stancrist said:

Effectiveness is undoubtedly also very limited, with riflemen being effective at only very short range.

Yes. The rifles are for short range defense. From a moving vehicle 100 m at best and this would be mostly supression fire.

The video you linked is nice but really old. The soldiers at this point are mostly still conscrips. The Puma shown is a early prototype.

stancrist said:

During the Vietnam War, the US Army learned rifle fire is inadequate for mounted combat, so a belt-fed machine gun was installed on each side of the troop hatch.

Intrestingly they removed them later or did never fit them. The M113 used in Europe for example where not equiped like this.

From my point of view its really obvious that a MG is a far better weapon for this use than a rifle.

stancrist said:

Nonsense. If situational awareness were the whole point, that would more efficiently have been achieved by having a 6-man crew. There would be no need to carry any infantrymen in the vehicle.

Again I am talking about the German perspective.
The main point of the Grenadiers really is situational awareness. Aditional eyes and ears. In a small, quiet inconspicuous package. What else would they add to a mechanised formation? Firepowe? Mobility?
Even when they dismount a main purpose is to recon and tell the AFVs where the enemy is at.

stancrist said:

The whole reason for having an infantry team in the vehicle is to be able to conduct infantry operations.

In German doctrine that is not the case. Its all about mechanised operations. Using them like foot infantry would be a waste of resources. What infantry operation should the six dismounts conduct? Yes they can dismount and fight on foot but this is only for short periods and to achieve specific goals. They never venture far from their IFV.

stancrist said:

It's called an Infantry Fighting Vehicle because its sole reason for being is to transport and support infantry.

The term infantry fighting vehicle nowhere has transport and support in it. Its a vehicle that can provide the combat function of infantry to a mechanised formation. For most parts the IFV replaces foot infantry. The dismounts are there to support the IFV which in turn supports the MBTs.

stancrist said:

https://youtu.be/ENipa4fYOSc?t=10

This is a prime example. The Grenadiers are only deployed because there is no other way. They conduct a limited and fast mission on foot. The Marders are allways close by and if possible the AC is used. The dismounts are mostly there to actually find the enemy. As soon as the objective is achieved they mount up and move off.
Just look how little gear the Grenadiers took with them. There are not there for a prolonged fight.
In a larger excercise with combined arms what we see in the video takes way to long. The video is of course cut and only shows parts of what went on but its still six minutes long. Thats a long time.
In the old video you posted one NCO actually says its about working with tanks and speed (2:30).

Sometimes you need light infantry capable of operating independently of their transport and sometimes you need mechanized infantry that is only envisioned to fight alongside it.

With the maturation of non-penetrating autocannon/ATGM RWS, these need not be two distinct formation types any longer as the vehicles can be sized to fit a proper light infantry squad; important in this era of ever shrinking budgets and drives to reduce number and types of formations.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: I would not say that there is a misconception as to what mounted combat really means.

I did not explicit mention it but I was refering to the German use of the word and concept.

Okay.  When you make a general statement about a concept without noting that you're referring only to German usage, it can cause misunderstanding.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: The whole reason for having an infantry team in the vehicle is to be able to conduct infantry operations.

In German doctrine that is not the case. Its all about mechanised operations. Using them like foot infantry would be a waste of resources. What infantry operation should the six dismounts conduct?

They should do whatever infantry operations they are required to do.

schnuersi said:

Yes they can dismount and fight on foot but this is only for short periods and to achieve specific goals. They never venture far from their IFV.

Even when fighting for short periods to achieve specific goals, they are still infantry, conducting infantry operations.

     Operationsart Angriff – Panzergrenadiere der Bundeswehr stoßen vor - YouTube

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: It's called an Infantry Fighting Vehicle because its sole reason for being is to transport and support infantry.

The term infantry fighting vehicle nowhere has transport and support in it.

Heh, heh.  As the term "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" indicates, it is an infantry vehicle.

The IFV incorporates a troop compartment designed specifically to transport infantry.

     https://youtu.be/FAM9y4Rb7gE?t=260

The IFV is equipped with an autocannon to provide direct fire support for its infantry.

     https://youtu.be/FAM9y4Rb7gE?t=345

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said:  https://youtu.be/ENipa4fYOSc?t=10

This is a prime example. The Grenadiers are only deployed because there is no other way. They conduct a limited and fast mission on foot.

