Mixing & matching APCs

[Imp]

Is it done? Some OOBs come with a couple of types in the formation German Marder & Marder+ for example but what about other countries Russia with its variety being a prime example.
Take Russia choose your taxi type BTR BMP or MT-L & keep it in the family so would not apply to most OOBs. Would it now be reasonable to have a couple of types in one Mech Co maybe a 3rd for support elements.
Example using BTRs buying as much to win as anything.
2/3rds 70 or 80s with low penetration gun (+ with GL prefered)
1/3rd 70M or 80As with high penetration gun or even 90- as TI so can lead the way & see whats happening once the dust flies in a fight. What you buy is dictated by opponents taxis as in can you kill it.
Support elements like MGs GLs ATGMs MANPADS could have basic 70, 80 or even 90 though thats a plush ride for them I feel. The rational is its support so stands back therefore the improved fire control keeps it effective & the ATGM covers any surprises.
Same can be done pretty much for BMPs & MT-Ls which makes me think they may mix them a bit.
However I personaly loath AFVs with ATGMs tacked on why not drop him off & resume taxi service? Its nothing to do with cost more the headache of deciding what hes going to be weapon platform or taxi, have found they are quite effective running support around though. A combo of 2 support units & the APC is a good amount of firepower in 1 hex against multiple threats, just dont stay long.
The thing is though is this just a force to win with or does it happen will they field a mix admitedly probably with more ATGM equiped vehicles?

[Wdll]

I guess it depends on your overall strategy and opponents. Can the enemy hit and destroy your more expensive IFV from a large distance and with great efficiency an rate? Do you prefer to have your APCs/IFVs be able to destroy anything larger than the basic APC? It looks like you have answered yourself. If you don't like IFV that can carry ATGMs (I assume typing AFVs is a typo on your behalf), then you might as well go for the cheaper solution and invest the money on other type of units, better infantry or tanks etc.
I like and prefer to use expensive IFVs, but that is not always the best solution. Some times it is better to use a large number of cheap APCs with only a small percentage of IFVs that are used as a backup or there to provide extra attack support if the opportunity arise.
One of my personal favourite units is the BMP-1. Even on it's basic configuration it has good enough Vision, firepower to kill even an enemy tank (but mostly luck against MBT) and better firepower than most Western tanks up to the late 70s-80s. Very good firepower against infantry and against all (or 99.9%) enemy APCs and IFVs.

[Suhiir]

For the most part (due to maintenance/logistic reasons) the military tends not to mix vehicle types in smaller (i.e. platoon and company level) formations. This is not to say it's not done, just rather uncommon (such as the formations Imp pointed out).

In game - do as you like via the editor !

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

For the most part (due to maintenance/logistic reasons) the military tends not to mix vehicle types in smaller (i.e. platoon and company level) formations. This is not to say it's not done, just rather uncommon (such as the formations Imp pointed out).

Generally yes, for logistical reasons, however if I recall corrrectly BMP-1 and BMP-2 were initially mixed; their armaments were sort of complementary and were not too different in terms of spare parts, mobility etc. Same probably apply to some BTRs, I would expect the autocannon armed ones being parceled out as fire support vehicles; again spare parts and mobility would not be too different.

[Imp]

Cheers Marcello think the example was overstating but for front line units will tend to have 2 APC types, same family not mixing BTRs & BMPs but pick 2 with diffrent armament. Still think the majority would be one type with a few "specialist" types in the mix.

[Kartoffel]

"However I personally loath AFVs with ATGMs tacked on"

Agree. I never know what to do with my Bradleys.

Are they long range support or battle taxi? It makes my head hurt thinking about the paradox of a IFV equipped with advanced missile technology , maybe its just me.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

At range, you kill enemy armor, then you close in and unload to clear the mess

[Kartoffel]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

At range, you kill enemy armor, then you close in and unload to clear the mess

If the IFV is in overwatch mode then its not doing its job of dismounted infantry support, at long range the infantry squad cannot reply to the enemy, if the mech squad cannot fire back then you dismounted too soon.

I don't have much expierence with IFV because I don't like them. So I could be wrong.

I'm a boots and tank man, I don't even use SP-arty if I can help it!

Thats why I like medium maps, the smaller size allows me to make good use of foot soldiers with tank support.

[Wdll]

The good thing about IFVs is they can travel over land. Which means you can unload your troops and them move them to a good position for their anti tank capabilities.
But do not treat them as tanks, they will fail.

I prefer to use them as APCs, only that I know they have a much better chance of defending themselves from a tank than almost any APC every could.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

I rather keep my bradleys away from enemy, they're too expensive