WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !

[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

[pdoktar]

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.

[Alpha]

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).

[Alpha]

@ 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.

[hoplitis]

Mathematically speaking ( )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!

[whdonnelly]

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

[Alpha]

hoplitis said:
Mathematically speaking ( )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!

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.

[pdoktar]

Us Armored Cavalry is meant to be a screening force very powerful compared to unit size, and very light on the logistical (unimportant side ). 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 .