Infantry Survivability

[Narwan]

The effect of both artillery and mg's on infantry is a lot bigger in peoples mind than it is in reality.

If they were truly as effective as people think they were, the historical loss figures for infantry wouldn't have been as low as they are. Being an infantrygrunt was just about the safest combat job (so not counting rear area beancounters etc) there was and is.

As to the original question, I think you're confusing effectiveness with casualties. When you read that tanks were effective/efficient in the fire support role that does not mean the actually inflicted any casualties. You can be very effective in that role without causing a single actual casualty.
The point is to prevent the enemy projecting his power; forcing them to keep their heads down or denying them acces to a certain area, or pinning them etc are all ways to achieve that.

I personally think infantry is far too vulnerable in the game. I have no problem inflicting heavy casualties on infantry, much in excess of what is realistic. Then again, the issue here seems to be not as much the game itself, but what level of infantry casulties is considered realistic. Opinions differ on that. The game is somewhere in the middle.


Narwan