• @LuckyDay:

    Everyone had mobile infantry!!  mobile means that it could move.

    Darn it LuckyDay, you took the words right out of my mouth.  I was going to state that I hope all countries had ‘mobile’ infantry or they were in a heap of trouble. LOL.  Well, maybe some Russians drinking too much vodka weren’t all that mobile!

    Regards,
    Captain Crunch


  • @LuckyDay:

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    Obviusly this is a very cosmetic concern, but I think units having the correct names gives important feel to the game and makes the gameplay even more exciting.

    @Imperious:

    Nobody ever used Mobile infantry in any war. Its best to stick with the actual military nomenclature whenever possible.

    Everyone had mobile infantry!!  mobile means that it could move.  Mechanized refers to if nothing else, halftracks and such, even smaller jeeps and whatnot that ground pounders rode in instead of pounding the ground with their boots. Trains would move INF once the rails were repaired, but until then these units would be the motorized/mech INF like Patton had to charge to the Rhine and then up to the Ardennes in 3 days.
       Mech or Motorized Inf would have to win out in this name decision over Mobile.

    Well yes, to one degree or another all infatry have mobility, but mobile infantry isnt just a term I have made up( mobile reserve, airmobile). In the military it refers to infantry that have mobility beyond the trains( and there feet, although walking to a battlefeild is sooooooo 1780s) so it refers to cavalry, motorized(turcks), mechanized(armored transport), airborne. So it refers to everything that could posssibly keep up with tanks( which is what this units role is).

    After thinking about it longer i understand the problems with a name like mobile infantry(no unit in world war 2 was acually called the ###th mobile infantry reg)

    but no aircraft was called a tactical bomber either.

    If the unit is going to be a halftrack for every nation, it should probably be called mechanized inf, but then the tac bomber should be called a  fighter bomber to be consistent with only using historical names.


  • While I give a nod to the fact that mobile doesn’t work well as it fails to distinguish the unit as they all have some degree of mobility…

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    After thinking about it longer i understand the problems with a name like mobile infantry(no unit in world war 2 was acually called the ###th mobile infantry reg)

    The problem, I believe, is that even today no unit is called mobile infantry whereas tac bomber is used today promoting players to apply it anachronistically to WW2.

    Likewise, airmobile would probably be just as acceptable as an anarchonistic umbrella term for paratroopers, glider-borne infantry and air landing regiments.


  • @allboxcars:

    While I give a nod to the fact that mobile doesn’t work well as it fails to distinguish the unit as they all have some degree of mobility…

    @Emperor_Taiki:

    After thinking about it longer i understand the problems with a name like mobile infantry(no unit in world war 2 was acually called the ###th mobile infantry reg)

    The problem, I believe, is that even today no unit is called mobile infantry whereas tac bomber is used today promoting players to apply it anachronistically to WW2.

    Likewise, airmobile would probably be just as acceptable as an anarchonistic umbrella term for paratroopers, glider-borne infantry and air landing regiments.

    The name tactical bomber has never been used as an aircraft class. There are a number of classes that fit into that discription, we call them today strike, multi-role, attack or ground attack aircraft. But there is no tactical bomber class recogonized my any major military.

    Same thing with mobile infantry. It is not its own class, but mobile is an adjetive that when applied to infantry means that they have a high tactical movement capacity. Infantry on foot are not very mobile at all. Saying leg-proppeled infantry are mobile is almost like saying a blockhouse is mobile( technically its true since one has a factor of very little mobility and the other has a factor of 0 mobility, both have a degree of mobility)

    Or its like saying a B-25 is a heavy bomber because it has a degree of heavyness. You cant take military termnology literally because you would be taking it out of context.

    Or are crusiers battleships, because they are ships that battle?


  • i think that the term mobile infantry would refer more to bicycles, cavalry, and even some motorized infantry, but when it comes to mechanized infantry you begin talking about vehicles that had some ability to defend the troops from attack, ie armor, defensive/offensive weaponry, or even maneuverability of things like helicopters.

    so we could go back to the roots of just what are we talking about to decide on the right name?  Would it be better to try and classify two different types of Infantry units, or as upgrades, or based on national facts of what countries had, or an umbrella-unit that covers something beyond ‘Infantry’?  Germany had more horses in the Polish campaign than trucks to move materials and troops, so a couple units could be represented if more and more detail is desired…

    If it is one new unit that we would be after, I’d still vote in favor of the name ‘mechanized’ because it covers everything up to that while ‘mobile’ would seem to not cover things like half-tracks.

    a degree of mobility of 0 i think technically would be no mobility…  if one asks how much money you have and you say 0, you do not have a degree of money, you have no money, but that’s just my opinion, i could be wrong… :-o


  • @LuckyDay:

    a degree of mobility of 0 i think technically would be no mobility…  if one asks how much money you have and you say 0, you do not have a degree of money, you have no money, but that’s just my opinion, i could be wrong… :-o

    right, and if you were out of a job and had 76 dollars in the bank( you have little wealth like regular infantry has little mobility) you would say I do not have wealth just like regular infantry would say they do not have mobility.

    And I am not saying infantry could not move on there own, in WW2 there are many cases where infantry marched at amazing rates, it is just that they did not march at a rate such that the Militaries of the time thought they should be considered mobile.

    Heinz Guderian was appointed Chief of Mobile Forces in 1938, Mobile in this case meant all panzer, panzer grenadier and motorized divisions(which included halftracks(SdKfs251s) although I do not think any divisions at that time were labeled mechanized just panzer grenadier.

    @LuckyDay:

    so we could go back to the roots of just what are we talking about to decide on the right name?  Would it be better to try and classify two different types of Infantry units, or as upgrades, or based on national facts of what countries had, or an umbrella-unit that covers something beyond ‘Infantry’?  Germany had more horses in the Polish campaign than trucks to move materials and troops, so a couple units could be represented if more and more detail is desired…

    thats an interesting idea, do you care to expand on that? i am just as interested in rules for logistics as new combat units


  • panzer grenadier is armored infantry.

    The Soviets had Guard Mechanized infantry and Guard Mechanized Armor, PLUS plain Mech Infantry

    The Americans mostly had mechanized infantry, but just called it infantry

    Italy had a few Motorized divisions ( very few)

    Germany had Motorized divisions in 1939, but latter called them panzer grenadier ( see point one)

    Japan had nothing as usual.

    NEVER DID anybody use the phrase “motorized infantry” . I have no idea why so many on these forums don’t just call them Mechanized Infantry or Armored infantry


  • @Imperious:

    NEVER DID anybody use the phrase “motorized infantry” . I have no idea why so many on these forums don’t just call them Mechanized Infantry or Armored infantry

    Thats just not true, I have a copy of Panzer Leader in my had, Guderian regularly talks about motoriszed infantry and has many divisions labeled motorized on his maps.
    And many American and British divisions were motorized, infantry is only mechanized when it has halftracks or other armor transporting it, I am pretty sure fare more infantry were transported by truck than halftracks.

  • Moderator

    @Imperious:

    no such thing as ‘mobile infantry’

    :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

    What About Rico’s Roughnecks?

    Are you doing your Part?


  • “the only good bug is a dead bug”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFuaYA-daw

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts