Light Infantry vs. Mechanized Infantry

Duty Honor Country

Active member
Which do people prefer, light or mech?

Personally, I like light INF. You come in from the field and recover in 3 days. All that is required is to clean the truck, equipment, TA 50, BDU's and be done with it. The less equipment I have, the happier I am.

SSG Doody
 
Sorry to bring up an old post, but I would like to know this also.
Which one do people prefer, and for what reasons? What are the differances?
 
Sorry to bring up an old post, but I would like to know this also.
Which one do people prefer, and for what reasons? What are the differances?

Mechanized hands down. I would much rather wear out a set of tires then a pair of boots.

Mechanized brings a huge amount of adaptablility as well as firepower to the battlefield.



Firepower = The amount of firepower a mounted Troop/Company can bring to the field is catastrophic, at least for the enemy. Bushmasters, TOWS, MK19s, 50 cals and others can turn a small town or villiage into swiss cheese. The bigger weapon systems also lead to longer engagement distances. Mechanized INF can easily reach out to 1500m and beyond.

Mobility = Self explanatory. You can travel much further much faster and your troops are rested when they get to the fight. This opens up allot of potential missions that ground pounders can't perform. Mobile overwatch and screening for other mobile forces for example. This also leads for the need of fewer QRF elements because one element can cover much more ground.

Protection = You are mobile fortress.

Recon = Mounted vehicles open up the use of long range sights such as the LRAS and ITAS. This extends your visibility out to 15,000 meters and beyond.

Comfort = As I already said you will be rested when your arrive at your destination. You can also pack extra everything such as food, ammo, fat chicks, and entertainment if your going to be out for an extended amount of time.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. The list can go on and on.
 
Last edited:
Big_Z, nice military answer, feels like a warlord talking...

But you shouldnt speak like these warlords who arent human anymore... You should speak like wise people like Sun Tzu.

Mechanized units have more firepower. But they cost more. So they are inferior when it comes to economy.

And the firepower, like you said, can give them the ability to wipe out whole cities from the map. Is it a good thing? Of course not. With this much firepower, you will be more dangerous to the enemy, and he might hide next to civilians and innocent people... And then, boum, you lost the war because you used the holy power of turning whole towns into swiss cheese...

And then, there is the arrogance that comes with the people who hold such power. Once you have this overwhelming firepower, you will feel the need to use it growing. You will start to wage bogus wars for power...
A bit like Germany with their Blitzkrieg tactics... They took out a big part of Europe and threatened the world. And then, a few years later, their wives and sisters were rapped in mass by communist scum coming from the USSR...

And let's speak about protection... Protection means also weight. And then, you cant follow your enemies in the moutains and any rough terrain in fact... And then, you will be unable to fight this enemy because you got used to the warm and safe fortresses... Why should we fight and care about the people who are in danger when we can hide in a fortress and drink beer?

And about reconnaissance equipment... These are sweet toys. But why should we speak to people and learn to live with them when we can observe them with high tech thermals, satellites etc...

And then, these nice hightech cameras can be used to make kick ass videos to put on youtube... And then, we can add hardrock music for tunes, and piss off all the peace loving people on the whole planet...

And then, we can get angry when some Wikileaks like liberal idiots leak the videos of our hightech toys operated by human beings who make errors like mistaking a journalist with a camera with a terrorist with an RPG... And shooting a few seconds later into a crowd of terrorists wearing white shirts...

I know, I'm being a jerk... But you guys speak about intelligence so much, you are smart for sure. But what about wisdom?

Do you see the difference between being smart and being wise? They are not always compatible...

And especially to our high tech, high firepower western armies... We win battles and lose wars for so long that it's time to ask ourselves some questions...

We cared for firepower so much, that we both lost in Vietnam... Professional armies had their asses handed to them by peasants...
 
