Infantry Discussion Thread 9: Parabellum [NO KAIJU]

[Purpelia]

I basically figure that it would be a cost thing. In the modern day and age and playing with realistic army budgets I might get more bang for my buck from having 1 heavy division of tank/IFV and 2-3 "light"* divisions than having something like 2 heavy divisions and nothing else for the same money. That is why my initial question was on the topic of cost vs effectiveness. It would also allow me to focus my professional army into the heavy formations and fill the lighter ones with reservists for less total cost.

[Gallia-]

No. There is no difference between them for your purposes.

[Puzikas]

BTRs and BMPs were not mixed by preference.

The only time they ever got mixed in reality were in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the 73mm gun on the BMP-1 was used for blowing out positions and the BTR was a more comfortable ride.

Neither of these were official Russian doctrine and were almost entierly ad hoc and had no real coordination. It worked alright but there were better choices.

E: this post is entierly useless so just ignore it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Heavonia]

The standard Heavonian infantry platoon has three squads of 9 men, two support teams, and a command team, for a total of 36 men (not including vehicle crew).

Each squad has three NCOs (one Corporal and two lance-Corporals) and six Privates. The Corporal is in charge of the whole squad, one Lance-Corporal has three soldiers in the support element, and the other has three soldiers in the closing element. The Support element has an anti-armour soldier, a Number 2 and a gunner. The Gunner is equipped with a Crew-served Light Machine Gun, The Number 2 equipped with a rifle and spare ammunition, and the Anti-Armour soldier equipped with a high velocity munitions projector. The NCOs are equipped with light automatic carbines.

Each support group has a more powerful anti-armour munitions projector - with an NCO, a gunner and a Number 2.

The Command Team has an Officer, a Medic, and a Serjeant.

---

Does anyone have the structure of a WWII British Infantry Battalion?

[EsToVnIa]

a more appropriate would be something like "i am already lanos -o"

also why BTR when you can MT-LB :c

[Crookfur]

Playing around with an early Crookfur sem-auto pistol

head line is supposedly luger meets model 51 via simson pistol



The M18 pistol (aka model 1918) in 9mm parabellum using a hesiation lock.

Still to try my hand at a compact plain blowback .32ACP version.

[Purpelia]

The handle looks a bit short. Either that or the slide a bit tall. Might be just me though.

[Crookfur]

The handle looks a bit short. Either that or the slide a bit tall. Might be just me though.

Its has actually quite a short (height wise) frame/slide compared what it is based on but I'm still thinking of moving the sldie further down the frame to make it more model 51 in terms of looks though


edit:

played around with the slide some more, its gettign really hard to avoid making a ww1 glock at this stage:

[Sediczja]

Does anyone have the structure of a WWII British Infantry Battalion?

This is a good site for WW2 infantry stuff.

[Fordorsia]

120cm of ford pokiness

nirv aint shit

[Purpelia]

Now that I like. Finally a stabbing sword from you.

[Fordorsia]

Now that I like. Finally a stabbing sword from you.

Falchions and falcatas can stab

[Purpelia]

Now that I like. Finally a stabbing sword from you.

Falchions and falcatas can stab

So can a hammer. That does not make either of the three a stabbing weapon.

[Fordorsia]

No you cannot stab someone with a hammer


Unless it has a beak, in which case it is in fact a stabbing weapon

[Purpelia]

No you cannot stab someone with a hammer


Unless it has a beak, in which case it is in fact a stabbing weapon

No it is not. A stabbing weapon is a weapon designed primarily to stab that may or may not have other capabilities. Like a spear, rapier etc. So a hammer with a beak is not a stabbing weapon. Just like a rapier is not a cutting weapon even though it can sort of cut. Or how a rifle is not a frying pan even though you can fry stuff on it if you tried.

If we were to abandon this sort of naming convention than names them self would become meaningless as you can with enough effort extract the capability to do anything from any object thus rendering everything everything else. A tank thus becomes an aircraft because it can fly if you shove it into a steam catapult.

[Fordorsia]

I think you're taking this a bit too seriously

[Purpelia]

I think you're taking this a bit too seriously

I just spent 3 hours writing a parser to convert ASE formatted text files containing non content of specific types well outside of the ASE format specification into something my program can read and understand so that I can load external data files into a video game I am making.

