Mechanize Infantry vs. Tank

[ev]

I noticed that SC2 will allow the development of mechanized infantry. What will be the diference between a Mechanized Infantry Army and a Tank Group?

Some thoughts come to mind:

1. The Tank is different. The Tank allows advance in the face of enemy fire... where other units would be pinned down. Elsewhere, I have suggested there should be a penalty for entering enemy territory. Others have suggested there should be a penalty for entery enemy ZOC. Perhaps tanks could pay a lower penalty for entering such enemy tiles or ZOCs.

2. A Tank Group includes tanks as well as infantry, artillery, engineers, recon, etc. Advances in mechanization contributed to the better performance of tank formations. Can we expect advances in Mech Level to benefit tank formations?

3. Why should a player spend on mechanizing infantry instead of buying more and better Tank Groups? Is there anything that sets mechanized infantry appart, or is it just a regular infantry with more AP's?

4. Are AP's in SC2 similar to AP's in SC1? Maybe having more AP's means something else in SC2 - like allowing for multiple attacks by units with more AP's?

[Retributar]

My understanding is that there were rarely if ever any units comprised of just tanks only.

The Germans used what was called a 'KampfGruppe'(BattleGroup)...or a combined arms unit...which was a self contained formation.

The American equivalent would be a 'Task-Force'...which involved similar principles in its structure.

----------

http://cosmos.oninetspeed.pt/dak/dak/germanarmyorganization.htm

-Kampfgruppe (pl: Kampfgruppen):

The Kampfgruppe was an often used German combat formation that doesn't really have an equal in Allied organization, being closest in concept to that of an American task force. A Kampfgruppe could range in size from a Korps to an Abteilung or Kompanie in size. Most Kampfgruppen were usually around an Abteilung in size. The Kampfgruppe was essentially an ad-hoc organization of different arms (Some tanks, a few artillery pieces, infantry, some assault boats, a few anti-tank guns, etc), more-or-less organized temporarily for a specific operational task. These tasks could be short term or long term in nature, and they were often organized quickly in accordance with tactical and strategic situation at hand. Kampfgruppen were usually named after the person choosen to command the formation. Kampfgruppe Pfieffer is an example of a German Kampfgruppe. It was organized very quickly from elements of the 21.Panzer-Division while it was stationed in North Africa. It was named after the commander choosed to lead the unit, and it was composed of detached Abteilungen of infantry, armour, and artillery. It was used in operations over the span of a few days. The concept of the Kampfgruppe was a key and central element in WWII German tactical doctrine. Many hundreds of Kampfgruppen are known to have existed during WWII, while many thousands more were used but will probably never be known because of the nature in which they were often formed and saw combat.

----------

Heres a good site for better understanding the makeup of various force structure.

http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/ger2.html Ill just put one of them up here:

1943 - 1944 DIVISIONS

-Panzer Division

Armored Components Infantry Artillery Misc.

1 Panzer Regiment 1 Panzergrenadier 1 Motorized Panzer 1 Motorized

(2 Panzer Regiment Artillery Regiment Engineering

Battalions) (1 Armored (2 Artillery Battalion

Battalion) Battalions and 1 SP

(1 Motorized Artillery

Infantry Battalion)

Battalion)

1 Recon Battalion 1 Grenadier 1 Panzer FLAK 1 Self

Regiment Battalion Propelled HQ

(1 Motorized Company

Infantry

Battalion)

(1Infantry

Battalion)

1 Self Propelled

Anti Tank Battalion

2 Medium Armor 1 Armored 1 SP Artillery

Battalions Battalion Battalion

1 Light Armor

Battalion

1 TD Battalion

4 Armored Battalions 4 Infantry 4 Artillery

Battalion Battalions

----------

Two More:

[1]: http://www.panzerdiesel.com/data/e/map.html?PHPSESSID=e805818c2554ef64262c16a5a44402b8

-Divisons: The Panzer- und Panzergrenadier Divisions

-Brigades: The independent Panzer Brigades

-Regiments: The Panzer Regiments

-Abteilungen: The independent Panzer Abteilungen (=batallions)

[2]: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/divis.htm

--Structure and Strength--

Wehrmacht Panzer Division

(1944):

