1. Infantry take and hold territory through which tanks have been. In this role, it is the infantry's duty to mop up any remaining resistance in the area that the tanks chose to ignore. During the German Blitzkriegs, this was the primary responsibility of mechanized infantry units.
That is not support, that is another role for the infantry. The infantry designated to hold territory lagged well behind the tanks. Support occurs in the battlefield.
2. To protect the armored units from enemy infantry, who could swarm and attack them. This was the role they were needed for most in WWI.
Swarm tactics are *worthless* against modern tanks. Rather its 1 guy with an AT-weapon that ruins the parade. I mean seriously what do you think is going to happen if a bunch of soldiers with assault rifles attack an M1? I don't care if you have 1000 guys, unless they can break the armor, swarm tactics are worthless. Yes infantry can do nasty things to tanks at close range, however few if any of those things require swarming.
Here are some
real reasons infantry support tanks in the real world:
1. Infantry are more mobile and can ferret out hidden AT weapons. In the desert and on plains this is not that big of a role, but go to rugged terrain or in urban combat its huge. One man with a missile launcher can blow through a tank, he can hide in a gully or in underbrush until the tanks are in front of him, and then fire. There are places infantry can go that tanks can't, but the infantry can still get good shots at tanks.
2. AA support. Most tanks do not have excessive AA capabilities. Send a few mech infantry along who carry some Stingers (or analogues) will *dramatically* increase your survival time. If your only heavy guns are coming from armor, its best if they can concentrate on their task and not have do double duty with AA also.
3. Close combat support. Most tanks, when buttoned up, do not have particularly great capabilities at close range. While the infantry can't kill a tank with basic weapons, he can impair its ability to function. There are a helluvalot of things that have to be external on armor that infantry can screw. For instance tanks have scopes used to target ... a well placed grenade ... even paint can render them inoperable (think Ewoks and AT-ST's), likewise you can do fun things with exhaust ports (like set the engine on fire), external radio equipment, sometimes even tracks and secondary weapons.
4. More eyes. In armored vehicles you only have a few people looking around and they have rather limited view. Deploying some infantry behind you and to the flanks gives you much better chances of stopping someone before they kill you.
The Rebel infantry obviously did not have much of a chance to engage AT-AT walkers in areas that they could surround them, until the Imperial forces penetrated the defensive perimeter.
Infantry does not need to surround AT-ATs. A couple of shots to the viewports with some industrial strength black paint and the like will seriously screw their day. One or two guys underneath with a penetrator can wreak havoc. Some mech infantry with wrapping capables could likely do the same thing as snowspeeders.
Luke, here, was the exception. He was there more or less by accident, and he was really the only rebel who had the capability of knocking down an AT-AT by himself (no one else had a lightsaber, a magnetic grappling hook, and a concussion grenade in the same package).
Good soldiers do not assume the enemy doesn't have something. If the enemy could have it, it's best to assume he does until you learn otherwise. Further it would not take a lightsaber, a magnetic grappling hook, and a concussion grenade. It would take some type of penetrator and possibly a an explosive charge on the penetrator. Given the apparant thickness of the armor a good KEM or HE would be able to displace the armor.
But in any event you don't need to blow the thing up to render it inoperable ... black the viewports, destroy/block the radios, etc. All of this crud would have made the Imps lose at Hoth and without close support all the rebels have to do is hide and come from behind.
Luke was alse in the right position to knock out the walker because he was shot down and happened to be one of the few rebels who made it to Imperial lines.
Lol whatever. Have you ever heard of Airborne Infantry? From paratroopers to dopes on a rope you can quite easily get infantry under there in appreciable numbers. Further given that *NO* gun at Hoth is pointed backwards (nor even has the ability to quickly point backwards) you can easily bring infantry in from behind. Most Rebel troops didn't break Imperial lines because they were too busy running away. Worse tactics by the rebs does not excuse poor tactics by the imps.
