Can you win a war with only light infantry in the 21st century?

solarz said:

I'm interested in knowing, for example, how effectively, using modern technology, can Kiltland Rebels evade satellite and UAV recon (using Kiltland terrain), whether or not they would be able to establish an effective supply line by "living off the land", as it were.

I've read somewhere that modern camouflage jackets *can* defeat IR sensors. Does anyone know if that's true or not? There's also an experimental clothing material from Germany that can render the wearer invisible to Nightvision! Advancements like these would allow night-attacks to be a viable tactic for the infantry once again.

Click to expand...

You keep bringing up all the tactical things that matter little in a war. Yes, there may be ways to defeat night vision goggles and all, but does it matter in a strategic point of view? The answer is obviously NO. Why? No matter what you wear/use, the first thing you have to do, as a light infantry, is to hide, such as the Kiltland terrain in your example. The harsh terrain, of course, allows better camouflage. However, the disadvantage of using such terrain is the difficulty of maintaining supply. We know that supply is one of the most critical factors in winning a war. keeping moving around in the mountains will make maintaining supply a nightmare. As time goes by, you will slow down because of lack of food, clothing, ammunition, etc. Sooner or later, your advanced foe will catch up to you since they will be rested and well-supplied.

As for night attacks, yes, you will win a couple of battles at the beginning. However, your advanced foe will begin to learn your pattern and defend better. Keep in mind that there is no strategy that cannot be defeated. That means you will begin to lose more and more men and equipment in later attacks. While your opponent has a well-maintained supply and can continue to maintain a good strength, if not getting stronger, you will continue to lose strength. That's why all forces that have used primarily light infantry in history of mankind end up with two options: 1) change their strategy and start adopting better and heavy equipment; 2) maintain the light infantry style and fade away. No one, I mean, no one has ever won a war against an advanced opponent using light infantry throughout the entire conflict.

As for living off the land, you can do it if you have only a couple hundred people. With a major force of hundred of thousands, if not millions, no land can support that kind of force. You will bleed the land dry in no time.

solarz said:

I'm interested in knowing, for example, how effectively, using modern technology, can Kiltland Rebels evade satellite and UAV recon (using Kiltland terrain), whether or not they would be able to establish an effective supply line by "living off the land", as it were.

I've read somewhere that modern camouflage jackets *can* defeat IR sensors. Does anyone know if that's true or not? There's also an experimental clothing material from Germany that can render the wearer invisible to Nightvision! Advancements like these would allow night-attacks to be a viable tactic for the infantry once again.

Click to expand...

Technically speaking, anything that reflects heat would be a viable candidate for even some basic IR-evasion tech. But yes, such tech does exist. In fact, Britain has developed panels that put a twist to IR-evasion. Instead of simply making the tank that the panels are become "dimmer" to the IR camera, but it literally can turn the tank into the shape of a regular car, to the IR camera.

Scotland isn't exactly a large place. There's really only so much a kiltlander can do before they are ascertained via other means, other than satellite or UAV. Living off the land, so to say, is even more difficult. If you decide to stay on the surface, your best hope is to rob and pillage. Otherwise, berries and fruit won't last long. If you go sub-surface however, your odds improve.

bladerunner said:

I realising my suggestion fell outside the Solarzs inniatial parameters for discussions as stipulated in his opening post, i did not bother to clarify my initial suggestion. But considering that he broke his own guidelines laid out in his first post by introducing an insurgency and polititical sitution with his England Scotland scenario, I felt entitled to do do like likewise. Futhermore to turn around and accuse someone of politicising his thread is the height of hypocrisy when his England Scotland scenario , does just that.

Click to expand...

Solarz did not 'politicise' the thread with the Scotland-England scenario. He was merely following my suggestion that we borrow real world places and forces as a template on which to build our fictional match-up so that we can get on with discussion possible tactics and outcomes without having to spend a great deal of time and effort setting out all the information needed to allow a meaningful discussion of the subject.

And I for one think the Scotland-England example is very apt for the situation precisely because the likelihood of Scotish independence is fairly remote, and an actual arm conflict emerging as a result is unlikely in the extreme.

Your insistence on using Xinjiang as a counter-example is poorly judged to say the least. Firstly because of how obsurd it would be to suggest that an infantry only force would be able to stand up to a military force as advanced and vast as the PLA (the only real world examples where a poorly equiped force managed to defeat a far superior equipped and competantly led force was through sheer numerical superiority, something not possible against the PLA.); but secondly because unlike the Scotland-England fictional scenario, there is actually a real life insurgency movement going on in Xinjiang that has, and is still costing lives. Thus using that as an example is crass at the very least, and could be easily seen as ill-meaning at best, and active encouragement and moral support for the Xinjian insurgents at worst.