Peasants...really? The North Vietnamese Army was just as well trained and just as well equipped as their American adversaries. I wouldn't say we had our asses kicked. The "peasants" or VC you speak of were almost non-existent after the 1968 Tet Offensive because they were almost all killed. Every time the Communist forces decided to fight in that war they got THEIR asses handed to them. We lost the war not because of our military inability, but because of our lack of political will. The US forces fought with both hands tied behind their backs and still cleaned the clock of the NVA/VC in every major military action throughout our involvement in the war.

Ask any Vietnam vet and they will tell the worthiness of the NVA infantryman as an adversary. They may have hated each other, but there was certainly a mutual respect between the two. My dad said he had more respect for the NVA than the ARVN forces we were supporting because at least the NVA would fight for what they believed in.

Our loss in Vietnam is NOT a result of the soldiers fighting on the ground, it was a result of the politicians running a war from halfway around the war and never really grasping what was necessary to win. Like my dad says "I don't know what happened, when I left, we were winning!"
 
Big_Z, nice military answer, feels like a warlord talking...

But you shouldnt speak like these warlords who arent human anymore... You should speak like wise people like Sun Tzu.

Mechanized units have more firepower. But they cost more. So they are inferior when it comes to economy.

And the firepower, like you said, can give them the ability to wipe out whole cities from the map. Is it a good thing? Of course not. With this much firepower, you will be more dangerous to the enemy, and he might hide next to civilians and innocent people... And then, boum, you lost the war because you used the holy power of turning whole towns into swiss cheese...

And then, there is the arrogance that comes with the people who hold such power. Once you have this overwhelming firepower, you will feel the need to use it growing. You will start to wage bogus wars for power...
A bit like Germany with their Blitzkrieg tactics... They took out a big part of Europe and threatened the world. And then, a few years later, their wives and sisters were rapped in mass by communist scum coming from the USSR...

And let's speak about protection... Protection means also weight. And then, you cant follow your enemies in the moutains and any rough terrain in fact... And then, you will be unable to fight this enemy because you got used to the warm and safe fortresses... Why should we fight and care about the people who are in danger when we can hide in a fortress and drink beer?

And about reconnaissance equipment... These are sweet toys. But why should we speak to people and learn to live with them when we can observe them with high tech thermals, satellites etc...

And then, these nice hightech cameras can be used to make kick ass videos to put on youtube... And then, we can add hardrock music for tunes, and piss off all the peace loving people on the whole planet...

And then, we can get angry when some Wikileaks like liberal idiots leak the videos of our hightech toys operated by human beings who make errors like mistaking a journalist with a camera with a terrorist with an RPG... And shooting a few seconds later into a crowd of terrorists wearing white shirts...

I know, I'm being a jerk... But you guys speak about intelligence so much, you are smart for sure. But what about wisdom?

Do you see the difference between being smart and being wise? They are not always compatible...

And especially to our high tech, high firepower western armies... We win battles and lose wars for so long that it's time to ask ourselves some questions...

We cared for firepower so much, that we both lost in Vietnam... Professional armies had their asses handed to them by peasants...

What the hell's this mouth S***. You talk through your ass. You have no f***ing idea what you're talking about.

The day you've grown balls big enough to eat the same S*** as some of us have done then you can get a seat at the table and talk S*** to us, it is a privilege which you have to earn. until then ........ STFU!!
 
First things first... GHR STFU, you are a fool.
You can eat **** as long as you want and brag about it as long as you want... You are still a caveman speaking about who got the biggest spear... Now shut up, grown ups are talking...

Well, brinktk, That's not the point.

The Vietnamese won the war... Even if the professional armies they were fighting won the battles (well, not all battles).

My point is that firepower is overrated. With firepower, you can win a battle and lose a war.

And there is no miracles on the battlefield... If the NVA were worthy soldiers, and equal soldiers... Well, they would have had the same result as their enemies... But it wasnt the case, because of poor training, poor tactics, poor strategy in battle or whatever the reasons.... or because their enemies had air support, better weapons, better tactics etc...
If the professional armies won their battle... It's because of a rational reason.

