NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Imperializt Russia]

I catch you, Dnal. Part of the Russian doctrine strikes me as a reaction to the historic unreliability they've (their higher command) has had with their junior officers and especially their NCOs. Putting fewer eggs in each basket, eh?
But maybe Putin has reformed all of that. I wouldn't know. The closest to Russian soldiers I've ever gotten was training with Georgian soldiers, and nothing they said about Russians was positive.

I'm not sure if this assessment is strictly correct.

Soviet officers had much less scope for ingenuity and intuition, but due to some peculiar but very interesting practices and perceived qualities of leadership, much more junior officers could take key hierarchical positions compared to in the west and required much less training - to the point that entire regiments and divisions could operate without any orders from high command - and still operate as part of a Front.

To the other point, my inference was based off of Soviet tank doctrine. By utilising the 3-man crew, as well as a smaller and lighter tank, for the same amount of manpower as four-man crew western tank formations - the Soviets could field twice as many tank battalions, with almost as many tanks per battalion. This afforded them amazing operational and tactical mobility as well as a weight of fire that could be brought to bear.

[Purpelia]

Just do what I do and give each squad commander the right and obligation to assign hierarchy of inheritance for his soldiers. That way, even in the face of a catastrophic loss of manpower the two men left in your division will know just who is in charge of whom.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Even thought in last incarnation with armoured infantry I went to the "squad leader plus two fire teams" there's something compelling for me in going (back) for squad being smallest unit of "independent" manouver in armoured infantry and squad would basically be that "squad lead+three fire and manovre pairs". Two pairs operating either RPG or RCL and one MG pair.

wait, what? Could you please write it again but easier to read this time?

[Blackledge]

My design process largely consists of starting with Soviet formations/doctrine and tweaking them here and there. Hence, the 3-vehicle platoons, but with PK machine guns assigned at the squad level (in place of RPKs) instead of the Company level. Given that the I'm mostly using Soviet military doctrine, I figured it was best to stick to Soviet formations.

Very neat to combine Soviet formation and US Army ranks anyway. What made you gravitate to Soviet doctrine?

Each country in NATO has some plan or thing they cling to when they plan their weapons or tactics, Russian seems to cling to numbers and use of force. I'm not sure.

At the risk of stereotyping Russia's army, I'd agree.

I doubt he's basing it on Mexico.

Indeed.

Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but there are quite a couple of videos that show Russian soldiers being quite undisciplined and plain stupid, such as firing from the hip and other such antics you'd expect from the rebel forces of a generic African country but not from what Russia pretends to be, then again I might be mistaking Georgians for Russians.

The Georgians I trained with were already combat veterans from their short war with Russia, and so they seemed like a rather skilled bunch.
As for Russians I couldn't say for certainty, but I have also heard bad things about discipline and coordination.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

This whole less is more concept sounds great in theory and I actually thought about adopting it but I come up against this problem: even with Western-sized/relatively large units and formations I'll still probably end up with ridiculous amount of support when I draw the line, but even further subtracting basic units I'll end up with an outrageous basic unit to support unit ratio. You can't scale down without giving up stuff.. e.g. I'd have to choose between AGLs and HMGs, direct and indirect fire, so on and so forth

[Immoren]

Even thought in last incarnation with armoured infantry I went to the "squad leader plus two fire teams" there's something compelling for me in going (back) for squad being smallest unit of "independent" manouver in armoured infantry and squad would basically be that "squad lead+three fire and manovre pairs". Two pairs operating either RPG or RCL and one MG pair.

wait, what? Could you please write it again but easier to read this time?

Thinking going to this familiar looking infantry squad For armoured infantry

Squad leader - (Corporal-Sergeant ;AR, disposable AT-launcher)
First fire and manouvre team

RPG Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)
RPG Gunner's assistant (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)

Second fire and manouvre team

RPG Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)
RPG Gunner's assistant (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)

Third fire and manouvre team

Machine gunner - (Private-Private First Class; PKM)
Designated marksman - (Private-Private First Class; SVD, disposable AT-launcher)

CV9040 Crew

Vehicle commander - (Corporal-Sergeant ;AR)
Driver - (Private-Private First Class; AR)
Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR)

[Blackledge]

I'm not sure if this assessment is strictly correct.

Soviet officers had much less scope for ingenuity and intuition, but due to some peculiar but very interesting practices and perceived qualities of leadership, much more junior officers could take key hierarchical positions compared to in the west and required much less training - to the point that entire regiments and divisions could operate without any orders from high command - and still operate as part of a Front.

