A general problem exists, and I'll try to illustrate this with a scenario.Originally Posted by gute
A heavy brigade moves through a country such as let's say Belarus. The route has alternately agricultural areas and forests on the roadside.
The brigade approaches a forest that it's supposed to cross ASAP, the vanguard troops are being ambushed in the forest after the recce troops easily slipped through.
The first attempt to move through the forest with tanks fails, and the brigade commander suspects a well-equipped and competent enemy infantry company along the forest road.
His infantry dismounts; four companies, in theory 400 men, but in reality only a few more than 300.
Artillery, mortars and infantry attempt to break through, but the effort is slow because at most two tanks can support the infantry on the narrow road and it's indeed fighting against a strong infantry company.
Finally, the dismounts barely overwhelm the enemy company thanks to the expenditure of a good share of the artillery and mortar ammunition, but they're reduced to only a few more than 200 capable infantrymen. Several IFVs were lost as well.
Next forest the same, except that this time there's not enough infantry left to meet the challenge. The brigade commander is forced to report that he's unable to execute his mission because two infantry companies were enough to stop his heavy (mech or whatever) brigade.
In the end, the operational commander accepts that the infantry element of his heavy brigades is too weak and restricts their movement to open terrain where their routes are longer, their observation easier and their routes more predictable. 0:1 for the enemy.
No matter how the brigades are being organized - there won't be enough infantry for anything but desert or open plains warfare if all infantry rides in IFVs.
Bookmarks