Use of lightly armed APCs in defence

[stalintc]

Hi gents,

I have come across a few defence scenarios so far in which I have been given on occasions several platoons of M113's or equivelant with dismounts.

I am perhaps a little puzzled on how to use these types of APC's in the defensive role, especially when faced with a large onslaught of Armor and PC's. They dont exactly have any particularly useful fire power in that sense, the .50 is useful close up of course, but other than that I have no idea.

I can grasp the use of the dismounts fine, they are ambush and scouts and work well in that role.

If someone can provide some help on this, it would be much appreciated :biggrin:

Cheers

[ShotMagnet]

Battle-taxis, which is what they were designed to do in the first place. You don't put them up front with the tanks, of course, but you want them immediately available to move or evac the dismounts.


Shot

[Red6]

Hi gents,

I have come across a few defence scenarios so far in which I have been given on occasions several platoons of M113's or equivelant with dismounts.

I am perhaps a little puzzled on how to use these types of APC's in the defensive role, especially when faced with a large onslaught of Armor and PC's. They dont exactly have any particularly useful fire power in that sense, the .50 is useful close up of course, but other than that I have no idea.

I can grasp the use of the dismounts fine, they are ambush and scouts and work well in that role.

If someone can provide some help on this, it would be much appreciated :biggrin:

Cheers

"Battle-taxis" was mentioned above. This is a term frequently used and a Brit would say "spot on".

A M113 has one great aspect. He's much more capable in terrain than he looks, and yes, he'll go where a M1 or M2 will get stuck (Lower ground pressure, better weight distribution, and a decent ground clearance). He is amphibious, and fairly narrow sliding through places where a M1 or M2 can’t get in anymore (Forrest or in a city). He can be transported via C130. His turning radius is like most tracked vehicles exceptional, something the new Stryker actually has a difficult time with in a city. He’s easy to rail or ship load and fits all standard sizes. He can go over all bridges effectively. Range, speed, and acceleration are all fair when compared to other tracked troop transporters. Mobility is definitely the strength of this platform, even though its appearance does not do it justice.

In protection this vehicle offered some new ideas, when it was developed (Fielded first in 1958 and beginning in large scale in 1960 this vehicle is a design from the early to mid 50s). The M113 was the first to use aluminum alloy (5083) which is lighter for the same level of protection as steel, spalls less if penetrated, and is less susceptible to oxidation (Many of the original hulls are still around and they simply do not rust. Aluminum is a stiffer material and unlike many of the steel transporters which you see with reinforcing struts running through the compartment in the rear since the steel flexes more, the 113 has a nice large open area. The outer skin is your frame for the most part.

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2804

Reliable, cheap, not using a lot of fuel (Small logistical footprint required to sustain them), extremely versatile, easy to maintain, this platform has survived the test if time being in use now for over 46 years and with no soon end in sight. At least in 2000 they were still being built!

As for protection, there are many variants and upgrades. Some like the Israeli’s have 113’s with significant improvements in armor. Some in our inventory have bird cage armor against simple piezoelectric fused weapons (There is an add-on for it). Baseline a 113 will take 7.62x51 M80 ball at any range from all sides including the ramp. He will take more from above than from the sides; seems odd, but makes total sense when you look at the threat picture of the Cold War and the massive artillery the Warsaw Pact had. The roof is designed to take 152mm airburst and the armor is very thick, thicker than the sides. From underneath you’re not looking at much. It’s designed to withstand a 6.5Kg blast (Withstand as in no one should die but the vehicle is finished). 6.5Kg is again no number randomly pulled from someone’s ass, but rather a very standard AT mine size for the time this APC was developed and fielded. He’s relatively quiet compared to an M2 or many other vehicles. His silhouette is not horribly high and when considering the volume and dimensions of the cargo/troop compartment it is actually quiet impressive.

Firepower- in the hay day of the Cold War, the M901 was very much so a formidable tank destroyer if in the defense. Based on the TOW, the ITV made up a major part of the armor killing capability in the older force structures in the years where the Communist horde was the threat. Today you see many odd combinations and ideas floating out there; British Scorpion or Bradley turret on this chasse for example. However, the US Army only uses this platform as a battlefield taxi, as mentioned. From ambulance, mortar carrier, command post, engineer, or communications vehicle, the 113 is not a platform you fight with per say, but it sure beats a HMMWV as an ambulance if mortar rounds are going off or snipers are a threat.

How do you use this vehicle? As a taxi that offers a bit more protection.

[Grenny]

[QUOTE=Red6;120671]
"....

He is amphibious, ..."

[end Quote]

Well, not the versions with diesel engine...they float like a box of rocks

[Homer]

This was posted by someone here not too long ago. Good read.

The Rise, Fall, & Rebirth Of The 'Emma Gees' (http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/emmagees/emmagees1.htm)

[JZG_Kessler]

When in the defense, you can take your M113A3's along with your Infantry dismounts and establish whats called "CSOPS" or Combat Surveilance Out Post somewhere off the enemy's main avenue of approach on the map.

Look at the map, and perform a good map analysis, and then find an area where you can position the APC ( M113 ) as well as the dismounted Infantry that is out of the way of the tanks and IFV's that your defending with. Any unfortunate enemy PC's or tanks that stumble into your little CSOP will be engaged by the Infantry's anti armor weapons. Just make sure your M113 is well hidden so it doesn't get snuffed out.

[DrDevice]

Some other useful tips would be on how players maintain the separation of infantry and their APC. I have a hell of a time keeping the two at the "right" distance.

If the APCs are left in platoon formations, they tend to wander past the edges of a good BP, as the vehicles themselves seek hull down positions. I need a good way to keep them in defilade. "Hold" orders even seem to have vehicles engaging over the crest on occasion.

If separated, the platoon can be tough to manage when you need a quick escape.

I favor breaking them into sections for placement, as I seem to get less wandering but am still able to rejoin the platoon quickly to get out of dodge.

Once dismounted, how do you set your infantry BPs? Setting them individually seems tedious if you are controlling more than just that platoon. Also, the distance-to-remount factor is tough for me to gauge. The legs just seem to take forever getting back on board to get retreated!

On a general note: when you are approaching a known or suspected enemy infantry position with your troops, what's the best way to get them in contact without major losses? I always seem to get caught with my guys at the losing end of the "see them first, shoot them first" engagement.

[ShotMagnet]

"Hold" orders even seem to have vehicles engaging over the crest on occasion.Try 'Stay'. In a First Clash mission my guys obediently absorbed Canadian gunfire, just for having been placed on 'Stay'.


Shot

[DrDevice]

Good point - that's a ProPE command I'm not used to giving yet. I must learn a new habit for such occasions!

[Los]

One thing SBP needs is a crewable M901, the bot M901s seem to get in more trouble than any other vehicle.

Los

[tarball]

"Battle-taxis" was mentioned above. This is a term frequently used and a Brit would say "spot on".

A M113 has one great aspect. He's much more capable in terrain than he looks, and yes, he'll go where a M1 or M2 will get stuck (Lower ground pressure, better weight distribution, and a decent ground clearance). He is amphibious, and fairly narrow sliding through places where a M1 or M2 can’t get in anymore (Forrest or in a city). He can be transported via C130. His turning radius is like most tracked vehicles exceptional, something the new Stryker actually has a difficult time with in a city. He’s easy to rail or ship load and fits all standard sizes. He can go over all bridges effectively. Range, speed, and acceleration are all fair when compared to other tracked troop transporters. Mobility is definitely the strength of this platform, even though its appearance does not do it justice.

In protection this vehicle offered some new ideas, when it was developed (Fielded first in 1958 and beginning in large scale in 1960 this vehicle is a design from the early to mid 50s). The M113 was the first to use aluminum alloy (5083) which is lighter for the same level of protection as steel, spalls less if penetrated, and is less susceptible to oxidation (Many of the original hulls are still around and they simply do not rust. Aluminum is a stiffer material and unlike many of the steel transporters which you see with reinforcing struts running through the compartment in the rear since the steel flexes more, the 113 has a nice large open area. The outer skin is your frame for the most part.

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2804

Reliable, cheap, not using a lot of fuel (Small logistical footprint required to sustain them), extremely versatile, easy to maintain, this platform has survived the test if time being in use now for over 46 years and with no soon end in sight. At least in 2000 they were still being built!

As for protection, there are many variants and upgrades. Some like the Israeli’s have 113’s with significant improvements in armor. Some in our inventory have bird cage armor against simple piezoelectric fused weapons (There is an add-on for it). Baseline a 113 will take 7.62x51 M80 ball at any range from all sides including the ramp. He will take more from above than from the sides; seems odd, but makes total sense when you look at the threat picture of the Cold War and the massive artillery the Warsaw Pact had. The roof is designed to take 152mm airburst and the armor is very thick, thicker than the sides. From underneath you’re not looking at much. It’s designed to withstand a 6.5Kg blast (Withstand as in no one should die but the vehicle is finished). 6.5Kg is again no number randomly pulled from someone’s ass, but rather a very standard AT mine size for the time this APC was developed and fielded. He’s relatively quiet compared to an M2 or many other vehicles. His silhouette is not horribly high and when considering the volume and dimensions of the cargo/troop compartment it is actually quiet impressive.

Firepower- in the hay day of the Cold War, the M901 was very much so a formidable tank destroyer if in the defense. Based on the TOW, the ITV made up a major part of the armor killing capability in the older force structures in the years where the Communist horde was the threat. Today you see many odd combinations and ideas floating out there; British Scorpion or Bradley turret on this chasse for example. However, the US Army only uses this platform as a battlefield taxi, as mentioned. From ambulance, mortar carrier, command post, engineer, or communications vehicle, the 113 is not a platform you fight with per say, but it sure beats a HMMWV as an ambulance if mortar rounds are going off or snipers are a threat.

How do you use this vehicle? As a taxi that offers a bit more protection.

Thanks for the write-up, I found it to be very informative...

[stalintc]

Thank you everyone for your responses. I have been reading as you guys have posted your replies, and there is plenty of info here for me to work with!!