To the other point, my inference was based off of Soviet tank doctrine. By utilising the 3-man crew, as well as a smaller and lighter tank, for the same amount of manpower as four-man crew western tank formations - the Soviets could field twice as many tank battalions, with almost as many tanks per battalion. This afforded them amazing operational and tactical mobility as well as a weight of fire that could be brought to bear.

Again, all my personal information is secondhand. Fellows I know who've interacted with the Russian army, either as foes or in training exercises, had generally nothing positive to say about their leadership skills or general intelligence. They had plenty to say admiring the Russian courage and ability for endurance, but most of the good things ended there.
At to the hierarchical positions, I would like to read more on that if you have some link. It sounds interesting and contrary to what I think is the more prevalent view of Russian leadership being distrustful and someone restrictive due to either ideology or class. Especially the idea of units acting without orders from high command (although I heard of such cases in their Chechen wars, due more to lack of coordination and poor communication rather than any overall design).

As to your other point, I read and acknowledge that. Good armour flexibility I can associate with the Russians.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

wait, what? Could you please write it again but easier to read this time?

Thinking going to this familiar looking infantry squad For armoured infantry

Squad leader - (Corporal-Sergeant ;AR, disposable AT-launcher)
First fire and manouvre team

RPG Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)
RPG Gunner's assistant (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)

Second fire and manouvre team

RPG Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)
RPG Gunner's assistant (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)

Third fire and manouvre team

Machine gunner - (Private-Private First Class; PKM)
Designated marksman - (Private-Private First Class; SVD, disposable AT-launcher)

CV9040 Crew

Vehicle commander - (Corporal-Sergeant ;AR)
Driver - (Private-Private First Class; AR)
Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR)

This sounds needlessly firepower-heavy and inflexible. Maybe it'd work as a general purpose squad for very defensive roles but you can't reasonably expect to haul all that ass in urban settings. At best I guess it could be the weapons squad of the platoon but nothing else.

EDIT: Also I recommend at least partially if not fully dismountable command elements for the dismounts. The guys on the ground are basically all the same rank the way you have them now.

[The Soodean Imperium]

My design process largely consists of starting with Soviet formations/doctrine and tweaking them here and there. Hence, the 3-vehicle platoons, but with PK machine guns assigned at the squad level (in place of RPKs) instead of the Company level. Given that the I'm mostly using Soviet military doctrine, I figured it was best to stick to Soviet formations.

Very neat to combine Soviet formation and US Army ranks anyway. What made you gravitate to Soviet doctrine?

Well, the US ranks are really just put in there as placeholders, as I assumed most people here (including myself) are more familiar with the responsibilities of each US rank. I intend to replace them with Eastern Bloc rank names in the near future, but keep the structure the same.

As for the Soviet doctrine, I figured it was a better fit for the Imperium's background - a large, populous, but still-developing nation with large reserves of fanatical soldiers. Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

[Immoren]

Thinking going to this familiar looking infantry squad For armoured infantry

Squad leader - (Corporal-Sergeant ;AR, disposable AT-launcher)
First fire and manouvre team

RPG Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)
RPG Gunner's assistant (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)

Second fire and manouvre team

RPG Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)
RPG Gunner's assistant (Private-Private First Class; AR, RPG)

Third fire and manouvre team

Machine gunner - (Private-Private First Class; PKM)
Designated marksman - (Private-Private First Class; SVD, disposable AT-launcher)

CV9040 Crew

Vehicle commander - (Corporal-Sergeant ;AR)
Driver - (Private-Private First Class; AR)
Gunner - (Private-Private First Class; AR)

This sounds needlessly firepower-heavy and inflexible. Maybe it'd work as a general purpose squad for very defensive roles but you can't reasonably expect to haul all that ass in urban settings. At best I guess it could be the weapons squad of the platoon but nothing else.

Of course infantry screening tanks should've heavy firepower to suppress enemy troops that threaten you tanks.

I'm not sure if this assessment is strictly correct.

Soviet officers had much less scope for ingenuity and intuition, but due to some peculiar but very interesting practices and perceived qualities of leadership, much more junior officers could take key hierarchical positions compared to in the west and required much less training - to the point that entire regiments and divisions could operate without any orders from high command - and still operate as part of a Front.