You'll excuse me being a bit serious.

[Dostanuot Loj]

"Light infantry" is always specialized, unless you're a super awful army that can't afford to mechanize, like Nigeria or India.

I was using the term in the context of stuff like motor infantry that uses lighter vehicles instead of IFV's. You know, the kind of forces that have larger squads and lighter APC's but compensate for that with more man portable equipment. Like the Soviet BTR borne infantry.

Just want to point out this is how a lot of RL armies work, even the US. What you're describing is exactly the Bradley/Stryker dichotomy.

In fact Canada did this, and may still do I can't remember, with its mechanized infantry which would accompany tanks in their M113 MAPLEGAVINS, and regular infantry would ride out of wheeled AVGP DEATH TRUCKS.

[Husseinarti]

(Image)

ahhhh

needs artillery version with stock and 32 round magazine

[Gallia-]

I was using the term in the context of stuff like motor infantry that uses lighter vehicles instead of IFV's. You know, the kind of forces that have larger squads and lighter APC's but compensate for that with more man portable equipment. Like the Soviet BTR borne infantry.

Just want to point out this is how a lot of RL armies work, even the US. What you're describing is exactly the Bradley/Stryker dichotomy.

In fact Canada did this, and may still do I can't remember, with its mechanized infantry which would accompany tanks in their M113 MAPLEGAVINS, and regular infantry would ride out of wheeled AVGP DEATH TRUCKS.

The "Bradley/Stryker" dichotomy isn't the same as "BMP/BTR", though. In fact, they're almost entirely unrelated thinking. I suppose the US Army could make Strykers drive on roads for quick operational maneuver (in Western Europe only, probably), but its purpose isn't to be an equivalent to the Bradley.

Stryker is a air transportable vehicle for medium armoured units to support forcible entry forces because the US Army (for some :groovy: reason) thought that tanks and IFVs would be too slow to arrive. It was the interim to FCS, and its entire purpose has been thrown into disarray since 1) there is no real need for medium armoured troops, 2) FCS is dead and the "Interim Vehicle" is now the permanent vehicle, 3) it's too poorly armed to be a good replacement for an actual IFV.

Cost didn't really factor into it (which is why BTR exists, to be cheaper to own/operate than BMP), which is why Stryker costs 3x as much as it should.

If anything, the BMP is more like a tracked BTR, where the Stryker is like a wheeled BMD, but the analogies sorta fall on their face because America has a fundamentally different view of airborne troops, forcible entry, and mechanization in general than the USSR did.

The closest other Western equivalent to Stryker would be CVR(T) probably.

[Aqizithiuda]

Who wants to see some images of medieval spears and warfare from manuscripts?

You do. Of course you do!

[Puzikas]

Who wants to see some images of medieval spears and warfare from manuscripts?

You do. Of course you do!

>pinterest

Noooooo

[Mozria]

Sorry that this took so long for me to do. My internship has resulted in my being heavily overworked for the last few days, and so I didn't have time to work on this post.

Alright, so the average effective small arms is 1km, that doesn't change the idea that in closing, reaction times vs engagement times are skewed towards potential defenders and not towards the offenders AKA your boots on the ground.

This may be true in terms of equal forces with equal capabilities, but you failed to consider that I was only referring to infantry engagement distances. With the heavy weapons on the vehicles (HMGs and ATGM, plus the programmable automatic grenade launcher on the other armament carrier that I had neglected to mention), the effective engagement ranges could extend out to three or four kilometers, or even over five in the case of the ATGM carrier (due to extremely high speed rocket motors being used).

Lasers don't zap anything and they require time to be effective. Take it in this way, even if you're providing the same light-energy that at fifty kilometers would be effective, this assault carrier (in orbit mind you which on any earth-like planet is roughly 2,000km) would need to hold still for about, what, ten times longer in order to effectively destroy anything, assuming it is provided real-time updates on it's target without datalag or targetlag which even then is highly irregular. In short, this Assault Carrier is only going to be of use on any stabilized target far below it which even then would likely be of little use. Plasma weaponry even less effective. If you want to be effective from high up, you need to use KKV's or Conventional Entry Vehicles armed with explosives AKA a missile. A missile from 2,000km up will still take time which is something in a firefight your troops will not have. I understand I'm making a bunch of assumptions about your technology by writing this, but these are just some of the flaws by assuming you can still be plausibly PMT or Soft-FT at this point. Don't take this as hostility in any regards, but rather an attempt to show how the idea of an assault carrier being able to provide on-site fire-support would be slightly stretched by any regard.