Panzer Division HQ

Reconnaissance Battalion

Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Battalion

Combat Engineers Battalion

Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion

Tank Regiment

-Tank Battalion

-Tank Battalion

Mechanized Infantry Regiment

-Mechanized Infantry Battalion

-Road Motorized Infantry Battalion

Mechanized Infantry Regiment

-Road Motorized Infantry Battalion

-Infantry Battalion

Artillery Regiment

-Artillery Battalion

-Artillery Battalion

-Artillery Battalion

----------

Waffen SS Panzer Division

(1944)

Panzer Division HQ

Reconnaissance Battalion

Assault Gun or Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion

Combat Engineers Battalion

Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion

Tank Regiment

-Tank Battalion

-Tank Battalion

Mechanized Infantry Regiment

-Mechanized Infantry Battalion

-Road Motorized Infantry Battalion

-Road Motorized Infantry Battalion

Mechanized Infantry Regiment

-Mechanized Infantry Battalion

-Road Motorized Infantry Battalion

-Road Motorized Infantry Battalion

Rocket Artillery Battalion

Artillery Regiment

-Artillery Battalion

-Artillery Battalion

-Artillery Battalion

-Artillery Battalion

--

Tank Strength of Panzer Divisions.

Time Period: Number of tanks:

1939/1940 324

1941/1942 150-200

1943 170

1944 120-140

***Note: Those are ideal numbers that may not reflect the frontline units.***

----------

---My simple interpretation...perhaps not entirely accurate is:

In the case of an Armoured Unit...it would contain Tanks, Mechanized Infantry...as well as complements of Self-Propelled Artillery, Recon Units and so on.

Mechanized Infantry...would be the same minus the Tanks...however they might have complements of the Sturmgeschutze Armoured vehicles for additional infantry support.

Infantry Units would be minus the Mechanized transport but still have some of the mixes of other support that the others had...including horse-drawn support.

[ May 19, 2004, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[pzgndr]

Are AP's in SC2 similar to AP's in SC1?

Yes. Movement only. Mech research will only increase corps and army AP, for greater mobility at increased unit cost.

[Retributar]

Yes...i see that i didnt read ev's post carefully enough!.

Anyway...also...not only will movement for infantry units increase...but in fairness...in reality...you cant just build tanks...as resources were scarce!.

Which brings to mind...shouldnt there be 'CAP-LIMITS' for certain resource intensive production.

EG: The Germans were short on fuel and oil...and im sure their Metal-Stocks were not that good either...so to just build more Tanks instead of Infantry is just 'Unrealistic'!.

This is something i would like to see addressed in the game...for all participating nations. With the exception of the Russians and the Americans...i dont think anyone else could just build what they want...it should be regulated to some historical measure!.

[Edwin P.]

I believe that the game has hard and soft limits by "unit type" that can be set in the editor.

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

[QBThe Germans were short on fuel and oil...and im sure their Metal-Stocks were not that good either...so to just build more Tanks instead of Infantry is just 'Unrealistic'!. [/QB]

The German Metal Stocks, particularly with regards to Iron and Coal (needed to make Steel) were more than adequate. Germany has huge deposits of both. And German Steel was of extremely good quality, making posible their excellent tanks and guns. Germany's failuer lied elswhere:

Halfway through the war Germany started prototyping a whole range of new combat vehicles: heavy tanks, medium tanks, small tanks, heavy tank destroyers, medium tank destroyers, light tank destroyers, diferent types of armored personal carriers. different types of recon vehicles, you name it. The Panzer units wanted their own vehicles; the infantry wanted their own vehicles, and the artillery wanted their own vehicles. It was a real mess.

Some of these vehicles developed in 42-43 were succesfull after more or less prolonged period of times to iron out all sorts of problems (e.g. Panzer V). Others were a fiasco (like the Ferdinand). In any event, there were so many, and some of them were so expensive (like the Tiger), that they were never able to ramp up production to the point where they could take advantage of economies of scale. Later in the war Guderian was put in charge of inspecting development and production of combat vehicles. But it was too late.

Oil was an issue, but mainly due to allied bombing disrupting distribution and refining. Only when Rumania fell to the Russians, and the Germans lost the Ploest fields did the Germans become short of oil.

Rubber was an issue. All the warring parties (including the U.S.) experienced some sort of rubber shortages. This limited the production of trucks, which in turn were essential to supply armored formations. Horse drawn carts may have been enough to supply foot infantry, but not for armored formations.

