WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !

[Alpha]

Well let�s compare a bit

1. Infantry:

Rifles: Pretty much the same since all rifles are rated the same value in the game.

MG�s: The germans have MG3 which is one of the best, all other MGs are also with only slight differences the same. Both sides have some heavy MGs which are pretty much the same also.

Squad AT weapons: The russians have a slight edge here with the RPG7 and RPG7(v). Better than le. Pz. Faust + LAWs. British have later a good weapon: LAW80. Also some western nations still use the Carl Gustav which is quite good also. WP uses some recoiless rifles also. So for me, the east wins on a slight margin here. USA is quite weak with the LAW which has compared to german and eastern weapons smaller range and a bit smaller HEAT pen.

Explosives/handgrenades/flame wepaons: The same with the exception of the WP flame rocket (name?). The US have a rocket flame weapon also but it seems not so widespread used and also only a short time used in the period in question. Both sides have 30mm or 40mm GLs. So a slight edge for the WP.

Pistols/SMGs etc. : No big differences that are worth to be named here.

Exp. / Mor / Special troops: The western nations are slightly better, but DDR and Czech are also good on the eastern side. Both sides have good special forces and paras.

So for INFANTRY i say the WP wins with slightly better weapons.

Discuss INFANTRY now !
NO TANKS, NO ARTY, NO missiles...these topics come later.

You must give an explaination here of you vote in the poll

[narwan]

Well, it's tough to compare the two since there's a staggering array of different nations and within nations different types of infantry formations to pick from.

Why I think NATO has (on average) better infantry is because they are much better at the job they are meant to do. Infantry is meant to take and hold vital ground. To do that you need firepower, firepower vs soft targets especially and you need to be able to keep going after losses. Having nice AT weapons is all good and proper, but it is a secondary issue. If you have each squad equiped with a weapon system only very few of them might actually need during an engagement you've actually weakened your whole force (as all squads will be paying for a system very few will use and more directly by not having another weapon in that slot that they can use regularly!). A good example is infantry AT weapons capable of dealing with enemy MBT's head on. You don't need them on squad level. You have AT-teams, ATGM teams, and a whole bunch of other units (like some IFV's, choppers, armor etc) who can do that. So often I pick squad make-ups with maximise their firepower vs soft targets and leave the tankbusting to tankbusters. Some lighter AT-weapons are useful (and much cheaper than the heavy stuff) for dealing with the large amounts of soviet light armored vehicles. But for that even energa grenades suffice. And NATO's IFV's have a clear edge over the soviet ones so that need is limited too.

From the above it may be clear I am not a fan of extensive multipurposing of standard infantry units. I'm all for specialising with some redundancy build into the force structure. Usually for NATO nations you have squads with good basic infantry weapons and enough support weapons in specialised units. And the squads are big enough to keep going after taking a few losses.

By far the biggest problem for WP infantry is their squad size. Their squads are commonly in the five to seven men range which is way to few to conduct sustained infantry operations. Most of the NATO nations have a standard squad size of nine or ten men per squad. Which I think is far, far better. A couple of nations do field smaller sized squads in their IFV formations, as these vehicle have a limited capacity. But these have the advantage of being of better quality, like the US and Germany with their basic 75 experience, and therefor able to stay into the fight a bit longer than their WP counterparts.

WP infantry may have neat weapons, they may look good on paper but if they can't do the basic job infantry must do well, I don't think they're that good.

So on the whole, it is my opinion that NATO infantry is better, and by some margin too.

Narwan

[serg3d]

If we go into XXI century russian heavy weapon infantry squads are becoming wastly superior, due to RPO Shmel. One shot and the enemy is routed or deeply suppressed. Even armor.
Not exatly on topic, but about Israel infantry:
In the SPMBT modern Israel infantry, with exeption of snipers, suck. All infantry weapon, even LMG is extremly short range. Arabs and other squads with LMG, AK and other rifles can shoot at Israel squads with impunity - they have considerably better weapon range. Israel infantry still can make half-decent defence, if well hidden, but without lot of HMG and AGL it can't advance at all. In fact in the advance better not to use line infantry at all, only snipers, AGL and HMG.

