Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry

Small deployable systems like Dragon Eye( I think that's the name)? I seen one at a demonstration out of HAAF before, small collapsible and man portable, hooks right up with a laptop manned by a easy to use interface that can be quickly picked up on in the field, and it only require one U.S. army Specialist plus equipment to use.

Gone to air shows and such as well, there are UAVs on evey level of unit size, well available for every unit size, the acquisition and funding for them to be deployed is all politics however.
 
Light infantry and mechanized infantry serve different purposes... Light infantry is primarily used for quick insertions and retrievals. When you need to be light, quick, undetected and need only to transverse small distances you need light infantry but when you want to bring quick, overwhelming, decisive force upon long range target you need a mechanized infantry... Both serve different purposes and it all depends on the type of mission and if the mission requires quickness and firepower(mechanized infantry) and if mission requires small force signature and less detectability(light infantry)
 
Yossarian said:
Small deployable systems like Dragon Eye( I think that's the name)? I seen one at a demonstration out of HAAF before, small collapsible and man portable, hooks right up with a laptop manned by a easy to use interface that can be quickly picked up on in the field, and it only require one U.S. army Specialist plus equipment to use.

Gone to air shows and such as well, there are UAVs on evey level of unit size, well available for every unit size, the acquisition and funding for them to be deployed is all politics however.
Click to expand...


Damn it! I screwed up. I thought I had a good idea here. You are the professionals here, I am not.

I am reading a lot. However, it seems I do not read enough. Sorry guys, I am a civilian. I read the theory, but I am not working with the empirical reality as all of you do. This will happen again, I guess. I really like when you are correcting me. I will check out if I can use this information in my line of work.

Thanks, I really appreciate this.

G
 
Ghostrider said:
I thought I had a good idea about the future for the infantry, the small UAVs to support the infantry, but apperently it was not the future. It is the reality today, and becouse I did not know that, I screwed up.

G
Click to expand...

He he he! Well, better luck next time.

Maybe you can invent a Swedish beer that actually tastes like beer.
Drinking Swedish beer is like making love in a canoe!
:cheers:
 
Last edited:
GHR said:
He he he! Well, better luck next time.

Maybe you can invent a Swedish beer that actually tastes like beer.
Drinking Swedish beer is like making love in a canoe!
:cheers:
Click to expand...

I can get down to Pakistan and catch Osama bin Laden, I can solve the problem between Isreal/Palestine, and the other neighboring states. I can solve the issue on the Korean peninsula. But, I can never ever invent a Swedish beer that taste as a beer. That would be a mission impossible.

Therefore, I am drinking Danish beer (Carlsberg), German beer (Warsteiner), and beer from the Czech Rep. The Staropromen or how in hell they are spelling it.

G
 
tomtom22 said:
People, let's remember the tile and theme of this thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duty, Honor Country
Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry

Which do people prefer, light or mech?


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.
Click to expand...

From this point on, anyone who doesn't follow orders gets zapped.

UNDERSTOOD?
 
Well, one more thing, light infantry can "settle" in the area. Live with the locals...

While if they are carrying something bigger than rifles and light weapons, like trucks, IFVs, even heavily armed Humvees... They will have to "store" these vehicles in bases, with equipment and specialized personnel to maintain these weapons and vehicles in combat readiness...

And this makes the populations/areas/objectives to protect far from the units supposed to defend them...

Some believe that all this hardware can make them better warriors, but it's not the case. this is wrong thinking...

If anything, the equipment puts a huge gap between the people we are supposed to help (like the poor people of Afghanistan) and the sophisticated professionals supposed to help them...

And we are already going down because of this arrogance fed by our industrial/financial might... We are crashing, so sure that we are the real deal because we have big weapons... But from a civilization point of view, we are in a very bad shape...

We dont need big weapons, we need warriors. Boots on the ground, boots on the ground all the way...
 
LeMask said:
Well, one more thing, light infantry can "settle" in the area. Live with the locals...

While if they are carrying something bigger than rifles and light weapons, like trucks, IFVs, even heavily armed Humvees... They will have to "store" these vehicles in bases, with equipment and specialized personnel to maintain these weapons and vehicles in combat readiness...

And this makes the populations/areas/objectives to protect far from the units supposed to defend them...

Some believe that all this hardware can make them better warriors, but it's not the case. this is wrong thinking...

If anything, the equipment puts a huge gap between the people we are supposed to help (like the poor people of Afghanistan) and the sophisticated professionals supposed to help them...

And we are already going down because of this arrogance fed by our industrial/financial might... We are crashing, so sure that we are the real deal because we have big weapons... But from a civilization point of view, we are in a very bad shape...

We dont need big weapons, we need warriors. Boots on the ground, boots on the ground all the way...
Click to expand...

Long story short, like how after awhile in Iraq for instance, Abrams tanks were removed from the streets in order not to send the message that things were getting worse, not better, if you need tanks instead of lighter strikers, then obviously things are not so under control are they?
 
Last edited:
Well, this thread is really going into a philosophical point, isn't it? About international finance, industrial capacity, etc...
LeMask, I totally disagree with you. Human's industrial, financial capacity is too big to blow unless there's a nuclear war (highly unlikely). History demonstrates it. Also, for your reason that mech is worse than light infantry is that there's no personal contact and that they need to be "stored" and maintained, I do agree with you on the maintainance part. However, in a war, you don't need contact with locals. For example, like the Bltizkrieg in France in WWII. However, in an Afghanistan-style war, where you need to help rebuild a nation, I totally agree with you that light will be way better. Also, if the nation's population had little contact with current technology, they will be disturbed by the machines and will cause resentment.
My position in this is that there's a time and place for everything.
Also, if I base my opinion purely on my emotions, then I will prefer the roaring, supreme-firepower mech
 
We only lost the war in Vietnam because we wern't allowed to fight the war to win and I don't remember any European armies in Vietnam so what are you talking about. Also Le Mask you don't know what you are talking about, go find a tree to hug.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top