Ah yes, the Ram Kangaroo, basically a Sherman tank without the turret, difficult for the infantry to get off (or on for that matter), because the only means of access was the hole where the turret used to be.
edit: typo
edit: typo
-
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.
What is the Puma then?
WW2 scouts vehicles were the front runners of modern APCs....
No the Puma (Sdkwz 234?) was the front runner of modern scout or light tanks such as Lynx (in german) or Saladin or PT-76. The APC concept as we know it didn't really arrive until an NBC environment was possible in the planners minds. Up till then most APCs were open topped. Of course now the APC and the scout APC are merging but this is a very recent event
The Puma would be equivalent to the Canadian Cougar or Coyotte classes, neither of which is an APC. They a both AFV's.
Lots of new posts in this thread!
Things are quite different now, of course, and anything not giving good protection to the soldiers won't do. Nowadays bycicles, etc, woudn't be useful, except for small 'skirmishing' groups, I think.
We are entering the minefield of Pure Theory, but I believe that 'mechanized' applies to units able to fight whithout the troops leaving their APCs, while 'motorized' means that the unit moves on vehicles, but fights on foot. In this sense, I don't think any WW2 APC was good enough. They lacked armoured protection, were open topped, etc. About their off-road capabilities, I weren't there, of course
but I think that half-tracks weren't half as good as fully tracked vehicles.
You are right when you say that I forgot the support models when I said that they provided a very feeble fire support. I only tought of the 'usual' models with just one or two MGs.
My point is: were the units equipped with half-tracks so different from the ones equipped with trucks so as to merit belonging to another unit type? I don't think so... I think that they should be just more capable motorized infantry, with higher tech, but that's just my opinion, of course.
Things are quite different now, of course, and anything not giving good protection to the soldiers won't do. Nowadays bycicles, etc, woudn't be useful, except for small 'skirmishing' groups, I think.
We are entering the minefield of Pure Theory, but I believe that 'mechanized' applies to units able to fight whithout the troops leaving their APCs, while 'motorized' means that the unit moves on vehicles, but fights on foot. In this sense, I don't think any WW2 APC was good enough. They lacked armoured protection, were open topped, etc. About their off-road capabilities, I weren't there, of course
but I think that half-tracks weren't half as good as fully tracked vehicles.You are right when you say that I forgot the support models when I said that they provided a very feeble fire support. I only tought of the 'usual' models with just one or two MGs.
My point is: were the units equipped with half-tracks so different from the ones equipped with trucks so as to merit belonging to another unit type? I don't think so... I think that they should be just more capable motorized infantry, with higher tech, but that's just my opinion, of course.
I'd still rate troops in halftracks higher than those in trucks, If only because of the protection vs. shellfragments that the halftracks offered. In that sense I'd rate halftrack troops as mechanized.
I agree that halftarcks are WW2 mech infantry. Maybe the Canadians should get a special status for going past the bar. Our Kangaroos had many weapons such as flamethrowers and MGs. But of course Canada will be considered Brits with a US accent.
This is our destiny!!!
Originally posted by Trooper
I agree that halftarcks are WW2 mech infantry. Maybe the Canadians should get a special status for going past the bar. Our Kangaroos had many weapons such as flamethrowers and MGs. But of course Canada will be considered Brits with a US accent.
I don't quite agree with your assesment of the merits of the Kangaroo (I think it's a stopgap, badly engineered err.. solution) but that's just my opinion....
How many Kangaroos served in combat?
How many were built?
Anyway, Greven said that the units are not going to be country especific, so I guess everyone will be able to research a higher kind of mechanized unit...........
I did not say it was a perfect APC, I just said it was the first real attempt at an APC. It was quite effective, especially the flamethrower version.Originally posted by Smiffus
I don't quite agree with your assesment of the merits of the Kangaroo (I think it's a stopgap, badly engineered err.. solution) but that's just my opinion....
Originally posted by Siegebreaker
How many Kangaroos served in combat?