Yes, precisely my point.  They are infantrymen conducting an infantry mission.

stancrist said:

they are still infantry, conducting infantry operations.

No they are not. Panzergrenadiere are part of the Gepanzerte Kampftruppen wich can be translated into armored corps. They are not part of the Infantrie Truppen.
Again its funny because in the video this is repeatedly mentioned. As is the focus on mounted combat. The Grenadiers are only deployed to allow the IFV and MBTs save passage trough the woods. There are not there to achieve operational success on their own.

stancrist said:

Heh, heh. As the term "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" indicates, it is an infantry vehicle.

It could also indicate that it is a vehicle intended to fight infantry... :P
Again the German name is different. Its not Infantriekampffahrzeug which would be the literal translation of IFV but Schützenpanzer. Which could be translated as marksman or rifleman tank.

stancrist said:

The IFV is equipped with an autocannon to provide direct fire support for its infantry.

The AC of the Marder and Puma is there to provide fire support to the tanks they operate with.

stancrist said:

Yes, precisely my point. They are infantrymen conducting an infantry mission.

As mentioned above. Grenadiers are not. They are armored vehicle crew fighting on foot, dismounted if required. In this case they do perform tasks which are usually concidered infantry tasks. There are several infantry tasks that Panzergrandiers can not perform or are not effective in. On the other hand there are things Panzergrenadiers are conciderable better in compared to traditional infantry.
There is no distinction made. The entire crew of a Marder or Puma is made up of Grenadiers. All 9 are the crew of their IFV.

Of course someone could argue the difference is minor and mostly about nomenclature but this is not correct. Its only the case at first glance. The doctrine of the Panzergrenadiers is different to mech Inf as practiced by the US Army or the British Army.
The closest thing would be if Jäger, who are infantry in the common sense, would be put into IFVs. The result would be pretty much exactly what we see in the US mech Inf.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: they are still infantry, conducting infantry operations.

No they are not. Panzergrenadiere are part of the Gepanzerte Kampftruppen wich can be translated into armored corps. They are not part of the Infantrie Truppen.

I'm not talking about which corps they are in.  I'm talking about what they do.

schnuersi said:

Again its funny because in the video this is repeatedly mentioned. As is the focus on mounted combat.

What is even funnier is that you keep saying the focus is on mounted combat, but the focus of all these videos is on dismounted combat. 

schnuersi said:

The Grenadiers are only deployed to allow the IFV and MBTs save passage trough the woods. There are not there to achieve operational success on their own.

Of course they're not.  They are operating as part of a combined arms team.  Infantry and armor working together.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Heh, heh. As the term "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" indicates, it is an infantry vehicle.

It could also indicate that it is a vehicle intended to fight infantry... :P

That's clever, but no.  If it were a vehicle intended to fight infantry, the first two words would be hyphenated:  Infantry-Fighting Vehicle.  

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: The IFV is equipped with an autocannon to provide direct fire support for its infantry.

The AC of the Marder and Puma is there to provide fire support to the tanks they operate with.

So a German IFV gunner would not provide fire support for his vehicle's infantry squad???  Wow.

Gunner:  "Sorry, Hans.  I can't put any 20mm into the machine gun that's got you pinned down.  Hauptmann Schnuersi says I can only provide fire support for the tanks.  You guys are on your own."

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Yes, precisely my point. They are infantrymen conducting an infantry mission.

As mentioned above. Grenadiers are not. They are armored vehicle crew fighting on foot...

Illogical statement.  By definition, armored vehicle crewmen do not fight on foot.

schnuersi said:

There is no distinction made. The entire crew of a Marder or Puma is made up of Grenadiers. All 9 are the crew of their IFV.

Also illogical.  The driver, gunner, and commander are the IFV crew.

These other six guys are just passengers.

schnuersi said:

Of course someone could argue the difference is minor and mostly about nomenclature but this is not correct. Its only the case at first glance. The doctrine of the Panzergrenadiers is different to mech Inf as practiced by the US Army or the British Army.

?In my country there is a saying:  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Panzergrenadiers are equipped like US Army mech infantry, and fight on foot like US Army mech infantry.

stancrist said:

What is even funnier is that you keep saying the focus is on mounted combat, but the focus of all these videos is on dismounted combat.

