specification of Mechanized Infantry

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • specification of Mechanized Infantry

      The current situation that I am most dissatisfied with is the lack of differentiation between the 3 units.

      3 units is
      ･ Armord car
      ･ Motorized Infantry
      ･ Mechanized Infantry

      Especially, I am dissatisfied specification of Mechanized Infantry.

      In brief, Mechanized Infantry have an aspect of " rough ground running vehicle. "

      And Armord car and Motorized Infantry is not.

      So it is uncomfortable that Mechanized Infantry run slower than others in Hills or Forest et al.

      By the way, and Mechanized Infantry is not always Armord Infantry.

    • Move speed is a bit warped anyway... in fact infantry isn't much slower than mobile troops in rough terrain. It is like supposing there are no roads at all there... )))
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • its true all three of them make little sense

      Current:
      ･ Armored car - Fast, Scouting, Low attack, High Defense vs INF
      ･ Motorized Infantry - Fast, Scouting, High attack, Low Def
      ･ Mechanized Infantry - Medium speed, Medium attack, High Def

      Should be
      ･ Armored car - Fastest unit by far, Scouting, High Attack vs INF, bad vs anything else
      ･ Motorized Infantry - Fast in open terrain only, Same Attack and Def as INF (fighting dismounted)
      ･ Mechanized Infantry - Fast all terrain (relative) Much higher attack and defense than INF vs all.

    • In a realistic simulation, every land unit would be stronger at defense than attack. Defenders know the terrain, they are hidden, and dug in. Attackers are at a disadvantage and need numerical superiority and/or surprise on their side (like starting a war without warning). Else the defender wins in an even fight. This is true for armored, mechanized, and foot soldiers alike.

    • Not really, for example france during ww2 had many tanks but they were always in defensive positions. This allowed the Germans to flank and easily defeat them, for motorized or mechanized infantry they are effective in flanking and encircling tactics due to their speed. In defense motorized/mechanized infantry wouldn’t be able to utilize those tactics so they should (in my opinion) be less effective in defense than attack.

    • Of course they could; there's even a term for it, "Mobile defense", which basically means quickly deploying your units to the zones which are most threatened.

      France lost in 1940 because they (and the British alike) scattered their mobile forces all over the place while Germany kept them concentrated in one place (the Ardennes thrust). That way they could create a local numerical superiority ("Schwerpunkt", in their own doctrine's word) even if the total forces more or less balanced out. Probably 80% of the front between Switzerland and the North Sea was more or less static; but they create the breakthrough in the 20% that really mattered. That they MADE really matter.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      In a realistic simulation, every land unit would be stronger at defense than attack. Defenders know the terrain, they are hidden, and dug in. Attackers are at a disadvantage and need numerical superiority and/or surprise on their side (like starting a war without warning). Else the defender wins in an even fight. This is true for armored, mechanized, and foot soldiers alike.
      How do you think that you would dig this in? It would cancel all what a mobile unit is about. Infantry build trenches but motorized or mechanized infantry is a shock troop used in the offensive.

      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • I'm a thread starter, one of those who wants them to reproduce the exact constraints on the armored forces, so I think it's just probably the same feel of values as you in most respects.
      However, it is true that lay armored forces under the ground is a type of field fortifications.

      encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/ima…EGGwrL4Pe4PXDvLg&usqp=CAU

      encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/ima…Bv4reQkouYBVtCRw&usqp=CAU

    • BMfox wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      In a realistic simulation, every land unit would be stronger at defense than attack. Defenders know the terrain, they are hidden, and dug in. Attackers are at a disadvantage and need numerical superiority and/or surprise on their side (like starting a war without warning). Else the defender wins in an even fight. This is true for armored, mechanized, and foot soldiers alike.
      How do you think that you would dig this in? It would cancel all what a mobile unit is about. Infantry build trenches but motorized or mechanized infantry is a shock troop used in the offensive.

      Read one of Clancy's early classics Red Storm Rising, for a detailed description of how armored units utilize defensive positions to defeat armored assault formations.

      In brief, they dig in, so only the gun and the top of the turret peek out. They create interlocking fields of fire. When the enemy figures out where they're shooting from, they quickly move to another fighting position, rinse repeat. They decimate large armor formations before they have a chance to do any damage to the defenders. It's all about preparing kill zones up front, and preserving your forces. Not about running around in the open like in, you know, a video game.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      BMfox wrote:

      How do you think that you would dig this in? It would cancel all what a mobile unit is about. Infantry build trenches but motorized or mechanized infantry is a shock troop used in the offensive.
      Read one of Clancy's early classics Red Storm Rising, for a detailed description of how armored units utilize defensive positions to defeat armored assault formations.

