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.

schnuersi said:

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.

Concur.

schnuersi said:

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.

Why would the IFV crew and the infantry team see themselves in competition with each other?  Their functions are different and complementary, not competitive.

schnuersi said:

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.

Such a loss of infantry support seems to me to be a leadership failure, not an organizational issue.

stancrist said:

Why would the IFV crew and the infantry team see themselves in competition with each other? Their functions are different and complementary, not competitive.

I agree. Never the less I have heard and read it.
IMHO its from the fact that the dismounts and the vehicle crew are not fully accepted by one another. They do not seem semself as part of one larger organism. Its us an them. Wich as far as I can tell comes from things like different training facilities and routes and lack of esprit de corpse. Or better false esprit de corps. The dismounts think of themself as infantry doing things the infantry way. The IFV crew thinks of themself as (light) armor doing things the armor way.
The strange organisation with platoons spreading the dismount squads over vehicles and the vehicles though of as their own squad seems to be a manifestation of this.

stancrist said:

Such a loss of infantry support seems to me to be a leadership failure, not an organizational issue.

And what should the leader of a tank compay or batallion do? Dismount get out the wip and force the dismounted infantry men back into their transports?
Its mostly about incompatability of doctrin and "the way we do things". Infantry is notoriously bad at in depth manoeuver warfare. They don't train it, they don't think that way. You can not really blame them for not being good at it. They are good at other things.
Hence Panzergrenadiers. Who are specialised for this type of warfare just like tanks are. They are pretty bad at a lot if not most traditional infantry tasks though.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Such a loss of infantry support seems to me to be a leadership failure, not an organizational issue.

And what should the leader of a tank compay or batallion do? Dismount get out the wip and force the dismounted infantry men back into their transports?

Hahahahaha.  Too funny.  Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

But to answer your question, the overall commander of a combined arms force should make it clear to the infantry battalion and company commanders that their units will bypass the enemy as required and keep up with the tanks.

schnuersi said:

Its mostly about incompatability of doctrin and "the way we do things". Infantry is notoriously bad at in depth manoeuver warfare. They don't train it, they don't think that way.

Perhaps you're right.  It occurs to me that may be why the Army created Armored Brigade Combat Teams, with tank and infantry companies in the same battalion.

stancrist said:

But to answer your question, the overall commander of a combined arms force should make it clear to the infantry battalion and company commanders that their units will bypass the enemy as required and keep up with the tanks.

Certainly. But since when does anything in combat (or a training excercise) work as planned.

stancrist said:

It occurs to me that may be why the Army created Armored Brigade Combat Teams, with tank and infantry companies in the same battalion.

Personally I think that mixed combined arms batallions for a manoeuver force are a good idea. In practice the battalions of a brigade would be mixed and matched anyways to create combined arms battlegroups. Why not make this a permanent thing.
In the past the German Army also had such mixed batallions but these have been dissolved after the End of the Cold War.

As far as I can tell one source of the problem could be how the training is organised. From the information I have it seems that the IFV crews and dismounts are trained in different schools. Not inside their partent unit. It also seems like cross training is limited. This is different with in the German Army in general. With the Panzergrenadiers every one got the same basic training. They also all get basic training on the vehicle an its opperation. After that the main function for the near future of a soldier is determined. Usually by ability and talent. There can be and usually are changes over time. This is why in several of the videos that have been posted here the soldiers say things like: "currently i am assigned the function of gunner". It seems that this lower level integration is one of the keys.

The Polish Borsuk sure looks handsome , i imagine much of the shape is dictated by amphibious requrement . Here side by side with Bradely , i always taought Borsuk is a small IFV but it looks like Bradley sized, probably its small only in comparison to KF41 and  AS-21

Boxy bow to add floatation  volume to the front end.