Please explain "motorized infantry"

[legend42]

what exactly does this mean or imply?

[Guest Mike]

Motorised = truck borne.

But they wouldn't ride trucks into battle!!

Rather the trucks give them faster transport over long distances rather than having to walk. Mens they can arrive fresher under some circumstances too.

[Michael Dorosh]

Mike has it right, not surprisingly.

Most divisions in the German Army were not motorized, hence the need for the monicker to apply to those special few. Regular infantry divisions marched everywhere (or took the train for long, strategic moves) and relied on hundreds if not thousands of horses to move everything from divisional artillery to company kitchens to platoon stores. The German motorized battalion/regiment also had trucks to move the men of the platoons, though as Mike points out, not into action.

By way of contrast, in the Commonwealth Armies, which were all technicallymotorized, there was no need for the "motorized" label (though they still marched everywhere - the fact that they were motorized meant that the platoon stores had a truck - the troopies still had to walk). "Motor" battalions, designated as such, in the CW were actually specialized troops attached to Armoured Divisions, equipped with armoured trucks, carriers and halftracks - though they didn't ride those into battle either.

[manchildstein (ii)]

and 'mechanized' infantry means they're in armored halftracks...

[SgtMuhammed]

Interestingly it is the term "Motorized" that has survived to modern usage despite the fact that modern Russian infantry is most definitly mechanized. The standard Russian unit of manuever is the MRR or Motorized Rifle Regiment.

Anyway back to the past. The terms define strategic mobility more than anything else. As has been stated real, or leg, infantry had to rely on others for strategic mobility (trains, other people's trucks, etc.) while motoized infantry had their own strategic but not tactical transport (well you can take trucks on the battlefield but it tends to be a short trip ). Mechanized troops had both strategic as well as tactical transportation in the form of their armored halftracks. Once in combat, however, all infantry still fought the same although the more transportation assets you have the more support weapons you can bring to the party. All types used trains for really long movements through friendly territory (or at least conquered territory) both for speed and to save wear and tear on the equipment (armored vehicles especially will break down from just being driven not to mention eating a ton of fuel).

The biggest flaw of the Wehrmacht was that it had gold for fighting formations and crap for support.

[ January 08, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

[Battlefront.com]

Just to make things a bit more confusing...

In WWII there were really three designations:

Motorized

Mechanized

Armored

Mortorized and Mechanized were often interchangable, but not at the higher level when it applies to Soviet forces. For example, a Mechanized Corps was basically a combo of Mechanized Infantry Brigades (2-4), Tank Brigades (1-2), and other critical units such as artillery, AT, etc. To call this a "Motorized Division" would be incorrect. It was closer to an Armored Division in organization and doctrine.

Steve

[ January 08, 2003, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just to make things a bit more confusing...

In WWII there were really three designations:

Motorized

Mechanized

Armored

Mortorized and Mechanized were often interchangable, but not at the higher level when it applies to Soviet forces.

Very true. In the west, the common definition for a mechanized unit is an infantry unit with armored personnel transport. In Soviet terms, 'mechanized' meant an infantry unit with organic tank support.

[SgtMuhammed]

More confusing when you note that American halftrack mounted infantry was "Armored Infantry."

[Michael Dorosh]

And of course in the Commonwealth, most infantry were "rifle battalions", though only a few of these battalions came from "Rifle Regiments".

As for the Germans having crap support - I think Cooper talks a bit about this as well. When you consider that the German Army expanded from 100,000 men to over 4 million in the space of 7 years or so, it's kind of astonishing they were able to do anything at all after 1939. Think of all the experienced units in the Army being split up as cadres for other newly forming units - and then split up again, and again...

[ January 08, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Good point but then one must remember that that was the plan all along. That 100,000 allowed under Versailles (spelling? Sorry to lazy to look it up) was intended, by the Germans not the Allies , to form the cadre of an expanded army.

While Germany and Hitler are often portrayed as incredible inovators they made some very classic mistakes. Like most dictators Hitler went for the shiny toys and was unconcerned about the more mundane aspects of building an army.

You know, I came to this forum to find help on CM. Little did I know I would find intellectual debate as well. I think I am going to reference this site when I start work on my Master's Thesis. Nice to find people who really give a darn about something.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ah, but to join the Reichsheer you had to volunteer for a twelve yearterm as an EM or NCO (the rank of Stabsfeldwebel was created just for these "Zwoelfers") or 25 as an officer. Officially, the plan was thus that you would have only a tiny fraction of your population with military training, with so many men signed up for long service. (The alternative would be to have men sign up for 2 or 3 years, giving you a bigger base of experience to draw on upon mobilization). By 1939, every man in Germany was required to serve in the RAD and then the Army. Membership in the Hitler Youth and other youth groups was never mandatory IIRC but was certainly widely encouraged.