How many were built?
Anyway, Greven said that the units are not going to be country especific, so I guess everyone will be able to research a higher kind of mechanized unit...........
There was more than enough Kangaroos for the Canadian Army.
Originally posted by Trooper
There was more than enough Kangaroos for the Canadian Army.
Well.....counting how BIG the Canadian army was......
Originally posted by Alatriste
We are entering the minefield of Pure Theory, but I believe that 'mechanized' applies to units able to fight whithout the troops leaving their APCs, while 'motorized' means that the unit moves on vehicles, but fights on foot. In this sense, I don't think any WW2 APC was good enough. They lacked armoured protection, were open topped, etc. About their off-road capabilities, I weren't there, of course
Sorry, not quite. If we were to use your definition, then every mechanized unit that existed before the US introduced the Bradley and before the USSR introduced the BMP would be considered motorized and that just isn't the case.
The MILITARY definition of mechanized is exactly what we've been discussing, namely infantry riding in APCs, sometimes with armour attached, but that depended on the philosophy of the army involved. During the 70s, when the APC of the day for NATO was the M113 and others of similar capabilities, the infantry still had to dismount to fight, but all such infantry units equipped with M113s were considered mechanized. Granted, before Bradleys and BMPs and Warriors and other APCs of similar capabilities, all APCs were pretty much battle-taxis, but that has no bearing on whether a unit mounted on such APCs was mechanized or motorized.
re
I don't get why you people complicate yourself this way. The concepts of mechanized and motorized infantry are simple and straightforward.
Motorized infantry. Meaning infantry carried to the battlefield in trucks. The general characteristics of motorized infantry is good mobility on roads, but horrible mobility off-road, you would be better off travelling on foot. Also, while mounted in trucks, infantry is very vulnerable. The advantage is that trucks are relatively easy to produce and maintain, thus making motorized divisons easy to supply.
Mechanized infantry. Infantry which rides in armored halftracks or wheeled or fully tracked APC. While mechanized infantry is not as fast on road, it is just as fast off-road, making it ideal for the terrain conditions in, say, Russia when the road network was very reduced. Also, mechanized infantry can benefit from the support of halftrack machineguns, but due to the scale of HoI this might not be reflected. So in comparison to motorized infantry, mechanized infantry is not as fast on roads, but performs well off-road, also it benefits from decent protection from "soft" attack launched by enemy infantry or light artillery while mounted. The trade off is that constant maintenance is required for the half-tracks, not to mention the fact that bulding the halftracks thmselves is as expensive as building an armored car or early light tank,which is, I don't know, maybe 3-4 times more expensive than a simple truck.
As you can see, motorized and mechanized refers to transportation, how fast and how safe. While the design of APC's has evolved their role remains the same, and so does the designation of infantry using these as transport.
I don't get why you people complicate yourself this way. The concepts of mechanized and motorized infantry are simple and straightforward.
Motorized infantry. Meaning infantry carried to the battlefield in trucks. The general characteristics of motorized infantry is good mobility on roads, but horrible mobility off-road, you would be better off travelling on foot. Also, while mounted in trucks, infantry is very vulnerable. The advantage is that trucks are relatively easy to produce and maintain, thus making motorized divisons easy to supply.
Mechanized infantry. Infantry which rides in armored halftracks or wheeled or fully tracked APC. While mechanized infantry is not as fast on road, it is just as fast off-road, making it ideal for the terrain conditions in, say, Russia when the road network was very reduced. Also, mechanized infantry can benefit from the support of halftrack machineguns, but due to the scale of HoI this might not be reflected. So in comparison to motorized infantry, mechanized infantry is not as fast on roads, but performs well off-road, also it benefits from decent protection from "soft" attack launched by enemy infantry or light artillery while mounted. The trade off is that constant maintenance is required for the half-tracks, not to mention the fact that bulding the halftracks thmselves is as expensive as building an armored car or early light tank,which is, I don't know, maybe 3-4 times more expensive than a simple truck.