Well, my point is that we represent industrialized countries. We have firepower. No one can deny that. But the problem is that we went so far down that path, that we forgot about the rest...

Firepower is a tool. It's not THE ultimate tool to win a war.

So, you take a mechanized unit, you take out all the high tech toys, and use the hardware budget to provide cultural training to your soldiers... Or to provide funds for intelligence work... And you can have a less destructive unit, for sure... But maybe that this unit will be able to hold a road block without lighting up civilians and pissing off the whole country...

I say less money for firepower and better training could do a difference in a modern battlefield.
 
Gents, keep it calm and on on-topic!
This is the first and only warning I'll post in this thread.

Thanks.
 
@LeMask

What the hell are you doing on a military forum. Grown up? my bare ass. You're like a little boy running around with a stick and imagine that you have a great knowledge of the military world.

Why don´t you do us a favor and perform some community useful, like supporting your local SAR squadron. In other words - GET LOST!
 
That would be great if all conflicts were low intensity insurgencies. Militaries have to find some kind of middle ground in order be halfway effective in every spectrum of operations. That was one of the problems during Vietnam. We were geared for a high intensity war against the USSR. We applied that mentality to the a low intensity conflict and it made things much harder for us when it came to fighting the Vietnamese...Still the US military could not afford to totally re-organize their military to fight a low intensity conflict with the Vietnamese because the elephant in the room (and the primary focus of the US military) was to hold the line against the Soviets if they decided to come across the Fulda gap. A low intensity focused American military would have easily been beaten by a High intensity trained and equipped Soviet Army because the Soviet Army would have had A LOT more fire power than us. So, where does that leave us?...Between a rock and a hard place.

Same rule applies today. Our militaries have geared our training and equipping towards more of a middle ground with the integration of Light and Stryker Brigades into every division of the US Army. We HAVE gotten lighter in response to the insurgency type warfare we are fighting. We have also integrated A LOT of COIST/COIN operations training into our military because we DO realize that it's not all about going out and killing the enemy. Yet we still have to maintain a training regimen to deal with a high intensity conflict because we will not be in these types of conflict forever. For instance, if North Korea ever decides to to cross the DMZ, we will need the heavy, highly powerful, highly manueverable formations to deal with that threat. A light infantry Army could not defend against the highly mechanized military force....
 
Last edited:
Well, the military are at the image of the people they represent.

We have more riches when it comes to hardware, but when it comes to manpower, we are poor countries.

The military provide equipment and the skills to operate this equipment. The standards in this domain are very high.
But what about the moral grounds? What about the "human" ground?

And I dont know if you can notice that, but what you said says more about YOU than about the situation we had in Vietnam of the possible conflicts that might appear in North Korea.

We are only the products of our society after all. And it's very American to think like that... The fear of the evil communists that might invade the world, and the need to prepare a few to fight the many... AT ALL COSTS.

And in walking down that path, they turn it into a reality... They support evil regimes and anger all the honest people living in the area. And then, they keep supporting these regimes to keep the populations in check...

And when you tell them "why do you need all this firepower? Do you want to destroy the whole planet?" , then they answer "Well, the whole planet doesnt like us, so we need big weapons, and big factories to build these big weapons, and tons of resources to fuel these big factories, and tons of tricks and corrupt buddies to get these resources cheap..." and it goes on and on on...

Think about the Iranians who say that they want the nuclear bomb as it's against their moral values (a weapon that kills without discrimination).
And these guys, if they had to see life (not the world) like you, they would be doing miracles to get a nuclear bomb... Because they have a lot of powerful enemies...

I'm here questioning a school of thought... Remember that US president at the end of WWII when he was warning the world about the military-industrial complex?
 
I think you are mis-understanding the point I'm trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is that we have to be ready for the worst case scenerio. This goes back to the disagreements we have had on how soldiers and planners have to see the world. In order to remain flexible we have to prepare for the worst. We cannot afford to be super idealistic when it comes to training and planning because history tells us that nothing EVER goes according to plan...especially in combat.