Yes, they do zap things- especially when the word "zap" is a figure of speech. Also, it seems that you are thinking of modern low energy output chemical lasers with beam wavelengths on the infrared scale instead of the extremely high output fusion-supplied lasers with outputs in the green scale such as are being utilized here. Particularly when you have extremely rapid (~1,000,000 Hz +) high-energy beam pulsing, you can chew a nasty, explosive hole in anything you shoot at. Trust me, the assault carrier can absolutely provide orbital fire support.

Also, orbits are not so far away as you think. For example, the ISS has an orbit of 400 kilometers' distance from the sea level IIRC, and there are many satellites with orbits closer than that. Regardless, at an orbital distance of 2,000 km your lightspeed lag would only be about one 300,000th of a second. I'd say that's pretty inconsequential.

I never even mentioned plasma weaponry, and I wouldn't because it doesn't work. Also, with a low geosynchronous orbit (which would exhaust propellant for station-keeping, I know) you could very easily exert total dominance of the surrounding area through orbital fire support. There is nothing about this that limits that capability.

You only dropped two units from a pair of transatmospheric frigates, from how high up?

Three hundred meters, give or take a few. High-airspeed drops, but nothing too dangerous. Reefed parachutes protected the men and materiel from too heavy of acceleration upon exiting, and retro-rockets were used to cushion the IMVs' landings.

How have the units been moving since, what are their actual mission success requirements, why didn't you drop ground troops en masse closer using HEV's like ODSTs in Halo or Starship Troopers?

The two units were dropped roughly fifteen to twenty minutes before the situation that I am describing comes to exist, in that most of this time was eaten up by vehicle preparation and unit assembly. It was done this way because exhausting one-way drop capsules to put down infantry alone is more than wasteful in a situation where there is no need for such fast-and-hard means of insertion, especially considering the troops would be without critical support materiel once/if they reach the ground.

There is a reason why such things are so commonly used and why we still use airborne troops today, because the objective you're committing to would best be carried out by a much larger and capable jump-troop force and not a dozen IMV's (the issues with those will be put up shortly).

What's your point? Two units of just under fifty men each plus supporting vehicles and heavy weapons (not to mention the massive amount of firepower suspended in orbit) does not make for an insubstantial force for securing a small town. Besides, the purpose of the force when put together was specifically to make fast in-atmosphere deployments and swiftly advance on objectives to establish influence over the AO. It was not made to assault heavily fortified positions, but rather to crush isolated enemy forces without too much heavy equipment or ordnance (as orbital and air support is expected to neutralize most or all of both prior to ground engagement).

Not only are your transatmo's passing over the AO now, but they're doing so regularly? Hwo so? Are they maneuvering in high altitude at which point they likely can only make a pass once every half hour (because maneuvering where there isn't much air and doing so in something as large as say, a frigate carrying at least six IMV's is going to take time) is again working against your expediency requirement. Air cover is required, not orbital cover and not transatmo cover, air-cover. Dedicated airborne attacker units built for loitering over the AO in order to provide boots on the ground with not only instant, but also sustained fire-support capabilities that neither your carrier nor your frigates can offer. This is why we still use Reapers/Predators/Apaches/A-10's/any other form of CAS-type fixed/rotary wing support we can, for the purpose of supporting ground operations and for expediting the tactical usage of conventional anti-personnel or anti-armor weapons.

The frigates are circling over the AO at an altitude of twenty kilometers, from which they have a very good view of the AO and can maintain this view for quite some time. BTW, when they're using ramjets to fly around at that altitude, I don't see why they would be slow to move. They may have a lot of energy, maybe, but go in a wide enough arc and you can make something like that turn in a circle. The trick is getting them to land, if need be. Anyhow, they aren't replacing loitering air attack vehicles. Those just simply couldn't be brought to the deployment location with the amount of time the ships had to prepare to go where they were headed. Also, you can't exactly chuck helicopters out of spacecraft in orbit. They would need to be landed in dropships and prepped on the ground, just like everything else.

