Mechanised infantry, worth composition?

[Kaosium]

So don't use motorized for breakthroughs then but use proper tank divisions like I have been trying to argue the last 5 posts...

Feels like talking to a wall sometimes, so it's time for me to stop and say good night.

Sleep well.

All units benefit from better breakthrough, Motorized needs it for splattering dug in infantry behind the lines faster for encirclements and such. It's cheap and effective, I wouldn't understand why a competent player would dismiss it out of hand.

Note the difference between a Motorized Infantry division and a Light Tank division, it will be oodles and scads on defense and about 20 org points if you're using Grand Battleplan Assault or Mobile Infantry. Not adding those tanks and variants will give it higher org, much like leg infantry without AT/ART has higher org, but they will be more effective in combat if they have the higher breakthrough, SA and HA all the goodies offer them.

 

[GeorgieBest]

I sometimes do but then it is by definition no longer a motorized infantry division, but instead a tank division, at least using my definition

When I write motorized division I mean a division with motorized and 0 tank battalions ( and judging by the templates posted by others before in the thread I am not alone in this thought ).



If you want to reply to my posts where I talk about motorized divisions, and then bring up something else you can suit yourself as well, but don't expect me to take your replies seriously.

I didn't realise you were the authority on what this thread is allowed to be discussing. Whether you choose to take me seriously or not, I'm yet to see a post with any counter points or reasoning from you which states why MECH should cost so much more then MOT. I'm sorry if it feels like you are arguing with a brick wall, but it seems like the reason why you feel this way is because you aren't actually listening to what others have to say.

 

[Riktol]

And you can. TD/SPG are not Tanks.

Look at the Motorized division template posted which spawned my comments / this discussion, it's half TDs ( so many the game classifies it as a TD division ).

http://i.imgur.com/Z6isWlm.jpg

I do have to question why a division mostly composed of Tank destroyers needs an anti-tank support unit, surely that will just reduce the Org and Armour value? Or are you aiming for maximum hard attack per width?

 

[Otto of england]

I do have to question why a division mostly composed of Tank destroyers needs an anti-tank support unit, surely that will just reduce the Org and Armour value? Or are you aiming for maximum hard attack per width?

An that one's my division I posted earlier. Basically AT support are dirt cheap and add a good amount of hard attack without increasing width. Seeing that the posted division is designed to be used as a firebrigade against enemy armour divisions the extra attacks are worth it.

For the division the armour is irrelevant as its under the assumption that any opposing tank division has more than 60 piercing. Likewise for the org, it's under the assumption that 1 org or so is irrelevant for winning or losing the fight so the extra attacks are more important.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I'm yet to see a post with any counter points or reasoning from you which states why MECH should cost so much more then MOT.

Because halftracks are much more expensive than trucks, hence mechanizing infantry units is much more expensive than merely motorizing them. That is just realism and history there. As was said before, even USA, the most profligate spender when it came to equipment, didn't even try to mechanize all their mobile infantry. Most were motorized, because they could turn out trucks by the tens of thousands, but halftracks took longer and far more resources to manufacture.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I do have to question why a division mostly composed of Tank destroyers needs an anti-tank support unit, surely that will just reduce the Org and Armour value?

It can be quite effective, especially if using the Superior Firepower doctrine tree, which has a couple of techs which significantly reduce the org malus from support companies. So if the goal is to stack piercing and HA in order to make them strong defenders against armored attacks, e.g. to hold open penetration corridors and blunt spearheads, it just makes sense. As he said, armor isn't going to help a MOT div in such a situation anyway, and the loss of org is very small, something like 1.2 IIRC.

 

[GeorgieBest]

Because halftracks are much more expensive than trucks, hence mechanizing infantry units is much more expensive than merely motorizing them. That is just realism and history there. As was said before, even USA, the most profligate spender when it came to equipment, didn't even try to mechanize all their mobile infantry. Most were motorized, because they could turn out trucks by the tens of thousands, but halftracks took longer and far more resources to manufacture.

I fully understand that mechanised infantry were much more costly in real life compared to motorised. But I can't imagine them ever being on the same scale of production costs as a medium sized tank. Think about the armour and armament differences.