Brigade and Regiment

[Waylander]

Do I understand it the right way how you define mechanized and heavy forces?
Is a mechanized unit one with more mech inf and a heavy one with more armored assets with the heavy one being the fist (Like Panzerbrigade=Heavy and Panzergrenadierbrigade=Mech)?

Are there still any light infantry forces aside from airborne and airmobile units in the west which are not motorised (normally with APCs as battle taxis)?

If you look at the plans to defend a country like germany you see that the armored and mechanized infantry brigades perform a mobile defense with the light infantry covering the heavy woods, mountains and cities and airborn infantry filling the breakthroughs an hoping for the best.
What a shity job for the airborn guys jumping into the dirt in front of a tank division.

 

[FutureTank]

can get where they are going without waiting for their heavy luggage - and they can go places where the heavier forces cannot go without running out of supplies.

preferrably when the enemy's heavies run out of gas - and harrass the enemy's supply trucks.

Yes, there is nothing new in what you say.
Given weapons proliferation, it seems that protecting the 'luggage' is becoming more and more difficult, in fact probably impossible. Nor can tactical planning be based on the 'preferred' activity of the enemy!
It seems there is a challenge to integrate the logistics as far as possible into the forward combat element through engineering of either the combat vehicles, or the support vehicles?

 

[Waylander]

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but the intention s to protect the systems that make the ‘netcentric’ environment possible. It seems that transition to ‘netcentric’ environment is intended to reduce significance of “HQ behind the lines”, particularly where there are no ‘lines’. Is this a reasonable line of thinking?

Up to btl level the commander sits in a tank or IFV when being mobile. Much more armor is not possible.
Above btl level you still just have to operate with bigger more immobile staff groups.
Battlefield management system enhance the ability to control your units especially on the run and give you a better overview but you still need the staffs which do not fit in some heavy armored APCs for bigger units.

Always?! There are many possible contingencies where balanced mixing will not be possible or desirable.

If you can yes. I don't say that they are balanced all the time. For example a brigade with 4 maneuver echelons would field two with more mech inf and two with more tanks.
If it is not possible to get some tanks for your mech inf or vice versa you have a really big problem making the units much more vulnerable.

What about the inclusion of the DFWS some manufacturers are marketing? The US has begun accepting the Gun System for Stryker Brigades, but I sincerely doubt its tactical utility, particularly when tanks are available.

The important thing of these systems is strategical mobility.
We have a thread here about them and should discuss this new trend there.

This may be the case with tank designs from NATO countries, but Russian designs can easily accommodate multiple remotely operated turrets while still remaining in the ‘MBT’ margins by NATO standards (under 60t). For example the BMPT based on the T-90(72) chassis can manifest itself in future as a design with a main and an auxiliary turret and incorporating the AGLs as well as SAM systems. There is history of multi-turreted tanks, including from pre-WW2 German designs, and a hybrid tank such as this would alleviate the need for more infantry to be attached (for professional/volunteer armies).

The BMPT don't cmes close to giving you the same AT capabilities of a real tank. It may work fine as a support vehicle but cannot substitute a real tank.
Modern western tanks with enough armor and firepower are already operating at the weight limit. If you would add another turret the weight would be much too high.
Also situational awareness is the key. It is a full time job for a tank crew to operate the tank and communicate with the rest of the unit. It would need more crewmembers to operate an additional turret not to talk of a SAM system.
You cannot get the all in one wonder vehicle. Better to stay with specialised systems like a mix of tanks, IFVs, AA-vehicles, artillery, mortars, etc.

I was referring to Light Infantry which does not have such IFVs available to it, but may need to have local AO limited mobility when operating with tanks.

If you need to transport infantry through a MOUT area you should use IFVs were possible or APCs if not possible.
Everything less armored is a death trap and you should better go by food.
If you are not able to operate these vehicles in this area you are also not able to use tanks there.
So smaller fire support vehicles are the best there for example the Wiesel weapons carrier with a 20mm or with a TOW+MG3.

 

[FutureTank]

Do I understand it the right way how you define mechanized and heavy forces?
Is a mechanized unit one with more mech inf and a heavy one with more armored assets with the heavy one being the fist (Like Panzerbrigade=Heavy and Panzergrenadierbrigade=Mech)?