...any way, back to may questions above, since armored formations included not only tanks, but also artillery, infantry, recon, etc. perhaps Mech Tech should have some possitive impact on Tank Groups. ...say 1/2 AP increase for each tech level increase. Is that in the works?

[Retributar]

Im not privy to what AP means (Armoured Personnel Vehicles?).

Anyway...it shouldnt be too difficult to research your question on the NET...and compare Mechanized & Armoured units for movement & sustainability under-fire in enemy controlled areas as compared to regular Infantry formations...i can look when i can get to it.

But...in short order i think the answer is 'FIRE-POWER'...Armoured Units(Being Armoured doesn't hurt either) that have more 'FIRE-POWER'...will have better survivability because of their ability to prevent the enemy from damaging them as much, and as well great 'FIRE-POWER'...will assist in keeping the enemy off-balance...there-by ensuring the survivability of the Armoured Unit over the Mechanized or Basic Infantry Formation.

The reason why the Germans couldnt produce large numbers of Tanks like the Americans & Russians did...is because the Americans & Russians used Mr. Fords concept of 'Mass-Production'-'Assembly Lines'.

The producers of Tanks in Germany were before the war builders of Heavy Equipment and were used to building such equipment in small numbers using inefficient production and assembly-line techniques.

Also German Tank Equipment was much more complex and took more time to produce...where-as for example the Russians had shoddy craftsmanship in their tanks and they were much more simple to build...thus took little time to build a tank.

[ May 19, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Retributar]

-Originally Posted By 'ev'...

3. Why should a player spend on mechanizing infantry instead of buying more and better Tank Groups? Is there anything that sets mechanized infantry appart, or is it just a regular infantry with more AP's?

-------------------------------------------------

Well...its obvious that Armoured Vehicles, especially Heavy Tanks offer great protection for Personnel as well as deliver devestating firepower...so yes...Armoured Formations are definitely better than any other Army-Formation.

I'll say though...that in the real-world...there were never ever enough Tanks or other Armoured Vehicles to go around...so in WW2...the Germans had no choice but to construct some Mechanized Infantry Divisions instead of Panzer Divisions...and for the same reason had many many more Infantry Divisions!.

It wouldnt be realistic in this game to allow for just the construction of Armoured Divisions...not only that...Armoured Divisions were unsuitable in the real-world for Urban-Assault work...as is shown in Iraq right now!. That job is done best by the Infantry Divisions.

-------------------------------------------------

***Found something here...its hard to get an exact direct answer to your questions...anyway its interesting reading...will add more as i find it!.***

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.warfarehq.com/articles/milsim_articles/fm3_0_chpt4.shtml

The Elements of Combat Power:

-4-3. The ability of Army forces to fight and win underlies success in all operations, whether lethal force is used or not. Combat power is the ability to fight. It is the total means of destructive or disruptive force, or both, that a military unit or formation can apply against the adversary at a given time.

Firepower:

-4-11. Firepower provides the destructive force essential to overcoming the enemy’s ability and will to fight. Firepower and maneuver complement each other. Firepower magnifies the effects of maneuver by destroying enemy forces and restricting his ability to counter friendly actions; maneuver creates the conditions for the effective use of firepower. Although one element might dominate a phase of an action, the synchronized effects of both are present in all operations. The threat of one in the presence of the other magnifies the impact of both. One without the other makes neither decisive. Combined, they make destroying larger enemy forces feasible and enhance protection of friendly forces.

-------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by 'pzgndr': "Mech research will only increase corps and army AP, for greater mobility at increased unit cost".

-------------------------------------------------

Maneuver:***[My Comment: MOBILITY/Increased Speed...Creates opportunity for MANEUVER...and therefore SHOULD-ALSO-INCREASE the "FIRE-POWER-EFFECTIVENESS" of the Unit as well]***...*SEE 'Firepower:'...above reading.*

-Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power.

4-43. As both an element of combat power and a principle of war, maneuver concentrates and disperses combat power to place and keep the enemy at a disadvantage. It achieves results that would otherwise be more costly. Effective maneuver keeps enemies off balance by making them confront new problems and new dangers faster than they can deal with them. Army forces gain and preserve freedom of action, reduce vulnerability, and exploit success through maneuver. Maneuver is more than just fire and movement. It includes the dynamic, flexible application of leadership, firepower, information, and protection as well. It requires flexibility in thought, plans, and operations and the skillful application of mass, surprise, and economy of force.