I m well aware that insurgents would not stand a chance in a toe to toe fight with PLA forces.so they do their best to they are avoid such a firefight. In my scenario which is based in time period , say 15-20yrs from now the insurgents are based in the Stans and supplied with the most up to date weaponry such as Manpads and up to date intelligence, by Russia and others, they are proving to be an effective thorn in Chinas side in rebuilding the old sik road and turning Kashgar into the hub of the SEZ. Chinas military forces are seriously defanged and with out air cover as a condition of being able to cross borders on seek and destroy missions. So when they do clash, its very much on even terms.

Click to expand...

That is just ridiculous in so many ways.

Firstly, you are actually changing the parametres of the original scenario by this completely unrealistic and frankly, nonsensical suggestion that the PLA would be facing the insurgents 'very much on even terms'. So, instead of infantry only force taking on a combined-force modern military, it's Xinjiang insurgents taking on the PLA on even terms.

When you do that, can you blame people for feeling that you are less interested in discussing what the thread was started for, and more interested in finding ways to play 'how to beat up the Chinese'?

Secondly, your pre-requisits are ridiculously far fetched to say the least. Russia actively supporting an insurgency against China? It'll be more believable if you changed "Russia" to "little green men".

The Stans supporting and arming a muslim insurgent movement that sees the Stans as also occuping territory belonging to their greater homeland that they wish to liberate? How high do you need to be to swallow that? You do realize that there is a reason the Stans holds anti-terror war games with China annually other than for poops and giggles right?

Thirdly, what mannor of illogic would drive the PLA to leave behind all their tactical advantage at home when they do after such insurgents? You post an article claiming that the PLA was threatening to go into Pakistan, China's closest ally, after a few insurgents because of bombings that caused mostly superficial damage and post no realistic threat to Chinese rule in Xinjiang on the one hand, yet expect us to think they would tiptoe about with a well resourced armed insurgency that could actually cause China to loose control of Xinjiang on the other hand? It is hard not to take that as an insult on our intellegence tbh. Or as a desperate attempt to come up with a scenario where the PLA will loose.

In any half realistic scenario, if something like that was even close to developing, the Stans would be cracking down hard on these insurgents without needing any prompting from Beijing, as these insurgents would represent as much a threat to the Stans (and Russia) as they do to China.

If any of the Stans are actively supporting such an insurgency movement, it would be because the insurgents have taken over there. If that happened, China, Russia and most of the other Stans will be launching a combined invasion before the insurgents have even consolidated power, never mind thought about launching operations in any other country.

The end end result is that they manage to drag it out until China, beset with other problems, such as its world wide economic strategy in the developing world going pear shaped, the effects of the long predeicted economic correction have come about and are starting to bite, with food production down to droughts caused by decades of enviromental degradation, she decides to settle for a negotiated settlement.

Click to expand...

At this point, it reads more like your entire argument was constructed to arrive at the conclusion rather than following the normal process of developing and following a scenario to it's logical conclusion. Which in term reads like someone looking for any excuse to try and contribute to the topic this thread was created to discuss.

This Jamestown foundation Article reproduce at WAB provided the background for my POV.
Its a little off topic but IMO , an interesting read nonethe less.
How Pakistan’s Unstable Tribal Areas Threaten China’s Core Interests

Click to expand...

The Jamestown Foundation has a certain reputation, and once you know it, you would know to what kind of audience their articles are written for.

Just look it up yourselves.

vesicles said:

You keep bringing up all the tactical things that matter little in a war. Yes, there may be ways to defeat night vision goggles and all, but does it matter in a strategic point of view? The answer is obviously NO. Why? No matter what you wear/use, the first thing you have to do, as a light infantry, is to hide, such as the Kiltland terrain in your example. The harsh terrain, of course, allows better camouflage. However, the disadvantage of using such terrain is the difficulty of maintaining supply. We know that supply is one of the most critical factors in winning a war. keeping moving around in the mountains will make maintaining supply a nightmare. As time goes by, you will slow down because of lack of food, clothing, ammunition, etc. Sooner or later, your advanced foe will catch up to you since they will be rested and well-supplied.

As for night attacks, yes, you will win a couple of battles at the beginning. However, your advanced foe will begin to learn your pattern and defend better. Keep in mind that there is no strategy that cannot be defeated. That means you will begin to lose more and more men and equipment in later attacks. While your opponent has a well-maintained supply and can continue to maintain a good strength, if not getting stronger, you will continue to lose strength. That's why all forces that have used primarily light infantry in history of mankind end up with two options: 1) change their strategy and start adopting better and heavy equipment; 2) maintain the light infantry style and fade away. No one, I mean, no one has ever won a war against an advanced opponent using light infantry throughout the entire conflict.

As for living off the land, you can do it if you have only a couple hundred people. With a major force of hundred of thousands, if not millions, no land can support that kind of force. You will bleed the land dry in no time.

Click to expand...

When I said "living off the land", I didn't mean eating berries and hunting rabbits. I meant making use of local resources and running an underground economy.

Let's review the parameters of the scenario:

1- There are 20,000 Kiltland Rebel Infantry against 5000 Fishland Combined Arms forces
2- Kiltland civilians are largely sympathetic to the Rebels

Here's what I think:

If the Rebels have an extensive underground network of bases, then they can be covertly supplied by civilian sympathizers. Even if the Fishland Army discovers the general location of these bases, it would be no simple matter to try to assault those bases with an army of only 5000. Aerial bombardment can cause limited destruction, but would not be able to cripple the key installations which are deep under mountains and well protected from bombings.

Some of these bases could even be located in urban centers, set up as a network of sympathizers. The Rebels can conduct raids against Fishland Patrols and quickly fade back into the general population, making it difficult and costly for Fishland to root out and destroy the Rebels' supply sources (which are located in cities).

The Fishland Army can set up road blocks, but they'd have to be stretched thin in order to cover all routes, and would then be vulnerable to coordinated attacks from the Rebels.

solarz said:

When I said "living off the land", I didn't mean eating berries and hunting rabbits. I meant making use of local resources and running an underground economy.

Let's review the parameters of the scenario:

1- There are 20,000 Kiltland Rebel Infantry against 5000 Fishland Combined Arms forces
2- Kiltland civilians are largely sympathetic to the Rebels

Here's what I think:

If the Rebels have an extensive underground network of bases, then they can be covertly supplied by civilian sympathizers. Even if the Fishland Army discovers the general location of these bases, it would be no simple matter to try to assault those bases with an army of only 5000. Aerial bombardment can cause limited destruction, but would not be able to cripple the key installations which are deep under mountains and well protected from bombings.

Some of these bases could even be located in urban centers, set up as a network of sympathizers. The Rebels can conduct raids against Fishland Patrols and quickly fade back into the general population, making it difficult and costly for Fishland to root out and destroy the Rebels' supply sources (which are located in cities).

The Fishland Army can set up road blocks, but they'd have to be stretched thin in order to cover all routes, and would then be vulnerable to coordinated attacks from the Rebels.

Click to expand...

Once you set up camp and develop a local economy, you lose mobility, which is key to possibly winning the war against an advanced opponent.

You don't have to bomb every camp. Simply destroy all the possible roads in and out of those mountain bases. Setting blocks might not work as you explained. So destroy them! These are mountain roads, which are half-hazardously made in the first place. And there won't be many of them since, well, these are mountains. A few explosives should do the job. And I'm not talking about those bombs dropped from planes, but by sending a task force, such as a Spec Ops team, to the mountains and blow up a few key roads in and out of the mountains. And they don't even have to get too deep into the mountains, simply destroy those openings along at the edges since those would be the bottle neck. That would completely shut down the supply line between the mountains and the outside.

And then communication. The light infantry would have to let their supporters outside of the mountains know what they need. So communication is vital. A modern and advanced force can easily shut down that communication with their advanced interference equipment.

So your advanced opponent won't have to do much at all to choke the light infantry to death. And the light infantry will have to try very hard and invest so much of their limited resources just to get a little back.

Further, the thing we are arguing about is for the light infantry to WIN, not simply just to survive. So you have to think about how the light infantry will have to attack despite the roads in and out of the mountains have been destroyed and will be constantly monitored. Since mountains normally have only a few roads connecting to the outside, it's very easy to guard them. Even with only 5000 troops, your advanced opponents can simply stay in home base and train while UAVs, choppers, stationary monitoring bases, as well as satellites watch the roads 24/7. Any suspicious movement will set off the alarm and troops will get to the location via choppers in a few minutes while your light infantry struggles just to walk out of the mountains (your roads have been destroyed). And not to mention fighters, bombers, attack choppers, armed UAVs will swarm those locations in no time. The mountain openings to the outside could also be guarded with various mine fields. It would be a nightmare for the light infantry to just get out of the mountains, not to mention actually attacking the enemy.

solarz said:

I'm interested in knowing, for example, how effectively, using modern technology, can Kiltland Rebels evade satellite and UAV recon (using Kiltland terrain), whether or not they would be able to establish an effective supply line by "living off the land", as it were.