Wylander, I m a bit strange because I prefer to be exact in defing troops. I refer to troops by their mobility capability, or type of traction used by vehicles when available. This is based on the need to keep formation to slowest speed of vehicles within the formation when moving.
Mechanized - tracked vehicles regardless of armour or weapons used. [Note: I use armour to denote materials used to protect a vehile, and tank to refer to type of vehicle]
Motorized - wheeled vehicles regardless of armour or weapons used.
Heliborne - units using helicopters for primary mode of transit.
Airportable - units using fixed wing aircraft for primary mode of transit.
Dismounted - units which predominantly transit terrain on foot.

Terms like heavy, medium and light are meaningless. Instead I refer to these as attachments denoting relationship of vehicle weight to its traction (which is ultimately used to calculate PtW ratio).
utility - vehicles under 2t
very light - vehicles under 5t
light - vehicles under 15t
medium - vehicles under 45t
heavy - vehicles under 65t
very heavy - vehicles under 80t
super heavy - vehicles over 80t

The categories are in part based on civil engineering standards for NATO and are a problem because in many developing countries civil engineering structures used for roadways and constructed using World standards have been found to be constructed by unqualified personnel using substandard materials.

The units can be further defined by their weapons. This is based on threat aspect and range of engagement, and is based on the arms of service and ranges in multiples of 1000m.

Are there still any light infantry forces aside from airborne and airmobile units in the west which are not motorised (normally with APCs as battle taxis)?

I don't have that information, but I expect not. However the reference was a general one, applied globally.

If you look at the plans to defend a country like germany you see that the armored and mechanized infantry brigades perform a mobile defense with the light infantry covering the heavy woods, mountains and cities and airborn infantry filling the breakthroughs an hoping for the best.
What a shity job for the airborn guys jumping into the dirt in front of a tank division.

I don't think it is warranted to step on a boil so long after the event
However while it may be the IDEAL deployment for light infantry as you describe, changes in tactical situation are almost inevitable and alternatives need to be available to unit commanders.

 

[Waylander]

The question about definition was more for Ths just as a clarification of his post.
I agree with your definition. Only the dismounted is not important because I think there are no pure foot infantry units in the west.

I don't think it is warranted to step on a boil so long after the event
However while it may be the IDEAL deployment for light infantry as you describe, changes in tactical situation are almost inevitable and alternatives need to be available to unit commanders.

It is nearly the only alternative. Placing light infantry in more or less open terrain to face mech forces comes close to murder.

 

[FutureTank]

Battalion battlegroup IFV design thread?

Battlefield management system ….which do not fit in some heavy armoured APCs for bigger units. .

Yet

If it is not possible to get some tanks for your mech inf or vice versa you have a really big problem making the units much more vulnerable. .

As in through combat losses?

The important thing of these systems is strategically mobility.
We have a thread here about them and should discuss this new trend there. .

Where if you don’t mind putting on your MP helmet?
However I have already a bias opinion that any vehicle with a tank gun should be a tank After all you don’t see a runner at Olympics jumping into the boxing competition, particularly a heavy-weight category?

The BMPT don't come close to giving you the same AT capabilities of a real tank. It may work fine as a support vehicle but cannot substitute a real tank. .

Yes, the Russians never proposed they substitute for a tank.

Modern western tanks with enough armour and firepower are already operating at the weight limit. If you would add another turret the weight would be much too high.
Also situational awareness is the key. It is a full time job for a tank crew to operate the tank and communicate with the rest of the unit. It would need more crewmembers to operate an additional turret not to talk of a SAM system.
You cannot get the all in one wonder vehicle. Better to stay with specialised systems like a mix of tanks, IFVs, AA-vehicles, artillery, mortars, etc. .

I would politely disagree. HUD displays in latest generation pilot systems allow look-and-shoot capability, and IFF allows automated SAM targeting for lower altitude aerial targets, which is all I would expect such hybrid vehicles to mount. It would produce a veritable ‘hedgehog’ defence over and around the unit or formation such as a battalion group.

If you need to transport infantry through a MOUT area you should use IFVs were possible or APCs if not possible.
Everything less armoured is a death trap and you should better go by foot.
If you are not able to operate these vehicles in this area you are also not able to use tanks there.
So smaller fire support vehicles are the best there for example the Wiesel weapons carrier with a 20mm or with a TOW+MG3.

