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

Subedei

Subedei

Banned Idiot
solarz said:
Well the original intent of my post was to explore whether we currently have military technology that would allow a light infantry force to overcome an army with armor, artillery, air, and mechanized support.

Specifically, I was wondering about tactical engagements. Can a light infantry force overrun a more advanced army's fortified position? What is the numerical superiority needed for this to occur?
Click to expand...

i believe that there are some situations in which a light-infantry force can overcome a fortified position of a combined force, but not in all situations. actually, i've been working on a solution to just that problem. it's part of my doctrine of "Tactical Convergence", what i believe to be my contribution to military tactical arts. yes, i know, i'm full of myself!

the factors i've considered as essential force multipliers are: accuracy, destructive power, range, and weight. from these i've derived a unit structure that exploits light 81mm mortars out to ~5,675 m and atgm's out to ~5,500 m (max engage zone [base fire support squad]); light 60mm mortars out to 1,921 m, auto grenade launchers and medium mg's out to ~1,750 m, and sniper rifles, out to ~1500 m (central engagement zone [assault fire support squad]); and rpg's with anti-tank, anti-bunker and, most importantly, thermobaric warheads, out to 2000m and lmg's and assault rifles out from 800 m (minimum engage zone [assault maneuver squad]).

the efficacy of this structure derives, i believe, from its exploitation of snipers' accuracy, atgm's blend of accuracy and destructive power against stationary targets, and, especially, the destructive power of thermobaric explosives against stationary (housed or dug-in) targets. add in the anti-personnel capabilities of the mortars, automatic grenade launchers, and medium and light machine guns, and i think a light infantry unit, effectively spaced and commanded, has a good chance against a fortified combined arms force.

i have not included manpads because my structure is actually for a air assault force that has air support, but manpad capability can easily be added to the base fire support squad.

as i've said, this structure doesn't guarantee success in all situations, or in any situation. it does, i think, give light infantry the most bang for its yuan using off-the-shelf weaponry.

as one commentor has already stated, access to even these, somewhat basic, weapons, would require access to military aid from nations that produce them, and control of resupply routes and points. these, i believe, in the current geo-political context, are often the most difficult to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Kurt

Kurt

Junior Member
Subedei said:
i believe that there are some situations in which a light-infantry force can overcome a fortified position of a combined force, but not in all situations. actually, i've been working on a solution to just that problem. it's part of my doctrine of "Tactical Convergence", what i believe to be my contribution to military tactical arts. yes, i know, i'm full of myself!

the factors i've considered as essential force multipliers are: accuracy, destructive power, range, and weight. from these i've derived a unit structure that exploits light 81mm mortars out to ~5,675 m and atgm's out to ~5,500 m (max engage zone [base fire support squad]); light 60mm mortars out to 1,921 m, auto grenade launchers and medium mg's out to ~1,750 m, and sniper rifles, out to ~1500 m (central engagement zone [assault fire support squad]); and rpg's with anti-tank, anti-bunker and, most importantly, thermobaric warheads, out to 2000m and lmg's and assault rifles out from 800 m (minimum engage zone [assault maneuver squad]).

the efficacy of this structure derives, i believe, from its exploitation of snipers' accuracy, atgm's blend of accuracy and destructive power against stationary targets, and, especially, the destructive power of thermobaric explosives against stationary (housed or dug-in) targets. add in the anti-personnel capabilities of the mortars, automatic grenade launchers, and medium and light machine guns, and i think a light infantry unit, effectively spaced and commanded, has a good chance against a fortified combined arms force.

i have not included manpads because my structure is actually for a air assault force that has air support, but manpad capability can easily be added to the base fire support squad.

as i've said, this structure doesn't guarantee success in all situations, or in any situation. it does, i think, give light infantry the most bang for its yuan using off-the-shelf weaponry.

as one commentor has already stated, access to even these, somewhat basic, weapons, would require access to military aid from nations that produce them, and control of resupply routes and points. these, i believe, in the current geo-political context, are often the most difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...

Where will you publish and explain your doctrine?
 
