Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Hippostania reborn.

Don't be rude.

Balkanizing Germany and reducing all of Europe to 18th century living? Yeah no thanks Hippostania wannabe.

[Laritaia]

Britain has the majestic capability of being able to land ~150-200 men in countries that don't resist.

Meanwhile USA can just invade whatever with 3-4 divisions of tanks and paratroopers without any substantial effort being expended.

basically none of this is true

and you know it

[Gallia-]

Britain has the majestic capability of being able to land ~150-200 men in countries that don't resist.

Meanwhile USA can just invade whatever with 3-4 divisions of tanks and paratroopers without any substantial effort being expended.

basically none of this is true

and you know it

Britain has such a powerful expeditionary capability it had to ask Neall Ellis to save them from random African militiamen!

Don't be rude.

Balkanizing Germany and reducing all of Europe to 18th century living? Yeah no thanks Hippostania wannabe.

Living with wehraboos or not living with wehraboos.

Not sure why balkanizing Germany in 1945 would do anything with the European economy in 2017 though.

It just means Europe would be tied more to France economically, which means de Gaulle's weird stuff like EDC could happen. Instead of weird localism/weak German "please everyone but actually please no one" type of European democracy is extinguished in favour of de Gaulle's version where it's a strong central government instead.

Everyone wears pink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... _Community

Alternatively Europe is tied closer to America and becomes a weird Atlantic Union instead of European Union, with the total extinguishing of Franco-German animus because there is no more Germany and France is marginalized in favour of USA. Only half of that happened IRL (i.e. Pleven plan exploding in favour of NATO), but by sheer accident Germany has emerged as an American ally of the highest order, unlike the English and French. It's also probably the least of the two options, since France would only win the war for Europe if West Germany never formed (giving France a huge economic advantage to leverage over the rest of Western Europe) which might have split the West into Francophonie and Anglosphere. Perhaps the worst possible outcome?

[Laritaia]

Britain has such a powerful expeditionary capability it had to ask Neall Ellis to save them from random African militiamen!.

Barras was a special forces operation not a full on amphibious assault.

you've started twisting events to try and suit your point so i'm not going to continue with this any longer

[Gallia-]

Britain has such a powerful expeditionary capability it had to ask Neall Ellis to save them from random African militiamen!.

Barras was a special forces operation not a full on amphibious assault.

you've started twisting events to try and suit your point so i'm not going to continue with this any longer

What UK "full on amphibious assault" isn't going to be glorified commando raid?

That's literally all it can do. It can land a couple hundred special forces troops and blow up a few mud huts or something. It's not a regiment of mechanized and airborne infantry supported by tanks and howitzers and their own organic fixed wing aviation or anything substantial.

It's pathetic and weak compared to the USA, which is the only country in the world that has any significant amphibious forcible entry capability. Significant in the sense that it can take unilateral action against a country that denies it. Literally no one else can do this, but the closest competitors are the Chinese and Russians.

Your example of using the Royal Marines as a "amphibious assault force" is just laughable is all. That's like saying the Navy SEALs are an "amphibious assault force" or something. One LHD doesn't make an amphibious assault, it makes a decent raiding force though.

[Laritaia]

Barras was a special forces operation not a full on amphibious assault.

you've started twisting events to try and suit your point so i'm not going to continue with this any longer

What UK "full on amphibious assault" isn't going to be glorified commando raid?

ok you aren't even trying anymore

so i'm not going to continue with this any longer

[Gallia-]

You are just upset that the UK has one LHD tbh.

France has the most powerful amphibious force projection in Europe, not Britain. Possibly because France knows exactly what it wants to do (Francafrique), while the British languish in ambiguity and doubt of America's schizophrenic foreign policy decisions? Possibly.

A 1970s amphibious force wouldn't be helicopters. Neither would a 2010s amphibious force. Both would be a combination of helicopters, tanks, mechanized infantry, and possibly parachutists. 1970s would rely on LSTs for landing their tanks, while a 2010s amphibious force would carry their tanks in the vehicle holds of their LHDs and load them onto catamarans or hovercraft. This is the only substantial difference, i.e. the merging of the helicopter carrier and the tank carrier into a single ship which supports both operations via shuttles/connectors.

Without a Mistral equivalent (it's the 1970s) you'd be looking at surplus WW2 LSTs and maybe 1950s escort carriers as the LHAs. The best example of a German Baltic amphibious force is the DDR's navy. I don't know how big the Volksmarine was in terms of landing capability, but it possessed a few LSTs and the ability to conduct helicopter assaults from sea. They had one landing ship brigade and the helicopters would probably takeoff from Germany and fly around the coast or something.

There's no need for LHAs unless you intend to follow America around bombing Lebanese or something.

So maybe like 4-5 surplus LSTs would constitute the at-sea landing force and a couple helicopter squadrons of maybe 30 assault ships total.

Should be enough to land a reinforced mechanized battalion I guess.

[Laritaia]

-inane gibberish-

"upset"


sure because i care that deeply


i don't enjoy conversations where the other side manipulates things to suit their narrative and keeps moving the goal posts

so no

[Gallia-]

You implied the UK was a good model for an amphibious force.

