U.S. alpine warfare capabilities?

[Pete]

We've had the reactivated 10th Mountain Division for around two decades, but I doubt they are trained up to the same standards of the World War II outfit. Still, I have to wonder whether their mountain-climbing training was really put into practice very frequently in Italy during '44-'45 -- did they really have to go up and down on ropes on cliffs as a matter of course?

This special training thing might be a bit like the Airborne philosophy -- it's not as much about the efficacy of large-scale parachute drops in combat today or rock-climbing, it's about the motivation level of the guys who volunteer for that kind of thing in the first place, and the "Never Quit" attitude they have.

[ganulv]

Still, I have to wonder whether their mountain-climbing training was really put into practice very frequently in Italy during '44-'45 -- did they really have to go up and down on ropes on cliffs as a matter of course?

That’s one of those “Hopefully, never!” things, right? For example, even if the EOD guys have never once been called to urgently disarm a nuclear weapon I still think it is worth the trouble to train them to be able to!

[Steve Blair]

We've had the reactivated 10th Mountain Division for around two decades, but I doubt they are trained up to the same standards of the World War II outfit. Still, I have to wonder whether their mountain-climbing training was really put into practice very frequently in Italy during '44-'45 -- did they really have to go up and down on ropes on cliffs as a matter of course?

This special training thing might be a bit like the Airborne philosophy -- it's not as much about the efficacy of large-scale parachute drops in combat today or rock-climbing, it's about the motivation level of the guys who volunteer for that kind of thing in the first place, and the "Never Quit" attitude they have.

Of course the 10th Mountain isn't trained to the same standards. That was a "heritage" naming that coincided with some of the light division ideas...rather like the 101st still being called airborne in some instances when in fact it's not or the 1st Cavalry Division (which is of course an armored division).

[Pete]

I was in 7th ID in '82-'84 when the light division concept was first floated. The light TO&E was designed to fit within a certain number of C-141 sorties, 600 or so. So far so good, but what happens when they get there?

The World War II idea of attaching heavy battalions to infantry divisions seems like a good idea, particularly when they habitually train together. The old light ID concept would have been better had there been a cavalry troop (or two or three with a squadron HQ) that could have deployed with them by air, with tank and 155 howitzer battalions being sent by ship for arrival later.

[Fuchs]

The World War II idea of attaching heavy battalions to infantry divisions seems like a good idea, particularly when they habitually train together. The old light ID concept would have been better had there been a cavalry troop (or two or three with a squadron HQ) that could have deployed with them by air, with tank and 155 howitzer battalions being sent by ship for arrival later.

Even better: Have small combined arms armoured recce battalions and let them train with reservist infantry battalions from time to time - using updated assault gun tactics.

[Pete]

The light infantry concept of the early 1980s came about when the situation in El Salvador and Nicaragua was going on.

Nicaragua had some light armor but not much, so a light force might have been all that was needed. It could be that the light TO&E was designed for a specific conflict or conflicts in that region, not the proverbial "Full Spectrum of Operations."

We still have variants of the light TO&E in the force structure so I still think attaching heavier battalions to lightly-armed units like that is a good idea. The attached units should be stationed at the same installation as the unit they support so they can train together.

[Fuchs]

I have read stuff about "light division" concepts from the early 80's that rather pointed at a high tech, high battlefield agility force - meant to drive around red hordes in Europe instead of grinding them.

[Steve Blair]

I have read stuff about "light division" concepts from the early 80's that rather pointed at a high tech, high battlefield agility force - meant to drive around red hordes in Europe instead of grinding them.

That was one of the many concepts that floated around about the light divisions. There was the 9th Division, which was intended to be the high-tech test bed, and then there were the others (the 7th among them) that were intended to be more as Pete described. Over time the light concept settled more on the 25th ID and the 10th Mountain, which both provided a good chunk of "expeditionary" Army forces prior to Sept 11 (the 10th was in Somalia, for example).