D85. WP inf riding APC's question

[Mafooo]

Hi,

Most of my WP infantry can turn in to T mod and ride APC's. However, per the rules since they are in T mode they have half defense against a hard attack.

I thought that the purpose of APC's was to provide protection for infantry on the battlefield, yet it seems they are more vulnerable otherwise. Can someone explain? Thanks.

(Note I know this provides them protection from units with soft attack values, but in the Bolt out of the Blue scenario, it seems that most of the quality NATO infantry have both high soft and high hard attack values, which negates the APC value. Thanks.)

[Volcano Man]

They do provide more protection because, in most cases, they become hard targets. However "more protection" depends on what enemies they are facing. Loading up into PCs probably isn't better protection versus tanks, nor against most modern infantry, but against a foe that is weakly equipped, they can be quite protected (if the HA rating of the enemy is low). Still, you have to keep in mind that when a single APC gets killed, that can mean (IRL) quite a few eggs in one basket getting lost, up to 10 men on some PCs, so that is where the vulnerability comes from as well.

To make a long story short, you really only want the infantry "mounted" when you want them to have increased mobility. Other than that, infantry riding around in APCs / IFVs on the modern battlefield is quite risky.

[Dog Soldier]

I would have to agree with VM here. The axiom that anything that is in motion on the battlefield is more vulnerable is true in regards to APCs also.

Regarding "protection value" of the APC, I have never heard that any country trains its infantry to run and hide inside the APCs during an artillery barrage than to stay in a prepared position to ride out the bombardment. Indirect artillery fire is rather random and indiscriminate, so the fact that APCs are not used for cover during one shows how vulnerable to destruction they really are, even being "armored". Speed is the safety for an APC. To be able to move fast and not remain in a kill zone. That element is factored into every vehicle type's defensive factor along with armor and crew training level.

Dog Soldier

[JDR Dragoon]

This is another area, not unlike the representation of helicopters, where the game starts to creak in the seams.

The problem is, that the game is dualistic in this regard: an armored infantry unit is either deployed and moving at foot pace and is a soft target, or it is in road column(s) using travel mode and is a hard target. There is no inbetween, even though this is actually what characterizes armored infantry units and makes them unique: the ability to rapidly shift between mounted and dismounted combat depending upon the terrain and tactical circumstances.

While infantry in a non dug-in defensive position might not run to the APC for cover while under artillery fire (if dug-in it might have its own fighting position in connection to the squads and thus be reachable through a communication trench and usable as overhead cover if there hasn´t been time to prepare this), infantry hit by artillery while mounted will use the protection and mobility of their APC/IFV to move out of the beaten zone or into concealment. There are also phases during an attack in which the infantry will tend to remain mounted (typically while moving to and into the final assembly area, which the enemy might be so unsportsmanlike as to put under harassing artillery fire).

This dualism between an armored infantry being either Soft or Hard, depending upon whether it is in travel mode or not is doubly felt when we take those IFVs w. a 2 hex Hard Attack into consideration. These units are able to sit and snipe at enemy Hard Targets (typically tanks) at 2 Hex range with impunity, even though the factor generating this attack (the IFV) is properly a hard target and should be targetable in return if the original target has a 2 hex range as well. But since deployed armored infantry counts as Soft targets, the offended hard target cannot fire back, since it has a soft attack range of 1 (some user mods give them a SA range of 2, but since their SA is usally not that large to begin with, and when halved for firing at 2 hex range, they can at best barely keep pace with the damage dealt by the offending IFVs).

This problem also rears its head when actually trying to use the mobility of armored infantry. Say you want to withdraw. You pull back your armored infanry unit 1 hex and put it into travel mode. But wait! It is now a hard target and thus suddenly eligible to receive opportunity fire from enemy units w. 2 hex HA. Paradoxically, motorized infantry units in soft trucks are actually better able to escape here, since they remain soft targets throughout.

So in conclusion: In the game, the armored infantry unit w. its APC/IFV´s are only superior to straight leg and motorized infantry in two regards: They typically have markedly higher HA and a slightly higher SA and they are better able to withstand the effects of interdiction and slightly better at withstanding artillery and direct fire while in travel mode (but since most units, including the artillery, have a respectable HA, they remain perfectly liable to take huge losses, albeit less than non-armored infantry). The advantage in tactical mobility and protection, vital in regard to their mission of being able to constitute a combined arms team operating in close conjunction w. armor, is not really represented in the game. When deployed, they are as fast as all other infantry and just as vulnerable (even though a large part of the unit consists of armored vehicles)

The only one of the problems outlined above that is solveable at the moment is the issue with IFV equipped units "sniping" with impunity at 2 hex range: reduce their range to 1, but let them retain their improved HA. In this situation they get to deliver their licks, but also get to take the full brunt of the return fire. The rest requires some kind of code change (probably not forthcoming) which will allow armored infantry both improved protection (rightly at the expense of making them hard targets, which would make them vulnerable to 2 hex hard attack, even when deployed) and improved movement thanks to their APC/IFVs, and thus properly represent the aspects where the strenghts and superiority of these units lie. But the game is what it is and can, as a simulation, only represent reality to a certain degree in its current form. We must thus play it with this in mind :)

[Nitram Draw]

Perhaps the mechanized infantry should always be considered riding in the armoured vechicle and a hard target unless they go 'on foot'. They could keep up with the tanks without going into T mode.

[burroughs]

So, with all that above having been said, unlike it is in Panzer Campaigns, and in Modern Campaigns as it seems it's the other way round, am I corect to assume that it only takes to deploy my mechanized battalions and other subunits of that type ie. put them out of a marching column of the "T" type deployment, to render them combat ready and it doesn't take the necessity to order them going on foot? Is it the same for motorized units? I think not so it would be wise for the latter type to dismount them off the trucks before sending into the field where the enemy contacts are expected ...

[JDR Dragoon]

So, with all that above having been said, unlike it is in Panzer Campaigns, and in Modern Campaigns as it seems it's the other way round, am I corect to assume that it only takes to deploy my mechanized battalions and other subunits of that type ie. put them out of a marching column of the "T" type deployment, to render them combat ready and it doesn't take the necessity to order them going on foot? Is it the same for motorized units? I think not so it would be wise for the latter type to dismount them off the trucks before sending into the field where the enemy contacts are expected ...

Yes. You do not have to put them "On Foot" first unless you intend to boat across a full river hex or enter terrain such as Swamp or Marsh.

[burroughs]

Thank You very much as usual, sir Colonel sir. The Danes got helluva bashing last turn with both Polish marines and Russian naval infantry linking up with the LWP paratroopers which alas does not save some certain division elements from getting annihilated. By the way since we speak - are those Para-Commando Regiment guys Belgians or Dutch since my opponent does not spill the beans even though I threatened him with my SpetsNaz saboteurs using their shovels and entrenching tools to extract the wanted data. I would not like to peek that in the editor or the OrBat. Working over the plan to gather all the liberated citizens into working kolhoz societies.

[JDR Dragoon]

Belgian. Supposedly meant to represent a partial deployment of AMF(L) by the original scenario designer. As for the Marines, they would likely not have been used here, both because of the presence of the unmolested NATO navies (since the mid 1960s WAPA planned on using at least 3 days to "grind down" the combined danish-german navies and naval strike aircraft before wagering to commit their precious amphibious assets) but also because they are not really needed here. Once I get around to doing my "own" version, instead of just a modification of the existing scenario, the marines will be removed.