Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry - Page 8




 
--
 
January 8th, 2011  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
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...
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?
January 8th, 2011  
Korean Seaboy
 
 
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 8th, 2011  
Klibanophoros
 
 
I would prefer to ride into battle, instead of lugging my gear around on my own two feet.
--
January 12th, 2011  
IDF_5173
 
 
I prefer light infantry. Better than driving around in a giant target.
January 12th, 2011  
Horso
 
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.