Light fighters have their place on the battlefield because they can go into places that the heavy units can't. If they weren't necessary then we would have done away with them a long time ago.

Heavy fighters too have their place because they can manuever and take on the most powerful enemy formations.

Having the capabilty to strike anywhere decisively has avoided far more wars for us than they have created.
 
Hello guys,

in my opinion, the light infantry is suited for terrain there mech forces cannot operate. During the cold war, the majority of the Swedish infantry was a light infantry. We also trained for what we called "the free war." We could not fight the USSR head on, we were not so many to do that. We copy the Finnish army from their two wars with the Russians, and later even copy the North Vietnamese army. If the cold war had been hot, we had fought against any invader with the free war. Hit and run, disappear into the forests after any engagement. I think its also one of the reasons for why Sweden produce quite good anti-tank weapons. The Carl-Gustav, the AT-4, etc. During the 1980s in Sweden, the ground forces suffered a lot, becouse the air force needed a new plane, so all resources went to the air force (JAS-39 Gripen) The Swedish infantry of today is more a mech force, or well armed police force.

take care

Ghostrider
 
The way i look at it, when you are rolling in afghanistan for instance, as infantry in the LAV III (Canadians), your basically a rolling target for rpgs and IDE's. I was told that the light infantry mostly take care of the work in the mountains, not sure if this is true though.
 
Well, that part was obvious...
If it's just the strong points of every type of units, it's child's play.

It's obvious that a tank can reach a mountain and that soldier on foot can go virtually anywhere...

And i was speaking about a whole other level of flexibility. The question is "is our military forces capable of thinking outside the box?"

I believe that we have enough skilled people to tell us how to fight. the questions we have to answer are "why should we fight?" and "who should we be fighting?"

When it comes to flexibility in battle etc... I trust you guys to do the right choice, no doubt about it.

And Nakser, can you push your logic a little further?
LAV III are like rolling targets. Alright. That's from a military point of view. But what about the political point of view?
You are an Afghan, you see an LAV III. What do you see? A rolling target + what?

Enemy invaders? Scared enemy soldiers hiding behind armor and big weapons? I dont know... what do you see?
 
Last edited:
The way i look at it, when you are rolling in afghanistan for instance, as infantry in the LAV III (Canadians), your basically a rolling target for rpgs and IDE's. I was told that the light infantry mostly take care of the work in the mountains, not sure if this is true though.

Yes that is one of the cons of being mounted, you are big fat juicy target. And that is right about groundpounders fighting in the mountains. Each element has its own lane that it excels in. Mounted is not any better then dismounted, they both have their pros and cons. I have served as both mounted and dismounted, I prefer to ride. The topic isn't about whats better, its about what you prefer.
 
Last edited:
Yes that is one of the cons of being mounted, you are big fat juicy target. And that is right about groundpounders fighting in the mountains. Each element has its own lane that it excels in. Mounted is not any better then dismounted, they both have their pros and cons. I have served as both mounted and dismounted, I prefer to ride. The topic isn't about whats better, its about what you prefer.


That's my sentiment...
"If you can't truck it, F*** IT!"
 
This is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Light Infantry is configured for certain roles, Mech Inf is configured for certain roles. They are complementary in those roles

They each have the equipment, and hopefully the trg to fulfill those roles.

Which one is preferable to serve in - it depends on the man / woman.

Either way both kick arse.
 
My opinion is that in rocky terrain, mechs are often broken so that light would be better. More "stable" in my opinion.
However, in flat terrain, the mechs are the best. Faster, more powerful, etc...
A perfect example would be WWII
The Blitzkrieg laid waste to the flats in Western Europe, and some parts of Russia where the land was perfect for mech operations. However, in Italy and North Africa, light would be more preferable, so the Germans hadn't had much success.

At least, that's my untrained opinion
 
Back
Top