Newsflash: It isn't unless all you intend to do is quick/fast action raids.

Your narrative states that amphibious capability is useless, which is why the UK lacks it. The counter-narrative is that the UK is a country that simply can't afford to have a good enough amphibious capability to make it useful in the forcible entry role. Given the anemic state of the British military, it's only natural that the "weak and pathetic" narrative is more reasonable than the "secret British war tricks" narrative.

Somehow I doubt that the UK has discovered something about amphibious assaults that has escaped countries with more robust, all-arms amphibious capabilities like France, USA, and Russia.

[Gallia-]

Anyway the actual point is that bringing up the RMs when he says "multiple amphibious assault ships" is really asinine. The UK has one (1) LHA: HMS Ocean. It's not in a position to be a credible authority on amphibious assaults because it has the bare minimum of amphibious capability. France is a much better model if he wants a credible forcible entry capability from sea, as it possesses multiple amphibious ships and ship-to-shore connectors in the form of high speed catamarans, which is mostly unmatched in the Western World outside the US Navy and USMC.

In the 1970s you'd have split the amphibious ships from a single LHD to two forms of LST and LHA.

The fact that there is less high tech weapons available in the 1970s also helps keep the "drive your landing ships onto the beach" mode of assault credible for at least another decade.

[Laritaia]

Edit: actually no

i said i wouldn't continue playing your game, so i won't

[Gallia-]

Three BPC is the better of the two options, given you're artificially inflating the UK's capability. RO/RO is meaningless until you've captured a port. LSDs require ship-to-shore connectors. The UK has no LCACs capable of lifting heavy armour. The missing ingredient in UK amphibious assaults is the inability to land armoured troops rapidly on shore.

EDA-R isn't a speed demon but it also isn't a literal barge like Mexeflote.

The UK will always require outside support because it lacks armour in its amphibious units.

The French won't. They can land AMX Leclercs in the initial assault waves. The US Army can land M1s and M2s. The USMC can land LVTP-7s and M1s. The Russians can land BMP-3s and T-55s/T-90s/whatever. The British can land...trucks. The entire failure of British amphibious capability could be solved by acquiring a second LHA and several LCACs. No commensurate reductions in any other branches or arms, either.

A commensurate reduction in olds' pensions wouldn't go amiss.

[Laritaia]

kat being wrong.

"trucks"

[Gallia-]

Blistering speed!

The missing ingredient in UK amphibious assaults is the inability to land armoured troops rapidly on shore.

Tanks should be part of the first or second assault wave, which means within 30-90 minutes of H-hour.

Air assault troops would probably be the first on the ground. Tanks should be next.

FFS this is basic stuff and you know it's true. The 10 knot wonder there isn't going to cut it when you need to haul 30-60 knots to make an unopposed landing turn into a beachhead instead of a delayed bloodbath.

[Puzikas]

So I'm starting to consider a 3x3 section approach for infantry. 10 men total including the SL. With some inherent flexibility, or at least encouraged flexibility to the SL. So the idea is 10 men, three ubgl rifles, two automatic rifles, five regular rifles, and the section has issued both a CARL G and LMG. One rifleman each is trained to operate the Carl G and LMG with the other to act as assistant (ty for the idea Gallia). These two would be in the third fireteam and use whichever weapon the SL says, with the other two fire teams being balanced as 3 men, one with an automatic rifle, one with the ubgl, and one with a regular rifle and an AT4.

How does this sound?

So:

-Section leader
•Grenade Launcher
-Heavy Rifle team
•Carl G
•IAR
•Rifle
-MG team
•MG
•Rifle
•Grenade Launcher
-Rifle team
•IAR
•Grenade launcher
•Rifle
?

I see no issue with it. It's a pretty normal setup.

What about, say, the Mi-24/35 Hind? It seems like it's fill the role of an assault transport pretty well, plus with some serious firepower to boot. Myself, i'm thinking about using a mixed fleet of not!Hinds and not!Super Pumas or not!Blackhawks, with the Hinds landing first and, after disembarking their troops, providing cover for the other helicopters.

The Hind isn't the principal transport helo in Russian airmobile doctrine. It transports special teams: Usually a Hind lands a Machine Gun or AGL team first to create a fire base and provide on station fire for the MI-8s, who deliver the bulk of the forces.
The Hind is a flying BMP. It's one of the few true assault transports helicopters and obviously the most successful. It's operational history to the west shows more of its rather or and not both, but in Afghanistan a Hind would generally insert a special forces teams initial thrust while two MI-8s offloaded the rest, and in Chechnya the primary QR type forces were transported via Mi-24.

Russians can land BMP-3s and T-55s/T-90s/whatever.

T-80s
Specifically 312 split into 4 fleets in 8 battalions
I think they actually have about 279 though with 4 companies being T-55s still

They now operate 290 T-72B3s
Wtf I h8 royssya now :[
Gib back t-80

The best example of a German Baltic amphibious force is the DDR's navy. I don't know how big the Volksmarine was in terms of landing capability, but it possessed a few LSTs and the ability to conduct helicopter assaults from sea.

