Prev: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces? Next: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

From: "Ryan GIll" <rmgill@m...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:44:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Re infantry carried as part of a tank force....

If you look at the armoured cav use in vietnam or british recce units in
wwii, you'll see examples of platoons/troops with infantry as one of the
several weapons of the platoon in question. I can see a cav doctrine
that integrates the apc and the tank in one vehicle and has every
vehicle able to engage heavy targets with the heavy armament and
dismount infantry to do infantry type things.

However there are times when your tanks must do one thing and your
infantry another. If that requires that your infantry move over ground
the tanks can't cover and its a long way, you may have problems with

That's not to say I haven't designed some super heavy vehicles with
infantry space. I haven't worked out that system much.

I thinkl the main problem is goingto come with vehicle ergonomics
though. Infantry want a large high volume so they're not stuffed in a
can like soviet bmps. Combat kit on a grunt takes up room. So do thei
heavy weapons and other parts. A large and high compartment doesn't work
well for the back of a tank.

The merkava works only as a way to carry a very small squad and that
cuts into their ammo supply for the main gun. If you want infantry very
close with your armor, stick them in heavy apcs and use some light
weapons on those. Like an overhead weapon station with an atgm. Add some
extra mgs if you want it more urban combat capable. 

Ryan Gill
sent from my treo

-----Original Message-----

From:  "John Atkinson" <>
Subj:  Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Date:  Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:23 am
Size:  2K

On 7/12/08, Adrian1 <> wrote:

> They were originally size 3 armour 3 however, since my concept
> them to carry 2 infantry  the main weapons were inadequate and the
> way to fit a decent weapon was to up the size.

True that--which is why they will be in trouble when facing
purpose-built vehicles that do one thing, and do that well.

Point up a unit of these.  Then point up a unit of size 3 fast tracked
tanks with HKP/4s, a Superior fire control system, and even throw in
good ECM and a level of stealth to even out the points.

> While considering your point, I noticed that my MDC/4s can't work in
> HMT/4 vehicle - they have to be a size smaller.  I've decided to make
> both militia and regular use Fast GEV HMT with MDC/3 or SLAM/4

I have a Thing for HKPs, which are nearly as much fun.

> The SLAMs are to give a degree of anti-personnel capabability over
> range as well as light artillery support while the other weapons are
> supposed to be used in an AT role.  While they may not be that
> in the present rules, they are good enough to fit their assigned role
> which is rapid close-support company artillery.

I prefer ilght RAM artillery as mortar-equivalents.  More versatile
and effective.	YMMV.

> Thats were my concept hits a problem.  They're not over armed and
> armoured IFVs, they're MBTs that carry infantry.  The idea was based
> the Soviet tank riders of WW2.   I know that as soon as possible, all

Let me know what you're going to do with them doctrinally, because I'm
curious.  I'm not saying it doesn't work at all, I'm just saying that
I don't particularly like the idea and figuring out how you are going
to use them is going to be complex.  I think you'll end up essentially
paying the points for the infantry and the larger size of vehicle, and
getting very little use from them.

> armoured infantry ended up with their own transport so they didn't
> to ride on the tanks, however, no modern force has to transport armies
> across space with limited load capability.  If, for example, I caould
> only carry 20 vehicles and 60 infantry, it made sense to me (at the
> time) to make a vehicle do as much as possible.

If you're that badly limited, you're not doing anything more than a
raid anyway.  Given the logistical requirements to sustain a sizeable
force in direct high-intensity combat, the extra space needed to haul
a larger number of purpose-built vehicles will be relatively trivial
and partially offset by the fact that you could use smaller vehicles.

"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

Gzg-l mailing list

--- message truncated ---

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces? Next: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?