Why do I have such a hard on for mechanized infantry when they're

>>33456735
>inferior to both tanks and light infantry
nigga what

>>33456769
Recent conflicts have shown light infantry in technicals routinely beating and destroying mechanized infantry forces

IFVs are just easy targets for TOWs and RPGs and then the light infantry mop up with superior numbers

against tanks it's obvious

>>33456785
Which conflict showed that?

Also I'd argue against them not being effective against tanks by citing the fact that Bradley's neutralized more Iraqi tanks than Abrams' did.

File: 13398457_259898641037045_1237249599_n.jpg (158KB, 1080x997px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1080x997px

>>33456785
>Recent conflicts have shown light infantry in technicals routinely beating and destroying mechanized infantry forces
No, anon. Just no. Stop making stupid conclusions out of contextless engagements.
>IFVs are just easy targets for TOWs and RPGs and then the light infantry mop up with superior numbers
No, sod off. Shitskin sandniggers fucking up other incompetent shitskin sandniggers is not indicative of anything.
>against tanks it's obvious
No. Tanks cannot operate in a multitude of terrains without infantry support and mechanized infantry is very much capable both of countering armoured offensives and supporting them.

>>33456867
Bradleys got more Iraqi tanks because they were both Arabs and garbage tanks like T-72s. Against a proper force using proper tanks they're mincemeat

>>33456879
Which is why they generally roll together famalam

File: 1396848013700.jpg (145KB, 1022x643px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1022x643px

>>33456879
>Against a proper force using proper tanks they're mincemeat
Do you think armoured warfare is World of Tanks or something?

>>33456735
Because they're not inferior. Mechanized infantry is the best doctrine for mobile warfare to deploy infantry that can keep up with your tanks while protecting them from arty and air fire on the way.

>>33456899
No, but russian tanks have been proven time and time again to be shit, having shitty crews on top of that means they get their shit kicked in regardless of what's coming after them

>>33456871
>Shitskin sandniggers fucking up other incompetent shitskin sandniggers is not indicative of anything.
How is it not? They're equally skilled so the same thing should happen between two properly trained forces as well.

>>33456899
The BMP isn't a good example of an IFV. They're not good at protecting infantry at all, being made of paper and all that.

>>33456918
Being equally poorly skilled gives the defender a huge advantage actually.

>>33456927
>They're not good at protecting infantry at all, being made of paper and all that.
Wow it's almost as if it is almost a 60 year old design while also being the first of it's kind!!

File: kiisut.webm (722KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 600x338px

>>33456918
>How is it not? They're equally skilled so the same thing should happen between two properly trained forces as well.
Yeah, you clearly do seem to think that warfare is like WoT and other shit games. Warfare is not a comparison of statistics, or skill. You don't just add up these things together and count your points on who will win.
The Arabs, quite simply cannot into modern, mobile warfare. They will sit their tanks and vehicles on top of hilltops as stationary pillboxes instead of keeping them moving and ignoramuses like you think that's an indication of vehicles losing relevance over ATGMs. How do you think TOWs reach targets hiding behind hills or buildings or forests, in dead ground? How do you shoot something you can't see?
How do you think RPGs can reach mechanized vehicles that are +200m off and firing HE/FRAG into your positions with autocannons, supported by mortar fire?
In what bloody way is an armoured machine spitting out 30mm airburst shells over your head "an easy target for AT weapons"?

>>33456879
So M2 and M1s had the upper hand, but somehow commanders chose to destroy enemy tanks using M2s instead of M1s, I wonder why that would be?

Regardless this doesn't explain which conflict showed that light infantry in technicals beating mechanized infantry forces. Do you by any chance mean Syrian civil war? If so it should be very hard to locate 2 men rogue TOW crews beating armored forces, it's not technicals and infantry.

>>33456956
>bmp-1
1970
>bmp-2
1980
>bmp-3
1990

even for their time they had no armor, and the threats that are easily eliminating them today were also present in their heydays

they're still easily destroyed by RPGs and heavy machine guns and ATGMs which were present in even greater numbers in the cold war

>>33456785
>Recent conflicts have shown light infantry in technicals routinely beating and destroying mechanized infantry forces
Such as? Last conventional conflict that comes to mind is Georgia and Sudan, neither of which showed light infantry doing any significant damage to armor.
Also
>implying mechanized infantry don't go hand in hand with tanks

File: 1460663887291.jpg (2MB, 1500x980px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x980px

>>33456976
That's you sitting there in the middle of the landing shells. Tell me again how easy it is to destroy IFVs and how they lose to everything.