Not sure when Hitler repudiated the 12 and 25 year terms, but I'm not sure it is accurate to say "that was the plan all along." There were many generals who were appalled by the rapid expansion, and the details of that expansion, and many senior generals were willing to give in over Czechoslovakia, for example, rather than risk war with the wildly expanding Army.

There was also serious misgivings over the commissioning of NCOs as officers - a real dilution of the "officer class", which was an advantage of National Socialism and did in the end pay dividends in action. Officers were seen as comrades, not dictators, who shared the privations of their men.

So rapid expansion had its ups and downs, and while it was no doubt Hitler's plan all along, I would say many generals would not have done things quite the same way.

What will your Thesis be on, incidentally?

[Kingfish]

And to make things even more confusing...

You park in the driveway and drive on the parkway

[Guest Mike]

I think it's important to note tht there's a difference betwen a unit's title and it's functional description!!

Here in li'l ol' NZ we have a single infantry regiment of 10 battalions. The Regiment has no particular functinal title - ie it's not mechanised, motorised or armoured, and the battalions likewise are not so titled.

But the companies and platoons are all "rifle", and the ordinary soldiers (non-specialists) aer "Riflemen".

The regiment/battalians would qualify as "motorised" if you were assigning NATO - style symbols to them - ie they are all essentialy truck-borne.

Ther is a plan underfoot to buy 100 LAV's and have the 2 regular battalions mounted in those - I guess that would make them mechanised.

But it won't change their titles.

So it really doesn't matter what armies call their sub-units - it's the function/equipment that is important.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

I think it's important to note tht there's a difference betwen a unit's title and it's functional description!!

Here in li'l ol' NZ we have a single infantry regiment of 10 battalions. The Regiment has no particular functinal title - ie it's not mechanised, motorised or armoured, and the battalions likewise are not so titled.

But the companies and platoons are all "rifle", and the ordinary soldiers (non-specialists) aer "Riflemen".

The regiment/battalians would qualify as "motorised" if you were assigning NATO - style symbols to them - ie they are all essentialy truck-borne.

Ther is a plan underfoot to buy 100 LAV's and have the 2 regular battalions mounted in those - I guess that would make them mechanised.

But it won't change their titles.

So it really doesn't matter what armies call their sub-units - it's the function/equipment that is important.

They may be "riflemen" but are they "Riflemen"? Riflemen (big R) march past at the double, march 140 paces to the minute, wear black buttons and rank badges, and never get commanded to "Stand at Ease" - instead they "Look to your Front" instead of attention and stand at ease on their own. They also carry bayonets, but call them "swords" instead. They also wear black leather accoutrements instead of white, buff or brown, and usually wear the shoulder belt in lieu of the sam Browne.

Are you sure your riflemen are also Riflemen?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

The regiment/battalians would qualify as "motorised" if you were assigning NATO - style symbols to them - ie they are all essentialy truck-borne.

.

Not really, the only element of the Inf Battalions that have integral Motorised components is the Heavy weapon coys and parts of the Signals Platoon (Rovers carrying Mortars, HMGs and bits of radio). The battalions themselves have a pool of Mogs, Rovers, NMVs, Bikes and Quads but not enough for the whole Battalion to be "trucked" into the combat zone. To achieve long-range travel the infantry Battalions would have to rely on the Corps of Logistics trucks, air force, rail, UN aka outside/GHQ units.

If anything the "Peace time" battalions of NZ are pretty similar in motorisation levels to German 44 rifle regt/battalions sans horses/carts, arguments have been made that the actual Infantry have ended up at similar levels mechanised/motorised of the NZ battalions of WWII but are worse off becasue we use GHQ trucks/transport and not integral Divisional assets (No Div you see). Especially considering the increasingly higher break down rates of our old Rover and Mog fleet we may be worse off, which is why the LAV III is the big white hope for finally changing the Infantry from Leg battalions.

[ January 08, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Guest Mike]

In practice not all the NZ infantry is ever deployed - those that are are fully supplied with trucks and/or carriers, such as in East Timor.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Are you sure your riflemen are also Riflemen?

Please don't bring all your North American problems to the rest of the world - allowing the USA to exist is enough of a crime without adding to it!!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

In practice not all the NZ infantry is ever deployed - those that are are fully supplied with trucks and/or carriers, such as in East Timor.

As some one who was there and saw the continual "disagreements" from different COYs over the use of the few Infantry battalion NMVs I have to disagree with Operational units having a greater share of Vehs. The utter idiocy of the Logistic Company (an attached unit with more problems than trucks to shepeard) deciding to run training EX to Dili that effectively removed all Trucks from supporting the Battalion for over a week says a lot about the attached loggies coys capabilities, or lack thereof.

