About Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry Page 8
|January 7th, 2011||#71|
| || |
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience"- Dwight D. Eisenhower , Jan 17,1961.
Last edited by Yossarian; January 10th, 2011 at 00:17..
|January 8th, 2011||#72|
| || |
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
|January 12th, 2011||#75|
| || |
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 by Horso; January 12th, 2011 at 11:21.. Reason: Spelling and an addition