The Importance of Infantry.

[Alex6714]

And niether is 'this war.'

In modern infantry doctrine, there are tactics to take out or at least bypass most types of enemy vehicles. Air Superiority isn't a must unless the enemy has the airspace above our troops. Air superiority is very VERY good thing to have though.

Well you can bypass them all you want, but who is really winning the war when your constantly surrounded by tanks and aircraft, and can´t do much.


But each part is equally important in its own role.

[CAS_117]

Infantry for the Win!

Infantry is the lowest common denominator!
Everything else is designed to either Support or Destroy Infantry.

Without infantry you have no need for anything else, you would just sit in
your bunker and fire intercontinental missiles at each other.

A rather basic tree

Infantry < APC/Light Armour < Tank < Aircraft < AA/Artillery < Big Bombs!

Infantry < APC/Light Armour < Tank < AA/Artillery < Aircraft < Big Bombs

*Fixed

[Kirra]

I would disagree. A good armor/APC squad is just as important if not more IMO.

[Acemantura]

In the Project Reality vision of Modern Warfare, I believe that both Infantry and Assets are equally important. However, I believe that more people should be pining to be in an Infantry squad. I dont enjoy it when there aren't enough infantry on the ground and I dont enjoy it when we have no APC or Armor support.

It seems when I am Infantry, which is all the time, I can never get any Asset support and when I am lucky enough to be supporting I never see any Infantry callin for support or Lazing. Ehh, maybe I'll get better luck next time.

Inf it Up people.

P.S. Can someone show me how to properly utilize the auto rifleman. I really want to learn how to supress with that gun and I never get to use it because I always squad lead.

[Alex6714]

Infantry is the basis of all warfare.

Aircraft alone cannot win a war.

Well thats not what I said, each plays a different role. Infantry can secure ground, set up camps, be an eye on the ground but really they aren´t doing the full on fighting, only after the vehicles have.

[Scot]

You can't win a war with infantry alone, you can't win a war with vehicles alone, each plays off of each other.

[amazing_retard]

Scot;1001485']You can't win a war with infantry alone, you can't win a war with vehicles alone, each plays off of each other.

I'm assuming your talking about a CONVENTIONAL war, if so your right. Anyway you need a lot of INF support on PR. The problem is not that there are too many asset squads, its more the problem of people making useless squads. You don't need 2 choppers squads (or one full one for that matter), you don't need 3 tank squads, 2 of them locked at less than 6, and you don't need a million stupid sniper squads...
Also I'm sick of clans pubbing, and making a 4 or 5 man squad and locking.... The PR pubs aren't that bad....

[Scot]

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Jaymz;1000992']hey, I get kicked out of the US in one week. I'm allowed to be as pessimistic as I want! [/quote]

An irishman being pessimistic... well I never
[quote="amazing_retard""]I'm assuming your talking about a CONVENTIONAL war, if so your right. Anyway you need a lot of INF support on PR. The problem is not that there are too many asset squads, its more the problem of people making useless squads. You don't need 2 choppers squads (or one full one for that matter), you don't need 3 tank squads, 2 of them locked at less than 6, and you don't need a million stupid sniper squads...
Also I'm sick of clans pubbing, and making a 4 or 5 man squad and locking.... The PR pubs aren't that bad....[/quote]

Insurgency aswell, I'm going out on a limb here(don't flame please) but I would say that the ISAF forces are more than likely winning at the mo in A'stan, and why? Partly because of superior technology, but a big part is the vehicles, even simple things like a GMG on a moving platform like a humvee or Landy is so effective and demoralising, let alone a 2000lb bomb.

[CAS_117]

Well thats not what I said, each plays a different role. Infantry can secure ground, set up camps, be an eye on the ground but really they aren´t doing the full on fighting, only after the vehicles have.

Let me put it this way: I haven't seen anyone claim infantry are overpowered yet...

I'm assuming your talking about a CONVENTIONAL war, if so your right.

I'm pretty sure that the billions of dollars spent in weapons like BONUS, BLU-108, Javelin, and Apache longbow weren't spent because NATO was scared of conscripts with AK-47's rolling through Fulda tracks up at 60 kph. Light Infantry haven't typically fared well in conventional conflicts. Probably why Canada is ditching our leg inf for an all Mech inf force. LAV-III FTW.

[Alex6714]

Let me put it this way: I haven't seen anyone claim infantry are overpowered yet...

Kind of like if you like flying you get called a pilot whore, but if you like infantry you just get called normal.

Its discrimination I say!

[Katanama]

In some instances you can do without infantry ingame. As cougar said Quiling is a good example of that. But infantry is the queen of battle and you can't have a party without a queen, or something random like that

I am an infantry whore, I have probably spend 80% of my total PR time leading infantry squads simply because its fun and its where the action is. Give me a good infantry squad a HMMWV and a log truck and I will hold the bunkers against whatever you throw at me. It is easier if you are supported by armour or CAS and I will often use it if it is available.

\begin{offtopic}

Well thats not what I said, each plays a different role. Infantry can secure ground, set up camps, be an eye on the ground but really they aren´t doing the full on fighting, only after the vehicles have.

If NATO is going to go to war with anyone we will most likely have air superiority before many ground forces are committed. The logical response by an enemy would be to retreat back into areas where vehicles are less effective like forests, rural areas or cities.

In modern warfare (assuming NATO is involved) one part (NATO) want to cause as little collateral damage as possible (the home front thing). Therefore the enemy can pull back into urban areas where vehicles will not be able to fight without causing large amounts of collateral damage. Who is going to be doing the up front fighting in this scenario, armour or infantry. It is going to be a combination. But infantry can work in an urban environment without armour but the other way doesn't work.