I'd also like to point out that whenever the Battalion CO decided to use one of the 2-3 running Iroquois for his 4 times a week flying visits that it always seemed to be the sections that I was attached to that got to walk back to Platoon and Coy positions or that the Tankies where having problems keeping 5 M113 as runners at any one time.

Mate Timor showed that you could not motorise 2/3rd of a NZ Infantry Battalion with attachments on ops in spite of stripping units back in NZ.

Let me remember Victor Coy in Belulik Letan had at its beck and call 4-6 Quads, 1 Mog and 3 NMVs, dumping little things like ammo, packs, food and water you could probably pack a Platoon away for transport while leaving other COY units sans resup. In Timor we walked in spite of the BL area being pretty similar to hilly steppes down to the brown grass and dust. The attached Logistic Coy was busy performing resups and could not handle transporting the Battalion. The loggies had problems resupplying Victor Coy and eventually dropped supplying food allowing GHQ Mi-8 and Super Pumas (Other counties Helos not our Iroquois that had problems lifting half a fully loaded rifle section) to preform that service while just keeping up with the other stuff like ammo (We were not exactly at WW1 ammo expenditure levels), and water.

Of course if the Marines had just stayed a little longer I'm sure We would have approriated GMC and Humvees for our own use, but they only stayed around Suai for a week rebuilding schools. I know I almost got away with keeping a berrata pistol but the officer came back two days later to discuss matter with our ruperts and Sgt handed it back for me .

The USA logistics and equipment are great mates of the NZ army, to bad the Marines only stayed a while.

[ January 08, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

In practice not all the NZ infantry is ever deployed - those that are are fully supplied with trucks and/or carriers, such as in East Timor.

As some one who was there and saw the continual "disagreements" from different COYs over the use of the few Infantry battalion NMVs I have to disagree with Operational units having a greater share of Vehs. </font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

In practice not all the NZ infantry is ever deployed - those that are are fully supplied with trucks and/or carriers, such as in East Timor.

As some one who was there and saw the continual "disagreements" from different COYs over the use of the few Infantry battalion NMVs I have to disagree with Operational units having a greater share of Vehs. </font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Sgtgoody:

Interestingly it is the term "Motorized" that has survived to modern usage despite the fact that modern Russian infantry is most definitly mechanized. The standard Russian unit of manuever is the MRR or Motorized Rifle Regiment.

Arent't the Motor Rifles supposed to be trucked to the combat zone in BTR's, while the infantry in the armoured units are actually mechanized (ie they have IFV's)? That would make them motorised because the BTR is really little more than a truck (a fancy truck, but still a truck).

[SgtMuhammed]

Foxbat

All regular Russian infantry are called Motor-Rifle Regiments. The Russians regard BTR troops (which is a decent APC rather than a fancy truck) as light troops because they lack the support that the BMP troops have. By doctrine all frontline troops are supposed to be BMP mounted while second line troops will get what they can. The MRR that we replicated was a BMP regiment with about 120 BMPs (if you count all the HQ and scout tracks) and 30 T80s. Much of the naming convention is traditional dating back to the Great Patriotic War.

M. D.

I haven't decided what to do my thesis over yet but I think it will be on the Battle of Hosingen. To me this was the pivital battle in the Bastogne sector. If K Co 3/110 INF and B 103 Eng hadn't held as long as they did Bastogne would never have happened but Bastogne gets all the publicity. I actually already have my disertation decided. I did a paper on the Combined Bomber Offensive and the perception that it was a failure vs its actual accomplishments. I am going to expand it into a full blown disertation. Alas I won't even be able to start my thesis for at least a year.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...Membership in the Hitler Youth and other youth groups was never mandatory IIRC but was certainly widely encouraged.

The Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend from 1.12.1936 made the membership mandatory in the same way as service in RAD and Wehrmacht.

Edit: Although this law was seen by many already as a sign for the mandatory nature of the HJ, on 25.4.1939 another law was passed, finally fixing the mandatory service of all young persons from 10 to 18 years in either HJ (boys) or BDM (girls).

[ January 09, 2003, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Ted]

Not having the game in front me, in CMBB did a motorized squad carry different weapons into combat?

Maybe more support weapons per platoon/company?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

No but you did give the impression that we were Motorised. The only chaps who where motorised where the attached Singaporean Commando platoon with all their Singa army Rovers and "attack beach buggies", for obvious reasons. Their Malay cooks were a great joy to me, again for obvious reasons. But niether are part of normal NZ battalion To&e.</font>