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

quote by Solarz
.... 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. .... "

The US would say it is not fair and coward war as external parties helping Taliban

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.

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...

So... the Battle of Cannae did not happen? where Hannibal's smaller force literally encircled the larger roman force and destroyed it?

/edit, forgot to say, Cathage fielding men who were less armored, lighter armed and alot of skirmishers. there were only around 30K heavy infantry vs 40K romans.. and an 50K men army vs a 80K men army....

Hi,

The arena that you are playing in now---is totally different that what it was---regardless of what happemed---it came down to mano a mano---.

Over here the technolgy has taken the war to a totally different planet that even one generation older people do not even recognize the paradigms----talking about a war that was fought around 2000 years ago is a ludicrous example---.

In todays warfare---the enemy with heavy weapons and superior technology doesnot neccessary has to come into contact with the lighter army---. The mechanical and electronic resources of the heavy army will neutralize all the moves of the lighter army---.

The lighter army cannot move in large groups---but to be effective they will have to and they will be target of larger bombs with bigger destructive powers---precision bombs as well and heavy bombers delivering more death in a lesser number of sorties----the heavy guns delivering precision strikes round after round at longer distances---cruise missiles dropping bomblets will slaughter the lighter equipped millitary----.

Please always remember---millitaries are trained to fight against each other and not terrorists or resistance---millitaries have a difficult time against the un-predictable---which is a force like taliban---shepherds one moment--wanting to fight the next---.

The precision fire power of the heavy equipped army like the u s is on a totally different pleateau never seen in the history of mankind. Which means that when it move---it can destroy the opponent from so far away that the opponent does not even have the chance of coming close to it---if it does not want it to.

The problem with the average opponent is that it takes the u s millitary reaction to be in a flat line graph not understanding that the graph changes according to the opposition that it faces---the u s millitary reacts differently against different levels of threat---.

MastanKhan said:

Hi,

The arena that you are playing in now---is totally different that what it was---regardless of what happemed---it came down to mano a mano---.

Over here the technolgy has taken the war to a totally different planet that even one generation older people do not even recognize the paradigms----talking about a war that was fought around 2000 years ago is a ludicrous example---.

In todays warfare---the enemy with heavy weapons and superior technology doesnot neccessary has to come into contact with the lighter army---. The mechanical and electronic resources of the heavy army will neutralize all the moves of the lighter army---.

The lighter army cannot move in large groups---but to be effective they will have to and they will be target of larger bombs with bigger destructive powers---precision bombs as well and heavy bombers delivering more death in a lesser number of sorties----the heavy guns delivering precision strikes round after round at longer distances---cruise missiles dropping bomblets will slaughter the lighter equipped millitary----.

Please always remember---millitaries are trained to fight against each other and not terrorists or resistance---millitaries have a difficult time against the un-predictable---which is a force like taliban---shepherds one moment--wanting to fight the next---.

The precision fire power of the heavy equipped army like the u s is on a totally different pleateau never seen in the history of mankind. Which means that when it move---it can destroy the opponent from so far away that the opponent does not even have the chance of coming close to it---if it does not want it to.

The problem with the average opponent is that it takes the u s millitary reaction to be in a flat line graph not understanding that the graph changes according to the opposition that it faces---the u s millitary reacts differently against different levels of threat---.

Click to expand...

The key really is, you said the Never Can and I showed you an example that they Can - If you frequent these forums enough, you will realize that making generalist absolute statements and accusations of our understanding are - lets say, an insult to our intelligence.

Lets give you another example, Did the US lose the Vietnam war against a lighter army what did it's precision bombs and high tech do?

Lets look at another, So the JDAM precision bomb that slam into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade 1999 is then therefore intentional and a direct strike at another nations soil?

I doubt the USA can win a ground war against... lets say Russia or China or India on their respective soil even if they have higher tech and more formidable force.

The critical key here is economy and reinforcing time.

Economy translate to much bigger numbers that can saturate the enemy's defense and literally exhaust them of firepower and bullets (see Korean War and China's superiority in #s)

Reinforcing time is much better for China in an China-US war on Chinese soil, since China has a relatively industrialized production base with modern transportation capacity and can reinforce her troops quicker than America, whose main production facilities are over 8,000 miles away.

By the time adequate American reinforcements arrive, Americans would be pushed out into the sea or wiped out entirely and would be forced to sue for peace, or do an amphibious land assault like Incheon or Normandy. Even in that case, unless Chinese economy and industry completely suck, the Chinese can atleast hold America off on a stalemate with mass infantry alone, albeit with very heavy costs. Over the long term if Chinese economy and political will power can sustain such losses and replenish the losses at a reasonable rate, I think the high tech adversary will win in the longer run since reinforcing advantage diminishes.

