MICV in SB

[Big Nose Zero-Three]

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.

Tanks SHOULD, never hold ground forward. Sometimes they do, but not if you know what you are doing.

They are cued onto the ramps or into FUP, by OPs. The only time they should "fight in place" is when you have very long fields of fire. Go up on the Golan Heights and you'll see what I mean.

Even having one platoon of troops listening or spotting enemy movment can mean the dfference between victory or defeat.

That's your OP line. No one fights without one and it should be supported by vehicles held in FUPs to extract the OP line, if required.

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.

Strongly disagree. That makes no sense. Yes, destroy the enemy recce, once they are inside or past your OP line, but why use an IFV? Destroying recce is not an IFV task.

Many armies do Recce with MBTs in close support.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Big Nose Zero-Three
Added "Should"

[Big Nose Zero-Three]

Does this mean you think the idea is silly? OK, but...

1.) Achzarit

2.) Namer

3.) CV-90 Armadillo

[Oddballs]

I'm just an armchair general so I certainly can't talk from experience. But as far as I know, APC's are just a way of getting Infantry from A to B in a more secure way than regular trucks. IFV's do that and can also provide fire support. A tank could also provide fire support to the infantry but now your host country has to buy two vehicles to provide that level of support (Tank and APC). An IFV is a cheaper way of adding heavier fire support to the infantry and maintaining mobility.

[Tacbat]

Does this mean you think the idea is silly? OK, but...

1.) Achzarit

2.) Namer

3.) CV-90 Armadillo

Great, take any one of those and put it up against a CV9040. What do you think the outcome will be?

[Kingtiger]

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)

Bump for a answer from Big Nose Zero-Three :yltype:

[Ssnake]

Don't confuse his set opinion with facts and experience.

[Brun]

Tanks SHOULD, never hold ground forward. Sometimes they do, but not if you know what you are doing.

They are cued onto the ramps or into FUP, by OPs. The only time they should "fight in place" is when you have very long fields of fire. Go up on the Golan Heights and you'll see what I mean.

That's your OP line. No one fights without one and it should be supported by vehicles held in FUPs to extract the OP line, if required.

Strongly disagree. That makes no sense. Yes, destroy the enemy recce, once they are inside or past your OP line, but why use an IFV? Destroying recce is not an IFV task.

Many armies do Recce with MBTs in close support.

Tanks can be and are often used to hold forword ground Idealy with IFV's and troops nearby. You do not need very long fields of fire for tanks to Fight in place and they can be moving backword, forword, or sideways or any other way a tank can move. The situation determines that and nothing else.

Keeping the enemy recons eyes off your tanks Is Priority #1 especially if you are massing for an attack or manuvering on the enemies flank. The longer the enemy does not know what your main forces are doing the greater chance what you are trying to do will succeed. Your own recons main goal after spotting the enemies main forces is to destroy the enemy recon as far away from your main forces as possible before they spot your main forces. If you start peeling of parts of your main forces to go deal with the enemy recon the more info about what you are up to is givin to the enemy and strength is taken from the main effort. Also recon is not just the relm of IFV's and can be augmented with tanks for extra support if needed, but IFV's and troops are the corner stone of recon

So my point is IFV's need to pack a punch to be able to keep enemy eyes away from your main forces.

Come by on a Friday nights and Co a battle Big Noze Zero-Three. Test your theories in online battles where it can be proven or disproven over time and in different situations.

[12Alfa]

All points can be argued to a end state.

However.

The data shows (if one looks at the studies in the last 10-15 years). that if recces is given the wpn systems other than self defense, the crew will adopt a hunter/killer mindset.:redface:

One can not do recce with a TOW wpn system without the crew trying to blow shit up. :debile2:

And if said crew is blowing said shit up it is not doing a recce task to it's full potential, meaning seen and report without engagement.:shocked:

Recce does fight for info, however it's not the best way to gain info. Info is best gain in the passive mode, not in the active mode.

As for tanks holding ground, I would think that it's a tactical mater pertaining to a country's ground warfare sop's, usually based on past history and or resources.

We, in our country are taught that only the infantry can hold ground at our schools. I personally don't see this as being a hard fact.

Many a time I have been told that after a attack the troop will hold a certain piece of ground.:confused:

[Gibsonm]

One can not do recce with a TOW wpn system without the crew trying to blow shit up. :debile2:

And if said crew is blowing said shit up it is not doing a recce task to it's full potential, meaning seen and report without engagement.:shocked:

Agreed.

Hence why "Recce" as a term is now being intermingled with "Cavalry".

The difference being Recce remains predominantly "sneek and peek" while Cavalry seems to be more the "fight for information" mind set.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Gibsonm

[DrDevice]

And lest the thread veer too far off, it seems the role of the "MICV" is not the Recon role. Vehicle commonality is something that blurs the lines between the two, I think.

I agree with the last two posts re: sneek and peek vs. fight for info. The vehicles used for each would logically be very different. And the infantry transport and support vehicle may be a variant of the "cavalry" vehicle. The CV90 family as an example, could provide same-platform, mixed weapon options to tailor a force to the need.

