, but if my goal is to take and hold an objective I need to smash those positions, plus any positions behind need clearing out to avoid a counterattack from the rear, so that I may concentrate on expecting a counterattack from the front or flanks.

[Lutz]

Originally posted by Intruder13:

For your entertainment:

Here are a couple of videos of ICM being shot: http://www.usma.edu/dmi/mt/Branches/FA/VideoClips.html (copy & paste)

Just think of what a full battery of these puppies could do to a ?massed? slow-moving infantry assault. IRL, it takes only 75 seconds for a Paladin to stop, receive coordinates, and fire a mission. [/QB]

Sorry to sort of hijack this thread, but I've noticed something odd in the first of those video clips ("Fire Mission").

Is that a red cross on the M109A(whatever) Self Propelled Howitzer???

If yes, what is it doing there?

If no, why is a symbol that can be mistaken for a red cross painted on a weapon system?

[Intruder13]

Originally posted by Lutz:

Is that a red cross on the M109A(whatever) Self Propelled Howitzer???

If yes, what is it doing there?

If no, why is a symbol that can be mistaken for a red cross painted on a weapon system?

Thats good eyes you have there. I didnt notice it. I looked up the M109A6 on Globalsecurity.org and I found a picture with this red cross:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/2_17.jpg

I have no idea what that is; hopefully its just for training vehicles.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

It is probably a unit crest with yellow details on a red background. Arty crests are big on using yellow on red. The yellow details are out of focus so the red background appears to the eye to be a cross. It probably doesn't look anything like a red cross in real life.

[Lutz]

Originally posted by MajorH:

It probably doesn't look anything like a red cross in real life.

Probably not under good light conditions, but under adverse conditions it might look like in the video clip:

"Hey Sarge, there is something in the woods over there."

"Where? Ah there. Dammed rain. Hmmm, can't make out what it is. These crappy binoculars keep fogging up. It can't be one of ours, so let's better blast it away. ... Ah, no, wait, it has a red cross on it.

Private, call the HQ on the radio, and tell them there is probably an enemy casualty station at position XY."

<KABOOM>

"..." (dead silence)

Well, I guess that would be called "Fog of war" then.

Thanks for the replies.

p.s.: