Prev: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks. Next: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.

Re: [DS][SG] Mech Inf was RE: [ds] Ogres

From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@e...>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: [DS][SG] Mech Inf was RE: [ds] Ogres wrote:

> Very true, Army level doctrine does not always equate to tactics
applied by
> lowlevel units. The Soviet Armor "Death Ride" into Grozney in 1995 (or
was it
> '94?), > completely unsupported by dismounted infantry or artillery is
a good example
> of that.

We actually had an example of this in a game we played.  A player who I
won't embarass by naming (His initials are Dave Luff) had dropped a load
of smoke into an urban area, and ran a platoon of tanks into the city,
through the smoke, and RIGHT ON TOP OF a platoon of infantry.  We
resolved it as a close assault--all three tanks died, one stand (out of
8) was taken down.  

> I still think that in the GZG universe that the intergration of the
> weapons systems and support platforms is going to be more difficult
> imagined and tactics limited by commanders who don't quite know or
> how to properly exploit the assets they have. For instance, when Power
> Armor is first deployed, I'll bet someone tries to treat them as light
> vehicals and have them take on (unsupported) enemy light tanks, GEV's
and even
> MBT's, just like during the Gulf war, when USMC LAV-25's tried to slug
it our
> with Iraqi T-55's.

I don't know about how things "really" will be, but assuming that DSII
is a 99%+ faithful depiction of the Way the Universe Works, then modern
doctrine more or less fits into the GZG-verse.	PA infantry does all the
things regular infantry does, but much, much better.  Grav tanks with
MDCs do all the things M1s do, but much much better.

John M. Atkinson

Prev: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks. Next: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.