Jump to content
Big Nose Zero-Three

MICV in SB

Recommended Posts

As a bit of a newbie to SB, but not modern warfare tactics in general, I was not really surprised to find out that MICV's appear to be just about useless.

a.) They contribute just about nothing to the direct fire battle.

b.) They die easily.

c.) When they do die, you suffer lots of casualties - as in dead infantry.

Basically, everything they do, apart from carrying infantry, is always better done by tanks.

I'd be genuinely interested to hear if other SB players have reached the same broad conclusions, or any radically different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allways one finds new acronyms. MICV?

Does that cover anything armoured that carries infantry?

If yes, the problem with them is that in SB the infantry punches below its weight.(easy to spot, easy to kill)

But in this sim the vehicles are best used for fighting infantry. Auto-cannon HE/KE rounds work better than Maingun + coax in most cases as "area weapons".

Also, esp. for MP games, with the propper coordination between units, they can engage the light vehicles, giving the tank the time to engage other tanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allways one finds new acronyms. MICV?

Does that cover anything armoured that carries infantry?

Well MICV's are distinct from APC's where I come from. MICVs generally have a manned turret.

If yes, the problem with them is that in SB the infantry punches below its weight.(easy to spot, easy to kill)
Concur. Infantry and ATGM teams certainly seem very easy to spot, except in buildings - and this seems to be a major limitation in terms of the simulation.
But in this sim the vehicles are best used for fighting infantry. Auto-cannon HE/KE rounds work better than Maingun + coax in most cases as "area weapons".
Well that you never get a choice of who fights who.
Also, esp. for MP games, with the propper coordination between units, they can engage the light vehicles, giving the tank the time to engage other tanks
Again, that implies choice and risks vehicles full of troops to do things they should not be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infantry and ATGM teams certainly seem very easy to spot, except in buildings - and this seems to be a major limitation in terms of the simulation.

I won't reject that sentiment in full, but I'd like to point out that SB can do more than what is often done by mission designers. Crank up the bumpiness in a terrain theme and see how infantry suddenly disappears while being stationary. Of course, if the majority of scenarios suggests that war is being fought on a billiard table, it's hard for the runts to disguise as something inconspicuous.

That being said, we have a few ideas how to handle camouflage better in future versions, and the introduction of more and more noncombatants in scenarios will certainly make it more difficult to recognize infantry at longer distances, the more other activity fills the scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't reject that sentiment in full, but I'd like to point out that SB can do more than what is often done by mission designers. Crank up the bumpiness in a terrain theme and see how infantry suddenly disappears while being stationary. Of course, if the majority of scenarios suggests that war is being fought on a billiard table, it's hard for the runts to disguise as something inconspicuous.

Ssnake: Understood. I felt that may be the case, and the maps I and a mate are experimenting with, do not seem to have made the most of that. Likewise, "rocks" and "scrub" seem to have an effect as well.

Make no mistake, I am generally extremely impressed with SB, now I have come back to it. It still has the best AI of any desktop simulation by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that you never get a choice of who fights who.

Again, that implies choice and risks vehicles full of troops to do things they should not be doing.

If you're doing it right, you don't "get" the choice of who fights who, you make it, and all that's proven by the quick deaths suffered by ICV's in SB is that the Russian love of mounted infantry attacks to retain initiative is flawed. My only real complaint with infantry in SB, besides them being spotted way too easily (which Ssnake already addressed), is the need to micro manage the deployment of squad sized elements into proper flanking/close assault positions to actually make them perform doctrinally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allways one finds new acronyms. MICV?

Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle.

Similar to IFV.

Does that cover anything armoured that carries infantry?

Not really.

Only the vehicles with some teeth.

So an M113 or BTR 152 or FV 432 or BTR 60 are a APCs not a IFV / MICV. They just carry infantry to the fight not really desinged to support Infantry during the fight.

Marder / Bradley / BTR 70/80/90 / BMP-1 / BMP-2 / CV90 / Warrior ... are IFV / MICV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle.

Similar to IFV.

Not really.

Only the vehicles with some teeth.

So an M113 or BTR 152 or FV 432 are a APCs not a IFV / MICV. They just carry infantry to the fight not really desinged to support Infantry during the fight.

Marder / Bradley / BMP-1 / BMP-2 / CV90 / Warrior ... are IFV / MICV.