Combined Arms:

-4-102. The fundamental basis for the organization and operations of Army forces is combined arms. Combined arms is the synchronized or simultaneous application of several arms—such as infantry, armor, field artillery, engineers, air defense, and aviation—to achieve an effect on the enemy that is greater than if each arm was used against the enemy separately or in sequence. The ultimate goal of Army organization for operations remains success in joint and combined arms warfare. Its combined arms capability allows commanders to form Army combat, CS, and CSS forces into cohesive teams focused on common goals.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.arl.army.mil/slad/AWSS/SF-areas/combmaneu/warfighting.htm

-2.1.1 Armored Battalions. The current U.S. Army armored battalion is equipped with the M1 Abrams series tank. The battalion is composed of four tank companies and one headquarters and headquarters company (HHC). Armored battalions are particularly well suited to rapid, violent attack operations over great distances in all but the most difficult of terrain. Armored units are extremely capable, and can conduct any offensive or defensive mission EXCEPT RETAINING TERRAIN. ***[My Comment: PanzerGrenadiers were required to keep up with the Armoured Brigades...to protect them from being destroyed by enemy infantry units].***

-2.1.2 Mechanized Infantry Battalions. Mechanized battalions are currently organized around the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). Mechanized battalions consist of four mechanized infantry companies and an HHC.

-2.2.1 Infantry Battalions. The infantry battalion is organized around the rifle squads and platoons of the infantry rifle company. Ideal for fighting under conditions of limited visibility in forests, jungles, mountains, and urban areas, infantry is especially effective in the following types of missions:

-------------------------------------------------

[ May 19, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Im not privy to what AP means (Armoured Personnel Vehicles?).

...and...

It wouldnt be realistic in this game to allow for just the construction of Armoured Divisions...not only that...Armoured Divisions were unsuitable in the real-world for Urban-Assault work...as is shown in Iraq right now!. That job is done best by the Infantry Divisions.[/QB]

First, AP are action points which roughly represents the movement capacity of land units in the game. ...my fault for using an acronym that is not common to us all.

I absolutely agree with your comments. But, as far as SC is concerned, remember that Tank Groups represent a mix of 6-10 armored divisions (including a mix of both mechanized infantry and heavy tank divisios) and carrying all the supporting artillery, infantry, recon, combat engineers and so forth.

My point regards specifically to the game. Does it make sense to create Mechanized Infantry Armies? ...the short answer is yes, if any player wants to try, go right ahead. But, then, how is this mech army unit going to differ from the infantry and the tank units in the game?

I agree that a mech army unit (in the game) should have combat capabilities that are somewhat different from a tank group. But how do we translate this into the game?

[Retributar]

'ev' im a little tired right now so im operating on fuzzy-math...but i'll try!.

Originally Mechanized Infantry(Tracked/Armoured Vehicles), Mechanized Artillery, etc was created for the 'one main purpose' and that was for "keeping up with the Tanks!"...and so are integrated into the Armoured Units.

So...as you just stated...'Armoured Units' ALREADY have 'Mechanized Infantry'.

so the only advantage of using 'Mechanized Infantry'...excuse me/'MOTORIZED INFANTRY' would be that they would be faster than 'Regular leg Infantry' units...and INFANTRY is very good at Urban-Warfare...as well as for other specialties!.

I don't know how they have designed this game...but for 'URBAN-WARFARE'...it would be incorrect of them to have 'Armoured Divisions' be as effective as 'Infantry' or Dismounted 'MOTORIZED Divisions' fighting in the towns and cities.

Historically...Armoured Units in towns and cities have paid a 'HIGH-PRICE' for fighting in such environments...and should 'Not-Be-Used-There'.

So in 'Summarization'...'Infantry' or 'Motorized Infantry' do thier best work in Urban, Forest,& Rough-Terrain Environments...and can cross small rivers where Tanks cannot!.

'Armoured Units' do their best work in 'OPEN-COUNTRY'...and not in the other areas i just mentioned!.

So if the game is correctly designed...you will have no-choice but to diversify your forces and build composite forces...not just Panzer-Divisons or Tank-Armies!.

That's it for now!.

[ May 20, 2004, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

There are quite a few misconceptions in this discussion about Armor vs Mech vs Infantry.

The generic units in SC work out to represent eight (8) infantry divisions in an Army, four (4) in a Corp and four (4) "motorized" and/or "armored" divisions in a Tank Group.

