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

IronsightSniper said:

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

Click to expand...

If you're talking about IMF or the investment banks that was behind the economic meltdown in 2008...hmmm, I gotta agree.

Solarz, your need for symmetrical warfare does not apply to anyone armed with only a goal and light weapons but the usual land combat rule is that the attacker needs at least 4:1 superiority to prevail. Alas, this number antedates the era of the attritional and political efficacy of an IED-based strategy.

IronsightSniper said:

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

Click to expand...

By far the one light infantry strategy in this thread that actually has a chance of success. LOL
Actually it already has succeeded in real life, and is continuing to prove how successful it is each and every day.
Though it is quite a blunt weapon, never know who it's going to touch by how much.

Arthur Borges said:

Solarz, your need for symmetrical warfare does not apply to anyone armed with only a goal and light weapons but the usual land combat rule is that the attacker needs at least 4:1 superiority to prevail. Alas, this number antedates the era of the attritional and political efficacy of an IED-based strategy.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the "4:1" rule.

IEDs can be part of a strategy to disrupt supplies and put more pressure on the enemy, but it won't win a war. I mentioned specifically that I'm *NOT* asking about a long war of attrition.

solarz said:

There is no such thing as the "4:1" rule.

IEDs can be part of a strategy to disrupt supplies and put more pressure on the enemy, but it won't win a war. I mentioned specifically that I'm *NOT* asking about a long war of attrition.

Click to expand...

Yeah, where did the 4:1 come from?

previously 3:1 was was what was considered sufficient to assault fortifications - ofcourse the mongols... kinda threw that out the window.... but then Calvary was supposed to equal 3 infantry... Mongol calvary - should equal more, where did the 4:1 come from? at the end of the day, it is all relative.

The relative numbers depend on the setup. For example a pre-gunpowder fortress was usually considered to require an enemy numerical supremacy of 10:1 in men and specific ranged weapons such as crossbows, great crossbows/esprignals/ballistae/oxybeles and stone throwers (trebuchet, giant crossbow, and so on).
The rule of thumb of 3:1 advantage for offensive operations pertained throughout WWI and WWII. But now we have the 21st century, a shift in weapons by increased use of complex programmed devices with sensors and great accuracy. I think this is similar to the shift from expensive heavy gendarmes to reiters that often bested them at a fraction of the cost and maintenance in the 16th century.
The characteristic of modern warfare is that you can kill all you can see within more or less time. If both parties are under observation the shorter OODA loop wins. If one side is able to hide they can use a longer OODA loop without running into danger.
Tanks, the essence of heavy troops have a very short OODA loop of being capable to engage an enemy with their guns. But I think you could replace them with artillery connected to a real time target information stream from an advancing light, but mechanized force with UAV support that is able to deal with infantry, mines and IED while calling in precise artillery strikes the moment they encounter too strong resistance. For such a force, traditionally the use of terrain has been paramount, but modern munitions negate much adavantage from this, so the question is rather how to run the longest range reconnaissance. In my opinion a combination of commandos, artillery, ground attack aircraft and medium infantry will be the economic choice for what previously has been done by heavy forces with armour being increasingly replaced by softkill measures. Medium infantry would be the US Stryker forces for example.

Hi,

Can a lightweight boxer knock out a heavy weight boxer---no---absolutely not---. As the light weight does not have knock out power---it is at the mercy of that one punch that the heavy weight can deliver to end the game.

Similiarly---in modern armies---the destruction caused by modern day heavy weapons is a lot more that what it was 25 years ago---the accuracy is a 100 times more---the protection against light weapons is tremednous----.

Lighter armies will never be able to encircle the heavier armies----even if they came close---they will be ripped opened like a tin can.

Even if the ligheter force has more numbers---that will make it easier for the heavier equipped force to kill them in higher numbers---because remember today's heavier weapons are more destructive than their older counterparts.

We need to remember---we don't fight the war in ether---at leasst not all of it---. Unless your light army cannot take on some of the heaviest of the heavy army one on one it is history.

Those giving examples of iraq and afg invasion---what u s does---only the u s knows---and sometimes even it is lost as well.

MastanKhan said:

Hi,

Can a lightweight boxer knock out a heavy weight boxer---no---absolutely not---. As the light weight does not have knock out power---it is at the mercy of that one punch that the heavy weight can deliver to end the game.

Click to expand...

What about 2 lightweight boxers against one heavy weight boxer?