What about moving dismounted infantry from position line to position line or objective to objective while operating with tanks? The Wiesel is a good idea, but it lacks a true APC capability, with one variant providing for what can only be a scout team.

 

[FutureTank]

Placing light infantry in more or less open terrain to face mech forces comes close to murder.

So reforestation of Germany will be sponsored by the Bundeswehr Light Infantry Association ?

 

[FutureTank]

The important job is to maintain and develop the organisation and tactics - new weapons will be constructed and produced when the time comes.

the trick is NOT to be caught with huge stocks of recently aquired - slightly outdated - equipment.

Is JIT possible in strategic force planning?!

 

[Waylander]

Yes, the Russians never proposed they substitute for a tank.

You made an example of a multi-mission tank out of it not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
Battlefield management system ….which do not fit in some heavy armoured APCs for bigger units. .

Yet

It is not like the BMS does not fit into one vehicle but the huge amount of staff personal which is required for using the information provided by the C3 assets.
There is never going to be a lonely "commander" in front of some displays. You just need your adjudants, radio controllers, S1 - S4 groups, etc.

I would politely disagree. HUD displays in latest generation pilot systems allow look-and-shoot capability, and IFF allows automated SAM targeting for lower altitude aerial targets, which is all I would expect such hybrid vehicles to mount. It would produce a veritable ‘hedgehog’ defence over and around the unit or formation such as a battalion group.

We had the discussion of reducing the crewmembers in another thread.
There is a huge difference between flying a jet and and driving a ground vehicle. Just look at how advanced UAVs are and at how many problems they have to get even a normal ground drone run from point A to point B.
Just talk to some former crewmen of armored vehicles. They are going to tell you the same like me. 3 crewman is the minimum with current technology and they operate at full capacity with their current tasks during high intense battles..
A potent SAM system requires space and weight (And crew if you want to have a backup)

What is the problem with having special AA-vehicles? You are much more flexible with them. You can for example regroup them if necessary against special threats, you have a crew as backup and for tactical decisions and the systems can be bigger and more complex like basic automated systems implemented into tanks.

As in through combat losses?

You cannot plan like this.
For sure if you lose one important asset you have a problem. Its the same everywhere.
But this is not the base for your planning. The base is what kind of troops is suited best when operating together with tanks. And this is normally mech inf. Just because you could loose some of them doesn't change this.

So reforestation of Germany will be sponsored by the Bundeswehr Light Infantry Association ?

Germany is the most heavily wooded country in middle europe.
The problem is that these are not some big wood areas but many, many small forests making it possible for mech troops to bypass them.

What about moving dismounted infantry from position line to position line or objective to objective while operating with tanks? The Wiesel is a good idea, but it lacks a true APC capability, with one variant providing for what can only be a scout team.

You use the tanks and IFVs as cover and move by food while the vehicles give surpression fire and heavy fire support.
If you don't need the extra guns of an IFV you can also use (H)APCs for this.
I just don't get why you want to put the infantry onto the tank while it is much better protected and can operate much easier while using IFVs. And everywhere an IFV cannot go a tank can also not go.

 

[Ths]

There is light infantry that is not motorised; but generally mot inf is light, but they use lorries.

 

[Waylander]

In the west?
Which country operates true light infantry without transport assets?

 

[FutureTank]

It seems to me riding on a tank is better then riding in a truck.

 

[Waylander]

For sure.
You no longer has to worry about trees and so on.

 

[FutureTank]

What is the problem with having special AA-vehicles? You are much more flexible with them. You can for example regroup them if necessary against special threats, you have a crew as backup and for tactical decisions and the systems can be bigger and more complex like basic automated systems implemented into tanks.

The capabilities of IFVs and their missile systems are approaching a stage where they can comfortably engage helicopters or ground targets. Aircraft are becoming more out of range targets except some like the A-10 or SU-25

In reality there is going to be a division between tactical AD/AT systems and operational long range (Corps) assets.

With this in mind, greater degree of system distribution among the elements of the unit will enhance overall capability and make the unit less reliant on rare specialist vehicles.
I think if the IFV turret has two crew, they should be able to operate a gun and a missile systems in tendem.

 

[FutureTank]

For sure.
You no longer has to worry about trees and so on.

