Are mechanized infantry tactics obsolete? Why can't they be moved near the front in trucks?

Are mechanized infantry tactics obsolete?

Why can't they be moved near the front in trucks?
>Hur dur what about artillery
You need to move faster!

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    has anyone ever been more like as to even can as?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ME GREEN CUBE

      https://i.imgur.com/3RGDsBJ.jpg

      unironically

      >designed as a 'light anti air and recon vehicle'
      >too loud and clumsy to be good recce on rough terrain, suspension flips like a hummer taking a corner
      >7.62mm chaingun struggles to take down light enemy air
      >even light small arms destroy the engine
      >crew fully exposed at all times, can only mount 3 people in the most common variant, 5 passengers at best
      Anon, come on. it was an RTS vehicle that got a lot of screentime. Militarily the UNSC is fucking retarded. That open field assault in reach makes me wince in pain every fucking time.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >is this one type of unit the end all be all of everything
    no

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why can't mechinf go by truck
    Because then they'd be motoroized inf.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I see your "Pandemonium" and raise you a "Death Special"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pfft. Death Special has got nothing on my bro Jeffery

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Armoured vehicles are rapidly becoming obsoleted because missiles are accelerating in lethality. Dismounted infantry with superior tactics is the future.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They’re a lot more vulnerable because of large numbers of atgms and guided artillery. Instead of being able to take down most of what a peer enemy can offer companies of APCs are going to be facing drone-guided arty barrages landing in their midst and dozens of atgms fielded by even the smallest infantry squads. You can see this in Ukraine where Russia took significant vehicle losses early on and Ukrainian mechanized movements have been almost nonexistent. Still better than trucks or foot soldiers of course.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia took significant vehicle losses
      Wasn't that exactly the same plan during the Cold War though? That the armor was just supposed to drive Non-Stop as far as they could?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but while capturing enormous amounts of territory and engaging in WW3.

        I still think mechanized infantry is worthwhile (you need infantry in the first place), but it’s become far less survivable as modern weapons offer precise/armor-piercing fire which is both portable and prolific. In the 20th century tanks/armored forces were very powerful and hard to stop if you didn’t have expensive air support, specialized AT, or tanks of your own, whereas in recent conflicts Syria/Armenia/Ukraine armored vehicles have been suspectable to ATGMs while most of the war was fought with precision artillery, air strikes with ground troops mounting careful assaults and mopping up the losing side’s outgunned infantry

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The plan was that they would drive from the oder to the rhine

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unironically the plan was to use "muh nooks" to destroy most static military bases as well as Command and Control centers, leaving the enemy disorganized and incapable of solidifying a fortified defense against mass spam of motostrelki.
        It was still retarded, though.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not entirely sure what the OP is about but guntrucks are really cool
    we might not be able to have cool nose art but at least we'll have rad gun trucks

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Vietnam had a lot of fun ones, lot of vehicle art and other mods they did because charlie don't fucking play. Feels like they've tried to replace them with MRAPs but end of the day if you're in contact in the truck something's prolly gone wrong, y'know?

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A BTR or M113 is basically just one step above a truck.
    Not everyone is riding around in a 50t IFV.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unless we get some Starship Troopers mobile infantry (the novel) suits, troops will need a way to stay up with tanks, or whatever armor becomes viable in the future. You might as well make the vehicle able to fight while it's dropping troops off at the frontlines

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If ATGMs are going to be so lethal then you might as well use a cheap truck that is easy to produce.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Using ATGMs on every PC you see would be a massive waste. This board never accounts for the economic (not just big pictures, but as well as the individual crew with 6 missiles or whatever) of war.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An APS works on an APC just as well as a tank.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then you're even worse off because now you're vulnerable to machineguns and knee mortars plus the ATGMs.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Here's a crazy idea. You're not required to take the vehicle straight up to the fighting position. You can disembark some distance away and go the rest of the way on foot. Armies have only been doing this since WW1

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you're forcing your dismounts to charge through machinegun fire unsupported? We tried that. It was called World War 1.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Of course I forgot, there's no such thing as doing different things in different situations. You have to pick one thing you do that 100% of the time no matter what.

              Also since when as the doctrine for dealing with machine gun fire to charge it? Even in WW1 they used suppressive artillery and smoke to cover assaults over no man's land. Literally read a book for once in your life.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >. You have to pick one thing you do that 100% of the time no matter what.
                Correct, when you use unarmored vehicles instead of IFVs you're effectively unable to dismount on the objective, which cripples tactical momentum and increases exposure to artillery.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you're saying the way APC are to be used is to drive right on top of an objective and then have the squad pile out into the fight through a single door?
                Think about this for more than 5 seconds.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes that's right.