You know, there is actually a much larger unit ten or so kilometers away that is using packable VTOLs to ascend to an objective on the side of a mountain (as the gondola system has been damaged). The mountain objective is why all of the ships are there, anyway, but securing the colony is also an important task. The VTOLs are simply a means of accomplishing the primary objective, and are closer to transport or utility helicopters than they are to ground attack assets. Either way, no loitering support craft are available.

For when air cover could possibly be concerned with other issues, we then also arm our IFV's which your IMV's are as classified by wikipedia which I will place in my response to your explanation below.

An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), or mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV), is a type of armoured fighting vehicle used to carry infantry into battle and provide direct fire support.[1] The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines an infantry fighting vehicle as "an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher."

Infantry fighting vehicles are distinct from armoured personnel carriers (APCs), which are transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not specifically engineered to fight on their own. Consequently, they possess heavier armament and the attached rifle squad fights mounted more often than in an APC. IFVs also often have improved armour and some have ports which allow the infantry to fire personal weapons while on board.

They are typically armed with a 20 to 40 mm caliber autocannon, a coaxial machine gun and sometimes anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). IFVs are usually tracked, but there are some wheeled vehicles too. IFVs are much less heavily armed and protected than main battle tanks, but when equipped with larger cannon or ATGMs may pose a significant threat to all but the heaviest armoured fighting vehicles.

My points therein lie with the IMV's as you claim having the ability to not only A) Carry Infantry into Battle, but also B) Provide direct fire support as shown by your placing of one on 'Overwatch'. While indeed they might not have a 20mm Cannon, it can have an ATGM mounted on it and generally has a HMG or heavy-caliber machine-gun on it which again supersedes the reason to have the 20mm Cannon, especially if it's a coilgun given the higher kinetic energy (respective to current or modern sub-cannon rounds) of a sub-cannon round powered by Mr. Gauss' Amazing Propulsion Theory.

Your vehicles are not armed only for self defense as you have stated they do have the ability to commit to direct fire-support in the anti-armour and anti-personnel roles, am I correct? If this is indeed the case, they are properly classified regardless of personal flavour-text as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, having not only the A) Ability to carry Infantry into battle, but also B) Directly join in Fighting hostiles in the battlefield. Armor counts for little as an IFV can be designed to be light, but still be an IFV unless of course your IMV's are jeeps or something akin to a Warthog or Mongoose from Halo at which point all of my previous points are rendered null, but still makes me bring up the earlier qquestions of how far they were dropped and how they were supported in landing?

I must point out that your relating IFVs to just about any vehicle that is meant to operate alongside infantry while also possessing heavy weapons such as ATGMs would bring a wide range of tactical utility vehicles under such a designation. In particular, the M1167 HMMWV TOW carrier with the O-GPK dual TOW/M240B turret would absolutely fit the description.

Anyways, I am sorry that I have not provided detailed information on the IMVs until now, as I am sure that such will discount your beliefs that they are on the scale of conventional IFVs.

The M12B TARV (Transportable All-terrain Reconnaissance Vehicle) is a light six-wheeled infantry mobility vehicle that was originally developed to give special operations forces a vehicle platform that was small enough to be airlifted/dropped into a location while also providing enhanced all-terrain mobility and moderate cargo capacity while preserving the mounted fire support capabilities of a heavier tactical utility vehicle. Unfortunately, these design considerations mean that it has very little protection and cannot carry as many men as traditional armored personnel carriers. It compensates for the first flaw with its great mobility and visibility, and can increase troop capacity at the cost of carried cargo. It has been put to great use as a general workhorse for Fast Reaction Unit (such as the units mentioned previously) troops, providing a quickly deployable ground mobility platform for high intensity missions involving planetary action.