>>33456969
>How do you think TOWs reach targets hiding behind hills or buildings or forests, in dead ground?
A tank that is forced to sit behind cover is useless, as soon as it pokes out it's dead
>ow do you think RPGs can reach mechanized vehicles that are +200m off
most can hit them at 500m or more sweetie
>and firing HE/FRAG into your positions with autocannons
how do they know where your RPG is?
>supported by mortar fire?
mortars aren't that fast or accurate
>n what bloody way is an armoured machine spitting out 30mm airburst shells over your head "an easy target for AT weapons"?
>airburst
russians dont have those
it's an easy target because any lull in the action or if the ifv is shooting something else, then all it takes is another guy with an RPG to pop out and one hit it

>>33457019
i and five other guys with rpgs or TOWs are lucky enough not to be where the shells are hitting
artillery and the "suppression" it does are overrated

at that point all I see is russian trash in the open and they can't see me so I just laugh and take out everything with my buddies

>>33457053
>"suppression" it does are overrated
>All those men in WW1 and 2 hiding from arty are retarded
>All those Ukrainian convoys being completely decimated by Russian arty right now are just laughing it off
Ya nah

File: fragpatterns.png (611KB, 1314x972px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1314x972px

>>33457038
>A tank that is forced to sit behind cover is useless, as soon as it pokes out it's dead
No, you retard. It pokes out for a second, fires, then backs away. The fuck your missile going to do then? Hit the front slope? Get intercepted by APS?
>most can hit them at 500m or more sweetie
No. Especially not under fire.
>how do they know where your RPG is?
How do you know where the enemy is?
>mortars aren't that fast or accurate
Nigga, it takes less than a minute for a pre-planned fire mission to arrive, ~5 minutes for unplanned artillery and they don't need to be "that" accurate. They fucking explode and throw fragments around in a large, lethal radius, providing fire superiority to the other party.
>russians dont have those
And?
>it's an easy target because any lull in the action or if the ifv is shooting something else, then all it takes is another guy with an RPG to pop out and one hit it
Why the fuck do you think there's going to be just one IFV? I repeat once again, war is not World of Tanks. Soldiers and vehicles operate in units. Armoured vehicles haven't been operating alone since WW2.

>>33457096
>WW1
and despite the artillery they still easily massacred anyone daring to step into no-man's land

>>33457053
>i and five other guys with rpgs or TOWs are lucky enough not to be where the shells are hitting
And then you're lucky enough to not be in the combat area, unable to engage the enemy vehicles.
>artillery and the "suppression" it does are overrated
You are retarded.
>at that point all I see is russian trash in the open and they can't see me so I just laugh and take out everything with my buddies
Oh, wait, you're just baiting.

>>33457053
>artillery and the "suppression" it does are overrated

Spoken like someone who has never witnessed a FFE suppression artillery barrage

>>33457038
>most can hit them at 500m or more sweetie
Are you shitting me? The maximum range for "most" RPGs are 500m. Only the massive tripod mounted RPG-29 surpasses 500m.
>>33457104
So are you going to say anything about WWII and modern conflict or do you have nothing else to say?

>>33457154
>Anon would try to fire in the middle of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM

File: mechinf.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

>>33457114
please no fight
post more mechanized inf

>>33456735
It shows a level of elitism and preference for those troops, which makes them cooler. The squad rolling up and taking overlapping positions is sxc af.

File: Russia - Mechanized Infantry Battalion MT-LB of the Mechanized Infantry Brigade 2008.png (487KB, 4961x1908px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 4961x1908px

>>33457197
Sure.

>>33457103
what's the ground on the top right? marsh?

File: 1472678327230.jpg (3MB, 2830x1880px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2830x1880px

>>33456735
You're not the only one.

File: r15.jpg (98KB, 882x552px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 882x552px

>>33457241
Soft ground, so different types of wetlands, swamps and soft forest floors.

File: 1472687312277.jpg (129KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x525px

>>33457251

>>33456785
no; without ADS they get raped by guided AT mortars/shells and MANPADS

>>33456735
lmao, what?

File: BMP vs_ CV.jpg (192KB, 655x960px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 655x960px

Anyone trained as mechanized infantry here? Experience with computer simulations in training?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6_qrgA-eQ

File: 1398669863151.jpg (1MB, 2128x1416px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2128x1416px

>>33457053
>artillery
>overrated

This must the dumbest thing I've read all my life and I've been on 4chan for over a decade, you deserve a prize or something.

>>33457311
Hey, that's music from Space Rangers. Good shit, love those games and soundtrack is exceptional.

>>33457311
>Steel Beasts
Fun game, but some elements are misrepresented and there's a lack of cold war era IFVs

>>33457733
It's main purpose is to provide training for paying customers, so they don't include fun and interesting vehicles that are obsolite and not used by their customers because modeling them would be largely waste of time and money. Private users are more of an afterthought, though many of them are ex military or reservists.

>>33456974
because the M2 were scouting ahead and it was a turkey shoot

>>33456785
Are you 12?

File: HS 30.jpg (37KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x380px

>>33456956
>the first of it's kind!!

No it wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_Lang_HS.30

File: tmp_19418-14232009365531307373323.jpg (12KB, 196x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 196x200px

>>33457197
But anon that's motorized infantry!

>>33457104
The artillery DID the masscring, retard

>>33457277
>guided
>AT
>mortars, shells
Nigger wut.