JaegerMeister Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Does anyone know if mounted infantry are now able to fire their weapons whilst embarked now? In CMBO, i thought it was a bad innacuracy that this was not possible. Halftracks should get a fire or suppression bonus when a full squad of heavily armed grenadiers are mounted in them, and you should be able to emulate the attacking 'Blitzkrieg' tactics of a platoon of laden HTs assaulting a village or objective, with an 'all guns blazing' drive right upto it, dis-embarking the troops 'right ontop' of the enemy. Am i incorrect here or should it be simulated? Anyone else with experience positive or negative about this? Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Would be nice, but still not possible, however, FO's can observe from vehicles now, and that is definitely nice! [ October 15, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Vergeltungswaffe ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Panzergrenadiers were not trained to fight this way, and any fire coming from mounted troops would be wildly inaccurate. In real life, the Panzergrenadiers and their Schützen forebears dismounted to fight. This is evidenced in period photos and manuals, and I should imagine personal accounts as well. It's just simply not an issue. Any accounts of them doing this are the exception, not the rule, and allowing them to do it would create all kind of problems - ie you would have infantry wandering the battlefield "wearing" a halftrack as body armour. It wasn't the way they trained to fight, and hence unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: you would have infantry wandering the battlefield "wearing" a halftrack as body armour. What with AT rifles and small-caliber AT guns, I say let 'em try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Panzergrenadiers were not trained to fight this wayPerhaps they actually weren't, but according to the regulations they should have been "trained to fight from the armored halftrack at the halt and while in motion with the board MG, MG in the antiaircraft mount, machine pistols, rifles and grenades ". This quote can be found in this book. Regards, Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 If anyone has ever ridden in a military vehicle going cross country, the silliness of expecting a soldier to fire a weapon - accurately or not - is self-evident! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If anyone has ever ridden in a military vehicle going cross country, the silliness of expecting a soldier to fire a weapon - accurately or not - is self-evident!I might agree with this, anyway I simply wanted to point out that someone seemed to think that firing individual weapons while mounted should have been more than a desperate measures' affair for the Panzergrenadier. In fact the problem of what the soldiers did in face of strange or seemingly masochistic regulation is puzzling (the issue of soviet tankers expected to fight always buttoned up comes to mind). Regards, Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oak Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Would be nice, but still not possible, however, FO's can observe from vehicles now, and that is definitely nice! [ October 15, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Vergeltungswaffe ]\ :confused: How did you get FOs to spot from HTs? I have tried it without success, and have to dismount FOs into hostile fire to call Arty. Aside from being able to have squads fire and FOs spot while mounted, I'd like to see a Pz Beob Wg III (Artillery Observer's Tank)....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oak Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 In regards to firing while mounted: The 251 is basically a "battle taxi" similar to the M113 (and the Stryker)in that it is designed to take soldiers to the FEBA, however not into hostile fire. MICVs such as the BPM-1/2/3, Bradley, Warrior, and Marder offer additional protection and firepower above APCs, however they are still extremely vulnerable to everything but small arms fire. True Infantry Fighting Vehicles along the lines of the modern Jordanian Crocodile and the Russian BTR-T have the protection of an MBT and are designed to allow infantry to accompany tanks into battle. It wasn't uncommon for US squads to return fire from an M113 in Vietnam. Maintaining the momentum of the advance was a priority of Soviet doctrine, and as such Soviet Motorized Infantry was supposed to fight mounted whenever possible. Similarly, I'm sure there were instances that Panzer Grenadiers returned fire (supressive fire) while mounted when facing light resistance, bypassing, or on a reconnaissance mission. As an armor officer I can attest to the fact that it is possible to fire while mounted as long as you have a good driver who maintains a constant speed, vehicle suspension and terrain notwithstanding. I took many a reticle in the eye when my driver abruptly hit the brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaegerMeister Posted October 16, 2002 