To the other point, my inference was based off of Soviet tank doctrine. By utilising the 3-man crew, as well as a smaller and lighter tank, for the same amount of manpower as four-man crew western tank formations - the Soviets could field twice as many tank battalions, with almost as many tanks per battalion. This afforded them amazing operational and tactical mobility as well as a weight of fire that could be brought to bear.

Again, all my personal information is secondhand. Fellows I know who've interacted with the Russian army, either as foes or in training exercises, had generally nothing positive to say about their leadership skills or general intelligence. They had plenty to say admiring the Russian courage and ability for endurance, but most of the good things ended there.
At to the hierarchical positions, I would like to read more on that if you have some link. It sounds interesting and contrary to what I think is the more prevalent view of Russian leadership being distrustful and someone restrictive due to either ideology or class. Especially the idea of units acting without orders from high command (although I heard of such cases in their Chechen wars, due more to lack of coordination and poor communication rather than any overall design).

As to your other point, I read and acknowledge that. Good armour flexibility I can associate with the Russians.

I'd think any force preparing for total or even nuclear war would developed methods to cope with possible falls in communications.

[Kaledy]

Just do what I do and give each squad commander the right and obligation to assign hierarchy of inheritance for his soldiers. That way, even in the face of a catastrophic loss of manpower the two men left in your division will know just who is in charge of whom.

Outside of nationStates soldiers actually surrender at some point.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not sure if this assessment is strictly correct.

Soviet officers had much less scope for ingenuity and intuition, but due to some peculiar but very interesting practices and perceived qualities of leadership, much more junior officers could take key hierarchical positions compared to in the west and required much less training - to the point that entire regiments and divisions could operate without any orders from high command - and still operate as part of a Front.

To the other point, my inference was based off of Soviet tank doctrine. By utilising the 3-man crew, as well as a smaller and lighter tank, for the same amount of manpower as four-man crew western tank formations - the Soviets could field twice as many tank battalions, with almost as many tanks per battalion. This afforded them amazing operational and tactical mobility as well as a weight of fire that could be brought to bear.

Again, all my personal information is secondhand. Fellows I know who've interacted with the Russian army, either as foes or in training exercises, had generally nothing positive to say about their leadership skills or general intelligence. They had plenty to say admiring the Russian courage and ability for endurance, but most of the good things ended there.
At to the hierarchical positions, I would like to read more on that if you have some link. It sounds interesting and contrary to what I think is the more prevalent view of Russian leadership being distrustful and someone restrictive due to either ideology or class. Especially the idea of units acting without orders from high command (although I heard of such cases in their Chechen wars, due more to lack of coordination and poor communication rather than any overall design).

As to your other point, I read and acknowledge that. Good armour flexibility I can associate with the Russians.

It's what I've been told by another poster who's researched quite deeply into the doctrine, I've no links for you I'm afraid.

Basically, whilst western forces relied on good training and good schooling to produce good, intuitive officers who could think fast on their feet and be innovative when required - the Soviets turned it into a logic game, or an equation. The officer basically had a series of tools he was trained to use and what amounted to a flowchart of options. This would have allowed regiments, divisions or the entire Front to continue with their assaults, even without central command or communication with each other.

However, of course, this probably fell into significant decline after the end of the Cold War.

[Purpelia]

Of course infantry screening tanks should've heavy firepower to suppress enemy troops that threaten you tanks.

Interesting. I took the exact opposite approach when designing my own tank screening infantry. The logic I have is that the tanks offer plenty of firepower already and that thus the infantry do not need anti tank weapons or even high caliber IFV guns. Instead they should be equipped relatively lightly and with screening in mind to allow them to spot and pin down anyone trying to ambush the tanks so that the tanks can destroy them safely.

Just do what I do and give each squad commander the right and obligation to assign hierarchy of inheritance for his soldiers. That way, even in the face of a catastrophic loss of manpower the two men left in your division will know just who is in charge of whom.

Outside of nationStates soldiers actually surrender at some point.

Purpelian army doctrine refuses to acknowledge this point. We also refuse to acknowledge that officers do not need sword bayonets, helmet spikes are not practical and other stuff. Do not mistake me for your average NS army thou. The Purpelian army is strange and unusual in their own way. But I do it on purpose to make them more interesting, not out of a crazy sense of NSwank. I don't expect my soldiers to fight to the last. But I bloody well expect the last guy to surrender to insist his captors call him "general" since that's what his de facto rank became.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

This sounds needlessly firepower-heavy and inflexible. Maybe it'd work as a general purpose squad for very defensive roles but you can't reasonably expect to haul all that ass in urban settings. At best I guess it could be the weapons squad of the platoon but nothing else.

Of course infantry screening tanks should've heavy firepower to suppress enemy troops that threaten you tanks.

Basically all your is squad is made of support. Getting overrun shouldn't surprise you.. it'd wouldn't fair well against infantry in MOUT.

[Kouralia]

Just do what I do and give each squad commander the right and obligation to assign hierarchy of inheritance for his soldiers. That way, even in the face of a catastrophic loss of manpower the two men left in your division will know just who is in charge of whom.

Outside of nationStates soldiers actually surrender at some point.

There's typically at least down to a 4IC I believe. Even if it's just someone to shout 'Prepare to Fall Back!'

[Blackledge]

As for the Soviet doctrine, I figured it was a better fit for the Imperium's background - a large, populous, but still-developing nation with large reserves of fanatical soldiers. Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Well so many in NS do seem to think it's all about winning.
I like your ideas though. And Russian tech is supposed to be pretty good as long as it isn't export-models. You'll be going by the indigenous standards, I take it.

I'd think any force preparing for total or even nuclear war would developed methods to cope with possible falls in communications.

I called Putin to confirm your thoughts but he has not returned my calls yet.
All I know is that the Russians haven't had the best reputation for small-unit actions of late (or ever?), and large-scale operations seem to be more their forte.

I welcome any Finnish interpretations or thoughts on the Russian NCO corps and their tactical flexibility in small-unit actions. I figure you have to know a bit since your [Finland's] defence doctrine seems largely aimed around a Russian action.

[Kaledy]

Outside of nationStates soldiers actually surrender at some point.

Purpelian army doctrine refuses to acknowledge this point. We also refuse to acknowledge that officers do not need sword bayonets, helmet spikes are not practical and other stuff. Do not mistake me for your average NS army thou. The Purpelian army is strange and unusual in their own way. But I do it on purpose to make them more interesting, not out of a crazy sense of NSwank. I don't expect my soldiers to fight to the last. But I bloody well expect the last guy to surrender to insist his captors call him "general" since that's what his de facto rank became.

Very good. Carry on.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

As for the Soviet doctrine, I figured it was a better fit for the Imperium's background - a large, populous, but still-developing nation with large reserves of fanatical soldiers. Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Well so many in NS do seem to think it's all about winning.
I like your ideas though. And Russian tech is supposed to be pretty good as long as it isn't export-models. You'll be going by the indigenous standards, I take it.

I'd think any force preparing for total or even nuclear war would developed methods to cope with possible falls in communications.

I called Putin to confirm your thoughts but he has returned my calls yet.
All I know is that the Russians haven't had the best reputation for small-unit actions of late (or ever?), and large-scale operations seem to be more their forte.

I welcome any Finnish interpretations or thoughts on the Russian NCO corps and their tactical flexibility in small-unit actions. I figure you have to know a bit since your [Finland's] defence doctrine seems largely aimed around a Russian action.

Ah, exactly as I was saying earlier. For small scale stuff a full-sized, Western unit/formation can get the job done whereas in some situations the Russians would have no choice but deploy 2 equivalent but smaller elements (and thus possibly overreacting) or go in undermanned, underequipped, undersupported, and so on. Unless they like to do a lot of weird splitting.

But indeed, in the larger picture, "lightweight" will get you more flexibility.

[Immoren]

Of course infantry screening tanks should've heavy firepower to suppress enemy troops that threaten you tanks.

Basically all your is squad is made of support. Getting overrun shouldn't surprise you.. it'd wouldn't fair well against infantry in MOUT.

But infantry is supporting arm; Infantry's job is to pin the enemy down for tank and artillery fire.
Also that squad doesn't seem that heavy to me. :/
And inf armoured battlegroup finds itself fighting inside MOUT environment, then somethings probably gone wrong.

All I know is that the Russians haven't had the best reputation for small-unit actions of late (or ever?), and large-scale operations seem to be more their forte.

I welcome any Finnish interpretations or thoughts on the Russian NCO corps and their tactical flexibility in small-unit actions. I figure you have to know a bit since your [Finland's] defence doctrine seems largely aimed around a Russian action.