The TARV is six meters long, a third as wide, and stands at 1.8 meters tall at the height of the roll cage. A mounted HMG brings this up to 2.2 meters, without optional gun shields. It weighs 4.5 tons standard, and can carry an additional two thirds of that in cargo, equipment and personnel. Its dynamic independent-wheel hydropneumatic suspension allows very good mobility over rough terrain even while at full capacity, and the vehicle has a maximum road speed in excess of one hundred and fifty kilometers per hour.

I would say that, definitively, the TARVs are not IFVs. They are very unique vehicles, and only really apply to the infantry mobility vehicle class due to their transport role. However, they are meant for reconnaissance, fire support and logistical support just as much as they are for anything else that may need doing. Their versatility is a key trait of their use, and as such they are ideal vehicles to drop in support of fast reaction troops.

Effective fire range is one kilometer on both sides, no?

No, it isn't. It extends out to nearly five kilometers' distance for the attackers, and for the possible defenders it is at maximum (if they possess handheld guided missile launchers, which is possible but unlikely) two kilometers. The HMGs of the attacking vehicles can effectively engage the enemy at that distance, as can the PAGLS.

If so, then you dismount outside of said effective fire range unless you want to get swiss-cheesed by likely defenders entrenched within the town. If I'm a defender with an entire town to run through, I'm going to not want to wait for my enemy to get into the town because that puts them on the same footing as me if not gives them the advantage, I'm going to want to engage them while they're still far off. If my effective firing range is one kilometer, I will want to engage first from one kilometer, aiming for the lead vehicle to immediately halt their advance and then relocate all of my troops deeper into the town to wait to engage once more. Once the enemy has lost IFV support, I can then safely work on engaging them on my home turf without worrying for further reprisals until any form of exterior fire support shows up again.

The best way to avoid exposing infantry to any form of preemptive anti-vehicle fire would be to, again, dismount just outside the supposed 'effective fire range' of enemy combatants and begin maneuvering to link up with your mounts once they have secured a nominal rendezvous point within the objective limits. I'm guessing sensor-types would allow for the IFV's to clear a few homes on the outskirts themselves and stay safe until infantry, which is smaller and more maneuverable can catch up. If the IFV's get into trouble, they retreat and begin laying down suppressive fire on the suspect location of the hostiles--

I do not agree in any way with this approach. Barring superior cover or an opportunity for entrenchment, dismounting the infantry at that range would do nothing but rid them of both mobility and their best form of protection on the battlefield. Take note that alongside the heavy weapons and greater engagement distances, the TARVs have both light armor and shield generators, which when used together would provide good protection versus most forms of small arms (even limited fire from heavy machine guns or light cannons) and ordnance fragments. The shields would also detonate contact-fused explosives at a distance from the vehicle, making them much less effective. Infantry, while they do possess light personal shielding, can only withstand limited rifle fire and the like-making them very vulnerable outside their IMVs.

Considering that generally effective area fire can be made with small arms quite far beyond their effective point-fire distance, it would be a very bad idea to separate the infantry from their vehicles in full view of the objective. At least on the hill, the securing infantry would have the ability to use the slope and its composing earth as a barrier, but troops in the open would not have that luxury. Instead, I would opt for using the optics of the command vehicle and ATGM carrier to look for the enemy, and in the event of the enemy evading detection, tentatively advance with the main body of vehicles. Should they come under fire, they would be prepared to respond with overwhelming force and make a swift run to the objective to dismount infantry and take the fight to the enemy in close range. It isn't a perfect plan, but it's about the best course of action that can be taken in that circumstance.

--regardless of potential civilians for the same reasons we do now, civilians should already be evacuated from an active war zone and if they haven't been the blame for their deaths during crossfire is put on the defending force with command of the local civilian populace. By no means does this mean cut them down, but don't stress too much about civilian safety. Keep up a good situational awareness and you'll likely keep casualties down and local yokels safe.

Perhaps I should have mentioned this as well, but the town is a colony that could quite possibly have been seized by enemy forces. Thusly, the colonists that are probably there are assets to be taken care of- especially considering the importance of the research project that they were on the planet to work on. In generality, they are not considered expendable.

It should be noted that the elusiveness of the possible enemy forces means that something's really fishy about the whole situation. The colonists could be held hostage, be dead or simply gone. The FRUs are there to look for them, and to engage and destroy the enemy if need be.

Dismounting infantry is something every force does from within an established safe area outside of the conflict zone for the same reason we don't attempt to first bomb a place into oblivion or engage remotely, because soldiers are expensive investments and losing them on less-than-significant targets is akin to nearly wasting their lives. Play smart with all lives you have under your control, sacrifice the ones you need to and only that precise amount rather than expose all to danger in a gamble for a superior position.

There is no "safe zone" within five or six kilometers of the AO. The enemy can still conduct area fires out to several kilometers if so inclined, even if the effectiveness of those fires is minimal. Anyways, I was never suggesting to put the men under unnecessary risk. The vehicles are without a doubt the safest place for them to be.

I do agree that the your IFV's should approach once under overwatch, but again I urge you that if indeed you're going to spread out your vehicles at the extent of your enemy's effective fire range, that you first dismount all infantry. Secondly, I urge you to not have all eyes on the town as while indeed that is your major stress point, it is not the only significant if major danger. You did just specify there is a massive field around the road and a thick/dense jungle/forest area on either side, no? What better place to set up ambushes for vehicles in a wide-open looking only toward the objective than in the peripheral where the first few shots could be fired without anyone directly noting the position. Hell, even your overwatch vehicles would be hard-pressed. Rather, I'd urge you to have the command vehicle use its superior optics to sweep the areas directly ahead and to the sides of your formation while the initial overwatch vehicle focuses on the town. While the commander's optics could probably pick out the threat from the town faster, boots on the ground will have a much better idea of where frontal fire is coming from so that makes your commander's target-fixation redundant and unwise. Rather, exploiting the advantage the commander has in being able to be constantly situationally aware of not only his unit's progress but any of the threats they may come across would allow him to do his job best.

Also, why in the hell does this jungle end only two kilometers away and to the side? This second formation, why is it not going to arrive at the same time or within three-to -four minutes of the first formation? What better way to catch an enemy off-guard or in the shit than to make sure you're properly staggered rather than stretched thin? Unless you failed to specify this at first, or I failed to find this information at first, staggering approaches by as far as even five minutes could spell death for your first formation.

The jungle has been carefully examined from the air, and with the exception of only a few entities thought to be indigenous life, there have been no outstanding contacts within the jungle as seen. Given its density, though, the possibility of a concealed enemy presence cannot be eliminated and as such the nearby treeline shall be observed during the advancement. The far treeline (the one to the left) is being observed by the other unit, but in any event would not provide an advantageous firing position for the enemy. Regardless, if the vehicles started taking fire their Boomerang-esque shooter detection systems will tell them exactly where it is coming from. Also, don't forget how much people stand out on FLIR displays versus the surrounding environment. Any bad guy in the treeline would be relatively easy to detect and engage, as would anyone in the buildings. The only real problem is if they use the civilians as shields, which would be really uncool.

In relation to the other unit's arrival time, it should be considered that the first unit shall not advance until the two have rendezvoused outside the objective. If there is a significant delay or otherwise securing the objective becomes more easy or important than waiting, though, then the first unit will take the town itself.

[Aqizithiuda]

Who wants to see some images of medieval spears and warfare from manuscripts?

You do. Of course you do!

>pinterest

Noooooo

Heh. I'm not a big fan of it either, but I am lazy, and this made it easier to make the collection, complete with links back to the source.

[Allanea]

1. I doubt very much the ability of any infantry-issue rifle - even if they have a laser-like ability to hit precisely what they're aimed at at any distance - to have an effective range of 1000 meters, unless the definition of "effective range" you use is radically different from mine or unless the infantry themselves are cybernetically enhanced. I don't expect an infantryman, unless they're a one-out-of-a-thousand marksman, to be able to shoot a rifle, under stress, and reliably hit people at 1000 meters. (Again, excepting a sniper who has a whole different sort of issues).

2. The physical range at which your vehicles can shoot their weapons and hit targets has no bearing on the range at which you'll actually be fighting. Because (unless your nation has radically different means of observation from what's used today) it's possible for people in an urban setting to hide almost perfectly from observation, they can no doubt lure your troops into combat at any range they choose.