Author Share Posted October 16, 2002 Perhaps i'm wrong then, but i thought it was common practise to use the HTs as mobile firebases taking infantry right upto the edges of villages or woods to de-buss them into the nearest cover/buildings ie the common pictures of grenadiers leaping over the sides, firing from the open top and getting out of the back once the open space had been covered. It puts them right ontop of the enemy rather than having to close across open terrain. Seems logical that they would do that, they are not travelling that fast, other than the risk of grenades being lobbed in. I tried a panzergrenadier attack mounted in 4 HT's on an infantry position holding a small wood, i had to attack across open fields to get there and i used Pz4's for suppressive fire, but the whole company & the halftracks got wiped out easily at close range. Surely there should have been some kind of 'shock' bonus for the position being hit that hard?/overrun (this was in CMBO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaegerMeister Posted October 16, 2002 Author Share Posted October 16, 2002 ps Can anyone point to a website that displays infantry tactics or a typical panzergrenadier assault on a village? I'm sure i have seen the tactics i've mentioned shown like that in diagrams in Tac-studies books before. I'm sure they would be of interest to many on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 PzrGrdr Tactics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EightInchArty Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If anyone has ever ridden in a military vehicle going cross country, the silliness of expecting a soldier to fire a weapon - accurately or not - is self-evident!Well... Modern (M2 Bradley- and BMP- serie) IFV's as well as APC's do tend to have firing ports to do that kind of "silliness".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by EightInchArty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If anyone has ever ridden in a military vehicle going cross country, the silliness of expecting a soldier to fire a weapon - accurately or not - is self-evident!Well... Modern (M2 Bradley- and BMP- serie) IFV's as well as APC's do tend to have firing ports to do that kind of "silliness"..</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaegerMeister Posted October 16, 2002 Author Share Posted October 16, 2002 Erm, some of you are missing my point, i'm not talking about driving a HT with full speed with the troops firing off wildly on a bucking bronco. I'm talking about the 'shock tactic' fast assault/de-bussing ontop-of enemy position...you wouldn't de-buss 100 yards outside cover and then leg it across open ground in full view of enemy..you would use the HT to get you to that cover, all the time providing suppressive fire from its 1 or 2 MGs ! Does CM simulate cover from a vehicle ie troops sheltering behind AFV? I'm not sure it did in CMBO. This would help assaulting infantry positions greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 If there werent designed for, they wouldn spend a thicker frontal armor to the sdkfz`s. Its clear, that no one will rush thrue a ennemy held town park on the marketplace, full of ennemy soldiers and try a "Wild-West" stylish zirkle with wagons. Damn.. i hope someone did understand this... ) I think, they rush forward to the optimum and best possible place near the ennemy....maybe also into theyr rears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by JaegerMeister: Anyone else with experience positive or negative about this?Yes, I definitely have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Michael, Sorry but your reasoning is wrong. It is correct that while moving over open ground fire on the move is highly incacurrate. BUT this is true for all weapons in WWII true ?! So in no way reason enough to single out such action specifically for wheeled PzGren, and if you move on road it is completely wrong. While it is true in general that the purpose of the PzGren was to dismount to fight, like a rule of thumb or doctrine, it never means that it was not done. It was actually done in special circumstances like described by Jaegermeister on all fronts by all nations (For instance the US after the breakthrough in Normandy). In the Kharkov counteroffensive there were several occasions were enemy positions were charged that way. The point is, it is highly risky and if done in the wrong context spells disaster. It was also done by Dt. Kempf in securing a bridgehead in the Kursk fighting. It actually is the appropriate way of fighting when surprise, firepower and speed is necessary. Everywhere where raw firepower at short distance is necessary while on the move. If for instance my recon unit spots a motorized enemy column moving relatively fast on the road, i would charge with my SPW-Company and drive on parallel course and give them everything is there, while another company charges ahead and blocks the way with dismounted inf. Or if i have to storm a forest with suspected enemy in i would like to drive as near as possible to