Understand that the definitions of what "mechanized" means has changed over the years, so you have to be very careful when using various terms that mean one thing in todays world and something totally else in WWII.

The definition and composition of a tank division varied from nation to nation, not to mention changing from year to year. But in general terms, a Tank Division in WWII represented a combat division that had a 1:1 ratio between armored fighting vehicles (ie tanks or tankettes) and motorized or mechanized infantry. Motorized definition is easy... trucks. Mechanized infantry is a little harder. In general terms, you had infantry who where riding in tracked vehicles, that usually had some sort of armor as well. However, these vehicles were not what we would call in todays terms, infantry fighting vehicles. Idea was, that by being tracked, they could traverse the same ground as tanks, then when in combat, they dismounted the infantry. Thats why almost all of them where open topped.

In SC terms, what does that mean? You are giving enough vehicles to a infantry combat division, so the infantry can now ride in trucks and the support vehicles are motorized as well. The tracked vehicles are already covered when you purchase a Tank Group. Thats why the tech option should be renamed to motorization.

Pzgrndr confirms this, as he stated that the tech option only increases the AP for Corps and Army units. Not a Tank Group.

So when you are purchasing a Tank Group, thats when you are getting Tank and Mechanized divisions. And even here, within this Tank Group, the "mechanized" infantry division for some is a mix of motorized and mechanized units. The Mechanization tech doesn't provide you with mechanized divisions... you are just getting motorized divisions.

To expand upon the WWII "mechanized" infantry, understand that there wasn't any such creature. The US and the UK (for a short period) when they "mechanized" there infantry, called them armored infantry. The post war concept of a Armored division having two (2) tank brigades and one (1) mech inf brigade, while a Mechanized division had one (1) tank brigade and two (2) mech inf brigades, didn't exist yet. Except for one place. Russia. But it wasn't until '43 and after, that the Russians were able to field the combined arms units that they wanted.

But I digress. As far as SC2 is concerned, your "mechanized" infantry are part of the Tank Group you purchase. Your "mechanization" tech (ie motorization) represents you building enough trucks and possibly some tracked vehicles, to give the infantry divisions greater mobility. And since someone will probably bring this up as well, it has nothing to do with the addition of tank or tank destroyers or assault guns units being attached to a infantry division.

[Retributar]

'Shaka of Carthage'...that Sounds ok to me... .

I didnt have information on Infantry Mechanized [iE:(Motorized)] units...but had posted under ' ev's ' topic 'Mechanize Infantry vs. Tank'... > 1943 - 1944 Panzer Division, 1944 Wehrmacht Panzer Division & 1944 Waffen SS Panzer Division's...'ALL PANZER DIVISIONS '.

--Yes...they do show 'MOTORIZED'in there mixed in with 'MECHANIZED'...so as you say...they have both.

--I would assume that since resources were scarce...outside of actual Panzer Divisions...there would be 'MOTORIZED' transport...NOT...'MECHANIZED'.

[ May 19, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[pzgndr]

it has nothing to do with the addition of tank or tank destroyers or assault guns units being attached to a infantry division.

Correct.

[ May 21, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: pzgndr ]

[ev]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

In SC terms, what does that mean? You are giving enough vehicles to a infantry combat division, so the infantry can now ride in trucks and the support vehicles are motorized as well. The tracked vehicles are already covered when you purchase a Tank Group. Thats why the tech option should be renamed to motorization.

Ah! that's it. Since I read through out the site Mech Tech and Mechanization, I thought we were talking of mechanized infantry. So I wondered... what was the point of splitting mechanized infantry appart from tank groups in SC? Now I see we are not refering to Mechanized Infantry at all.

Thank you.

[Desert Dave]

A rose by any other name,

Is still a rose.

When I read "mechanized" I do not think ONLY of half-tracks and armored cars churning up the battle soil.

I also think of soldiers in trucks and other conveyances.

One might quibble about the intended German or English OOB translation meanings of "gruppes" and "mechanized columns."

Regardless, when you can MOVE (... by way of APs, or "action points") a specific distance that is more than what your opponent can, at the moment, move... then you are happily immersed in a tricky and thoroughly enjoyable... game.

Mechanized?

Motorized?

I will imagine that blitzing column of corps to be carried to devil-take-the-hindmost! confrontation... in a mixture of cars and trucks and tracks and gun-platforms and tractor-like haulers.

