The Commander Series Forum

Forum Home Forum Home
ImageCurrent Forum Category Cold War Commander, 1946+
ImageImageCurrent Forum CWC Rule Queries
ImageImageImageCurrent Topic Close assault - mounted question
Post Reply
Post Reply
Author Page 1 
michaelk
United States
Joined 30/06/11
Last Visit 01/02/21
67 Posts
Posted on 11 August 2015 at 02:09:45 GMT
Greetings,

I am wondering about infantry in close combat and the rule of infantry being mounted. If you use the infantry assaulting mounted:

1. Does the rule imply that assaulting infantry do not dismount but rather shoot from inside their vehicles?

2. Does the rule imply that the IFV rolls right up to the objective then dismounts the infantry?

I am asking because I am reading a soviet FM about tactics and it states that the soviets preferred to not dismount their infantry.
collins355
United Kingdom
Joined 16/08/09
Last Visit 27/08/21
170 Posts
Posted on 11 August 2015 at 21:15:09 GMT
1. Yes

2. The rule gives you the option to assault mounted in your IFVs - in which case you roll six dice for each stand. Or you can dismount and roll 4 dice for the infantry stand, with the IFV providing support as specified in the rule.

Smile
michaelk
United States
Joined 30/06/11
Last Visit 01/02/21
67 Posts
Posted on 12 August 2015 at 01:35:54 GMT
Thanks. As a continuation of the discussion I don't believe M113s and Bradley's are not really made for mounted combat., or perhaps it was not a tactic us by the U.S. My comment isn't a comment on the rules, I understand I can play anyway I want, but I am wondering other people's thoughts and if they agree or how they handle the rule.
sean67
United Kingdom
Joined 01/03/10
Last Visit 25/03/19
262 Posts
Posted on 12 August 2015 at 05:52:01 GMT
The soviet BMPs had firing ports so the troops could fire while mounted.
Most western armies did not.
regards
Sean
toxicpixie
United Kingdom
Joined 09/03/11
Last Visit 17/07/21
2177 Posts
Posted on 12 August 2015 at 09:50:05 GMT
The M2 Bradley has firing ports for the infantry, but they plated over the side ones with more armour as they are about as useful as teats on a boar...

Cowering in your APC has proven a very bad move - see Checnya :/

The Soviets rather expected to be advancing rapidly through a soup of chemical and nuclear and suppressive fire, and wanted the troops through that and out the other side, overrunning the stunned and dying defenders on the way. What I suspect is more likely with decent troops (as opposed to terrified and untrained conscripts scraped up from across the empire as the slowest to run away when grabbed), is something more like Afghanistan - they'd dismount/mount/act with or separately to the IFV's as tactically needed.

In rules terms the "mounted assault on IFV" is very powerful, and does serve to help differentiate them from "battle taxi APCs" - it's not so good as it looks on paper though, as even realtively heavy IFVs like the M2 or Warrior are an easy way to get your infantry killed!
Hadrien
France
Joined 31/10/13
Last Visit 27/04/17
54 Posts
Posted on 12 August 2015 at 21:05:43 GMT
Interesting topic,

Just asking, does it make sense to you that units cannot use opportunity fire against assaulting units ? (P. 34 of the rulebook, "response" paragraph).

I had the case were a transport with troops inside made an assault move of 30cm accross open field. Ennemy tanks in the distance could see the transport doing this move and not perform opportunity fire (they were too far away to perform response fire).

Did I miss something there or is it correct ?
Big Insect
United Kingdom
Joined 27/04/10
Last Visit 12/10/20
453 Posts
Posted on 12 August 2015 at 23:08:39 GMT
"The soviet BMPs had firing ports so the troops could fire while mounted.
Most western armies did not.
regards
Sean"

That depends upon what era & nation:
Dutch YPR-765 have firing ports, as do German Marders, as do Swedish Pbv302's and all have auto-cannons on the IFVs as well (usually). Also, all had a 'fight mounted' when necessary doctrine.

Some M113 have open top hatches, like Dutch YPR-408s and the infantry could stand up and fire out of these, but were much more exposed. I'd count these as Transport not IFVs.

NB: in FWC you have 3 categories: Transport, APCs & IFVs. An APC is an armoured Transport (basically) so Transports can carry as many infantry etc. as they pay to carry, APCs can carry 2 usually but cannot fire mounted, whilst IFVs usually carry 1 but can fire the infantry mounted (but that is in FWC).

Not sure about the responce fire question but it sounds sort of correct.
But I stand to be corrected.
Mark
michaelk
United States
Joined 30/06/11
Last Visit 01/02/21
67 Posts
Posted on 13 August 2015 at 03:20:03 GMT
I can say, as a U.S. Mech infantry soldier, granted I served in the National Guard, that we trained to dismount on an objective. That said everything was always METT dependent. So I think it is more a question of how armies were trained instead of equipment capabilities and also an ability to adapt. Although I never saw or read instances of riding into combat mounted, I feel confident that some SSG somewhere decided it was a good idea.
Big Insect
United Kingdom
Joined 27/04/10
Last Visit 12/10/20
453 Posts
Posted on 13 August 2015 at 13:09:27 GMT
Good to know actual reality

You see plenty of photos of M113s in Viet Nam, on the move with top-hatches open bristling with GIs all poking their guns out ... maybe that was just for the Journos!

But I agree - it was probably doctrine & situation determined - after all you can probably bring a lot of fire to bear from a moving lorry - it's whether you'd want to is the real question!
sediment
United Kingdom
Joined 05/09/09
Last Visit 17/10/21
567 Posts
Posted on 13 August 2015 at 14:07:03 GMT
I think the Vietnam experience might be a little different to "normal" doctrine. From what I've read on Vietnam, mechanised infantry often went into action riding on rather than in their M113s, with as many MGs mounted plus RPGs and such like, to maximise their firepower - preferring to use weight of fire rather than armour. This is effectively what the Russians learned to do in Afghanistan, and all over again in Chechnya, after the initial losses to infantry buttoned up in BMPs and BTRs. The losses to personnel in buttoned up M113s and BMPs were well known to the Arab and Israeli armies at least by 1973, especially when up against 50cal or 12.7mm weapons.

Cheers, Andy
toxicpixie
United Kingdom
Joined 09/03/11
Last Visit 17/07/21
2177 Posts
Posted on 13 August 2015 at 14:58:47 GMT
There's also the issue of mines - they caused really heavy casualties and were often most of the "opposition" in conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan, and those APCs have no effective defence against them.

Essentially if you sit *within* the APC you not only degrade your firepower and ability to spot things about to go wrong, but you make yourself a "box full of casualties" in the pretty likely event of running over a mine (that you can't spot, because you're all hunkering down from fear of being shot at)... it's also much more difficult to debus and take cover if you have to open the hatch, get everyone out the way, clamber out, jump off, find cover instead of "jump off into the cover you were watching for anyway"...
collins355
United Kingdom
Joined 16/08/09
Last Visit 27/08/21
170 Posts
Posted on 13 August 2015 at 21:28:14 GMT
I think its a 'horses for courses' thing depending on your opposition and their level of suppression. I recall reading about British mech infantry in the 1st Gulf War who seemed to be dismounting on the objective rather than some distance away.

If artillery and air have done a good job neutralising the defenders then it might be plausible.
toxicpixie
United Kingdom
Joined 09/03/11
Last Visit 17/07/21
2177 Posts
Posted on 14 August 2015 at 11:08:49 GMT
It should help protect you against shrapnel/blast from final protective fires, and rifle/LMG fire from the defending infantry until it's too late for them to do anything but die in their holes.

Assuming the drivers keep their nerve it should also be very difficult for the attack to bog down. You can't stop and go to ground if you're doing 40 km/h inside a metal box Grin

However, it does mean a HMG or a LAW or ATGW or unlucky HE round right on target is going to ruin a whole squads day so yeah - definitely "swings and courses" or "horses for roundabouts" Grin
Big Walker
United Kingdom
Joined 23/02/10
Last Visit 26/08/24
82 Posts
Posted on 21 September 2015 at 11:13:43 GMT
Query vrs no Opp fire and response fire :

You are correct if the assault happend in the initiative phase without orders. There is no Opp Fire in that phase, only response fire.

At our club we play response fire only vrs all assaults as it is much simpler to resolve that way.

However, for the command phase, I cannot find any specific text which prevents long-range Op-Fire vrs the unit moving into assault. You can Op-Fire vrs movement, but you do not stop a move into assault if suppressed. Hence you could resolve long range Op Fire and then short range response fire, noting every unsuppressed unit can use response fire vrs any assaulting unit if you have LOS and LOF and are within 10cm.

Note you can assault through smoke, no Op-fire or response fire is allowed. We play 'advance straight forward to close assault through smoke' as a -2 CV test (-1 for smoke, -1 for assault).Cool
Page 1