the forest edge and while doing so shoot from every gun available shortly before and while dismounting !!!!!!!!!! No ?? Or shall i first read the manual and dismount my inf 200 m in front ? All we want is freedom of tactical decision no matter what the doctrine might have been, we can find out ourselves. Greets Daniel [ October 16, 2002, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: TSword ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by JaegerMeister: Does CM simulate cover from a vehicle ie troops sheltering behind AFV?Only if they burn. Regarding the wider point - you can now drive right on top of an enemy position and debus there. It is pretty spectacular to watch. I am quite sure you could do so in CMBO. The problem with shock and surprise is that in a CM battle, your opponent or the AI is not going to be shocked or suprised by your sudden appearance - they know you are out there. The HTs use their MGs when rushing forward I think. How you can use the AA mount in the rear while driving towards an enemy position is anyone's guess. If you have seen a Real Life Sdkfz 251, I would be interested in how 10 guys are supposed to be shooting from it? Seems a bit cramped to me. Also not sure if I wanted someone to start throwing grenades from a driving cramped HT. Famous last words 'Dang, I dropped it...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EightInchArty Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 At least squads LMG could fire. That was standard tactics: LMG stayed in vehicle firing over side to cover the grenadiers, while dismounting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 In the USMC we trained to engage the enemy from our AAVs (the amphibious personell carriers of the USMC) by opening the top hatches and having half the squad face to each side. You don't have to be absolutely accurate with small arms fire in order to supress. I personally didn't like this tactic simply because instead of being 13 individual targets (which are much harder to kill) we became one big target (fairly easy to kill, because the AAV basically had no armor). The tactic might do well against poorly trained troops with low morale who have no RPG or anti-vehicle weapons though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by DevilDog: In the USMC we trained to engage the enemy from our AAVs (the amphibious personell carriers of the USMC....... DevilDog, are you talking about LVT's (AMTRACs) and what years were you in the Corps? We used to ride on the tops of AMTRACs and dismount to engage, the TRACS we had in Vietnam had cardboard for armor and riding inside them while on land was out of the question, due to the heat and the danger of mines and RPGs, basically we used them to haul supplies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaegerMeister Posted October 16, 2002 Author Share Posted October 16, 2002 Hmmm, a mixture of opinions ! I stick by my guns in thinking that it should be a tactical option, risky if AT around but worth it if it had the intended 'shock' assault to capture the objective, especially early in war. I have a book at home in the loft called 'Panzergrenadiers'..i'll dig it out and let you all know what it says on tactical doctrine (if it does). And, i think its a bad feux-pas if you cant shelter infantry teams behind AFVs from small arms fire in CMBB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Nidan 1: I was a company level infantry officer '95-'99. The AAV is an upgraded version of what you had. They claim it has armor, but you can practically spit through it. Supposedly the AAAV will start reaching the Fleet Marine Force soon, but I don't think the armor on that will be much improved. There is some additional bolt on armor that might keep out rifle fire, but it was all aluminum when I was in and not very effective. The AAVs are also called AMTRACs by the way. Like I said in my previous post I never liked riding in the AAVs because higherups liked using us as if we were riding in tanks. Against a competant and well armed foe our life expectancy would have been fairly low. We practiced getting out of the 'TRACs as fast as possible, but when you have 19 marines crammed into a ten marine space..... [ October 16, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Beginna Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Believe it or not German infantry used also their Opel Blitz to hunt enemy infantry while going full speed and balsting out of every possible spot. Ouf course this was extremely rare (I only remember one incident - after Sevastopol) but the later Opels had a little hatch for an lMG on the right side of the roof... The rear mounting in the halftracks is ment for a second MG. I'm not shure why there is non, but I think it is for the squads lMG. Afterall, it might be possible to shoot your weapon from a HT, especially while it is stopped - BUT I can live pretty good with the fact that it is NOT modelled. It is just a game and you can't put everything in... Sorry for my English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts