Question about realistic combat

[Yardy 10]

Hey guys - quick question.

In today's warfare - how rare is it to see infantry combat without the use of air support or vehicle support?

The reason is I've been making firefights solely involving infantry between US and Russia but I can't help but think that would never happen in real life.

I assume in real life all infantry engagements usually have a vehicle to support them at least?

[Daniel 0]

Tailor your own scenarios. Almost any scenario can be made realistic given a plausible back story.

Bad weather is always a good one for taking fire support out of the equation.

Could your forces become isolated? Cut off from fuel and supply lines?

Is the terrain too dense for air support or vehicles to be effective?

[Gunter Severloh 4067]

A thread already discussing the context of your questions.

A few real life combat questions

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=117044

[Beagle 684]

Full scale war since WWII is planned as a combined arms operation so that front forces can be replaced at any time. Today War is vehicle bound...there are no unmotorized infantry troops anymore, infantry has to be mobile and vehicles should always be armed to act as support.

[maturin 12]

Pure infantry engagements take place in Afghanistan all the time if air support is far off and the neither side presses the issue. That's not conventional war, but I imagine it would be quite possible for two sides to find a land war beneath overlapping SAM zones.

It's the U.S. vs Russia scenario that is the more unlikely, as I think such a conflict would go nuclear (tactically at least) quite fast.

[metalcraze 290]

Actually I imagine first some negotiations would be held before anything will go nuclear.

OP can easily use a small scale border conflict somewhere with people in power pissing their pants while trying to resolve this in their favour as a backstory. Enough for a mini-campaign.

A nuclear conflict doesn't mean that army will be wiped out either. Countries won't drop nukes on their armies because obviously a point strike onto an enemy army behind that hill is not possible with a nuke

[jakerod 254]

Actually I imagine first some negotiations would be held before anything will go nuclear.

OP can easily use a small scale border conflict somewhere with people in power pissing their pants while trying to resolve this in their favour as a backstory. Enough for a mini-campaign.

A nuclear conflict doesn't mean that army will be wiped out either. Countries won't drop nukes on their armies because obviously a point strike onto an enemy army behind that hill is not possible with a nuke

It is possible to hit the enemy army behind the hill with a nuke. You just have to use a tactical one and make sure the wind is right. I mean obviously if your units are right on the opposite side of the hill it isn't a good idea but tactical nukes are decently effective. There are also suitcase nukes which only take out like a city block in the actual explosion I think. Maybe two city blocks or a 2x2 area of blocks. I can't remember precisely.

[Beagle 684]

It is possible to hit the enemy army behind the hill with a nuke. You just have to use a tactical one and make sure the wind is right. I mean obviously if your units are right on the opposite side of the hill it isn't a good idea but tactical nukes are decently effective. There are also suitcase nukes which only take out like a city block in the actual explosion I think. Maybe two city blocks or a 2x2 area of blocks. I can't remember precisely.

Yes nuclear weapons are the tool of choice and make no problems afterwards and civil use of nuclear power is safe. Guess why after 1945 there was never again a usse of this kind of weapon...if you start dropping one a whole vollye will come back and in any case you have like 10.000nds of colateral hits.

It's not like all armies hide behind hills in vast and remote nuclear test sites only. and the wind nevers goes into the same direction at all altitudes.

[Daniel 0]

If there was no purpose to tactical nuclear weapons they would not exist. At the point where US and Russian troops are slogging it out, tactical nuclear weapons become viable.

[Beagle 684]

If there was no purpose to tactical nuclear weapons they would not exist. At the point where US and Russian troops are slogging it out, tactical nuclear weapons become viable.

A lot of things exist without a real practical purpose. The only purpose for nukes is to have them. In the 40's it was onyl the USA to have them so they felt safe to use them but that time is over.

Use nukes today and you risk to be nuked and nothing on earth is worth that risk. Thats why Warfare keept on beeing done conventional even wehen sometimes some generals waved with the nuke flag (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) and got dismissed shortly after. And because of this fact that nukes server no practical purpose they are reduced for like 20 years now in all arsenals of the major nuclear powers...you dont need much of them for keeping up a threatening gesture.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Beagle

[Derbysieger 11]

And remember there are already fuel air bombs that have a destruction affect similar to that of a small tactical nuclear weapon without the bad side effects of a nuclear explosion.

[Sirex1 10]

One plausible way is when a mechanized infantry platoon dismounts its infantry, and have them assault through forrest area to clear the area or establish a fireing line at a clearing over some field. In the mean time the platoon commander uses the combat vehicles as light tanks and uses the infantry as a secure fire "anchor" point. This is extremely more likely to happen when the platoon is doing a delay battle. Having the combat vehicles several 100 meters in front of the infantry making fire ambushes and withdrawing, while the infantry has a stationary ambush with mines set up and are ready to mount up after the ambush.