-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Motorized infantry use mostly 'soft' vehicles (four or six-wheeled canvas-covered trucks) for transport. Mechanized infantry use mostly 'hard' vehicles (half-tracks or other APCs with armor and defensive armament) instead.
Or to make it easier to understand.:
Motorised; vehicles used for transport.
Mechanised; vehicles used for transport and battle.
Motorised; vehicles used for transport.
Mechanised; vehicles used for transport and battle.
Actually....
The definitions given are close but not quite correct.
Motorized indicates that the infantry ride to the battle in trucks, which are then of not much use once the fighting starts.
Mechanized indicates an infantry unit who go from place to place in APCs, which may not be all that useful in a fight, but are still better than trucks
It also means that, at the division level, an armour unit is attached, thus giving the mechanized infantry division a but more punch than a non-mechanized.
To be fair, the definitions I've given are modern definitions. They may have meant something slightly during WWII.
The definitions given are close but not quite correct.
Motorized indicates that the infantry ride to the battle in trucks, which are then of not much use once the fighting starts.
Mechanized indicates an infantry unit who go from place to place in APCs, which may not be all that useful in a fight, but are still better than trucks
It also means that, at the division level, an armour unit is attached, thus giving the mechanized infantry division a but more punch than a non-mechanized.To be fair, the definitions I've given are modern definitions. They may have meant something slightly during WWII.
Motor transport & units in ww2
I don't think there were real mechanized divisions in the WW2. Even the most advanced APCs were of limited mobility cross country and were only able to provide a very feeble fire support.
In fact the motorization question was very debated in the 30's and many different unit compositions were tried mixing tanks, APCs and or trucks, cavalry, motorcycles, motorized artillery, infantry and cyclists.
They tried to solve two problems: one was that the tanks alone could be devastating in the attack, but useless in cities, woods, etc, and besides couldn't hold the terrain once the attack was over; once and again tests and actual combat experiences (in Spain, for example) proved that tanks alone were always forced to retreat when they were short of fuel or ammo. The second problem was that tanks were a new weapon, and older ones like cavalry naturally didn't like the newcomers, and had plenty of influence to fight against them; some way had to be found to make motorization 'socially acceptable'. These divisions, usually baptized as light or fast, were one solution.
You can think that they were improvised, poor solutions or even somewhat funny, but even in 1945 the soviets were using units that mixed cavalry, armour and motorized infantry in this way with success. And bycicles were used with success so many times that one wonders why their use wasn't more widespread.
The italians had motorizable divisions, which were trained and prepared to use motor transport, but didn't have it permanently included. The idea has sometimes been laughed at, but U.S. infantry divisions were very much like that, too.
I don't think there were real mechanized divisions in the WW2. Even the most advanced APCs were of limited mobility cross country and were only able to provide a very feeble fire support.
In fact the motorization question was very debated in the 30's and many different unit compositions were tried mixing tanks, APCs and or trucks, cavalry, motorcycles, motorized artillery, infantry and cyclists.
They tried to solve two problems: one was that the tanks alone could be devastating in the attack, but useless in cities, woods, etc, and besides couldn't hold the terrain once the attack was over; once and again tests and actual combat experiences (in Spain, for example) proved that tanks alone were always forced to retreat when they were short of fuel or ammo. The second problem was that tanks were a new weapon, and older ones like cavalry naturally didn't like the newcomers, and had plenty of influence to fight against them; some way had to be found to make motorization 'socially acceptable'. These divisions, usually baptized as light or fast, were one solution.
You can think that they were improvised, poor solutions or even somewhat funny, but even in 1945 the soviets were using units that mixed cavalry, armour and motorized infantry in this way with success. And bycicles were used with success so many times that one wonders why their use wasn't more widespread.
The italians had motorizable divisions, which were trained and prepared to use motor transport, but didn't have it permanently included. The idea has sometimes been laughed at, but U.S. infantry divisions were very much like that, too.
It can also be noted that motorized units were the pipe dream of ww1 commanders, envisioning a fast and decisive war. Trucks used then are by no means compared to the ww2 variants, but the mechanized transport is mostly the dream of mobile warfare, with the bulk of the army on the move and in key places, following in close concert with the armored fists. So, basically, the mechanized units were designed with two ideals in mind:
1. All terrain mobility.
2. Safely armored transport to the battlefield, with the addition that these transports could also bring fire upon the enemy if need be.
One interesting idea for a different game would be Liddell Hart's (and others) idea of a modern army - little profesional units moving 100% on tracked vehicles, to the last supply truck. Completely independent of roads, fast, always in movement, able to defeat much larger armies by unexpected attacks on their rearguard...