Now, the rest of the Rebel infantry really did not have much of a chance to hurt walkers. Their weapons were too weak to penetrate the AT-AT's armor, unless they happened to be in the right place at the right time, which was unlikely.
Famous last words. Look if the rebs were good at ground tactics, they'd have deployed dedicated AT troops. Guys who hid and wait for the imps to pass by them and then come up from the side or behind. The fact that Luke was able to *scale* an AT-AT, blow the thing up, and then make it back to the fighters without being killed shows that close fire capabalities during the Imperial assualt sucked ass. Do you know what happens if a guy climbs ontop of a MBT today? Infantry, or even another tank with a machine gun riddle's his ass with bullets. Tanks are bullet proof, infantry on them are not. During his entire trip up, down, and away Luke is not even *shot at*.
Look at the real world. Few weapons today can get through the frontal armor of the M1 series (even their own guns don't break through). So AT infantry makes a *habit* of getting to the right place with the right weapon. Currently side attack is preferred. This is why you normally deploy troops behind the tanks and back v'ing into the flanks ... so enemy infantry can't be in the right place at the right time.
Even the snowspeeders were only capable of disabling walkers through a tactic that most of the AT-AT drivers were unaware of, as their blasters could not penetrate walker armor unless they were given an uncontested shot to the neck area, which is the least heavily armored area of the entire walker, and is usually well protected by the weapons on the "head" section of the walker.
Again you don't need to kill the thing to screw it up. Just charring the glass on the viewport would do nicely.
1. Imperial infantry is vulnerable to weapons that cannot harm AT-AT's, except in huge quantities. Deploying ground forces earlier would have forced the Imperials to accept additional casualties to their ground forces, which were unecessary.
And yet how many walkers did they lose? Walkers which were loaded with infantry *in transport*. All because the imps had jack didly squat for AA. This is why you deploy infantry back of tanks for assualts. The infantry would have riddled Luke with bullets, killed snowspeeders in *highly* predictable flight paths, etc. In all the Imps lost more people when the AT-AT's died than had they sensibly deployed ground troops.
2. More importantly, infantry would have slowed the walkers down. If the walkers had been forced to wait for the infantry to support them, they would have given the Rebels even more time to completely evacuate the base. Vader wanted to capture Luke on the ground, if possible. His secondary objective was to destroy as much Alliance equipment as possible.
2 word answer:
mech infantry
I understand that infantry move slower, this is why you use IVF's and APC's. Further some units, like snipers, AA infantry do not need to keep up. You deploy them back and the shoot forward.
3. Infantry was more or less unecessary for the mission to take place. The objective was simply to knock out the shield generator. Infantry were unecessary for this role. The goal was that the AT-AT's would rush the generator and destroy it. Any walkers sacrificed along the way were expendable. I really don't think you understand the fundamentals of the battle from the Imperial perspective.
I don't think you understand the fundementals of battle, period, so we're even
In order to hit the sheild generator you need to have *working* AT-AT's. If infantry takes out your targeting mechanisms ... you *fail*. If the rebs had dedicated AT infantry they could have easily canned the entire assualt force. The only reason poor imperial tactics prevailed is the rebs were worse. Its cannon fact that low flying air units in predictable flight paths killed walkers, its cannon fact that properly armed infantry can kill walkers. The only saving grace is that rebel pilots were idiots (gee rather than make our attack runs from *behind* the walker and not fly into a cross fire ... let's fly directly between two guns) and the rebel infantry sucks majorly. With compotent Rebel tactics the mission would have *failed*.
4. Walkers can protect themselves reasonably well against most attacks by small atmospheric fighters. The walkers that were sacrificed to the Rebel speeder attacks should have been considered acceptable losses, so long as the main objective of destroying the shield generator was carried out.
BS. AT-AT's have a max of 4-5 steridians of range. They cannot shoot on an excessive downward (nor upward apparently) angle and they have *nothing* gunning rearward. If the reb's speeders were compotent they'd have made those long, basically straight attack runs from the *rear* and not have flown right into a crossfire. AT-AT's have
*PATHETIC* AA abilities.
