Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry

Well, I get your point, but what about this conclusion?

The conclusion should be that mechanized weapons are evil, they gave the Germans the ability to take over whole countries in a few days.

While if we had an all infantry doctrine in our military forces, their capabilities would be limited and so their ability to do wrong things...

You always think like "we can do it, so let's do it." and if we ask why, you tell us "or our enemies would do it first and then we would be toast..."

All these big weapons arent made for defense, for justice or anything good and constructive, they are made to give a few the ability to kill the many.

And there you have it, dictatorship.

I just hope that someday there will be a technological revolution that would make tanks and other aircrafts obsolete...
Like some awesome light anti-armor weapons and man portable detection/target acquisition tools and anti-air missiles...

Then, maybe that our bright military minds will think that these death machines are useless...
And then they will start training people and preparing them to defend their own lives rather than to count on professional soldiers/officiers like the knights/lords in medieval times...

I personnally loved the crossbow... Gave the peasants the ability to kill a heavy armored noble... Aint that democracy?
But now, some fools made armored vehicules and machine guns... Then we had god damn genocides...
 
Last edited:
You add absolutely nothing to this forum but trash. You go completely off topic on every thread that you touch. I think you are bitter because you are too much of a coward to join the armed forces or Jihad so you try to twist everything "military" into some form of evil taboo. Go back to that closet that your parents locked you in as a child....it's safer there. Crossbows? Really? Being anti military is fine, but at least use some common ****ing sense.

"I just hope that someday there will be a technological revolution that would make tanks and other aircrafts obsolete...
Like some awesome light anti-armor weapons and man portable detection/target acquisition tools and anti-air missiles..."

We are going to be fighting with lightsabers, laser pistols, and photon torpedos right?
 
Last edited:
"I just hope that someday there will be a technological revolution that would make tanks and other aircrafts obsolete...
Like some awesome light anti-armor weapons and man portable detection/target acquisition tools and anti-air missiles... "



The race between protection and fire power has been going on for thousands of years, and will probably not end for many more, new protection systems last till a new weapon is introduced that can defeat them, only to be followed in some case by the opposite.

And the technologies of warfare have evolved with them, there are whole industries that are centered around that simple delema all around the world, I don't see the disappearance of mechanized forces any time soon, and if so, I would hate to see the devastating replacing combat units and the tools they would use to replace them.

As for anything else, I will comment on the topic here but not get all tangled in philosophy, even though it's what this thread must be about? .....wait?....Is it?

I mean there is a lot of mentioning of human existence and nature? And its easy to see that when asking a simple preference question you must brush the dust off the books of reason and yore and quote famous philosophers and have to wage a holy battle for our reason of exsistance when in simple eveyday discussions.

I had to do that this morning when discussing what style of syrup or glue I like to chug for money in city parks...
 
Last edited:
Big_Z, you are very limited in the way you see things.

There is many people who speak about nuclear weapons saying that they are too powerful and that mankind shouldnt have taken that path.

Why cant we say the same about tanks? Or about machine guns? or about artillery?

And I'm bored with the easy answers.

One will say "armor cant cross mountains, but a soldier on foot can..." yeah sure... What else?

And the other, give us the obvious answer. "I love armored vehicules, they can carry heavy things like big weapons, and I dont like to walk carrying tons of equipment. And I like to go to war and feel safe behind a steel wall, so I can shoot my enemies without giving them a chance to kill me."

What a retarded answer... Go say that to a French soldier in WWII when he had German tanks rushing toward him...

Today, you have armor as an advantage for you. But what if tomorrow some enemy comes rolling in your back yard with better armored vehicules?

Then, your opinion will change...

Call me a coward if you want, like I care. You are silly.

You are the coward here. You refuse to think, you are scared of the world. It's easy to be brave inside a tank or inside some stealth bomber...

And Yossarian, it's never a bad moment to pull out dusty philosophy books...

War does not determine who is right, only who is left.
George Bernard Shaw

The religious nut jobs who say that only god gives victory are wiser than these heartless technicians we use today in warfare.

You are so focus on how to wage war that your forget about the why, the when, the against who and how to tell if it was done right...
 
"Big_Z, you are very limited in the way you see things. "

Okay, your not talking to the folks that deal with things like this everyday, your the all knowing god that descended from the heavens, oh master of intellect, sent to educate all the servicemen and women of the various infantry units, of past and still serving and training and fighting today on everything they thought they knew, cause surely they must be oblivious to modern military tactics and unit composition, and all the hours they must have spent training and working and fighting in those fields must have not left the slightest impression on them, since you must be the reincarnation of every philosophical and military genious all rolled up into one wise body, and are here to re educate the professionals about EVERYTHING. Because they must certainly all be utterly clueless about their jobs and doctrine there of, you certainly must be more qualified then them...

You certainly have more wind, I can say that.
 
Yossarian, think carefully.
We are not talking about military tactics here. I'm talking about the military opinions...

It's fine if you have a hammer, but if you start to see nails everywhere, then you have a problem...

Military training can prepare you for warfare, but I doesnt make you a scientist, a surgeon or a philosopher.
If I show you how to use a rifle, you will be a man capable of using a rifle. It wont make you a military thinker.

And I'm sorry, but respect for the service men/women is one thing... But damn man, they are not holy cows we cant contradict or oppose... They are just men and women.

I dont like all these all mighty war machines... They are a source of corruption for mankind.

I prefer to trust defense maters to strong men with light and accurate weapons and use human intelligence... than to put these strong men in bed with industrial SOBs and their silly products...
 