This situation is on Chinese soil or immediate vincinity of China. This supposes China has a VERY strong economy, production infrastructure, and strong industry to equip, train, and supply mass infantry very quickly.

Summary: Pyhrric victory for mass infantry in short-medium term (at worse, an stalemate), and probable lost for mass infantry in long term against high tech adversary since if both economies of China-US are equal, reinforcing time advantage diminishes and high tech should be able to gain an upper hand by targeting production infrastructure of mass infantry nation.

But China isn't stupid. She isn't going to tdo mass infantry against US, she is going to mix in assymetric high tech warfare (anti-Sat, cyber, missiles, anti-access, financial warfare, etc..) to maximize her ability to deal damage against a high tech adversary.

China is pretty much going to destroy US in a war if the war occurs in China's immediate vicinity, esp. over Taiwna.

I think people are too stuck on the Taliban/Korean War model. I'm not advocating a light infantry with inferior tech. The tech level is similar, it just happens that the light infantry side can only get personnel-grade equipment. Like my example of a Scottish militia being covertly supported by, say, France.

Light infantry has the technology to defeat tanks and attack helicopters. If they have external support, they could also have access to satellite communication: anything you can smuggle across the borders or doesn't require heavy industry to manufacture locally.

The main Achilles' Heel that I can think of is a lack of air support. Ironically, a light infantry can deal better with an enemy air supremacy than a heavy infantry. Question is, can they overcome this air supremacy?

solarz said:

I think people are too stuck on the Taliban/Korean War model. I'm not advocating a light infantry with inferior tech. The tech level is similar, it just happens that the light infantry side can only get personnel-grade equipment. Like my example of a Scottish militia being covertly supported by, say, France.

Light infantry has the technology to defeat tanks and attack helicopters. If they have external support, they could also have access to satellite communication: anything you can smuggle across the borders or doesn't require heavy industry to manufacture locally.

The main Achilles' Heel that I can think of is a lack of air support. Ironically, a light infantry can deal better with an enemy air supremacy than a heavy infantry. Question is, can they overcome this air supremacy?

Click to expand...

That's because real life ain't Starcraft II, and just rely on light infantry might win you some battles, but it's hopeless to win you a war. You could win only when situation denies the other side superiority in information gathering and fire support (direct or indirect), as well as how shackled the other side are...

Yes, you can win (usually pyhrric victory) using large scale mass infantry tactics, even against a high tech superpower like United States (see Korean war, the Americans simply ran out of ammunition, forced to retreat, etc...), of course, it's definitely possible... however, the caveat to remember is that the amount of infantry units lost is VERY HIGH, and you need a great economy to sustain, maintain, equip, replenish, train these soldiers (by end of Korean war, China's economy was near bankrupt)...

... but imagine if you mixed in tanks, airplanes, etc... along with infantry, then you will probably have a winning combination without all those wasted lives.

It's nearly impossible to discount the use of the fundamental unit of soldiers in the theatre of war, but it's also equally impossible to solely rely on just mass infantry, esp. in the 21st century.

It really sucks to be overwhelmed by human wave attacks and run out of bullets. No matter how hightech your army is, if you don't have reinforcements in ammunition and firepower in time, you ARE fucked.

MwRYum said:

That's because real life ain't Starcraft II, and just rely on light infantry might win you some battles, but it's hopeless to win you a war. You could win only when situation denies the other side superiority in information gathering and fire support (direct or indirect), as well as how shackled the other side are...

Click to expand...

I disagree, light infantry certainly can win wars against even air supremacy. Look at Vietnam, for example. That's actually a good analogy of my scenario: the Northern Vietnamese were supplied in equipment and even manpower from USSR and China.

How ever, that was in the 1970's. Has technological progress since then increased or decreased the odds of the light infantry?

solarz said:

I disagree, light infantry certainly can win wars against even air supremacy. Look at Vietnam, for example. That's actually a good analogy of my scenario: the Northern Vietnamese were supplied in equipment and even manpower from USSR and China.

How ever, that was in the 1970's. Has technological progress since then increased or decreased the odds of the light infantry?

Click to expand...

If you gonna quote Vietnam...don't you know how shackled the US military was by politics? And Vietnam didn't win by infantry alone - China provided safe haven to key Vietnamese war efforts, which Vietnam kinda forgot during the Sino-Vietnam War and they paid for it.