I was serious. Tanks are expensive and have all sorts of sub-systems for active and passive defence to keep them going. Trucks don't.
An armoured 'cell' for a ride-on infantryman would not slow down a tank by much, but armouring trucks is far more difficult (and is there any sense in that?)
lastly no tanker will refuse 8-10 extra pairs of eyes all around

 

[Waylander]

Modern FCS in IFVs make them capable of engaging helicopters at good ranges but this is still not near the capability of a real AA-vehicle with integrated Radar.

If the turret has a two man crew with one searching for air targets and one doing the ground gunnery, who commands the vehicle?

As to truck or tank.
Why should you use an armored truck if you need a battle taxi?
Use a (H)APC if you want to send infantry from one point to another with armor protection. If you want to support them from there on use an IFV. If you have to send support through dangerous areas use armored trucks.

What kind of cells do you want to use? They are for sure not going to protect the infantry as good as in an APC or IFV. If you plan this the tank with transport cells would increase very very much in weight.

 

[eckherl]

It seems to me riding on a tank is better then riding in a truck.

With the speed of modern day tanks this will be impossible to do, also look at all the artillery munitions that are out there. Infantry carried under armor is still the way to go.

 

[FutureTank]

Light infantry battalion group operating with tanks

Modern FCS in IFVs make them capable of engaging helicopters at good ranges

With all due respect, I have my doubts

As to truck or tank.
Why should you use an armored truck if you need a battle taxi?

What kind of cells do you want to use? They are for sure not going to protect the infantry as good as in an APC or IFV. If you plan this the tank with transport cells would increase very very much in weight.

My fault because I forgot to restate that the subject is light infantry.
You asked 'which light infantry doesn't have transports?' but the argument is wheels over protection in tactical manoeuvering.
No AFVs for the light infantry available, but operating with tanks. Even if wheeled AFV is available, the terrain reduces unit tactical flexibility limiting movement on road for example.

With infantry onboard, the tank would need to slow down anyway, so the added armour of the cells will not impact on the speed, but does open more tactical possibilities for the group. This includes possible element of tactical deception where the wheeled AFVs make the approach expected by the enemy 'empty' while actual fire elements approach from elsewhere mounted on tanks.

The cells are something like fold-out starter-gates for horse racing with an armoured shield and a rudementary seat. After the passengers are out, the cells become something like armoured 'skirts' used by some German AFVs in WW2. Alternatively they can be 'dropped' to become impromtue infantry position without need for digging (for example to block a road).

 

[FutureTank]

If the turret has a two man crew with one searching for air targets and one doing the ground gunnery, who commands the vehicle?

This is a good question.
However it seems to me the nature of anti-helicopter combat by ground units requires gunnery dedicatio, so uit commander will need to allocate task to selected crews.

On the other hand maybe the non-specialist AD can be automated based on submarine technology?

 

[Waylander]

You may have your doubts but modern IFVs like the Puma are able to attack Helicopters up to 3000m with programable burst rounds.
And tanks up to 4000m with their main gun.
I agree that this is not enough to cover the whole attack capabilities of AT-helicopters but for everything else you need bigger SAMs like Roland. (Stinger and co wont work). Much too much as an extra gimmick for a tank.

Now about the infantry on a tank tactic.
Infantry boarded ON tanks is just a nice turkey shooting.
Not to talk of the danger being hit by the turret (Which is fast) or sitting on the cooling blowers.
Attached cells would make the tank bigger (More problems in close quarters) and wont be really bulletproof like a APC. Also mounting and dismounting would be slower and more uncovered.
And every western light infantry (As is stated before excluding airborn/airmobile units) has their APC assets. Use them. Modern APCs withstand 30mm frontally, 14,5mm around with good RPG and IED protection. HAPCs even can take more fire.

So I state again. If infantry with integrated heavy fire support is needed use mech inf with IFVs. If you have light infantry and need to transport them over quite a distance use their APCs as battletaxis. If it is MOUT go by food and jump from cover to cover and from house to house with tanks giving heavy fire support, surpression fire, blowing wholes into walls and acting as mobile cover.
If it is heavy wood or very mountaineous regions tanks will go nowhere and you use transportable ATGMs, MGs, or small weapons carriers for fire support.