Got that....we only have one acronym for that: SPz and I thought SPz=IFV(TPz=APC) Is IFV/MICV a thing of different nations? (like AUS using IFV/USA using MICV)...or has just someone been promoted LtCol for inventing a new one :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got that....we only have one acronym for that: SPz and I thought SPz=IFV(TPz=APC) Is IFV/MICV a thing of different nations? (like AUS using IFV/USA using MICV)...or has just someone been promoted LtCol for inventing a new one :-P

Only MICV I heard of is the Warrior, so I think its a british term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is IFV/MICV a thing of different nations? (like AUS using IFV/USA using MICV)...or has just someone been promoted LtCol for inventing a new one :-P

No I think its more a quasi historic thing.

Long time ago in a battlespace far away there were just APCs, then those nasty Soviets spoiled the party with BMP-1 and the military who love to categorise stuff said look over there is is an APC?, is it a tank?, no its a, a, a, a "MICV"! And there was much rejoicing as the acronym geeks were happy and the pams had to be re-written and the AFV recognition classes had to be retaught and all was well in the doctine centres across half the planet.

Then others "developed" ("copied" would have implied the Soviets had done something good) their own and Marders and Bradleys started turning up.

At about the same time someone said "If the Mech guys have a MICV then where is the light fighter LICV" and we worked out that leg Inf by definition don't have a Infantry Combat Vehicle so the "M" in MICV was determined to be not required and "MICV" sort of evolved into the more widespread and generic "IFV".

And there was much rejoicing as the acronym geeks were happy and the pams had to be re-written and the AFV recognition classes had to be retaught and all was well in the doctine centres across half the planet - Again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there was much rejoicing as the acronym geeks were happy and the pams had to be re-written and the AFV recognition classes had to be retaught and all was well in the doctine centres across half the planet - Again!

So, tow the party line already and call it an IFV. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, tow the party line already and call it an IFV. :tongue:

I do.

I'm not the guy who used it, I'm the guy who explained what it stood for.

Its all doubleplusgood here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IFV's aren't useless. put a bradley with a TOW-2B on a map, and you've pretty much got the deadliest vehicle in SB, capable of taking out every tank in the game from the front, at up to 3.7km

put a CV90 in a forest, and have it drop out it's infantry as FO. keep them on hold fire orders, and observe where the tanks are going. put your CV90s in flanking positions, and when the tanks drive by, rip into their side armour with your 40mm.

i've taken out a whole tank platoon like that more than once with a single CV90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet they are fragile, once detected - and not surprisingly, employing them as tanks (which they are not) gets them killed quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IFV's aren't useless. put a bradley with a TOW-2B on a map, and you've pretty much got the deadliest vehicle in SB, capable of taking out every tank in the game from the front, at up to 3.7km

That can be done with anything with TOW on it.

put a CV90 in a forest, and have it drop out it's infantry as FO. keep them on hold fire orders, and observe where the tanks are going. put your CV90s in flanking positions, and when the tanks drive by, rip into their side armour with your 40mm.

i've taken out a whole tank platoon like that more than once with a single CV90.

So wouldn't a tank just do that better?

Yet they are fragile, once detected - and not surprisingly, employing them as tanks (which they are not) gets them killed quickly.

This is why APCs seem to make more sense. No one risks them in a fight as useless light tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first tour of duty in the Swedish Army was as a ATGM squad leader (BILL) in a PBV302 Company (http://www.femorefortet.se/Bilder/070517-pbv302.jpg) which is a true APC.

The standard weapon of the Mech Plt in the Coys for AT defense was our Carl gustav and AT-4/M136 rounds, and they account for shit against tanks unless you are in a bloody wonderful ambush position.

So in the Coy we had a AT-platoon of 3 BILL systems handed out on one per platoon base. My Bill system had to be deployed to be effective, so we have to dismount, find a good spot and deploy to engage a tank. All time while our PBV have to be close around waiting for us when we need to get our ass out of the place.

My second tour of duty was as PBV302 gunner in the mech goy (support plt) and the rest of the Coy had CV9040A. That 40mm enables the Coy and plt to engage tanks from flanking positions anytime they want and they could get out of there just by reversing etc. We had many times where the 40mm saved us on exercises when enemy tanks unexpectedly showed up.

Back in the PBV302 times we would have been slaughtered because only 3 PBVs carried anything useful against the tanks.

Having the IFV enables the Mech Coys to be able to defend themself and that means that the Tank force can be consumed on tank things instead of just babysitting mech forces in case they run into trouble.