[narwan]

If you compare squads ona one by one basis the RPO is indeed a big plus. But gamewise you an't simply compare on a squad vs squad basis and look only at it's weaponload. Unit cost is equally important. Adding an RPO to the unit increases it's cost by 100-150% (compared to a russian unit which has a grenade launcher with plenty of ammo instead).

So game wise you should compare 1 squad with an RPO to 2 or 3 squads with a lighter weapons in it's slot (grenade launcher, hand grenades, etc) which is what NATO units tend to have. That means the RPO unit, if the volume of fire it takes from those opponents doesn't overwhelm it in the first place, can at best try to hit each enemy squad once, maybe twice. And as you said, it's likely to end in heavy suppression, and not a lot of casualties. Once that suppression wears off, which can be in one turn given the good quality of most NATO forces, the RPO squad won't stand a chance.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. The weapon load may look fancy, but factor in the cost and ability to conduct sustained infantry operations and the functionality within a total force structure (including all sorts of different unit types) it's not the same.

Still, the RPO is a powerful weapon and a bit underpowered too I think. If it misses the secondary splash doesn't seem to do much else than cause suppression in it's hex.

Narwan

Edit: got the added cost for RPO's a bit wrong so adjusted it.

[Alpha]

So some ppl. won�t give their opinion i see. 6 votes, 3 pp. write something.....hope it improves.

reg. RPO: I found out if used correctly the targeted squad(s) have no change to hold their ground. Since 1 shot mostly causes so much supression that they even don�t shoot back. You can drive fast vehicles near the targetted squads, let the inf. jump out and rout the enemy squad in most cases. My experience from the game. I don�t know how effective (or even dangerous for the firing unit) those weapons are in reality though. But flame always was (is) a terrible weapon.

I also wonder about the following fact in the game: The WP has RPG7 which then was exchanged for the RPG7(V). In the game those are the absolutly best inf-at weapons in this period. US has LAW and germans the light pz.fausts (+ Gustav in seperate units). The RPG7(V) is superior much to these. But then the WP get�s RPG16/18/22 which are all worse than the RPG7(v).... how come ?

[narwan]

Alpha said:
I found out if used correctly the targeted squad(s) have no change to hold their ground. Since 1 shot mostly causes so much supression that they even don�t shoot back. You can drive fast vehicles near the targetted squads, let the inf. jump out and rout the enemy squad in most cases.

That has more to do with the incorrect use of the defending units. If those squads hit byt the RPO and heavily supressed have no covering fire to protect them from exactly what you describe they deserve that fate. But a good player will have covered the approach hexes (preferably those adjacent to the squads) with fields of fire from other units (hmg's/mmg's, other squads etc to target the infantry when they dismount or at-teams, atgm units, infantry squads etc to target the approaching vehicles carrying the infantry).

Remember, you can't fairly judge the value of one type of unit (like the RPO squads) by adding a couple of units to help them without giving the other side some help too. Otherwise your comparing 1 heavy (and very expensive) squad together with another squad and apc to just a single (much cheaper) enemy squad. Off course the RPO will come out on top in that case!

And that very same tactic works well in other cases too. A russian/soviet heavy squad with AK's, 2 slots of PKM's and a Dragunov (or a grenade launcher instead of the dragunov or one of the PKM's) can also cause a lot of suppression quickly on an enemy squad.

Narwan

[Marek_Tucan]

I tend to prefer Western infantry as it seems better suited for anti-infantry work - in assault or in advance. In defense/delay I prefer WP infantry with their RPG7 family as it is a nasty weapon useable for longer-ranged ambushes than most of LAW's.
Of course, the same applies to any Western force equipped with Carl Gustaf but the WP forces tend to have more RPG's per platoon.

[wulfir]

I play most my games as Sweden..., and both NATO and WP infantry are head and shoulders above their cold war erea Swedish counterparts - especially the 'leg infantry' category...