Mechanized Infantry Perceptions 2010

[Seerov]

I left the army in Dec 2003. I remember before Iraq many people were certain (especially in the light infantry community) that vehicles could not work in cities and other difficult terrain. Mechanized infantry was truly morally inferior to light infantry. Even during basic training light infantry 11b drill SGTs would advance anti-mech stereotypes and proclaim the superiority of light infantry. APCs and tanks were "coffins." It wasn’t even the same Army in "mech world." Finding out you were 11m was like finding out you were born into a lower caste.

Of course, sometimes there is a hint of truth in stereotypes. It was possible to find more out-of-shape soldiers in mechanized units, than in light infantry units. Some of these people were just more skilled with their Bradley job than with infantry skills.

At that time (while in the Army), I somewhat looked down on these people. But now I think I may have been wrong, in that maybe, that was just what they were good at? I had no interest in being a Bradley gunner or driver and made it perfectly clear(I only served in dismount squads). So I was basically the same thing. Maybe some people should be allowed to spend their career just being a Bradley crew member(driver, gunner, BC, platoon sgt)? Maybe some people should never have to do the jobs on a Bradley (they would spend their whole career in light infantry units)? The best platoon SGT I had in the Army was one of these guys. He would fall out of the company run, but knew everything about the Bradley and his platoon sgts duties.

Anyway, I’m wondering if this divide (between mech and light infantry) is still as deep today (2010) as it was in 2003 when I left the army? Since 2002 or 2003, the Army started force integrating these groups. So now infantry soldiers have to serve in both. Has this decreased the cultural biases towards mech? What about striker units? Are striker units "in between" mech and light on the "true infantry morality metric?" With the large scale use of humvees, isn't it all just blurring (the line between mech and light infantry) anyway? Is the fitness level of the average soldier negatively correlated with vehicle size? lol

Most important, how have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan changed solider perceptions of mech infantry, and amour in general? Are there still soldiers/leaders who insist that APCs and tanks are useless in cities?

Are mech infantry soliders still just "tankers" to the light infantry world, or are they real infantrymen now?

[Infanteer]

Begrudging a useful tool due to chauvinism is foolish.

Unless your fighting in the mountains or in swamps, vehicles have some utility and "lightfighters" can abandon them to their own folly.

In our own Army the sails from the "lightfighter" ship deflated when, after proclaiming that COIN was a lightfighters environment, the utility of a LAV in surviving and fighting in an environment like Southern Afghanistan was apparent to all - the fact that a Canadian battle group had to pull out a besieged British "light" force that was, in some places, resorting to drinking ditch water was instructive.

[Ken White]

Begrudging a useful tool due to chauvinism is foolish.

True.

Unless your fighting in the mountains or in swamps, vehicles have some utility and "lightfighters" can abandon them to their own folly.

Among other places...

Jungles, cities and your taiga forests can be problematic as well. So can sandy desert -- or heavily fenced farmland (not even counting what newly plowed fields can do in a rain).

...the utility of a LAV in surviving and fighting in an environment like Southern Afghanistan was apparent to all...

Emphasis added, KW

...resorting to drinking ditch water was instructive.

As one who's drunk a good bit of ditch and rice paddy water, I really have to ask, what's your point?

Amazingly, before there was bottled water and ROWPU, that was de rigueur. However, vehicles do enable hot coffee often and that's a major plus.

For all else, METT-TC applies...

[reed11b]

Anyway, I’m wondering if this divide (between mech and light infantry) is still as deep today (2010) as it was in 2003 when I left the army? Since 2002 or 2003, the Army started force integrating these groups. So now infantry soldiers have to serve in both. Has this decreased the cultural biases towards mech? What about striker units? Are striker units "in between" mech and light on the "true infantry morality metric?" With the large scale use of humvees, isn't it all just blurring (the line between mech and light infantry) anyway? Is the fitness level of the average soldier negatively correlated with vehicle size? lol

Most important, how have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan changed solider perceptions of mech infantry, and amour in general? Are there still soldiers/leaders who insist that APCs and tanks are useless in cities?

Are mech infantry soliders still just "tankers" to the light infantry world, or are they real infantrymen now?

Having served in both time periods 94-97 and 01 to present in the Infantry I will attempt to answer. Yes the divide has diminished, though yes, PT scores are still negatively correlated to vehicle size. Big armored vehicles take a lot of training time, time not spent training in other things. Knowing how to operate a Bradley is almost like having a second MOS (like say a 19 series MOS, just sayin'). However opinions of the support that armor provides has improved.

Strykers are viewed as an in between and well liked by most light infantry types that I have spoke too. Strykers provide additional support, but do not use up all the resources for infantry training. Even the mythical Ragnars use them down range often and tend to like them. That was probably as clear as mud, sorry for necroing an old thread.
Reed

[ganulv]

Yes the divide has diminished, though yes, PT scores are still negatively correlated to vehicle size.

I’ve seen a couple of write-ups of studies comparing pre- and post-deployment physical fitness (LINK to one of them). The research designs aren’t perfect—no idea how one would get a control group for such studies—and the findings differ a bit, but the ones I have seen all report some loss in aerobic fitness. Would that seem to be a testament to most units operating as de facto mechanized infantry, or would it be more likely to be about lack of PT?

[reed11b]

I’ve seen a couple of write-ups of studies comparing pre- and post-deployment physical fitness (LINK to one of them). The research designs aren’t perfect—no idea how one would get a control group for such studies—and the findings differ a bit, but the ones I have seen all report some loss in aerobic fitness. Would that seem to be a testament to most units operating as de facto mechanized infantry, or would it be more likely to be about lack of PT?

Not an expert, but I would hazard a guess that it has more to do with lack of PT, poor rest plans, and poor nutrition downrange then it does with riding in vehicles. There are incredibly fit mechanized infantrymen and sandbagging lightfighters. My comments have more to do with the culture and training focus of said units.
Reed

[nightowl]

A good friend of mine is a Platoon Leader with a Mechanized Infantry unit here in Korea and he said that even within his Platoon, the "light is glory mentality is all pervasive." Very few of his Soldiers view themselves as Mechanized Infantryman. Instead, they are merely true-blue, 11B, light infantrymen who happen to be trapped in mech purgatory for the time being.

[Ken White]

There was a good reason for that MOS and no reason to eliminate it other than to make life easier for the Personnel Management types. There are very different skill sets and attitudes involved and the two approaches to ground combat, both needed, do not mesh at all well...

It also is, in Korea, partly due to the fact that a lot of Airborne types, light to a fault, go there on an unaccompanied tour in order to get returned to Bragg or to jump status somewhere rather than go for a leg long tour and ending up elsewhere.