[Red Fleet]

Early in the war the motorized divisions were just equipped with unarmoured trucks, cars ans so on. But later in the war with the German SdKfz (armoured half-tracks) war got another quality. The quickly pushing forward in protected vehicles transformed warfare.

Historically shortage of resources limited the use of half-tracks to tank units, but in SC2 there are no limits. Right? Really mechanized units should be awefully expensive, but should be mobile (many, many Aps) with better attack and defense values.

Motorized units should just be quick. And just imagine a column of trucks running into an unspotted army....

[ev]

Originally posted by Red Fleet:

[QBHistorically shortage of resources limited the use of half-tracks to tank units, but in SC2 there are no limits. Right? Really mechanized units should be awefully expensive, but should be mobile (many, many Aps) with better attack and defense values.

Motorized units should just be quick. And just imagine a column of trucks running into an unspotted army.... [/QB]

During the war, Germany had Panzer Grenadier or Light Panzer Divisions. Generally speaking a Panzer Grenadier Division had 2 Panzer Grenadier regiments. Each regiment had 2 motorized infantry batallions and one mechanized batallion mounted on halftracks. In addition there was a recon batallion mounted on motorcyles until 1941, but later mounted on armored cars. These panzer grenedier divisions generally did not have tanks, but sometimes had either "PanzerJagger" or Self Propelled Gun companies.

Panzer Grenadier and/or Light Panzer Divisions usually fought alongside Panzer Divisions. A typical Panzer Corps would have a mix of Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions.

[Liam]

Mech Infantry is what? Simply Mobile, sometimes Armored Cars carrying men?

APCs, Trucks, Motor Bikes... whatever composition an army is

That makes them fast Infantry, and in some cases say for instance with the a few of the Armored Vehicles impervious to MG Fire

While Tanks are AFVs. Armored Fighting Vehicles, a totally different type of unit. They're meant to use their cannons to break up large numbers of enemy. Shoot through obstacles a smaller arms could not. Get to a situation faster with small artillery. Lots of MGs to counter lots of Infantry. It's a big fat killing machine... Artillery has to be towed or pushed and is slow, and ancient in comparison with tanks... Tanks plowed and pushed through the Trench Warfare theory... Big Difference than Mech Infantry<though these days they give them some firepower on their Vehicles and even back in ww2 I recall 1 Armored Transport the carrying MG on the top turret>

[ev]

Some Halftracks carried 50mm machinge guns, others carried small cannons similar to a grande launcher, still others carried mortars.

Most of the armies fighting in WWII were made of infantry. Any armor support was a significant advantage even if it was solely a halftrack with a 50mm gun on top. In the absence of tanks and antitank guns capable of knocking these halftracks, they created very favorable circumstances for the units they supported. Of course, once the enemy had any sort of antitank gun, things turned against the halftracks and they had to abandon the battle ground.

Keep in mind that, particulaly in Russia, but pretty much anywhere in WWII there were always soft spots in the line where there were not sufficient antitank guns. Besides, antitank guns were particularly vulnerable to artillery. So the halftrack was much more than just a truck with off road capability.

[Liam]

ev,

the the halftracks I know of mostly see mostly in the films and hear of were off-road Artillery-antitank towing machines by the Germans.

Support vehicles with heavy armament would be closer to being a really really light tank aye? Or just a jeep/trunk/armored car with lots of firepower

the Germans had lots of light armor. paper thin panzers Is IIs 232s great recon vehicles, fast, sometimes an MG proof armored box on wheels is deadly.

i imagine in all hell of war, you have the larger vehicles engaging the other larger ones, medium vs medium, light vs light, and so forth. most of it has to be made up of what's affordable and in great quantity and in WW2 early most of it was light armor and aimed more towards speed. I think the dreaded Panthers on up were a break away from that original recipe, great firepower armament and too expensive and too few to win wars

In any case, Mech infantry represents speed, and getting the men there safely, more than anything? todays modern armies are all mechanized...so whatever lessons learned they've been adopted Universally.. Safety first...Not just trucks and jeeps and bikes... Armored Personal Carriers to 'some degree' were around in WW2 I know of 1 brit and 1 german design but not of any others nor the #s employed

[ June 07, 2004, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[ev]

Hi Liam, I appreciate your comments, and I am not disagreeing with you. Battlefront has some great tactical games in the Combat Mission Series. Time ago I purchased the first one (Beyond Overlord) and played it several times. Unfortunately, it won't run in my new Mac.