I guess expected the M113 to be more than what it is, because I didnt know how to use it.

Now if only I could work out how to detatch the infantry from the APCs so that when I move the 113's or whatever, the infantry dont re-embark :(

For example I want to drop off infantry and get the APCs out of dodge, but to a position where they can be called in to pick them up for example. I am finding that when I deploy troops my APCs have to sit still or the inf will come back before they can move. Or is this just realistic and me being a dumbass?

[Jimmybar]

Press "U" to detach the infantry from the PC. ( You can give this even if they are outside for some other reason )
Press Shift+"U" and they come back into the PC.

It seems that the squad forgets the "U" command, when PC is given battle position command "E"

If you create new route for the PC in that situation, go immediately to F8 view and give detach "U" command and proceed in the route "C" command. Then the squad should stay where it is and the PC should be free to drive.

[HotTom]

Stalin, the only way I've been able to figure out to move both the dismounts and the vehicles is while the mission is running. It can't be done in the planning (or writing) phase. Or, at least, I haven't discovered it.

In the planning phase, you can move the PC to a waypoint and have it hold or defend or whatever. THEN, when you run the scenario, the infantry will dismount at that location.

AFTER they have dismounted, you can click on them on the map and give them a new route (for example through the woods where the PC would be banging into trees). The PC can then take a more open route and meet up with the troops once they have cleared the woods (or town or whatever).

Give them a common waypoint where they can meet up and the infantry will get aboard the vehicle (either by itself or by hitting Shift U when you are in control of the PC).

Unfortunately, you can't script all of this before the mission starts. You can put in the routes for the PC but not the dismounts. The dismounts have to be moved by going to the map and giving them routes AFTER the mission starts running.

This sim is, as Ssnake often says "tank-centric" but from what I'm seeing in the forum, he and others of The Creators are figuring out that it can't be done realistically without a "Combined Arms" capability. Increased capability for infantry seems to be on The List.

You can't be too hard on them if they have a narrow perspective. They spent their military careers looking through periscopes :)

As for the 113, there's a reason that any time you see a picture of one from the Vietnam era, the troops are riding on top of it rather than in it. RPGs go right through that aluminum armor -- and aluminum actually can catch fire. If you were lucky,the RPG went right out the other side :)

HT

[DrDevice]

Although you can't script separate routes for the dismounts and PCs, you can pre-set the routes you know you'll want to clear with infantry during the planning phase. In other words, set up the waypoint chain within the dense area with the behaviors you want (Scout, Engage, speed, etc), then simply order the troops to the first waypoint in the chain once they dismount at the drop off point. This saves some clicks in the thick of things, and also allows you to apply logic points to it. (Like "embark if this unit is not under fire" or other "smart" moves.)

In fact, you could possibly use the "embark if" condition to only allow troop-type units to get on the route chain... I'm not in front of my home PC, but if you can tie "embark if" to a type, I wonder if it might work like this:

APC 1/A goes to waypoint 1, which has Defend behavior. 1/A assumes a BP and deploys its troops. Two routes lead off of waypoint 1. The route from WP1 to WP2 is conditioned: "embark if unit type is troops." The route from WP1 to WP3 is conditioned: "embark if unit this has reached WP2." (The logic being that if the troops have the same 1/A name, then the APC moves to WP3.)

Alternatively, the WP1-WP3 condition could be time-based: "embark if this unit is 1/A" and "after true delay by 1 minute" checked.

The question that requires testing is seeing if the troops attempt a re-mount once 1/A heads for WP3.

Also, while on "slow" speed, dismounts will lead their vehicles by about 100m and the vehicles will keep pace. So if the woods you are clearing will actually allow vehicle traffic, you can have the dismounts lead the push. If on "engage" orders, they will stop and fight, if on "scout" they will stop on visual contact and retreat back if under fire, etc. (A fun fact I learned working on my version of "Screen at Croley Lake".)

[stalintc]

Ahhhh gents, excellent responses, just what I needed right there!

Jimmybar hit the nail on the head with what I wanted to know, Tom and DrD provided some excellent information surrounding that, you see I was going to follow on and ask about what you guys have just posted. What are you reading my mind or something?!

Cheers for that people, I understand much more clearly now, cant believe the new stuff im getting info on everyday.

[HotTom]

Device, that's why I'm not an engineer (you wouldn't want to drive across a bridge that I designed).

Setting out the route for the dismounts in the planning stage is a shortcut I hadn't thought of. You still have to hook the dismounts to the route after the mission starts but it's sure faster if the route is already on the map.

Great tip! Thank you!

S!

HT

[DrDevice]

Well, I tried the "if this unit is troops" and there is no ProPE logic for that eventuality. If set to "unit [troop] strength is > 1" the APC still takes the route.

So the best suggestion is to make the "pre-made infantry sweeps" routes where you expect the need. You can even post these route chains in uneeded areas and drag them as needed to the battle area. (A very usefull feature of pre-made routes, I might add.)

It's not ideal, but infantry control will certainly be improving in the future!