Poor tactics on their part are not justified by even more pathetic tactics on the rebels' part.
Thus, you are correct in that the Battle of Hoth was poor on the Imperial's part if their objective was to overwhelm rebel lines without incurring casualties among their armored units. You are incorrect if you are saying that they should not have tolerated those additional casualties. They should have taken the hit in order to hit the Rebels harder. You are correct tactically, but incorrect strategically.
BS. If the rebels had compotent infantry, air support, and tactics they would have made mince meat out of the Imps. Instead their infantry displays *rank* stupidity (our guns have *no* effect against AT-AT armor, so let's keep firing so they have an easier time shooting us) and their pilots all manage to get shot down by an enemy who can't even protect his backside. Compotent enemies would have resulted in the sheild generator not going down.
It's like the Gulf War. We'd never have had such great success if the Iraqis weren't so incompotent/demoralized. Just because you got *DAMN LUCKY* with PATHETIC opponents does not mean you are the epitomy of soldiering.
Another thing to ponder, Tharkun and Commander LeoRo, was my theory stated earlier (and I am not the only person to put forward this theory) is that the Empire, since it is normally in total command of the skies and usually has a superior advantage in men & materiel, would neglect portable AA mounts. But against Star Trek's demontrated tactical ineptness, every Stormtrooper is a Patton in comparison.
If they do that, then they are stupid. The US will acheive air superiority against any tin pot dictator in the world. Do they neglect mounted AA units? Nope. Because you might get surprised, someone might sabotage your airfeilds, OPEC might make the fuel supply dry up (as in halt production, not embargo and scale back production), etc. Given the existance of theatre sheilds, the only reason to ignore AA is stupidity.
While it is known that the Rebels have a small air/space force, it is tiny and most Imperial commanders seem to feel that it is insignificant. In fact, this is a recurring error in their strategic philosophy and borne primarily of arrogance rather than a lack of available equipment. Part of this may be political-- they do not want to make the apperaance of fearing the rebel air/space forces. We see the results of this error in each of the movies, in fact. [/i]
This is called politics. Politics does not make you a better soldier, hell in Vietnam very good soldiers became poor soldiers due to political restrictions. Arrogance is one of the primary killers on the battlefield, the "epitomy" of soldiers would not be that damn arrogant (and yes I don't think US spec forces are the epitomy of soldiers for just that reason).
Well stated argument Tharkun. I completely agree. What do you think the reason is that in sci fi ground combat is usually severely overlooked?
The same reasons that science is overlooked:
1. Budget. Being realistic costs money. What's cheaper a bunch of Klingons charging like Vikings across the sand or a group of people fighting over 100 m apart with HMG's, mortar's air support, artillery, tanks, etc? So first off Klingons are cheap, real soldiers (and the needed scale, scope, and FX's) are not.
2. Lack of experience among the writers, set/prop designors, actors, etc. Too many of the people who do the actual work in Hollywood know nothing about basic things like guns (TNG phasers, give me a break ... I'd bend and rewire the thing if I was issued one), tactics, battlefeild movement, etc. Major military flicks that even try to do it right hire so many consultants its not funny. When you are running something like Star Trek you just don't have those people; too many literature majors, not enough people who know how the basics work.
3. Entertainment value. This is particularly bad in the shows that decide to go after the rock-em, sock-em crowd. A realistic ground battle looks like crap, its a bunch of guys hunkered down trying not to let their asses show, and shooting hoping to kill somebody else who is barely looks human at the typical ranges of engagement. Fist fights and using your phaser as a club are better eye candy than real warfare.
4. Plot shenanigans. For instance when the Scout Trooper goes up to Han a real soldier would stun first and ask questions later. Likewise if you have what 4 scouts and two enemies with the mobility to catch you, you'd split up and head off in 4 different directions. However then there would be no point to having the scene. So realism in ground combat is often sacrificed for the sake of plot.
The Stormtroopers aren't all they are hyped up to be. They are impressive, if they have an overwhelming numbers adavantage though.
