Fade2Gray wrote:QUAD wrote:Building on what I think makes the US army "teh best", imho since WW2 the rifle squad has had a tremendous amount of organic firepower in relation to their peers. This facilitates maneuver because the infantry holds the enemy in place.
I dare say it gets to the point of being a bit too much. Having to haul around a bunch of Javelins, for example, puts a lot of strain on a squad. Cav Scouts are notorious for bristling with firepower at times, but that's because we get stuck pulling overwatch/flank guard while infantry does the main assault.
Thankfully usually the excess stuff just gets left behind most of the time. Speed is a main factor for survival with infantry. Being in top physical shape, going light, and only bringing the firepower you need means you can maneuver around as much as possible while not being exhausted when it comes time to actually trade lead.
Be thankful Wargame doesn't simulate what happens when you run all over the battlefield like other games do, heh. Being dead tired is about as bad for your accuracy as being panicked is.
That's why I love Combat Mission, they model everything. In Normandy, Blitzkrieg, and Black Sea the US consistently has the best equipped rifle squads but they tire really quickly due to lugging around so much ammo and kit. (though the mg42 is terrifying.)
I think in the kind of fighting you see in Wargame Javelins would be deployed in teams or shifted to a heavy weapons company mutually by company commanders to clear up space in rifle squads for fighting in close and allow more flexibility. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that "officially" the M47 was standard per squad post '85 but most really didn't feel like lugging it around. (the m47 was also a piece of shit, but still.)
On USA vs Russia: Russia has nice equipment but they're economy isn't robust enough to fully modernize within the next two to three decades. they also are in a kind of doctrinal crisis, because they can't really afford to have quantitative advantages in artillery and mechanized infantry and don't have anything similar to the refined western concept of combined arms teams. the tactical group is rudimentary but in effect to my understanding just a flexible unit that is at roughly a brigade or battalion level that can either exploit weaknesses in a battle space or defend a weak spot but lacks the manpower (etc a BTG only has 2 brigades) and organic firepower (brigades aren't self sufficient) to deal with heavy threats. they also have an extremely effective doctrine of aggressive diplomacy, cyberwarfare, discreetly impacting politics of enemies, and of irregular fighting...but none of that saves them in a WW3 scenario; nukes do.
The BTG concept seems like a crude imitation of the US combined arms team, rushed in implementation by the army to appease unrealistic goals set by the defense ministry/oligarchy.