Nevermind... I digress. Those Combat Mission games show you how much difference a little armor can do... if the other side lacks adequate anti armor capabilities.

In 1941 and 1942, the Russians had better tanks than the Germans. The T34 was better than the Mark IV. The Germans prevailed for several reasons. One of them is that they used their armor a lot better. Another was that there was a lot of frontline out there where the Russians could not field either tanks or antitanks. So the panzers divisions always found a place where they could break through the Russian Infantry lines. But most often those gaps were not found by the tanks. The initial push was made by infantry mounted on armed halftracks or supported by light armored tracks. The tanks acted as support weapons sent to reinforce the most promising push, among several probes realized accross the front.

When the Germans converted their halftracks into Armored Fighting Vehicles, they expanded the capabilities of their Panzer Corps. These infantry bearing AFV's and their infantry could engage in multiple light armored probes to test the Russian Infantry lines for places where the Russians had less antitank capabilities. The bulk of the attack force including the heavier tanks were then commited to the most promising spots, assuring maximum gain with minimum losses.

Of course, this technique could not be used in the battle of Kursk. At Kursk, the Russians had been forwarned and had brought sufficient anti tank weapons to cover the whole front. Besides, the lines of advance and the schedule of advance was set from above allowing little flexibility to the German commanders on site to change the axis of advance in search for a better approach. ...again, I digress.

The panzer formations were initially conceived as "mailed fists" that would break through enemy lines like a spear through canvas. This was very much the image presented by the press, and adopted by many not so good generals. But the best armor commanders of WWII played to a different tune. Some examples:

Patton in Sicily: when faced with stiff resistance heading north along the eastern cost of Sicily, he used his greater speed to loop around the whole island and fall on the enemy from behind.

Black in Karkov: when his corps was faced with Russian tanks, quickly made an antitank and infantry screen in front of the Russian tanks, while the bulk of his panzer corp loop around the enemy.

Guderian in Somelnsk: it was a battle of twist and turns.

Rommel in France (the Ghost Division) and later in North Afrika: ...well Rommel was so good at looping around the enemy that he used to do it with infantry in WWII earning multiple decorations for pulling off pretty amazing stuff. It should be no surprise that he would dance around the French and the Brits when he had panzer troops under his command.

Back to Motorize vs. Mech Infantry. Pzgndr pointed out that in SC2 we are only talking about Motorization. He is right. Your comments follow this line of thought. Motorization means providing more and better transport to the troops so they can get there faster.

For some of us, the term mechanization suggest other things, particularly the development of better armored recon and infantry transport unts, which allow for a new kind of fighting based on multiple probes throught the front. This type of equipment, not only adds strategic speed to the unit, but also enhances the tactical capabilities and the fire power of those units.

However, as far as SC2 is concerned, I am perfectly happy to assume that all AFV's would have been attached to the tank groups, and that the motorization of Infantry Armies really means only motorization. This is simple, makes for a friendlier game, and is historically accurate since all major powers concentrated their AFV's in their armored groups. The one exception was Russia prior to 1941. During Barbarosa, they paid dearly for this mistake, realized it, and changed the practice asap.

Having said all that, I would suggest Hubert & Co. to consider a new type of technology for tank units. Air Fleets are affected by two techs: engine and range. Infantry Units are affected by two techs: weapons and motorization. Likewise, tank units could be affected by two techs: heavy tanks and support vehicles. Better support vehicles would add AP's (speed) to the tank groups, much the same way that range and motorization do for planes and infantry.

SC2 is going to be a great game! ...kind of wish I could see some of my ideas in it, but regardless, it is going to be great.

[ev]

Liam,

Did some research. Check this AFV, the German SdKfz 251:

http://www.sproe.com/h/halftrack-german.html

This was an infantry transport which could mount either of several weapons: a machine gun, a mortar, a 37 mm or 75 mm cannon, a flamethrower...

There were other models... though I think the SdKfz 251 was the best.

Now this is what I mean by mech infantry. It was the German equivalent of the modern U.S. Bradley or Striker AFV's. Go back to 1943 and say you have a company of infantry mounted in SdKfz 251's including an assortment of weapons. And, say you are told to assault a light infantry possition in the Russian steppe. You would be superbly armed for the job. Moreover, your vehicles aside from being less expensive than a tank would travel faster, farther (with less gas), and break down less often than a tank.