Similiarly---in modern armies---the destruction caused by modern day heavy weapons is a lot more that what it was 25 years ago---the accuracy is a 100 times more---the protection against light weapons is tremednous----.

Lighter armies will never be able to encircle the heavier armies----even if they came close---they will be ripped opened like a tin can.

Even if the ligheter force has more numbers---that will make it easier for the heavier equipped force to kill them in higher numbers---because remember today's heavier weapons are more destructive than their older counterparts.

We need to remember---we don't fight the war in ether---at leasst not all of it---. Unless your light army cannot take on some of the heaviest of the heavy army one on one it is history.

Those giving examples of iraq and afg invasion---what u s does---only the u s knows---and sometimes even it is lost as well.

Click to expand...

However, we have seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the world's most advanced military does have glaring blind spots and weaknesses. The question is, how can those weaknesses be exploited by a light infantry army?

solarz said:

What about 2 lightweight boxers against one heavy weight boxer?



However, we have seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the world's most advanced military does have glaring blind spots and weaknesses. The question is, how can those weaknesses be exploited by a light infantry army?

Click to expand...

Hi,

No---we only wanted to see in what we believed in---. The us did not have any blind spots or weaknesses---this is not war---this is just a game being played.

Just because the u s millitary acted in a certain manner against these forces----does not neccessarily it will act in a similiaranner all the time-----. The u s millitary thinks on its feet---and it reacts to the threat level in a propeortional manner---which means that when fighting with taliban and iraqi army, theur battle plan would not be the same if fighting against the pakistani or the indian or a russian or a chinese army.

The u s millitary will use their daisy cutters on a much larger scale against a larger and lighter infantry force than they ever did before---any large gathering of lighter forces will see a response of extremely heavy weapons---.

I don't know how old are you---on the 3 rd day of the 1st iraq war---a news article came out in Los Angeles Time----the heading stated---100000 iraqi troops buried alive in trenches---. Do you remember what happend----let me refresh it for you---the iraqi army was trenched in a line in sand trenches----when the u s advance began---they had a line of mine sweeper bulldozer tanks on the battles front which moved in on the iraqi troops----the bulldozers cleared up the mines and the dozer blades buried tens of thousands of iraqi soldiers alive in their trenches---maybe 40 thousand---maybe 60 thousand---maybe 100 thousand iraqi light troops were buried alive in their trenches---which became their eternal grave----.

So---what errors were you talking about now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MastanKhan said:

Hi,

No---we only wanted to see in what we believed in---. The us did not have any blind spots or weaknesses---this is not war---this is just a game being played.

Just because the u s millitary acted in a certain manner against these forces----does not neccessarily it will act in a similiaranner all the time-----. The u s millitary thinks on its feet---and it reacts to the threat level in a propeortional manner---which means that when fighting with taliban and iraqi army, theur battle plan would not be the same if fighting against the pakistani or the indian or a russian or a chinese army.

The u s millitary will use their daisy cutters on a much larger scale against a larger and lighter infantry force than they ever did before---any large gathering of lighter forces will see a response of extremely heavy weapons---.

I don't know how old are you---on the 3 rd of the 1st iraw war---a news article came out in Los Angeles Time----the heading stated---100000 iraqi troops buried alive in trenches---. Do you remember what happend----let me refrsh it for you---the iraqi army was treenched in a line in sand trenches----when the u s advance began---they had a line of mine sweeper bulldozer tanks on the battles front which moved in on the iraqi troops----the bulldozers cleared up the mines and the dozer blades buried tens of thousands of iraqi soldiers alive in their trenches---maybe40 thpousand---maybe 60 thousand---maybe 100 thouisand iraqi light troops were buried alive in their trenches---which became their eternal grave----.

So---what errors were you talking about now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Even if you put in a million exclamation marks, it doesn't negate the fact that the US army was/is stretched to the limit in just Afghanistan and Iraq. And the fight isn't even over yet.

The biggest advantage of light infantry is infiltration. The Taliban recruits from peasant teenagers, give them a few months of training, and send them off to be slaughtered by professional soldiers. Even then, NATO has been incapable of rooting out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now imagine what happens if the Taliban were composed of professionally trained soldiers, equipped with modern communications equipment, and have access to advanced man-portable anti-armor and anti-air weapons.

Your 1st Iraq War example is just ludicrous. No one is advocating a WW1 style trench warfare against 21st century technology.