DISCUSSIONS
- << previous
- 1
- next >>
Is there really a need for these? What additional research items are required to field these units? Are new weapons systems involved that are not already available? If not, get rid of it, it's just unnecessary research. Troop carriers were most always the conversion of other equipment, i.e. the Kangaroo, conversion of a medium tank chassis as an Armored Personnel Carrier. Once you train infantry to a certain level, putting them in a vehicle does not degrade their performance. Advanced infantry is Advanced Infantry.
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
It's not so much 'degrading' the unit, but having it learn to fight with its new equipment. Learning to fight from half-track or APC is going to be different than slogging it around on foot. I believe that's what the point was.
I'm fueled by gasoline, alcohol and nicotine
I'm an honest hypocrite imploding modern idiot
I'm irrational I'm illogical hypocritical a bleeding heart liberal
"Watch Me As I Fall" - Pennywise
- sgtpoliteness
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Sep 17, 2009
- posts: 222
This is a wishful thinking kind of research of something that was really not carried out because it was realised that it was not worth the expense at the time. Improved vehicles for the infantry would have meant taking away from designs that were really needed, such as self-propelled guns/tank destroyers and tanks, rocket systems and engines. The possible advantages from upgrading a half track or a bren gun carrier are minimal and not worth the the time to get a design team involved. New vehicles were not going to be designed for the infantry, why it is even being suggested here I don't know. How much more do you want to stretch your industrial sector to design a new IFV and retool a factory(ies)/build new ones and retrain your workers? Isn't that a leadership kind of question???
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
Its not just that its about the equipment too, read the descriptions in the research tab it talks about advanced infantry being a late war infantry fighting with new tactics and equipment improving their capabilities.
Then why is there Mountain troops/training, jungle training and amphibious assault training are these not tactics and new equipment?
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
00crusader said
This is a wishful thinking kind of research of something that was really not carried out because it was realised that it was not worth the expense at the time.
Any source the research was not done in WW2? Or are you giving your own opinion?
The possible advantages from upgrading a half track or a bren gun carrier are minimal and not worth the the time to get a design team involved.
Bullshit. Look at the military research nowadays. There is a lot of research involved in producing IFV's.
New vehicles were not going to be designed for the infantry, why it is even being suggested here I don't know.
Fighting in combanition with IFV's requires training. It is way different then figthing with just infatry on foot. If you realise that, you will understand it requires training, new equipment, new disciplines and new tactis. I think it fits right into the tech tree.
Also, mountain troops and jungle warfare is just a way for troops in general to learn to fight while there are such conditions. It is all about handeling yourself in a challenging environment. Therefore it is a little different then Mobile/Mechanized infantry research.
'If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!'
- Dutchie
- location: Netherlands
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 400
What I am trying to say is that there was no such thing as improved mechanized or advanced mechanized. You were either mechnized or motorized or you were not. You were issued vehicles and you trained with them before you went into combat. When new vehicles became available and your unit was slotted to receive them, you got them and trained with them whether you were in combat or not. It was up to the higher authority whether or not your unit was going to be pulled from the field to train with your new vehicles. Training was a whole different scenario in the field, some divisions had dedicated training units to supply the division with trained at least tactically new troops. A lot of divisions did not have a dedicated training company/unit and had to rely on their senior nco's and other cadre to perform the training. As far as IFV's the only late war vehicles that could even qualify as purpose built IFV's or even APC's were the LVT series of amphibious vehicles. Here's a link to IFV's if you are interested. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/armored_personnel_carriers.asp. One book tat gives a ggod account of a dedicated training unit is: "From Normandy to the Ruhr - With the 116th Panzer Division in World War II". Refer to the details about the "Armored Field Replacement Battalion 146"
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
- << previous
- 1
- next >>