If it is desert warfare then I agree infantry will only be used to clear out enemy positions that have been bypassed by the armour. The armour will engage the enemy armour and whoever wins that battle also have the best chance of winning the desert war (not including aircraft).

If you have air superiority the enemy armour will not be able to operate effectively. This means that it will most likely be something akin to operation Iraqi freedom if it is in the desert. If in a rural area then enemy armour would still be able to operate. it would have its operations limited because if spotted by aircraft they will be dead. Light infantry in rural areas can be deadly they will to some extent be able to engage enemy armour simply because they will have lots of cover.

Why is Vietnam not a modern conventional conflict? I could imagine this as well as many other scenarios. what have changed since the Vietnam war in ways of jungle tactics. Of course you no longer carpet bomb but other then that what is a lot of technological equipment going to do when it cant see through the jungle vegetation. My guess would be that maybe 25% (this might be in the high end, but haven't been able to find data on it) of the earth's land surface is desert. What are you going to do in the other 75% that are not miles upon miles of open area but there can be an AT weapon in the hedge over there 100m to the left or 200m to the right...

Honestly I don't think that a conventional conflict is going to take place any time soon. Simply because right now NATO is too powerful compared to any other faction, the middle east, China or Russia.

\end{offtopic}

[Conman51]

I am and infantry whore, and proud!!!

[Jigsaw]

I am an infantry whore. I spend 95% of my time in PR with my feet on the ground and the rest being transported to where I need to be by a heli/APC in support. (Okay I do sometimes hop in a tank or APC but its rare).

There has never been a war that hasn't involved infantry combat, and there never will be and this should be reflected in PR. There is nothing more exciting than running through tight streets and alleyways, grenades thundering in your ears whilst bullets snap around you and tear into the walls. Nothing more satisfying than ambushing a tank with a HAT and watching it detonate in spectacular fashion or creating an enfilade with your squad to wipe out an enemy unit as they scatter from your fire.

There is nothing that infantry cannot kill, no task that an infantry squad cannot achieve. Everything else in modern warfare has been designed or invented to help the infantry do its job.

Aircraft --> To scout the ground ahead of the infantry during the 1st World War, and later to destroy hard targets as designated by infantry units on the ground.

Tanks --> To support the infantry advance by punching holes in massed machine gun defences, and later to transport the infantry whilst advancing rapidly through the enemies lines so that the infantry can secure the ground behind them.

The machine gun --> To aid the infantry in defense of an objective

The helicopter --> Designed to transport infantry to their objective, and later fitted with guns so they could support the infantry in completing their objectives.

All of the above translate to PR and I could add many more. I have won rounds of Kashan by using my infantry squad carefully, with correct support from other asset equipped units. Without infantry, it becomes a stalemate as the 2 sides have no way to effectively capture and secure the objectives. They cannot deploy advanced defensive positions, and they cannot scout the ground ahead of them, exposing themselves to attack and ultimate destruction.

Infantry are the lowest common denominator both in modern warfare and in PR and as such, all other units are bound by their actions.

[CodeRedFox]

PR Importance: (at least how I see it). Each one is in support for the above group.

1. Squad Leader
2. All Infantry
3. Light Vehicles
4. APC
5. Tanks/AA
6. Rotary
7. Commander
8. Fixed Wing
9. Artillery

Squad Leader
I believe is the most important assets on the field. More than weapons, tanks, aircraft, and even the commander. With out a SL you are just a bunch of individual players with no direction.

Infantry
Main element behind a SL. A tool of the SL

Light Vehicles
The most important assets behind the SL. The main way to get around the field.

APC
The first wave/attacking cover force for all the above

Tanks/AA
With any of the above are just independent tools with out a job. These should be use to cover the advance all of the above.

Rotary
Use to support infantry. Can be used to attack a target before light, apc, tanks enter area.

Commander
Once all these below are in play a commander is needed to take over directing all SL to there objectives and receiving updates on targets and objectives.

Fixed Wing
A tool of the Commander and should be played as such

Artillery
A tool of the Commander only and should be played as such

[Tahanatos]

There has been a lot of talking about the role of infantry in modern conventional wars. Let me just say that there is no such things as modern conventional wars, because modern wars are assymetrical. Like the ones in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Everybody who says something aboiut the role of the infantry in modern conventional warfare is therefore speculating! Be it a gamer, a soldier or a military strategist.

In PR however we have something that would be descibed as conventional warfare in the real world.
About Infantry in PR: I have to say that the Infantry is what matters iin PR. APCs and tanks drive past you without you beeing seen, because you can hear them from a mile away and hide. You can even take them out i you have something that goes BOOOOM. Yet you are able to do anything from building bunkers to taking points.
When I tried playing Tank or APC I felt ... empty because I could not really do anything. Of course I got loads of kills and didnt die, but I didnt feel that any of those kills mattered to the outcome of the match.
When I tried beeing a chopper or bomber pilot I felt that I was waiting all the time to do stuff instead of actually helping.
When I tried playing as a Sniper I stuck to it, because the Intel I gather actually helped my team and because the kills you make actually turn a match around. Not only can a Sniper give Intel about half a map. He can also strike the enemy where it hurts: At the control points, at their firebases and at their rally points.

Dont confuse us with BF2 kiddie Snipers joining a six man Infantry SQ saying "Every SQ should haz Sniper".

We PR Snipers are serving the Infantry. IF they are the eyes we are their binoculars. Intel wins battles and Intel keeps our brave Infanterists alive. At the same time we cut of reenforcements and take down tanks by lazing them.
Good Infantry wins battles in PR and if you have proper Infantry a good Sniper can double their effectivnes. Yes Im a Sniper whore and Im proud to be one.