I have seen a couple of discussions on Mechanized Infantry and how useless (in the game) they are.
1. Why was there Mechanized Infantry?
By WW2, if tanks attacked without infantry support, they were often slaughtered. (Try driving off-road with all your windows covered, except a 10"x2" strip. Now imagined people shooting at you as you drive by. Since infantry could not keep up with armour, Mechanized infantry was developed to keep up with the tanks (Most infantry rode in trains, rode in wagons, or walked). The purpose of Mechanized infantry is not to fight the enemy. Their purpose is to protect the tanks so the tanks can fight the enemy. (Mobile artillery (tracked) was developed for the same reason). Mech Infantry were on tracked vehicles. Motorized Infantry (mainly US and Britain) were in trucks. They were to just fight as regular infantry, not keep up with the tanks.
2. Axis & Allies Application:
Mechanized infantry should be mainly support units (like artillery). Example (6-sided die) (benefits are cumulative):
Interesting evaluation. I guess I've been letting realism slide in my thinking since there are so many such issues. You make a good case here.
In many games, it is a goal to keep the unit type count to a minimum though, so adding three similar units might be unappealing. For a simple game, maybe the three types can be combined into one. Another unit not much accounted for is mobile AA. Weren't these used as anti-tank in a pinch?
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable