Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
... Given this example, if the Army did go such a route in the future, how capable of fighting a major or even a general war might it really be?
the late 50s. The XVII Abn Corps was training on about an 80 / 20 ratio of LIC / HIC. The III Corps was purely heavy (and reinforcing for V and VII) a couple of loose Infantry Divs were not assigned to either stateside corps and had a swing role.

The training regimen for XVIII Corps included cultural and language training (101st f/Asia, backup to Korea) and the 82d for South America and Africa (backup to Europe).

Fast forward to 2000. There was little real difference other than fewer Divisions (and the ones that were gone were from Europe) and the 101st was Airmobile and not parachute. It trained pretty much full spectrum with an emphasis on HIC. The 10th Mtn guys did the same as did the 82d who also did airfield seizure as a backup to the Ranger Regt who then had that mission as primary. The LIC mission for XVIII Corps was, shortsightedly, gone.

Without going into an overlong dissertation, the answer to your question IMO is it would not adversely impact the HIC capability at all; that's nowadays a heavy div chore (unless we get into a war in urban Europe which is an interesting if unlikely scenario for many reasons).

As I've said before, I spent 45 years training for or helping train for a land war in Europe. Never been to Europe but I sure have eaten a lot rice...