As you can see, motorized and mechanized refers to transportation, how fast and how safe. While the design of APC's has evolved their role remains the same, and so does the designation of infantry using these as transport.
Originally posted by Siegebreaker
Well.....counting how BIG the Canadian army was......
Hmmmm.... I guess a million soldiers didn't make any difference.
There's another thread where we discussed this. Imagine Italy's armed forces but without the decent navy. A green conscription army trained by an understaffed officer corps. Almost no air force.
No offensive power, little defensive strength. They could probably have held out against the Germans for a while in guerilla style action in north-western Sweden's forests and mountains, but would have no chance on the plains of southern and eastern Sweden.
Originally posted by Trooper
Hmmmm.... I guess a million soldiers didn't make any difference.
To be fair, Canada only fielded 5 divisions. That's not to say those 5 weren't effective, but they -were- only 5.
We had 8 divisions but 3 were kept in Canada because of the Japanese threat. Don't forget though, that we had a large navy and airforce that we had to man. Our navy and airforce were larger than any other country our population size.
The size of the navy and airforce is beside the point
The fact remains we only fielded 5 regular divisions in combat, the other 3 being sent to the UK in '44 and broken up to keep the rest at full strength. The land forces at home were Militia and those brigades (or was it divisions?) started to stand down in late '44. I got my information from some very good Commonwealth military sites, and it pretty much tracks with what I remember reading in print.I'm not trying to put down Canada's contribution. I'm very proud of it; my old regiment was part of 3 Division's HQ. In fact, it makes me even more proud when I consider that, with only 5 divisions of our own, plus some very good British and Polish divisions under 1st Canadian Army's command, we accomplished what we did and gained - or rather, upheld - a reputation as tough adversaries.
This is all quite a bit off-topic, though
Hmm... Please note that the HoI terms MechDiv and MotDiv cannot be translated into its modern definition, because as many have said earlier on very few individual division could have been defined as such.
What we tried to capture was rather a differentiation in armoured defense and mobility of basically infantry (cavalry units). I recollect that Hans v. Seeckt (later Head of Truppenamt) used a combined force of Cavalry, Truck-loaded infantry and Armored Cars to spearhead an offensive in Romania in 1917. This small avant-garde was merely a fraction of all the nameless rifle grunts walking to their firing position. Basically this was an extreme success, mainly because this Combined Force could use Mobility in a deep space on purpose to either defend or attack.
So lets say for the arguement that a HoI ArmDiv = 2 Arm Brig+ 1 Mot.Inf Brig then a HoI MechDiv = 1 Arm.Brig+1Mot.Brig+1Inf.Brig, and thus a HoI Mot.Div = 2 Mot.brig+1Inf.Brig
and as HoI doesn't play with Brigade size units (well there are always exceptions from the rule) we cannot *see* this but we have to imagine it abstractly.
Sincerely
/Greven (Military Historian and Cpt in Swedish Amphibious Corps Reserve)
What we tried to capture was rather a differentiation in armoured defense and mobility of basically infantry (cavalry units). I recollect that Hans v. Seeckt (later Head of Truppenamt) used a combined force of Cavalry, Truck-loaded infantry and Armored Cars to spearhead an offensive in Romania in 1917. This small avant-garde was merely a fraction of all the nameless rifle grunts walking to their firing position. Basically this was an extreme success, mainly because this Combined Force could use Mobility in a deep space on purpose to either defend or attack.
So lets say for the arguement that a HoI ArmDiv = 2 Arm Brig+ 1 Mot.Inf Brig then a HoI MechDiv = 1 Arm.Brig+1Mot.Brig+1Inf.Brig, and thus a HoI Mot.Div = 2 Mot.brig+1Inf.Brig
and as HoI doesn't play with Brigade size units (well there are always exceptions from the rule) we cannot *see* this but we have to imagine it abstractly.
Sincerely
/Greven (Military Historian and Cpt in Swedish Amphibious Corps Reserve)