Jump to content
Grenny

"Poll": mechnized vs armoured inf.

Recommended Posts

Different forces have different doctrines.

So what I'm looking for is unclassified information about the "co-work" of infantry and armour.

-1st: do "your" forces distinguish between mechanized and armoured inf?

In the German case, armoured infantry are only those riding on IFVs. Those in APC are

classed a "Jäger" or light infantry

-2nd: To what "corps" (badge or beret colour or whatever ;-) ) Do your armoured/mech

infantry belong?

GE: Armoured infantry (Panzergrendiere) are part of the armour-corps. They are trained at the armour school and the "General of the armoured troops" is responsible for their training.

Mechanized Inf.(Jäger+Boxer or Fuchs) are part of the Infantry-corps.

-3rd: Command Strukture in the platoons? So who is the "boss" for a dissmount team and their ride?

GE: The TC of the Marder is the squad leader. The dismount-team-leader is only leader of.(as name suggests). But he is also qualified as a TC, so they can switch roles if main effort would be dismounted.

The squad leader for an Mech-inf-squad would be the Infantry-team leader...as in their case main effort would always be dismounted ;-)

So how do US/Finland/Sweden/GB/AUS and so on.... do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

french Inf:

-1st: There is mechanized inf and motorized inf (they are both under armor, so no armored inf), depending if they are riding on track or wheels.

-2nd: They are both part of Infantry Corps.

-3rd: The TC of APC or IFV is the squad leader and dismount with his squad. During dismounted ops, Vehicles are under command of the deputy platoon leader, who coordinates vehicles mouvement and fire.

But now there is a name problem, as their will be no more tracked IFV, but only wheeled APC (VAB and later VBMR) and IFV (VBCI).

Currently even if their vehicles are now wheeled, Regiments with IFV (VBCI) are still mechanized inf because they fight with their vehicles while Regiments with APC (VAB) use their vehicles as battle taxi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for types...

US:

Mechanized -- anything riding in a vehicle that has tracks

Motorized -- anything riding in a vehicle with wheels

Airborne -- anything that jumps out of a plane

Air Assault -- anything riding in a helicopter

Light -- anything that has to walk to battle ("LPC" infantry == Leather Personnel Carriers (aka. boots). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to have battalions that specialised in each discipline and accordingly had Mech, Mot, Airbourne, Air Assault, Leg, ...

But there was one battalion per role, so the force generation cycle and sustainment became an issue (e.g there wasn't a 2nd Mech Bn to replace the first in terms of force rotation).

So we have moved to what we call the Standard Infantry Battalion.

So 6 battalions that look identical (or will once the transition finishes).

Each BDE (the next level up that owns two of these battalions) now holds a slice of the larger assets APC, PMV, Helo, etc. and the BDE COMD "bolts on" what they believe the Bn requires to get the job done.

If they think you need to be "Mech" then they add APC lift, "Protected" gets PMV, "Motorised" get trucks, "Heleborne" gets helos, "Leg" gets nothing.

They are all Infantry soldiers.

In all those except Heliborne the platform commander is in command for the tactical employment of the platform (APC, PMV, Truck and Helo) but they go where the Infantry guy tells them to.

In the Helos the pilot is in charge for both the tactical employment and where they go (i.e. the LZ). The grunts are just cargo for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US side, the Army doesn't strictly differentiate between types of infantry- particularly among officers. In fact, they actively try to bounce officers between mechanized and light infantry units to gain a "broader base of experience". I remain skeptical about the practice.

As unit designations go, it's a bit fuzzy. All infantry, mechanized or not, belongs to the infantry branch... but they can be part of an armor division. Technically we really only have mechanized infantry and light infantry, there is no "motorized" infantry. In both Bradley and Stryker infantry units, the vehicle commander doubles as the infantry squad commander. They may remain in the vehicle and let the assistant squad leader lead the dismounts, mission dependent. In Strykers, the squad leader usually dismounts. In Bradleys, my understanding is sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Not sure, I've never been in a Bradley unit.

As far as mech/motorized, Strykers are considered kind of a class of their own: it's a mechanized unit, but "medium" brigades instead of a heavy brigades like Bradley units. We just call them Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. In theory, Strykers are supposed to be used much like a motorized infantry unit would (IE, the vehicles give strategic mobility and gives the infantry the capability to carry much more equipment and ammunition, but aren't used as fighting vehicles- ATGM carriers and MGS notwithstanding), but in practice they tend to be used not dissimilar from how Bradley-equipped Mech Infantry is supposed to work: that is to say, the dismount teams are used to clear urban and close terrain, while the vehicles provide overwatch and fire support with mounted heavy weapons.

My experience with Bradley Mech Inf is that while Strykers more or less follow Bradley use doctrine, the Bradley units DON'T. From my experience, they really like to stay mounted on their vehicles whenever humanly possible. So in short, light infantry is light infantry, Strykers behave like Bradleys are supposed to, and Bradleys tend to fight like tanks.

Of course, this is all derived from experience in Iraq, against a relatively weak and poorly-equipped foe- a scenario that tends to favor staying mounted more often, since the foe is a serious threat to dismounts, but doesn't have particularly good AT weaponry. In a major conventional war against a major power, in different terrain (like western Europe), I strongly suspect both the Mech and Stryker infantry would behave much closer to the written doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All infantry, mechanized or not, belongs to the infantry branch... but they can be part of an armor division. Technically we really only have mechanized infantry and light infantry, there is no "motorized" infantry.

Whoops, yes, I was referring to historical use of "motorized" infantry by US Army, ie. from the 1940s, but as you say this is a long obsolete unit type. :redface:

BTW, a side note:

As for the reference of "motorized" in the infantry SBwiki page (which I assume is where this topic has surface from), this is a general reference to the type, because (for example) the Soviets referred to wheel carried infantry as such regardless of whether the carrier had armor or not (ie. motorized rifle company, BTRs, etc). It is really a case of trying to be more specific but actually causing more confusion in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to be contentious; I just figured you were presenting the definitions of the terms as used in the US, rather than doctrine used by the US currently. I figured I'd expound a bit on how they're used (obviously focusing on the Strykers, as this is where my experience lies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the different approaches by different forces, the SBWiki article is quite fitting.

Generic enough so it does not touch deep at the doctrinal differences, but all in it that's needed to get the concept of infantry gameplay in SB.

So, I see that as an exchange of ideas now. As to reflect about/understand the different SB-game-styles when using infantry.

The classic german doctrine was basically that the Grenadiers are "enablers" for the tanks.

They stay mounted as long as possible. Only if all else fails(or is likely to fail given terrain and enemy) they fight dismounted. An other then in the Bradley...they can fight from the hatches too ;-). So the main focus in training was to understand how to move and strike with an armoured formation.

All of this got more fuzzy doe to the current deployments. Where Grenadiers(and even tankies or scouts) get deployed as light infantry. ANd our Marders where not used primarily as support weapon for the tanks, but as a protection and fire-support platform for the infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the reference of "motorized" in the infantry SBwiki page (which I assume is where this topic has surface from), this is a general reference to the type, because (for example) the Soviets referred to wheel carried infantry as such regardless of whether the carrier had armor or not (ie. motorized rifle company, BTRs, etc). It is really a case of trying to be more specific but actually causing more confusion in the end.

Well, for the east german army, all "motorized infantry"...weather they had BMP or BTR where called: "MotSchützen"="motorized-rifles"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the brazilian army, the armored infantry is supported by APC (M113) while the motorized infantry is carried by troop trucks.

In the Cavalry, there is the armored cavalry, which comprises the MBTs (Leo1A1, Leo1A5 and M60 TTT) and also M113 APCs. And there is also the Mechanized Cavalry with wheeled APCs and AFV like the Urutu, the Cascavel and the new vehicle, the Guarani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Helos the pilot is in charge for both the tactical employment and where they go (i.e. the LZ). The grunts are just cargo for them.

Long time since I did it, but I'm pretty sure the Army Support helis in the RAF still take the inf wherever they want to go. The pilots and crewmen are not trained in infantry (or any other) tactics. So they are just a form of transport. Ditto with underslungs loads such as supplies and howitzers. In my time I campaigned - as much as a junior officer can - for the Support helis to be transferred to the Army Air Corps. Didn't make me very popular, but I remain convinced it would be a big improvement.

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...