People, let's remember the tile and theme of this thread:
Duty said:
Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry

Which do people prefer, light or mech?
Click to expand...

nothing else. This is not an argument about which is better in what role or task. Which do you prefer. That's all. Period, end of story.
 
Last edited:
I prefer light infantry.
Light infantry base its skills on a human factor. They are REALLY on the ground, they can speak with locals, and the locals can put a face, a voice on the military presence in the area.
They carry light weapons so their firepower is limited.

While mechanized units use big scary weapon platforms. They cost tons of resources. They are a really symbol of the war of the rich against the poor...
They are fast, and it means that they can come fast and run away fast to let civilians behind to live with the wrongdoers.
And if people with bad intents get their hands on these tools, it would be a real nightmare to take them out.
 
I have served in both and I definitely prefer Mechanized. It is not as physically tough as light infantry. Ironic really that we call it light when actually the individual soldier has to carry much more and heavier loads than other units. Everything you need to fight and survive you must carry yourself which is relatively hard (especially when you also need to have a lot of water with you) if you’re not in top condition.

Personally I’m happy for the protection that an APC, after all, gives you. And one great advantage is that there is air-condition in some vehicles which makes you feel refreshed and ready if you come in TIC.

But; I prefer to be where I am now; in recce.
 
Isn´t this more of a question about terrain? Light infantry is better in specific areas. An example, the operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. In the mountainous areas, the light infantry has an advantage, even in tropical and urban areas. In urban areas, the IFVs and MBTs can provide fire support. Like they did in Faludja, when the Marines went in after the killing of four PMCs. The mech units are better for the terrain there they can use their IFVs and the MBTs. Such as the two gulf wars. Both are good, it all depends what the mission is and where it is.

Take care,

Ghostrider,
 
Ghostrider; The question was what people preferred.
And since I'm lazy by nature, I prefer to drive rather than walk. :wink:
 
I prefer both, depends where they are, what they shall do. Both are good for their specific tasks. But its easier to drive than walk

take care,

Ghostrider,
 
Just because you are mounted doesnt mean you don't dismount at times. It is entirely possible to travel to a area mounted and then dismount once you get there. Your vehicles are used as heavy weapon systems platforms and as covering/supression pieces. You don't "hide out" in your armor if your objectives demand you go to foot. It is a little more complicated then that. Personal courage has absolutely NOTHING to do with being mounted or dismounted. It is the capabilities that mounted brings to the table.

*cough* Striker brigades *cough*
 
Last edited:
Big_Z said:
Just because you are mounted doesnt mean you don't dismount at times. It is entirely possible to travel to a area mounted and then dismount once you get there. Your vehicles are used as heavy weapon systems platforms and as covering/supression pieces.
Click to expand...

I think the question is, would you rather march a hundred miles to get to the foot of the said mountain range or would you rather ride? :lol:
 
Yeah, I do think it's ridiculous to call people cowards because they have heavy armor to protect them.

In fact, I'm thinking about the worst scenario. You guys understand very well the capabilities of armor and heavy weapons... Okay.
And then you understand very well the advantages these "tools" can give YOU.

But what if we switch the roles. You are the ones with light weapons and the enemy you will have to face got armor.

These same advantages can be used against you...

Everybody loves to have heavy weapons... That's not a revolutionary opinion.

Think about the Allies and their first tanks on the battlefield... A few years later, the Germans were rushing them with Blitzkrieg tactics...

Think about some crazy **** happening in the next few years... And Taliban troops taking Asia riding superior armor...

Call it impossible... I dare you.
 
Last edited:
It's seems to make perfect sense, the mechanized forces of today, mimic in some ways the horseback calvary of the days of yore, at the same time, I don't know if it's a factor or not, but reasoning that fighting on the plains of Europe and rolling along towards the fight is one thing.

But fighting in urban areas, wouldn't it make perfect sense to have the mechanized infantry dismount to cover the vehicles that support them? This shows a interdependence thats easy to point out, the infantry on foot have the heavy fire power with them, and can mark targets with even a standard Mk. I eyeball for the heavy guns. Likewise the vehicles have the eyes and mobility of the legborne troops to counter threats in buildings and other urban structures, can even clear threats from them.

It seems like sending a mechanized force alone into a heavily urban area would be throwing tax dollars away, a slow moving hulk moving with very restricted mobility and ability to detect and identify targets alone takes away their biggest strengths and plays it against them :/ Allowing a much less developed fighting force the advantage of a little more level playing field, especially if they are the defending force.

Good thing it would seem about regular infantry is, well cost, and the lack of the support crews needed to insure the vehicles are working properly.

Benefits are still obvious however, mechanized can bring more brunt to bare, and go farther faster.

(That's just my observation, and I in no way support this or my post as a first hand or professional opinion.)
 
Last edited:
Throw away mechs! Throw away light! Bring in Iron Man!
Like the marine in Starcraft 2 said, "Hell, it's about time"

Just kidding
If I purely base my opinions and emotions on this thread, then I prefer mech. Good old firepower, armor. However, if I judge by facts, then it's impossible to say which.
 
I've talked to some who believe there is not enough dismounting.
Guys are riding about in potential wheeled coffins.

I think you need the mech stuff for traveling to and from today's large AOs, but the key is to dismount, engage, and pursue.
Mu time was all jungle and we had no transport in my AO except medivacs.
In the areas they used APCs everybody sat on top as it was too dangerous to be inside with all the ammo and ordnance.
 
IMHO. I'd rather hump 80 lbs 20 miles than ride 5 in an RPG magnet. But thats a phobia of mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top