"light" riflemans ridiculosity

User avatar
vinz75
First Sergeant
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat 21 Feb 2015 16:23
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby vinz75 » Mon 17 Jul 2017 10:25

Hi,

My poor civilian :mrgreen: understanding on "heavy" infantry vs light infantry is that light infantry's job is to take forward positions and hold then by themselves until heavier but slower assets arrive (tanks, bradleys and heavy infantry...)

This lead in RD to light infantry having more ammo, often AT weapons with longer reach, faster walk speed and faster vehicles.
Work fine :)

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby ilias » Tue 18 Jul 2017 00:25

ilias wrote:XanderTuron
throughout history light infantry..

Edited: "The infantry have to have as least same speeds (better the "basic" infantry should be the 5km/h faster)."

User avatar
damoj
Sergeant Major
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby damoj » Tue 18 Jul 2017 00:38

Sorry for the digression but isn't the Super Dragon's AP undermodelled?

I also find it curious that no US infantry lugs around recoiless rifles ala PACT units.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8205
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby Fade2Gray » Tue 18 Jul 2017 00:59

ilias wrote:Nothing of that does really matter in the topic because its about what infantry of same "quality" (training) can't move faster having more equipment on them.
The infantry have to have as least same speeds (better the "basic" infantry should be the 5km/h faster).

You must be taking in game models (I laugh every time I see that model of the Finnish recon team that has their massive rucks on their models) and pics of light infantry on the march a bit too literally. You realize that once contact is expected or has happened, light infantry dump a lot of shit real quick, right? Their rucks are the first things to be shed in the event of enemy contact, and if it is possible they are usually dumped in a designated areas before contact is map. That area is usually the rally point that will be set if shit hits the fan.

Yes, light infantry carries more crap on their backs than their motorized/mechanized counterparts, but they also configure their kit to shed as much as possible when needed. Once fighting begins, they sometimes will even be less encumbered than their mounted brethren.

As someone who has worked with a variety of infantry forces in the US Army and other coalition forces, light infantry soldiers often have a much more brutal PT standard than their mechanized counterparts, and infantry generally have the highest standards of everyone in the military. This is because they are expected to be able to move themselves around quickly on their own if needs must, where as motorized/mechanized forces generally count on their vehicles to get them from A to B, even in the event of small maneuvers of a football field's distance.

tl;dr, light infantry soldiers are fully justified with their current stats IMO.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

XanderTuron
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2016 23:17
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby XanderTuron » Tue 18 Jul 2017 02:37

I'm going to go with Fade2Gray on this one; he does have much more experience with these matters.
My mouth is moving, but nothing relevant is coming out. Also I cannot guarantee that my research is perfect or even remotely accurate.

I have low quality Wargame Red Dragon casts on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/XanderTuron

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby ilias » Tue 18 Jul 2017 04:25

Fade2Gray wrote:..

Problem is in that what its applicable to firefights| small range movements, but in the game its all time speeds, so if basic infantry running away and "light infantry" following them with their equipment (otherwise it (eq..) would stay where they started) they couldn't catch them.
Counting things i didn't thought about from what you writed its ~~justified, but here still stays the small problems (like the long range movements).

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1364
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby FrangibleCover » Tue 18 Jul 2017 10:54

damoj wrote:Sorry for the digression but isn't the Super Dragon's AP undermodelled?

Yes it is, but equally it shouldn't be operated by the US or the Netherlands given that it was a Swiss weapon. Light Riflemen '90 should get Topkick, the Ford Aerospace entry to the AAWS-M programme, which is basically like Spike MR or Metis-M. It's horrifyingly powerful but 'single horrifyingly powerful unit in every tab and the rest is crappy' is basically US flavour.

I also find it curious that no US infantry lugs around recoiless rifles ala PACT units.

I think the airborne used M67s a bit but really the US wasn't that huge on RRs compared to the various REDFOR states.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8205
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby Fade2Gray » Tue 18 Jul 2017 19:17

ilias wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:..

Problem is in that what its applicable to firefights| small range movements, but in the game its all time speeds, so if basic infantry running away and "light infantry" following them with their equipment (otherwise it (eq..) would stay where they started) they couldn't catch them.
Counting things i didn't thought about from what you writed its ~~justified, but here still stays the small problems (like the long range movements).

You realize this game abstracts a lot, right? Also, light infantry would still be justified in moving faster even "out of combat."

Maybe you should try the Combat Mission series. Those games are far more realistic than Wargame ever will be.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
damoj
Sergeant Major
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby damoj » Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:08

FrangibleCover wrote:
damoj wrote:Sorry for the digression but isn't the Super Dragon's AP undermodelled?

Yes it is, but equally it shouldn't be operated by the US or the Netherlands given that it was a Swiss weapon. Light Riflemen '90 should get Topkick, the Ford Aerospace entry to the AAWS-M programme, which is basically like Spike MR or Metis-M. It's horrifyingly powerful but 'single horrifyingly powerful unit in every tab and the rest is crappy' is basically US flavour.


Interesting. FWIW it seems one may as well argue for a conservatively-modelled Javelin (early production in '94).

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1364
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: "light" riflemans ridiculosity

Postby FrangibleCover » Wed 19 Jul 2017 09:39

damoj wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:
damoj wrote:Sorry for the digression but isn't the Super Dragon's AP undermodelled?

Yes it is, but equally it shouldn't be operated by the US or the Netherlands given that it was a Swiss weapon. Light Riflemen '90 should get Topkick, the Ford Aerospace entry to the AAWS-M programme, which is basically like Spike MR or Metis-M. It's horrifyingly powerful but 'single horrifyingly powerful unit in every tab and the rest is crappy' is basically US flavour.

Interesting. FWIW it seems one may as well argue for a conservatively-modelled Javelin (early production in '94).

Jav would probably have much the same stats as Topkick (both intermediate range top-attack ATGMs build by the US in the late 80s) but critically, be F&F. Fire and forget infantry ATGMs basically doom anything that is near them and not a heavy tank. While you could add Javelin without F&F as was done with Spike NLOS but you're now back to Topkick's stats.

From a realism perspective I get the impression that during the AAWS-M competition the Hughes entry and the TI entry that would be selected as Javelin were the capable but high risk options and the Ford entry was the quick and easy one. If I were in the early 90s having to choose one to rush into production for the replacement of Dragon in lightly equipped units expected to come up against armour it'd be the Ford one.

Edit: Replacing Dragon, not Javelin :?
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: damoj and 24 guests