Heh. Aside from the fact that all you list
is probably as old as you -- though admittedly far more common today than it was 40 years ago -- I have heard for over 60 years how "technology will change the rules."
As you have pointed out, an untrained tribesman with an old and rusty AK is still a threat. Technology still hasn't really managed to do more than slightly modify the rules...
Tanks in the mountains, Tanks in the jungle.
Everyplace in the world is not central Europe...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...the light infantry quality of the U.S. Army is widely not understood to have been 1st class during Operation Anaconda or in Afghan mountains in general.
Not necessarily so; the command errors during Anaconda impacted the Infantry unfavorably; the units did okay. Since then, they're doing all right at both command levels and in unit performance.
Quote:
But that's irrelevant. I was writing about increased lethality, not diminishing other's lethality. There's no doubt about lethality increases.
No but lethality increases do not equate directly to better performance in war, major or minor.
Quote:
There are obvious differences and obvious similarities between different forms of infantry combat.
Mankind knows since millennia that specalization offers advantages at a price.
Of course there differences and specialization does offer benefits -- no one is disputing that. The issue is how much specialization is required and how quickly one with specialty X can be retrained to specialty Y. The answer is not much and not long.
Quote:
My take on this is that the best approach to tactical problems varies quite consistently in different scenarios between infantry that fights without and infantry that fights together with medium/heavy AFVs.
I agree -- IF the terrain will support it...
Quote:
Infantry is historically a quickly burnt-out (psychically) and even quicker decimated (physically) part of the ground forces.
Only if poor commanders allowed that to happen.
Quote:
Few armies in history were able to keep up high training levels in wartime.
The Wehrmacht did amazingly well at that in WW II with many disadvantages...
Quote:
Look at the U.S. infantry. The last I heard is that although it's in principle suitable for both HIC and LIC, the HIC training suffers a lot. NTC tours and such are all about LIC now? That clearly shows the limitations that prevent all-round infantry training in wartime.
Again, you miss the point. The issue is not that one man can do everything; the issue is that infantry tasks are similar across types of operations and that the retraining required to switch from mounted to dismounted or vice versa is not that significant. Neither is the switch from HIC to LIC though the reverse is more difficult; thus initial training should be for HIC, after that hopefully good grounding, switching is not problematic.
Quote:
80 beats 50 to 70. And few if any infantry will get enough training in wartime for 80/80.
Possibly -- but they'll learn quick when they get committed... :D