WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

Well let´s compare a bit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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 ! :p
NO TANKS, NO ARTY, NO missiles...these topics come later.

You must give an explaination here of you vote in the poll http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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 ?

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

I think what mostly matter in infanty combat, both against tanks and infantry is the trainig / experience level (especially when used by a human). So Nato infantry forces come out on top for that reason only.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

Well the difference in EXP isn´t THAT great.... For example compare Belgium / Turkish / Danish and even US in some years to GDR or Czech. Also the diff. from the main nations USSR to US + Germany isn´t that big usually only 5 points or so. US get´s a boost later though. UK tops them all, cause they seem to be a prof. army (no conscripts).

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

@ Narwan: In reality (and normally in the game with created scens - not in PBM probably) you should expect a Nato - WP ratio from 1 to 3 or 4 (infantry forces). Means the defenders line maybe to thin or the neighbouring squads / Mgs etc. that should cover the particular targetted squad (this one which is heavily surpressed from RPO/whatever) maybe under attack also or are surpressed also by red arty, tankfire whatever....think about it.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

Mathematically speaking ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif )the concept of comparing WP/NATO inf maybe like adding up apples and oranges. Inf serves an army, the army functions within the framework of a doctrine, the doctrine is the way leadership thinks (or hopes) will achieve its strategic goals. The real question is which inf "serves" its side's doctrine better. How can you compare the "heavy" professional US cavalry with the "lighter" conscript USSR recce formations? In the opening phase of a WP/NATO conflict both units would be the forward element in an advance to contact situation but the USSR recce would mainly "access" what's in front of the main element, while the US cav would first "access" you and then kill you!

Plus it also depends on the specific WP/NATO country and, even more so, on the exact timeframe.

On the "infantry within doctrine" issue I'll leave the answer to the much more enlightened members of this forum! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

My vote will go to NATO, because of the training factor. NATO scouts/snipers/engineers seem to do better, so it has to be something other than squad size. Most of my games aren't NATO vs WP, or even infantry heavy, but I'll start playing them more often to explore some of the very interesting points brought out here.
Will

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

Interesting points you bring up.

I agree the recon assets are stronger on the NATO site. Also Bundeswehr fielded heavy (or so called fighting recon): MBTs (=Leopards) with Luchs and Fuchs vehicles+some scouts.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

Us Armored Cavalry is meant to be a screening force very powerful compared to unit size, and very light on the logistical (unimportant side http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif). In Central Europe during the cold war, US Arm Cav didn´t need to do combat recon, just man the pre-planned position and wait the Guards army´s first units to slam into them. That was their first and only mission. If they survived the onslaught, another mission would be assigned, maybe some real recon, you never know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

word

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

It's so true. We could also extend this and simply admit that all the money spared by NATO with smaller army(s) has been spent to achieve the final political victory over WP.
From this point of view NATO army has just done as well as if she had defeated the whole WP without any casualties.

Naturaly, this a bit far from the first question:
with same number of troops NATO wins because of better quality,with a proportionnal number it's... balanced in favor of WP.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

true, if everything was equal. Nato infantry is superior to warsaw pact infantry, at least in theory.

But that would have never been the case, Nato was always outnumbered by warsaw pact infantry. And infantry was designed to operate exteremly closely with tanks, artillery, and air power.

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

And all of that would never have been the case since the available infrastructure and logisitics base could not accomodate the use of such huge forces over such a large area (particularly with regards to the depth of the area) in so short a time. In other words, while the WP had a nice superiority in numbers on paper it would have been nigh impossible to actually achieve this in real life circumstances, the occasional schwerpunkt aside. Especially if NATO strikes (air, arty and missiles) would have joined in to paralyse the WP support infrastructure (as opposed to focusing on close combat support).

I thought this thread was supposed to be about comparing units in the game and how they work IN THE GAME. Seems like I was wrong... looks like the cold war is being reheated again...

Narwan

Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
 

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... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif