[DS][SG] Mech Inf was RE: [ds] Ogres

[quoted original message omitted]

In a message dated 98-11-14 18:18:54 EST, you write:

<<
> I wonder if these leasons will need to be relearned in a

Well, there are two aspects to this in the GZG worlds.

Firstly, in 2183 we will see the current (2183) doctrine as the product of
 the constant reaction and adaptation to infantry/armour co-ordination
on the
 battlefield. It won't be a sudden jump to GEV/PA. So as always army DOC
staffs will be researching and producing guidlines on an ongoing basis.

Mind you, on outworld colonies that have jsut taken delivery of their first
squadron of GEV MBTs and have no experienced personnel who have worked with
 GEV/PA in the field there will be a situation where they start to write
their own as teh systems are incorporated into the military forces or they
 will simply adopt the doctrine of their parent worlds/governemnts.

Mind you too many people confuse Doctrine at an army level and the SOPs of a
unit on deployment!!

Cheers,

> Owen G

Very true, Army level doctrine does not always equate to tactics applied by
lowlevel units. The Soviet Armor "Death Ride" into Grozney in 1995 (or was it
'94?),
completely unsupported by dismounted infantry or artillery is a good example
of that. I'm sure that Soviet instructors at the various military schools
would have been horrified by a proposed answer to a tactical problem involving
seizing a built up urban area as sending in tanks completely unsupported by
other combat arms. All arms Operational Manuver Groups had been doctrine since
1945, particularly in urban areas where combat engineers, infantry and
artillery were all accorded roles in support of armor.

I still think that in the GZG universe that the intergration of the various
weapons systems and support platforms is going to be more difficult than
imagined and tactics limited by commanders who don't quite know or understand
how to properly exploit the assets they have. For instance, when Power Suited
Armor is first deployed, I'll bet someone tries to treat them as light armored
vehicals and have them take on (unsupported) enemy light tanks, GEV's and even
MBT's, just like during the Gulf war, when USMC LAV-25's tried to slug
it our
with Iraqi T-55's.

Just my two cents for what it's worth....

> PERRYG1@aol.com wrote:

> Very true, Army level doctrine does not always equate to tactics

We actually had an example of this in a game we played. A player who I won't
embarass by naming (His initials are Dave Luff) had dropped a load of smoke
into an urban area, and ran a platoon of tanks into the city, through the
smoke, and RIGHT ON TOP OF a platoon of infantry. We
resolved it as a close assault--all three tanks died, one stand (out of
8) was taken down.

> I still think that in the GZG universe that the intergration of the

I don't know about how things "really" will be, but assuming that DSII
is a 99%+ faithful depiction of the Way the Universe Works, then modern
doctrine more or less fits into the GZG-verse.  PA infantry does all the
things regular infantry does, but much, much better. Grav tanks with MDCs do
all the things M1s do, but much much better.