The ability of a vehicle to actually support its dismounts with systems and fires that are not man-portable is key, I think. Being an up-armored ride with little firepower to add to the fight is a liability. The Israeli examples referenced above are very purpose-built for a tactical situation that is not a high-mobility, high-intensity battlefield. They have a specific purpose, but direct support isn't it. It's a decently survivable battle taxi for asymmetric warfare.

And as Brun points out: he was referring to SB Multiplayer tactics and lessons learned. It's not the doctrinal real world, but has some doctrines all its own that have developed over a lot of virtual dirt. Try your implementation theories there. See what works and doesn't. The proof (as much of it as is to be had) is there, not here.

[Big Nose Zero-Three]

Tanks can be and are often used to hold forword ground Idealy with IFV's and troops nearby. You do not need very long fields of fire for tanks to Fight in place and they can be moving backword, forword, or sideways or any other way a tank can move. The situation determines that and nothing else.

I said you should not hold tanks forward, as in you should not seek a positional defence on or with the OP line. ("detection zone")

I fully concur that the situation will drive the decisions, but that does not exclude generally correct guidance that would advise against using tanks as a line of mobile bunkers.

Your own recons main goal after spotting the enemies main forces is to destroy the enemy recon as far away from your main forces as possible before they spot your main forces.

Disagree. That's giving them two incompatible tasks. Time and space wise, I cannot see how I can keep eyes on lead armour sub-units and be off destroying enemy recce that went past me 45 mins to 7 hours ago.

If you start peeling of parts of your main forces to go deal with the enemy recon the more info about what you are up to is givin to the enemy and strength is taken from the main effort.

Killing enemy recce behind your OP line, should not tell the enemy anything about what you are up to, if skilfully done.

Also recon is not just the relm of IFV's and can be augmented with tanks for extra support if needed, but IFV's and troops are the corner stone of recon

Yes, an IFV type vehicle, able to dismount 6-8 would seem to have merit in the Recce role, but my concerns speak to a means of correctly employing infantry sub-units, not recce.

So my point is IFV's need to pack a punch to be able to keep enemy eyes away from your main forces.

OK, but that is two different things. An HMMVW with TOW can pack a punch. If my job is to run around wacking recce, why have I got 6-8 bods in the back? IFV have got to be available to move your infantry. That is their primary role. Infantry can kill with ATGMs. Why risk the vehicles?

Come by on a Friday nights and Co a battle Big Noze Zero-Three. Test your theories in online battles where it can be proven or disproven over time and in different situations.

Time zones are an issue on that, and I play online with a guy who is capable of helping me answer these questions - SOME of which cannot be resolved purely in the game, as they relate cost, maintenance and training.

.... but, when the new SB PCs can dismount ATGM teams, I'd more prone to accept your offer, but I'd probably need to get a few folks onside first. :biggrin:

[Big Nose Zero-Three]

Great, take any one of those and put it up against a CV9040. What do you think the outcome will be?

Not the question I asked. Why not put CV-90 and some of "those" up against an AT-14 strike and see which one has the least internal dead and wounded?

The question I asked - and relevant to SB experience alone - referred to the effectiveness of IFV as a method of moving and preserving infantry. Seems to me, that giving a vehicle a turret and gun, risk its employment in the direct fire battle, and not concentrating on manoeuvring and sustaining the infantry.

[Grenny]

Not the question I asked. Why not put CV-90 and some of "those" up against an AT-14 strike and see which one has the least internal dead and wounded?

The question I asked - and relevant to SB experience alone - referred to the effectiveness of IFV as a method of moving and preserving infantry. Seems to me, that giving a vehicle a turret and gun, risk its employment in the direct fire battle, and not concentrating on manoeuvring and sustaining the infantry.

Anyone can to anything wrong...if he wants to.

And given the face of a certain threat, much things can go wrong.

Yes, an AT-14 strike will kill a IFV, but also a Tank. On the other hand an IFV gets you squaddies safely through loads of maschinegun fire.

(Note: and with the maschinecannon of an IFV you are much better in taking out an AT-team then with a tank)

[Tacbat]

Not the question I asked.

You said:

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

It wasn't a question, it was a statement.

Why not put CV-90 and some of "those" up against an AT-14 strike and see which one has the least internal dead and wounded?

Sure thing. I'll bet the CV9030 will have a better chance of survival because it:

1) Can deploy a thermal blocking smoke screen, so good luck tracking it through that, and

2) It can suppress the EN vehicle/troops that launched the missile in the first place.

So, not getting hit is the best defence I can think of, but you can refer to the uparmoured "C" version if you want to look at physical protection.

The question I asked - and relevant to SB experience alone - referred to the effectiveness of IFV as a method of moving and preserving infantry.

See Para 3 above.

Seems to me, that giving a vehicle a turret and gun, risk its employment in the direct fire battle, and not concentrating on manoeuvring and sustaining the infantry.

Well, I'm thankful that you reside in the academic world, not the tactical one.

[AKM]

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.

Alright, good to hear, thanks. Looks like most people use APCs about the same way all over the world then, at least when they're trying to keep the APC alive and not having it do things that an IFV would do.