Yes because they are videos to show all sorts of stuff.
Have you ever operated with Panzergrenadiers. Do you now how much time they spend dismounted in relation to the operation or mission time.

stancrist said:

Infantry and armor working together.

Yes but its about the focus.

stancrist said:

So a German IFV gunner would not provide fire support for his vehicle's infantry squad?

That is not the point. Of course he would. As would a tank fire his coax to support Grenadiers that are close by.
The 20 mm AC was selected as weapon because it ideally supplements the MBTs main gun. The AC is good at what a tank gun is bad at and vice versa. It it was about an ideal infantry support gun a different weapon would have been chosen.

stancrist said:

Illogical statement. By definition, armored vehicle crewmen do not fight on foot.

Yes I found it sounded strange as well. But this is the way it is. I don't know how to put it better into words. The Panzergrandier squad has 9 men. Three are on the crewstations of the IFV the other six are in the back. In the official manuals it says: the Panzergrenadier squad consits of nine men. It also states: the main asset of the Panzergrenadier squad is their IFV.
There is no mental or though of barrier separating both. They are two parts of the same combat element.
This is different with Jägers and their mountain climbing and plane jumping cousins. Their APC is just that an APC.

stancrist said:

?In my country there is a saying: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Well in this analogy: They are a different kind of duck that might be mistaken for a normal duck if one doesn't look and listen very closly.

stancrist said:

Panzergrenadiers are equipped like US Army mech infantry, and fight on foot like US Army mech infantry.

Well they are organised differently. The idea to spread squads into different vehicles is completly alien to Panzergrenadiers for example. Its not even possible to them because the vehicle is part of the squad.

schnuersi said:

Have you ever operated with Panzergrenadiers. Do you now how much time they spend dismounted in relation to the operation or mission time.

No.  And no.  Does it matter?

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Illogical statement. By definition, armored vehicle crewmen do not fight on foot.

Yes I found it sounded strange as well. But this is the way it is. I don't know how to put it better into words. The Panzergrandier squad has 9 men. Three are on the crewstations of the IFV the other six are in the back. In the official manuals it says: the Panzergrenadier squad consits of nine men.

Ah, I see.  "The squad consists of nine men" is quite different than what you said: "Grenadiers are armored vehicle crew fighting on foot."

Just because all nine men are in the same squad, does not mean they are all vehicle crewmen.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: In my country there is a saying: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Well in this analogy: They are a different kind of duck that might be mistaken for a normal duck if one doesn't look and listen very closly.

       stancrist said: Panzergrenadiers are equipped like US Army mech infantry, and fight on foot like US Army mech infantry.

Well they are organised differently.

Well, despite the differences, a duck is still a duck, and mech infantry is still mech infantry.

Everything I've seen -- including the video you linked earlier -- shows Panzergrenadier dismounts are equipped and train to fight pretty much like US mech infantry.

stancrist said:

Does it matter?

Maybe. It gives a feeling for how they work and how their doctrine materialises.

stancrist said:

verything I've seen -- including the video you linked earlier -- shows Panzergrenadier dismounts are equipped and train to fight pretty much like US mech infantry.

If we ignore the squads spread over several vehicles thing its propably true on the small unit and tactical level. The differences are minor.
But the fact that the dismount squad organisation and the vehicle squad organisation are divergent and so a platoon is actually two platoons with on transporting the other at times shows a difference in mindset IMHO. With the Panzergrenadiers mounted and dismounted, IFV and dismounts are not seen as different parts or being in competition to one anther. Which from what I have read and heard about and from members of mech inf of other nations is the case there. Same is the extreme emphasis on speed on mobility. Panzergrenadiers lack the take and hold ground mentality most infantry outfits show. They have a comparable drive forward and agressiveness as MBT equiped armor units. Which includes the willingness to ignore and bypass the enemy if he is not interfering with the operational goals.
From the view of a tanker this results in very noticable differences. Basically only Panzergrenadiers as mech Inf in an extreme form are able to keep up. The chances is high that there are where they should be when needed. This is usually not the case with other infantry types regardless of mode of transport. This leads to the tank spearhead loosing his infantry support which can quickly jeopadise the success of the operation.