                The primary advantage of putting wheels on your infantry is speed.

                That speed is wasted when you make them fucking walk everywhere.

                Infantry stay inside the vehicle unless they actually need to dismount to actually do a specific task, and the only task that they need to dismount for is to engage the enemy closely in close terrain.

                When that's what you're doing, do you
                a) unload your infantry hundreds of metres away from the strongpoint and order them to walk slowly through the machinegun fire with their bayonets fixed, or
                b) get as close as you can as fast as you can through the magic of wheels

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is so stupid it doesn't merit a response, but I'll bite.

                Infantry do zero good when they're in the back of an APC. The armor is a nice bonus because
                1. If you unexpectedly take fire you're somewhat protected
                2. If there's no large threats around the APC can stay and support the infantry who are on the ground.

                The drive right up into the fight and unload the infantry there is retarded because in CQB there is this thing called the FATAL FUNNEL when everyone entering a room has to go through the doorway meaning the enemy has only one place they need to aim at to shoot your guys.

                Buy having the infantry exit the APC under fire you're putting them through a fatal funny outside where the enemy could be coming for any and all directions.

                Again, the infantrymen aren't suppose to be in the APC during fighting (unless of course there's something unexpected while in transit.) they're suppose to be outside on the ground with the vehicle supporting them, not unlike how tanks were used in WW2.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >This is so stupid it doesn't merit a response
                It's doctrine you tard.

                >The drive right up into the fight and unload the infantry there is retarded
                What's your alternative? Unload them outside of the fight and have them walk into it through machinegun killing fields like fucking World War 1?

                >"n-no i'd suppress the enemy first"
                Okay, so suppress the enemy first... and then DRIVE, DON'T WALK.

                >"but if you do that people might DIE!"
                More people or less people than WALKING THROUGH MACHINEGUN FIRE?

                >in CQB there is this thing called the FATAL FUNNEL
                And there's also this thing called a KILLING FIELD and NO MAN'S LAND.

                You are wrong. You are literally wrong. Nobody uses APCs or IFVs in the way that you are describing because it makes no sense and if you care enough about this argument then feel free to go to fucking cav school and learn for yourself.

                You get as close as you can to the enemy before dismounting because the only thing infantry can do that their vehicle can't do better is fight a close engagement. If you are walking across an open field while being shot at with machineguns you are not fighting a close engagement so don't fucking do it.

                I won't reply again.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's doctrine
                You're confusing strategy with tactics and no one is saying you just run blindly across a field under machine gun fire. You fucking neutralize the machine gun fire with suppression or destroying it and then cross.

                If you were a machine gunner, which would make you more likely to GTFO?
                >An APC driving across a field
                or
                >An APC shooting it's .50 cal or 40mm at you along with a squad of infantry firing their weapons at you

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You fucking neutralize the machine gun fire with suppression or destroying it and then cross.
                If you successfully completely destroyed the strongpoint why do you need to dismount at all?

                >"because we probably didn't and there are probably still guys alive in there"
                Guys who could fire a machinegun?

                >If you were a machine gunner, which would make you more likely to GTFO?
                Did it work in WW1? No. For all the huge guns and artillery they used they still could not suppress the enemy sufficiently to stop everyone fucking dying every time.

                Stop ordering mass infantry charges into fucking machineguns. Holy shit. Get in your MACHINEGUN PROOF BOX and DRIVE.

                Now I really am closing this tab. I apologise for being terse. Good night.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you successfully completely destroyed the strongpoint why do you need to dismount at all?
                Because the infantry increases your volume of fire. You get at least two additional belt fed machine guns and half a dozen extra rifles as opposed to just what the APC has.
                >Did it work in WW1?
                Yes, yes it did. Tanks were the big break through that broke the stalemate of trench warefare and that tactic of using armored vehicles AND dismounted infantry continued through WWII and beyond.

                You seem to have this idea that APC are at the top of the food chain on the battlefield. They're not, they're mostly immune to small arms but are still vulnerable to shit as small as RPGs. Charging across a field in an APC is about as suicidal as on foot because it doesn't take a whole lot to knock out an APC, much less the gun itself which can be disabled with small arms alone.

                So even if you're not facing anything larger than small arms the APCs gun could still get knocked out and now you're sitting in a metal box with the enemy waiting for you to come out the single door.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your not terse, your retarded.
                >did it work in WW1?
                Yea it did

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So you're saying the way APC are to be used is to drive right on top of an objective and then have the squad pile out into the fight through a single door?
                >Think about this for more than 5 seconds.