I do know though

East Germany transferred two fully amphibiously qualified Regiments: 28th Wilhelm Florin and the 29th Ernst Moritz Arndt Motorized Rifle Regiments, bearing the Seelanderegiment as a designation; the 28th later was fully transfered to the Volksmarine as Kustenverteidigungsregiment-18 (18 KVR), which I am slightly more familiar with.

These units, I expect, were small contributions by East Germany to the greater Soviet plan for the invasion of Jutland, which would be carried out primaraly by the 5th DDR Army, in conjunction with the Soviet 2nd Guards tank Army (IIRC), with Naval landings conducted by several Soviet Naval Infantry units and the Polish 6th PDPD. Their goal may have been the occupation of West German ports in waiting for reenforcment from NVA/Soviet forces.

This is kinda interesting; I don't know for sure but the projection of the DDRs own Naval Infantry ORBAT seems to mirror that of the STASIs Wachregiment sans logisitcal backing; six Combat Battalions (x3 Motorrifle Companies, x1 Mortar battery, and AGL, Repair, Medical, ADA, AT and supply units), an Artillery Battalion, a Reconnisnace, Pioneer, Medical and reapair companies; of these I expect at least the Reconnisance Company or one Motar rifle Company to be airborne/airmobile, which would be accomplished with MIL MI-8V(T)s.

Given this I would estimate their size at 7,180 Troops, give or take.

[Theodosiya]

Creating "heavy air assault" division y/n? Pure Mi-35 for assaults backed by Apache. Black Hawks for non frontline duty. (Normal would have one or two battalion of Mi-35 instead). Said Mi-35s got it gun replaced by trainable chain gun (like on Apache) n have GAU/19 doorgun, while the Black Hawks have M134 instead.

[Padnak]

Kek at China having more amphibious landing capability than Britain

[Democratic Gupta]

revolutionary peasant militia is best militia

[Austrasien]

Creating "heavy air assault" division y/n? Pure Mi-35 for assaults backed by Apache. Black Hawks for non frontline duty. (Normal would have one or two battalion of Mi-35 instead).

The Mi-35 is redundant here. You have Apaches to shoot things and Back Hawks to carry people.

Attack helicopters (and helicopters in general) are also extremely expensive if you aren't aware. Three or four times the price of a first rate MBT to buy and even higher operating costs proportionately. Even a transport helicopter costs about as much or more to buy and more to operate than a MBT. There are reasons the US military only has one air assault division.

[Fordorsia]

Kek at China having more amphibious landing capability than Britain

To be fair China has a lot of islands it would be messing with in the event of WAAAAR, whereas the UK would only really need to land at France if shit was going down in Europe,

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

What would be a good way to turn large numbers of foot-bound infantry into at least semi-mobile in an operational sense? My main infantry, the panzergrenadiers, have their Marders. But there are also the infantry divisions and the large numbers of conscript units. For the 70s, would it be possible to mechanize at least all of the regular army, or would it be more likely that the panzergrenadier units would have first dibs on all IFV and the most modern tanks, and everybody else would make do with older tanks and motorized transports in the meantime?

[Gallia-]

Kek at China having more amphibious landing capability than Britain

To be fair China has a lot of islands it would be messing with in the event of WAAAAR, whereas the UK would only really need to land at France if shit was going down in Europe,

Britain's puny amphibious force would be adequate for the early 1980s and not much else.

Fine if it wants to recapture the Falklands or follow on the coattails of America in some dirt country. Not much else.

France and USA are basically the only countries that can conduct opposed landings in the modern sense of the word, which means high speed landing craft able to carry armored vehicles. Britain has like, maybe, 90% of that capability in its extant RFA ships and LHAs. The missing ingredient is LCAC which will naturally never appear in British service.

But really it's just USA at this point because France doesn't have enough bayonet strength being a generic European country.

Britain will just surrender if anything serious happens, France will sell the enemy guns, and USA will try to make friends with the enemy. Meanwhile, the enemy will be victorious.

What would be a good way to turn large numbers of foot-bound infantry into at least semi-mobile in an operational sense?

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

What would be a good way to turn large numbers of foot-bound infantry into at least semi-mobile in an operational sense? My main infantry, the panzergrenadiers, have their Marders. But there are also the infantry divisions and the large numbers of conscript units. For the 70s, would it be possible to mechanize at least all of the regular army, or would it be more likely that the panzergrenadier units would have first dibs on all IFV and the most modern tanks, and everybody else would make do with older tanks and motorized transports in the meantime?

Any old truck will do.

[Antadicia]

Does it make sense to have a small recon section in battalion level?

[Crookfur]

Does it make sense to have a small recon section in battalion level?

Yes.

In western battalions such sections are often also the battalion sniper element since the two roles are pretty much complimentary/ the same.

IIRC british infantry battalions used to have both recce (close recon and sniping) and patrols (longer ranged recon often riding around in landrovers) platoons. Well the paras did and it seems to be a bit more adhoc in regular inf. Battalions.