An addendum to the recent post on Mechanised/infantry mix in NE Europe:
First have a look at this.
It's similar with infantry. The need for infantry corresponds with the terrain better than with the quantity of manoeuvre battlegroups in the theatre of war.
This is another reason why the old quest for an optimal ratio between mounted (mechanised/tank) and dismounted (infantry) strength is misleading.
Then there's the large repertoire of missions, which by their nature have different optimal ratios for organic mounted and dismounted strengths.
Another reason is that attrition (both due to wear & tear and due to hostile actions) may very well be different (and largely unpredictable) among mounted and dismounted combat forces.
The employment of dismounted line of sight combat strength is almost inevitably slow at the unit level and above. A platoon may dismount, investigate a farming compound in less than five minutes and proceed, but deployments of whole infantry units would typically be much longer. The entire way of thinking about terrain and time changes with an infantry focus.
The objective of excellence was and is to switch between mounted and dismounted action back and forth very quickly depending on need, but actions are much slower the more needs to be accomplished by dismounted forces. Long story short: Infantry slows tanks down.
A certain infantry component accompanying tank forces makes much sense (even more of it than we have nowadays with the IFV concept), but on the corps level it's much more sensible to separate infantry-centric battlegroups (which should have a mission for a certain area) and manoeuvre battlegroups, which need be able to move 50+ km within two hours of receiving the order or recognising the need by themselves, 24/7.
I'm thus treating the infantry less as manoeuvre forces on the corps HQ map, while considering them as manoeuvre forces on the battalion HQ map. This scale fits to their actual mobility. That's why I see a strong correlation between the theatre of war's terrain (size and structure) and the need for infantry strength.
S O
.
What is your opinion about Air Assault Infantry which would act heliborne as a manoeuvre force?
ReplyDeletePerhaps one should combine on the corps level recce regiments with mechanised brigades, heliborne infantry brigades and artillery brigades ?!
Such a heliborne infantry brigade would be extreme fast, the helis could also assist the logistics, would be awesome in colonial warfare / guerilla warfare and could outmanouver the enemy mech-forces. Newer faster helicopters with much more payload become now technologically available, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1KG4v36PQ8
Such infantry could very fast concentrate or disperse or strengthen mech-forces if necessary according to the changing missions.
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2012/03/air-mechanization.html
Delete"A certain infantry component accompanying tank forces makes much sense (even more of it than we have nowadays with the IFV concept)"
ReplyDeleteI frequently wonder if the "right" mix isnt anti tank tank tanks, to enable mobile armoured fighting, APCS, to allow infantry to tag along, and an infantry support tank, sort of a Gepard without the AAA role, "down gunned" tank, rather than an "up gunned" APC.
"
Another reason is that attrition (both due to wear & tear and due to hostile actions) may very well be different (and largely unpredictable) among mounted and dismounted combat forces."
I dont think, short of war being in progress, we're ever going to have any real grasp of how this is going to go.
A 4:8:12 or 4:8:16 ratio is mathematically pleasing, but likely no more justifiable than 1:1:1 or 1:10:100
No wonder you are correct in your assumption ‘… an infantry support tank, sort of a Gepard…’ because it has proven completely effective.
ReplyDelete2K22 Tunguska is not only a highly efficient anti-aircraft system (in its category) it is also highly demoralizing to the opponent. Tunguska high rate of burst fire, calibre, variety of ammunitions (HE-I, HE-T, wolfram core…) is an effective anti tank system (better than Pantsir in such use).
Such bursts (W-tungsten and classified alloy materials) are known to ‘cut’ tank tracks, ‘blow away’ all optics (thermal sight, periscope, gun sight, external cameras, remote weapon stations, reactive armour, armoured windows, APS, badly protected tank gun hydraulics…). Tanks shot at the engine level simply light like a match. I let you imagine what happen to ‘the burning coffins’ armoured vehicles (other than MBT), tracked or wheeled.
Probably a hybrid system Sprut-SD/Tunguska in 40-50t, with a minimum 30hp/t engine is the ‘the "right" mix’ that everybody is looking for? I don’t know, I am no expert.
Try a prototype hybrid system flakpanzer Gepar/with or without Rheinmetall 130mm gun, with new lighter armour… in 40-50t and with excellent motorization and let see how it behaves in front of Abrams/Merkava, Bradleys/Namer, A-10, AH-64… even all four attacking at once!*
I can bet that such weapon system ‘might cost almost nothing to produce’, as all elements already exist and share the same parts with other systems.
‘It is harder to destroy an old and brave T-34 with a well trained and motivated crew, than to destroy a brand new T90 with less trained and motivated crew.’
* I am not responsible for officers getting court-martialed for not following their military text books. But, if said officers are successful in that enterprise, they won the right to discharge the incompetents.