Russian's method's on all levels seems to be be that everything is done by rote and by the book. This obviosly has it's drawbacks and probably it has strengths too.
As for Russian NCO corps and such. They didn't have that sort of lectures in the army and I've not any personal experience with russians who served in their military.

Interesting. I took the exact opposite approach when designing my own tank screening infantry. The logic I have is that the tanks offer plenty of firepower already and that thus the infantry do not need anti tank weapons or even high caliber IFV guns. Instead they should be equipped relatively lightly and with screening in mind to allow them to spot and pin down anyone trying to ambush the tanks so that the tanks can destroy them safely.

It just removes one step.

[Imperializt Russia]

As for the Soviet doctrine, I figured it was a better fit for the Imperium's background - a large, populous, but still-developing nation with large reserves of fanatical soldiers. Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Well so many in NS do seem to think it's all about winning.
I like your ideas though. And Russian tech is supposed to be pretty good as long as it isn't export-models. You'll be going by the indigenous standards, I take it.

This specific post:
viewtopic.php?p=15219902#p15219902
And a long discussion that it's in the middle of.

That's what I was referring to about the leadership methods.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Basically all your is squad is made of support. Getting overrun shouldn't surprise you.. it'd wouldn't fair well against infantry in MOUT.

But infantry is supporting arm; Infantry's job is to pin the enemy down for tank and artillery fire.
Also that squad doesn't seem that heavy to me. :/
And inf armoured battlegroup finds itself fighting inside MOUT environment, then somethings probably gone wrong.

All I know is that the Russians haven't had the best reputation for small-unit actions of late (or ever?), and large-scale operations seem to be more their forte.

I welcome any Finnish interpretations or thoughts on the Russian NCO corps and their tactical flexibility in small-unit actions. I figure you have to know a bit since your [Finland's] defence doctrine seems largely aimed around a Russian action.

Russian's method's on all levels seems to be be that everything is done by rote and by the book. This obviosly has it's drawbacks and probably it has strengths too.
As for Russian NCO corps and such. They didn't have that sort of lectures in the army and I've not any personal experience with russians who served in their military.

Interesting. I took the exact opposite approach when designing my own tank screening infantry. The logic I have is that the tanks offer plenty of firepower already and that thus the infantry do not need anti tank weapons or even high caliber IFV guns. Instead they should be equipped relatively lightly and with screening in mind to allow them to spot and pin down anyone trying to ambush the tanks so that the tanks can destroy them safely.

It just removes one step.

How about fireteam 1 with DMR,MG, 2 rifles, 1 UBGL and fireteam 2 with 3 rifles (or 2 rifles and 1 LSW), 1 GL, 1 UBGL ? They can probably move around a lot better.. Get them to the rooftops or windows and let the enemy armor below get that 40mm fire to the roof.. Designate targets for the IFV's ATGMs.. Much improved mobility, anti-infantryness and you can carry a lot more 40mm grenades than you can carry rockets.. just sayin'

If you expect armor (derp, you probably do, otherwise you'd be using mech or motor infantry instead of armored) take some disposable launchers in the range of 60 to 105mm along. Stuff an MBT LAW or 2 in the vehicle too.

[The Soodean Imperium]

As for the Soviet doctrine, I figured it was a better fit for the Imperium's background - a large, populous, but still-developing nation with large reserves of fanatical soldiers. Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Well so many in NS do seem to think it's all about winning.
I like your ideas though. And Russian tech is supposed to be pretty good as long as it isn't export-models. You'll be going by the indigenous standards, I take it.

For the most part I'm using the indigenous variants, since Soviet monkey-models are notorious for their drop-off in quality (i.e., T-72B vs. Asad Babil). But for the most part, I still try to handicap myself by limiting the more modern equipment to my front-line and high-readiness units. So while a rapid-response unit for deployment abroad might have T-90As and AK-103s, units kept for national defense would have T-64BVs and AK-74s, and the reserves would be lucky to get T-62s and Type 81s (Chinese AKMs).

Personally, I feel that having a larger but less-well-equipped force makes for better writing, which is what I really hope to get out of my RPs.

[Immoren]

Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Meanwhile in Immoren

[Kouralia]

Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Meanwhile in Immoren

I love that pic.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Plus, NS is so full of hi-quality elite next-gen spec-ops militaries that I figured I'd throw in some second-world firepower for a change.

Meanwhile in Immoren

Not exactly an APC, but hey, it gets the squad where you need it.

Though it's really only a matter of time before someone NSifies a tractor.