So your average space marine in power armour weighs about 500 kilograms - I read a lot of space marines charging in and chainswording people, but I feel like with that much mass just racing through and shoulder checking people would likely be enough to kill them. I see talk of 100 km/h repeated, which is just nonsense - lacking a quadruped's flexible spine and stride length, a biped's low ground contact time means they're the wrong shape to get that fast regardless of physiology. The thing is though even at half that speed I'm pretty sure that given how hard ceramite is that kind of momentum would just straight up kill a human that they hit - it's like a car with no crumple zone that's trying to kill you.
We constantly see things like space marines leaping into trenches and dealing death with weapons but it seems like it would be far more efficient to just jump into the trench at one end and sprint to the other, leaving a trail of corpses as you go. And spikes on armour for traitors seems silly, last thing you want is impaled corpses slowing you down and providing a buffer zone.
- During WWII, the German tactical infantry doctrine of the era based a squad's firepower on the MG-42 machine gun in the light machine gun role, with the role of the rifleman being largely to carry ammunition and provide covering fire for the machine gunners.
- The United State's, however, took the opposite approach, with their squad's firepower being based on the rifleman, with the light machine gunner providing support to them.
- What were the pros and cons of both doctrines, and why would a military choose one over the other?
From what i can tell Light Infantry is kinda just regular infantry but faster to deploy in exchange for being shit in any major fighting. But is there a specific role for light infantry in major fighting with heavier forces already there or would it kinda just sit around?
Note: By regular I mean has any (truck/APC/IFV/MRAP/etc.) form of motor transport for all of it's infantry at once, because that is pretty much the standard at this point. Although light infantry can have motorization sometimes, although not armored, the definition of "light infantry" is a very depends thing in my opinion.
Bang, Nos, Reign, Rip Its, and Red Bull are all acceptable substitutes, as are all forms of nicotine (except Zyn, fuck Zyn).
https://discord.gg/mPzUt8Gcvx When joining, DM @Panzer-Division for recruitment files
Kinda seems weird that of all the tanks in the game one has slots for infantry to sit on the outside would be nice to have seats on the outside of the light tanks. This would also help define there spot in the late war as a flanking/recon tank that can move fast and the extra seats would help with that.
I was wondering if on the modern battlefield, light infantry can still destroy lone tanks without conventional modern anti tank capabilities.
Think an imobilised tank which had been previously disabled by infantry anti tank weapons, a tank which got imobilised by a mine, or just a tank which the enemy has tactically misplaced, exposing it to being overran or flanked by infantry.
The conventional doctrines as far as I'm aware state that stranded tanks are vulnerable if surrounded by infantry, but given the capabilities of modern MBTs (very tough armor, cameras which can see outside the vehicle, fast turning turrets, canister shot munitions, mounted fast turning machineguns which can be operated from outside the vehicle and have a 360Β° ark of fire etc) , can infantry still reliably destroy tanks at close range or do they have to try and harass it from multiple angles and just hurl RPGs at it?
I should add that the scenario would be an hypothetical infantry force matching the equipment of the present day Romanian Army (RPG7 HEAT and Tandem, Soviet Anti Tank grenades, SPG9s, Soviet Anti Tank mines, Satchel Charges, etc) facing off against a hypothetical adversary equiped with tanks of similar characteristics to those of the present day Russian Military (T72BA, B2 and B3 , T80BVM, T90AM, T90M)
Iβve read that the E-series infantry battalion contained 18 90mm recoilless rifles and 8 106mm recoilless rifles in the late 1960s. With their effective ranges being under 1,000 meters, were they mostly just used as secondary anti-tank weapons to a brigade/divisionβs tanks? Also with the introduction of the TOW, did these missiles replace the 106mm recoilless weapons on a 1 to 1 basis or did the battalion receive more than 8 TOW systems?