      In brief, they dig in, so only the gun and the top of the turret peek out. They create interlocking fields of fire. When the enemy figures out where they're shooting from, they quickly move to another fighting position, rinse repeat. They decimate large armor formations before they have a chance to do any damage to the defenders. It's all about preparing kill zones up front, and preserving your forces. Not about running around in the open like in, you know, a video game
      You could easily do that with 0.50 calibre machine guns and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Regular infantry can do the job just as well. As to the Clancy's point, mechanized infantry have the same stats in offense and defense so that makes sense.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • I'm sorry but, this is main point as discomfort.
      A mechanized infantry is a unit consisting of a crew of 10 orders infantry and 3 drivers.
      This means that after arriving at a theater and deploying, 3 ÷ 12 = 25% of the complementary events, in short about 75% of the members, will be placed unarmed.
      Or infantry can't participate in any battle.
      They just patient enemy attacks in the car
      ( I think it's one of the German open-top armored personnel carriers SdKfz251 series, but ) that sealed in some case.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by pod_than ().

    • pod_than wrote:

      I'm sorry but, this is main point as discomfort.
      A mechanized infantry is a unit consisting of a crew of 10 orders infantry and 3 drivers.
      This means that after arriving at a theater and deploying, 3 ÷ 12 = 25% of the complementary events, in short about 75% of the members, will be placed unarmed.
      Or infantry can't participate in any battle.
      They just patient enemy attacks in the car
      ( I think it's one of the German open-top armored personnel carriers SdKfz251 series, but ) that sealed in some case.

      Why do you think the troop carrier has infantry aboard, for ballast?
      They get out to fight.
      Dig trenches, place mines, hide in trees, snipe with their rifles, fire machine guns, etc.
      There are probably times (depending on terrain) when the vehicle has to hide, and everyone fights on foot.
      In dense forest, and in villages/towns.
      Especially when tanks are running around, that armored vehicle is a fat juicy target with a gas tank.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      pod_than wrote:

      I'm sorry but, this is main point as discomfort.
      A mechanized infantry is a unit consisting of a crew of 10 orders infantry and 3 drivers.
      This means that after arriving at a theater and deploying, 3 ÷ 12 = 25% of the complementary events, in short about 75% of the members, will be placed unarmed.
      Or infantry can't participate in any battle.
      They just patient enemy attacks in the car
      ( I think it's one of the German open-top armored personnel carriers SdKfz251 series, but ) that sealed in some case.
      Why do you think the troop carrier has infantry aboard, for ballast?
      They get out to fight.
      Dig trenches, place mines, hide in trees, snipe with their rifles, fire machine guns, etc.
      There are probably times (depending on terrain) when the vehicle has to hide, and everyone fights on foot.
      In dense forest, and in villages/towns.
      Especially when tanks are running around, that armored vehicle is a fat juicy target with a gas tank.
      >“ There are probably times ( depending on terrain ) when the vehicle has to hide, and everyone fights on foot. ”

      As long as used the expression of Quantization, I just understand that it may have to round to 1 or 0 “ probably times ”.

      But, if it round to such a case, I think it better that would round to a situation of fighting outside the car ( outdoors ).

      By the way, you said “ In dense forest, and in villages / towns ( the vehicle has to hide, and everyone fights on foot ). ” probably, Deviate from the purpose of thread.

      Ofcourse, there is no reason to be confused about having a discussion just because of that topic in particular, however it might have been better that you declared you to have started that topic.

    • Basically:

      Infantry - soldiers marching - maybe maximum 50 km a day. Some German infantry divisions in Barbarossa didn't see an enemy for months.
      Motorized infantry - soldiers in trucks. As soon as they actually reached enemy troops, those trucks would be ripped to shreds by even light enemy fire. They needed to dismount before actually going into combat. Great for strategic movement, but useless mobility in tactical (battlefield) combat.
      Mechanized infantry - soldiers in armored vehicles. Protected against rifle and machine gun fire. Could actually drive onto the battlefield unless enemy AP guns (tanks, AT guns, etc) were present. To actually engage in combat they still needed to dismount; infantry in a vehicle cannot actually do their infantry job. Both strategic and tactical mobility to do that job where needed though.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • That's right.

      I greatly appreciate for your very smart and precise explanation.
      Such “ strategic and tactical mobility ” is sometimes distinguished mobility from “ maneuver ”.

      For the instance, fleet is formed formation.
      In this time, changing formations, fleet must match the ship with the slowest “ turning ” speed, not the slowest ship to run ( straight ) in the fleet.
      Or wreck between ships occurred.
      Also, torpedos approaching from one side, so ships try to avoid.
      In this time, will the ships avoid the impact, or fail?
      In such contexts, just said words should be appeared.

      By the way everyone may have noticed, I'm a japanese people.
      Maneuver is said ( for convenience ) “ 運動性 ” in japanese language.
      And ( strategic ) mobility is “ 機動性 ” or “ 機動力 ” ( sufix : “ 性 ” ≈ property or character etc., “ 力 ” ≈ ability, aptitude or capacity etc. ).

      The post was edited 5 times, last by pod_than ().