Matrix Games Forums

Shouldn't there be Soviet Mech Infantry units? All I can find are motorized infantry and mech recon. Yeah sure, I can buy the stuff separately but the same could be said for all motorized and mech units in the game. Also, won't that take away formation slots from players?

If it's a lack of ob slots for formations maybe Partisans could be eliminated after 1944 since the Soviets were no longer on Soviet soil and Soviet Partisans were not a factor.

There weren't any. The Sov's didn't develop an APC until after the war. What 1/2tracks they did get through Lend-Lease (some 7000 IIRC) were used for Recon units and HQs (so they could stay with the AFVs).
Infantry as seen in the propaganda reels, rode on the vehicles until contact was made. Or, infiltrated the evening before an attack.

Well paint me green and call me Gumby. All these years I've been looking at Soviet Guards Mech units with the mech symbols and they are actually nothing more than motorized units. If that don't beat all. Why is it no one has ever used motorized infantry symbols for them? Thanks for the info, you learn something new every day.

IIRC, in the GDW series of games, they used "mech" to denote a series of capabilities, inside the game system.
So, Guards motor rifle units with more than the usual amount of Tanks/Assault Guns would be considered "mechanized" for game purposes.

well, don't that beat all.. good - now I can replicate that in scenarios. I was using actual mech Soviet forces. well, I don't know if the SOVs referred to any of their WW2 formations as mech, but if they did it only goes in line with the East Front thing of sounding bold and daring when in fact it's just something ordinary.

Remember too that in SPWAW quite a few Soviet tanks and assault guns can accommodate 12-13 passengers.

Soviets tactics weren't that APC-related as in Germans - or US. First of all, they had numerical and air superiority; secondly, they used artillery a hell lot more than Germans; third, their infantry rode on tanks; fourth, their attack method was different.

Red Army designations were Tank, Rifle, Motor Rifle, and Artillery. (There were others but these are the most common and pertinent to the discussion.) "Not as APC-related", true but that's because they didn't have any; and didn't see the need to have infantry operate closely with armor until after Barbarossa began.
"Tank riding" was a pragmatic expedient that kept the troops with the tanks, and as the Red Army wasn't overly concerned with losses, vulnerability wasn't a concern...

Hi.

Most succesful Soviet formation of WWII was the "mechanized corps". Created in 1943, reached "perfection" in 1944. There were never enough of them because there were never enough halftracks to mount the infantry. Soviets actually used halftracks... mostly, if not all, from lend-lease origin.

So were the tank riders conscripts or elite troops?

A tank with a bunch of anti-tank personnel on it
what a good idea

Both actually. Not really such a good idea tactically, as riders are extremely vulnerable to small arms fire as well as HE. This is compounded by the fact that in "real life" AFVs almost invariably attract all kinds of rounds their way whenever they appear.
However, if you don't have APCs, (again they were used for HQ and recon units-got this from the Moscow and ST Petersburg military museums) it IS one way to ensure your infantry gets to the start line...

Hi.

I believed Russians used some mech-inf inside their Mechanized Corps, since late 1943. But it seems I was wrong. By the way, Germans actually had only one batallion of mechanized infantry in the Panzer Divisions, acting as armored infantry... the rest were motorized, perhaps a company had halftracks, the rest trucks.
British dismounted from trucks and halftracks to fight on foot... American Tank Divisions had actually mechanized infantry, a regiment, but they improved the divisions manpower with attached truck-borne infantry...
Apart from Germans and US combat commands, were there any actual use of armoured/mechanized infantry?

Good points Mikimoto, especially concerning German panzer grenadiers.
I would submit that British were mechanized: they used Universal Carriers and 1/2 tracks to keep their infantry up with the armor. The "proper" use of a 1/2 track is as an armored taxi, delivering the infantry close to the fighting-and maybe adding some MG support. But, the Canadians use of "Kangaroos" is probably closest to the textbook, post-war, example of mech-inf. These gave the infantry practically the same protection as a tank, so allowing the infantry to dismount almost on the objective-something not recommended with 1/2 tracks. Though the stated purpose was not protection so much, as 1/2tracks were underpowered and in the soupy conditions of Belgium/Holland lacked the cross-country mobility of fully-tracked vehicles.

I thought the Brits always dismounted in reasonably safe places from their APCs. They didn't go into combat. I think that German Panzergrenadier divisions (when they existed) had more half-tracks than panzer divisions. Even so, the overwhelming majority of mobile infantry was truck borne, and in most cases infantry with half-tracks dismounted well before combat.

As far as the Soviets are concerned I think they had some recon elements in half-tracks. However, even though the Soviets had "mechanised corps" they didn't really have regular infantry with half-tracks. It just meant mobile formations with a mix of units leaning toward motorised infantry brigades rather than tank brigades. Real mechanisation existed only in US, and postwar armies. Playing SPWAW you can't help but used APC's like mad war-wagons catapulting poor squads of fleshbags into the midst of destruction. It can work really well at times, however I'm pretty sure no one was into doing that kind of thing in real life. The mechanisation of infantry is of interest and value almost totally at the operational level of combat.

Tomo

Tomo