WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !

[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 .

[Ramm]

word

[loktarr]

hoplitis said:
[...]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.

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.

[Smersh]

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.