I've read somewhere that modern camouflage jackets *can* defeat IR sensors. Does anyone know if that's true or not? There's also an experimental clothing material from Germany that can render the wearer invisible to Nightvision! Advancements like these would allow night-attacks to be a viable tactic for the infantry once again.

Click to expand...

The German KSK clothing reduces IR radiation by 50%. It creates low observeability, not total stealth.

In theory you could replace fuel supply by having a field laboratory that burns all organic input in order to produce fuel, explosives and gunpowder in plastic bags. Food can likely be acquired off the land, so supply is limited to the parts you can't produce locally. This much lowered requirement could possibly be met by aerial supply runs.

Concerning the ability of light infantry to fight in mountains, they don't need the roads required for normal traffic, especially snow greatly increases mobility in the mountains. So I think it possible that a light force can put up continuous resistance in the mountains and block enemy incursions with all but equally light troops or airborne troops/commandos.

Tis easy enough for me to change a few names to remedy anomilies in my scenario and cater to members sensitivities as well.

plawolf said:

Solarz did not 'politicise' the thread with the Scotland-England scenario. He was merely following my suggestion that we borrow real world places and forces as a template on which to build our fictional match-up so that we can get on with discussion possible tactics and outcomes without having to spend a great deal of time and effort setting out all the information needed to allow a meaningful discussion of the subject.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but it lacked any bearing on reality.

Firstly he suggests a combined force of 5000 against the insurgents. Breaking it down to the three services would suggest a ground force of perhaps 4 battlions at most. Thats highly implausible for a nation that sent the equivilent of a division( up to 20,000) to the Falklands, and on this occassion they are on home soil where according to Wikithe current muilitary personnel number somwhere close to 200,000 and a simalar number in reserve.
To add to that there will be a plethora of politicans claiming that they would reverse the deciscion and grant the scots their independence thus undermining the rush to support the insurgency.

Futhermore the Queen does not control the use of the armed forces , the P.M. does and having caused a insurrection he's not likely to send a token force to deal with it. You would also have to be high if you were to believe otherwise.

In any case the insurgents have made their costliest blunder. In Solarzs latest scenario the insurgents are ensconced deeop in the Scottish mountains away from large population centers, thus ideal for using "Tactical Nukes " to take care of the problem and be home in time for tea..
That is the option I would take if i was not encumbered by real world realities in this face off.

By the way everybody talking as if the Scottish Highlands are some impenetrable mountain range. In reality they are not particularly high or hazardous as mountains go. Its the unpredictability of the weather which surrounds them that gives them a reputation.

Click to expand...

Why not re-run the IRA struggle?

Kurt said:

Concerning the ability of light infantry to fight in mountains, they don't need the roads required for normal traffic, especially snow greatly increases mobility in the mountains. So I think it possible that a light force can put up continuous resistance in the mountains and block enemy incursions with all but equally light troops or airborne troops/commandos.

Click to expand...

We are arguing whether a light infantry can DEFEAT an advanced opponent, not defending against one. A single person may not need roads to move in the mountains, but an organized military force needs roads to move around in an organized fashion if they still want to fight as a unit. They can't simply scatter all about the mountain and still hope to fight as an organized unit. even they could move in the mountains, they still need a rendezvous point once they get out of the mountains and gather their force for a possible attack onto their advanced opponent. Once they do that, they will be exposed to all sorts of surveillance methods utilized by their advanced opponent. And then an all out attack by the advanced force will follow.

Let's assume they don't need a rendezvous point and simply scatter around in the mountains and still be scattered on their way to the cities for an attack. They will need some means to communicate with each other so that any of their attacks can be coordinated. I am sure their advanced foe will easily kill all that communication without even trying. So a seriously scatter force with no communication? How much impact can it have???

Further, even if light infantry can move in the mountains, their supply cannot. Once again, my point is supply, supply, supply. How do you maintain a supply line without roads? Without supply, you don't have anything. Snow will make downhill movement a bliss, but what about uphill? Also, snow means winter. And winter usually means a disaster for survival in the mountains... You may be able to move in the mountains a little easier, but you may not have a lot of people to move with since many of them will starve and freeze... And what about maintenance of weapons and equipment in the winter? Let's not forget that even the most elite forces are defeated by the low temperature, i.e. Napoleon and Nazis.

If you want to win a war with "light infantry", give them a $1000 suit and a few economy degree's to FUBAR things up