Such armies, that would need scarce movilization of human resources, would have been very attractive. But the price would have been enormous: even today we don't use exclusively tracked vehicles.
And I have always guessed that their proponents didn't pay the due attention to suplly problems. These armies would have been very fast and maeuverable in a tactic sense, but would have been as tied to the railroads as conventional ones, because their needs of fuel would have been very high.
Such armies, that would need scarce movilization of human resources, would have been very attractive. But the price would have been enormous: even today we don't use exclusively tracked vehicles.
And I have always guessed that their proponents didn't pay the due attention to suplly problems. These armies would have been very fast and maeuverable in a tactic sense, but would have been as tied to the railroads as conventional ones, because their needs of fuel would have been very high.
To this day, the Swedish army uses bicycles. It increases the effective range of the soldiers by a lot and it takes no fuel, but imagine a modern fighter plane spotting a column of biking soldiers on a road. Even if they get off the bikes before it comes close, a couple of napalm bombs in the area would decimate them. Back in the WWII, the method of engagement would still be machine gun or a dive bomber attack, which isn't nearly as effective.
As for light tracked vehicles, the Swedish army uses them extensively as well. It is perfect for traversing winter terrain, and my unit (frontline medics) used the exclusively. Not sure how you would keep them supplied with fuel for a longish campaign though, I don't think the Swedish army expected to hold out for more than a month anyway.
Light vehicles
As for light tracked vehicles, the Swedish army uses them extensively as well. It is perfect for traversing winter terrain, and my unit (frontline medics) used the exclusively. Not sure how you would keep them supplied with fuel for a longish campaign though, I don't think the Swedish army expected to hold out for more than a month anyway.
Light vehicles
Re: Motor transport & units in ww2
Actually, both German SdKfz 251 and American M3/M5 Half-tracks (never confuse with Half-trucks) were quite capable off-road, and well armed. Americn usually mounted extra MGs and light mortars on their HT's, while Germans developed a whole bunch of support halftracks (eg. 251/22 with 75mm gun or 251/16 with twin flamethrower)
Actually, both German SdKfz 251 and American M3/M5 Half-tracks (never confuse with Half-trucks) were quite capable off-road, and well armed. Americn usually mounted extra MGs and light mortars on their HT's, while Germans developed a whole bunch of support halftracks (eg. 251/22 with 75mm gun or 251/16 with twin flamethrower)
Re: Motor transport & units in ww2
How good they were has nothing to do with whether they were 'real' or not The primary definition of a mechanized division is one where the infantry ride in APC's, regardless of the APC's capability. Even today among NATO armies there are mechanized units of varying degrees of capability with regards to protection and firepower of the APCs used, but they're still definitely mechanized.
How good they were has nothing to do with whether they were 'real' or not
The primary definition of a mechanized division is one where the infantry ride in APC's, regardless of the APC's capability. Even today among NATO armies there are mechanized units of varying degrees of capability with regards to protection and firepower of the APCs used, but they're still definitely mechanized.
The Japanese army also used bicycles in WWII. I am not sure of the modern-day one though. One of the officers from Malaya later said that he gave thanks to "Britain's dear money spent on excellent paved roads and to cheap Japanese bicycles". He was referring to how the Japanese soldiers quickly got down the Malay peninsula by riding bicycles down the roads that the British had built.
Meiji-Tenno
AFAIK the first real APC used in battle was the Ram Kangaroo. It was used by the Canadians in Northwest Europe. There is a good picture at this site:
http://www.jed.simonides.org/tanks/romeo/ram_series/kangaroo-1/kangaroo1-intro.html
http://www.jed.simonides.org/tanks/romeo/ram_series/kangaroo-1/kangaroo1-intro.html
I think he means the first one with significant armour protection - at least that's how they play in SP3
Ah well, I don't know who did it first.......does anybody know the dates?
Anyway by 1936 when HoI starts probably every side already had developed half-tracks for mechanized infantry units......
Anyway by 1936 when HoI starts probably every side already had developed half-tracks for mechanized infantry units......
Originally posted by Siegebreaker
What do you mean by the first one, when were they used, WW1?
I am talking about Armoured Personal Carriers. There were none in WW1 and in WW2 they mostly consisted of armoured trucks or halftracks, which are not what we now call APC's.
Half-track are vulnerable to small arms fire while Kanagaroos were not, unless being fires on from above. This is important for the vehicle to get in close and support the infantry, not just drop them off and fire from a distance.