                Beautiful Dunning-Kruger moment. Open a tradoc manual on a complex breach, moron. You're disbelieving the dominant function of mechanized infantry in the 20th century.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >complex breach
                The only Army manuals I can find this in are engineering ones. I'm 100% certain you are misunderstanding whatever manuals it is you're reading.

                I haven't posted in this thread yet, but let's compare a few approaches to a scenario.

                You have a fortified position surrounded by open ground. You have 5 APCs loaded with infantry.

                >Approach 1
                Advance across the field with APCs firing as you go. This is the fastest method to deliver infantry to the objective, but also the most risky.

                >Approach 2
                Unload infantry first so they can lend their fire to the APCs on the advance. This delivers the most firepower, but also slows your advance and presents many more soft targets.

                >Approach 3
                Unload some infantry to form a firebase with some of the APCs, while the rest of the APCs advance. Presents a balance between speed, firepower, and target hardness.

                Ultimately, the best approach would probably involve the APCs transporting the infantry as close as possible because of how slow and soft people are. Right on top of the objective if possible.

                explains it quite well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only Army manuals I can find this in are engineering ones. I'm 100% certain you are misunderstanding

                The acme of armor branch. The signature of NTC. The staple of the Soviet armor corps. The defining combined arms ground forces operation refined, rehearsed, and employed by all mechanized armies of the human race throughout the 20th century.
                .
                .
                .
                And you've never even heard of it. You think it's an engineering meme about blowing up doors or something. Can you fully appreciate why your opinion is worthless?

                Here, watch a video introduction and catch up on the century of weapons 101 you've contrived to stay ignorant of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-sCT_maAQ

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I pulled a meaningless buzzword from a document so I'm smarter
                moron what does the existence of combined arms have to do with the fact that APCs aren't protected against anything larger than small arms and will get shredded without cover/support from other units and that they're not tanks that can just drive across killzones without issue?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did you see infantry advancing across the open in that video? Or did APCs deliver them onto the objective? Nobody has or is suggesting they advance without support.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Dismount
                >Bound to the objective
                >Bound to the objective
                >Bound to the objective

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You mean the part where the infantry dismounted once the APCs had brought them to the trenches?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    unironically

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >solid front and read axles
      not a warthog.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >armour can be destroyed by certain weapons, so they should be abandoned in favour of something that can be destroyed by all weapons
    OP is a moron

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are mechanized infantry tactics obsolete?

    gun truck from vietnam. it was used to pound areas suspected of being ambushes
    the minigun was set to 2,000 rpm instead of 4,000. and the minigun was removed after the guy who was trained on it left vietnam
    some trucks had grenade launchers. most had 50 cals.
    it was fabricated in country by military units

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not at all. Just about every modern military worth mentioning has mechanized infantry.
    >Trucks
    Fuck your trucks. US Mechanized infantry roll into battle in Style. Well...less style and more in armored fighting vehicles.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nah speed will never be obsolete but it depends of you use it

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are mechanized infantry tactics obsolete?
    Unironically yes and no.

    Mech inf in the sense of APC-alikes or ersatz IFVs are definitely getting long in the tooth. WW2 halftracks are "mech inf" but they're not effective, for example.

    Modern "mech inf" are more like tanks with infantry attached. Much like a WW2 squad was built around the machinegun I expect modern infantry will be built around their vehicle. Even today the dismounts aren't supposed to dismount except specifically to clear strongpoints. The vehicle is clearly the primary firepower and the infantry is just there for stairs and basements.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nuclear war is so expensive that it can't be won
    what we are seeing is that conventional war is becoming so expensive that it too cannot be won.

    there's nothing in ukraine that can make conquering ukraine turn a profit. wars aren't worth it.

    it will take the caveman brains of dictators longer to catch up to modern reality though.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't posted in this thread yet, but let's compare a few approaches to a scenario.

    You have a fortified position surrounded by open ground. You have 5 APCs loaded with infantry.

    >Approach 1
    Advance across the field with APCs firing as you go. This is the fastest method to deliver infantry to the objective, but also the most risky.

    >Approach 2
    Unload infantry first so they can lend their fire to the APCs on the advance. This delivers the most firepower, but also slows your advance and presents many more soft targets.

    >Approach 3
    Unload some infantry to form a firebase with some of the APCs, while the rest of the APCs advance. Presents a balance between speed, firepower, and target hardness.

    Ultimately, the best approach would probably involve the APCs transporting the infantry as close as possible because of how slow and soft people are. Right on top of the objective if possible.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1/2

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      2/2

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's garbage. Why can't Marines use the same 5 ton as the Army?

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jetpack infantry when?

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my question is why isnt wheeld apc/ifv more of a thing?

Your email address will not be published.