So look on IFV as upgraded APCs - Upgraded to give better support and flexibility in combat. Not as Light tanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So look on IFV as upgraded APCs - Upgraded to give better support and flexibility in combat. Not as Light tanks...

....and that would be something my professional/academic work looks at. The APC upgraded with an Anti-tank system was the basis for the BMP-1. It was an APC designed to be able to defend itself against tanks. It was never an "MICV" or IFV. Nor was Marder.

Give me a CV-90, with no turret, able to mount 8-10 men and use the saved weight for more armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So wouldn't a tank just do that better?

no. and there's 2 reasons for that.

1: tanks don't carry infantry, so in a forest you're blind. there's just as much a chance

that you'll spot the enemy tanks, as they will spot you. with an infantry platoon observing, in most cases, you will spot the enemy tanks first, and be able to maneuver on their flanks.

2: a tank fires 1 round every 3-6 seconds. CV90 fires 5 rounds in 1 second.

with 8 rounds, you can put nearly 3 rounds on every tank, while with a large caliber gun, you might hit 1 tank. or you might miss. and by then you are being engaged by 2 other tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

removing the turret on a CV90 would make the CV90 Coy in great need of tank support, instead of being self sufficient?

What do you do if you bump into a BMP-1 in a forest around the road bend? pop smoke, dismount and hope the infantry will get a clear shot with the M136s? instead of just killing the BMP with 2-3 rounds of 40mm and continue moving on?

APC is good enough for defensive minded forces. a force that wants to be on the offensive needs to have mobile firepower, which the APC don't have, but the IFV provide plenty of.

A good example of that is swedish mech coy doctrine. in my PBV302 coy it was the infantry that did all the fighting, the PBV was a support that moved behind us, rarely did we fight mounted.

Now with the CV90s 40mm and TIS the CV90 is the main weapon, the infantry is in a support role to take over when the CV90 can't anymore (like need to clear out areas where only grunts can go) and that gives a faster speed in the assault. No need to stop and dismount all the time and then let the infantry do the fighting slowly (which also increases the likehood of having 120/155 bursting over your head)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That can be done with anything with TOW on it.

So wouldn't a tank just do that better?

This is why APCs seem to make more sense. No one risks them in a fight as useless light tank.

Often in sb Multiplayer you have more territory than can be properly covered completely by tanks. A Co may want to have a tank or tanks in a certain area but They may have limited numbers to cover such a large area. IFV's must be used to cover whatever areas that the tanks are not in or to give early warning to nearby friendly tanks.

Even having one platoon of troops listening or spotting enemy movment can mean the dfference between victory or defeat. Also if enemy recon is spotted it is often better to deal with it with your IFV's and troops and not risk damageing or loosing a tank that is needed for main enemy forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good example of that is swedish mech coy doctrine. in my PBV302 coy it was the infantry that did all the fighting, the PBV was a support that moved behind us, rarely did we fight mounted.

How did the PBV support the Infantry sections/squads/groups in the attack? I would imagine that where terrain and the situation and terrain permitted, it would suppress/destroy what it could with its weapons, and otherwise allow the section to resupply its weapons quickly from what's available on the vehicle. Could the PBVs do anything else to support the section, or is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did the PBV support the Infantry sections/squads/groups in the attack? I would imagine that where terrain and the situation and terrain permitted, it would suppress/destroy what it could with its weapons, and otherwise allow the section to resupply its weapons quickly from what's available on the vehicle. Could the PBVs do anything else to support the section, or is that it?

You are pretty much spot on. In terrain that allowed it they moved behind us maybe 100-200m back so we could run back and get more ammo/rounds from them, they also could move up to provide some supportive fire but thats about it. We normally stayed pretty close to our PBVs to have mutual support but in theory the PBV could drop the inf of in BP and then move on to own BPs on the flank etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. and there's 2 reasons for that.

1: tanks don't carry infantry, so in a forest you're blind. there's just as much a chance

that you'll spot the enemy tanks, as they will spot you. with an infantry platoon observing, in most cases, you will spot the enemy tanks first, and be able to maneuver on their flanks.

Tanks can work in close terrain if supported by infantry and those infantry can march in APCs, and manoeuvre on foot.

2: a tank fires 1 round every 3-6 seconds. CV90 fires 5 rounds in 1 second.

with 8 rounds, you can put nearly 3 rounds on every tank, while with a large caliber gun, you might hit 1 tank. or you might miss. and by then you are being engaged by 2 other tanks.

With the greatest respect, that reasoning does not work as operational analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...