...and, given the right conditions... well the right conditions were everywhere. Most of the line, whether in Russia or in France was manned by lightly armed infantry. This was a great weapon against the bulk of the armies opposing the Germans in 1943-44.

The German Panzer Force was a mixture of big tanks which dealt with the most critical situations and light armored vehicles like the SdKfz 251, or the Puma, that handled the brunt of the work. WWII literature often refers to the Mark IV as the workhorse of the German Panzer Force. If we were to focus solely on the German tanks, this image would be correct. However, if we take a wider look, we will see that Armed Halftracks such as the SdKfz 251 were the true workhorse of the German Panzer Force.

[Liam]

ev, very indepth and very realistic assessment of armor/mechanization/infantry in roles in WW2. The concepts you brought up are ones that Generals or Chiefs had to trudge over when putting together an armored force for combat.

I certianly hope Hubert is reading and taking notes on your expertise in the truth about Technology-Army Composition-moreover Grand Tactical Strategy. The tech is is exactly how it should be applied to mobile/mechanized/armored units

I played WW2Online a lot... One of the most realistic WW2 Simulators in the World IMO. The shootemup' attitude was there, but not the winning factor. People would roll out these slow Panzer 3s and 4s out into the battlefield. Staple was the Heavy Heavy armored Frog British Tanks that could withstand any sort of Panzer Assualt without a flanking manuever or 88-Ju-He-111 assualt. However what was the Grand Strategy the Winning Strategy was the staple infantry. Safe transport, safe Filler... They protected the Armor, their speed was essential. Fast Trucks, like the Opel Blitz driven by a proffessional driver again and again and the total support for the Armor was what made Victory possible.

In many combat situations we'd overdo the armor, with 10-15 pieces of Heavy Panzer 3s camping a Base but the problem would be is the enemy Sappers would blow them up, that or some sort of Enemy Air Mission. Having lighter Tanks were Essential and Lighter Fighting Vehicles. Like the 232s, Panzer IIs.. I'd find that I'd rack up 10 Xs more kills in a machine that travels 60 MPH than 30 MPH because speed was the essence of warfare when you have to travel 50-100 miles to do combat and get the armor to where it can do the maximum damage. We'd probe with our light armor the lines, to find holes to punch through smash the Heavier tanks just launching off when they're vulnerable, killing off the mass Infantry, and anti-tank... Much like you describe Russian Steppe Combat. Even at times I'd flank with some 20MM cannon hammer a Heavy Tanks rear or Tracks, sacrifice a few light vehicles than come in with Airpower or heavier ATGs. It was like a fluid dance and when everyone does their job right Blitzkrieg does come down to some essentials. Speed, Flanking manuevers<always hitting your enemey brom behind, cutting off supply, the heavy use of AirPower...

Though as in this game Airpower is overpowered it should be moderated to make Mechanization/ Armor / Infantry / Air to make a fluid action of conquoring rather than Chess pieces lined up and smack smack with land, then kill with air

[ev]

Thanks for your comments Liam. I am very optimistic Hubert is paying attention to our comments. In the past, he included more than a couple of our recommendations in his patches. And from what I gather, SC2 is already incorporating some or our earlier comments from the SC1 forums.

Most of us agree air power was too powerfull in SC1. I have been thinking quite a bit about it. I have some ideas. During WWII:

1 airpower was more effective against tanks than against infantry.

2 airpower was more effective against units on the move (not entrenched) than against entrenched units.

3 airpower was much more effective against units on the front ...when directed by ground spotters.

SC can simulte each of these.

With regards to #1, either Air fleet could have higher attack strength against tanks, or tanks could have lower air defense.

I have the feeling #2 was already incorporated into the SC combat engine. In any event, airdefense could be raised by entrenchment.

Regarding #3, a combat multiplier could increase air attack when there is a friendly ground unit adjacent to the enemy unit receiving the air attack. This combat multiplier could vary with the readiness of the "ground controlling unit". A "ground controlling unit" in top readiness (either because it is elite or because it is attached to a top HQ or for what ever other reason) should provide better target info.

[Edwin P.]

Air power was more effective against tanks than infantry?

Really?

If I am a grunt I would much rather be in a Tank protected by steel than in a field protected by air. Remember, that the gravity bombs dropped during WWII were not very accurate and were more fatal to unprotected infantry.

[ June 08, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]