D

Delbert

Junior Member
If you were to rely on light infantry in 21st century.. I would just rather suggest go on a sabotage missions rather than conventional head on.

Suicidal attacks, bombings, hi-jackings, guerrilla style warfare in the jungles, ambush, assassinations, etc.
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
solarz said:
Intelligence can definitely be game changing. Supposed the combined arms army has access to satellite surveillance, what would be some of the ways for the light infantry army to defeat it?

A mechanized infantry needs to follow roads on an approach. A light infantry can go cross country. A light infantry force can scatter too far and wide for satellites to realize something is amiss. The biggest problem with this approach is communication. Radio comm can be easily intercepted by the enemy. Still, the Taliban routinely organizes attacks with hundreds of fighters, so there must be a way to hide from satellite surveillance.

Another issue is the strategic objective an the light infantry. It would be suicide for a light infantry force to hold a position against an army with air and artillery support. Therefore, a light infantry force must always be on the attack. It needs to be able to gather to strike at an isolated element of the enemy forces, and then scatter and vanish before the enemy can respond with heavy firepower.

Since the light infantry cannot hold any position, then the taking of strategic locations become meaningless. Their bases of supply must be secret, either hidden in mountains or amidst civilian populations. As such, the only strategic objectives that make sense to a light infantry force is to destroy enemy supplies and enemy forces.

As the light infantry cannot stand toe-to-toe with the combined arms force, they *must* draw the combined arms force into a theatre where they have to be spread thin.

These are some of my thoughts for the moment.
Click to expand...

IMO, the first thing we must recognize would be that this is an asymmetric warfare, therefore all the doctrine and approaches would definitely mean not to engage a full-strength military force head-on. It's a definite suicide. Aside from that, I see this possible provided the infantry forces have the following: planning, strategy, spies, intel, element of surprise, tactics, speed, aggression, stealth, surprise, terrain, numbers, and advanced training. An example would be that MOUT inside the capital can reduce CAS and artillery bombardment. Disrupting electronics such as bringing down the network with hacking can cripple a more advanced army blind for a short duration that allows something like the Tet to occur. Use of SOF to infiltrate during night times with a combination of hacking and Tet can catch opposition command and control off guard, and even decapitating high ranking staffs can disrupt morale. IED and MANPAD ambushes on supply lines and airbases can hurt supplies. DA such as search and destroy, sabotage of planes, and MANPAD ambushes on air fields and air assets also would be helpful. Infiltration with spies and intel work would be essential, while snipers and observation posts and recon could be used to again, take out high value targets and assassinations. Attach this with local morale will help greatly. Putting footages or even faking opposing forces' war crimes such as massacre would help sway international support and adversary's domestic population towards war opinion. Propaganda would be very important. Finally, if everything orchestrated as a single campaign and everything successfully executed in really rapid continuum, the adversary will not have time to breathe. I think that's the only way to kick it out of theater.
 
Last edited:
Subedei

Subedei

Banned Idiot
unfortunately, for those caught in the circumstances, we might soon observe our conjecture in actual practice. news reports indicate that the syrian opposition forces are converging on damascus. the next few weeks might present us with a an actual event that coincides with our analytical scenario.
 
Subedei

Subedei

Banned Idiot
solarz said:
Specifically, I was wondering about tactical engagements. Can a light infantry force overrun a more advanced army's fortified position? What is the numerical superiority needed for this to occur?
Click to expand...

so, actually, you're asking if it's possible to win a major battle with only light infantry?

i think that might be a more approachable question.
 
D

Delbert

Junior Member
Subedei said:
unfortunately, for those caught in the circumstances, we might soon observe our conjecture in actual practice. news reports indicate that the syrian opposition forces are converging on damascus. the next few weeks might present us with a an actual event that coincides with our analytical scenario.
Click to expand...

But the point is, is Syrian army enough to justify a more modern, superior and heavier army? I know the Syrian military is definitely better equipped with heavy weapons. But if you look at more powerful countries... I don't think light infantry can ever win a battle in the 21st century.

Just look at Libya, if NATO and US allies did not intervene. providing the rebels with air superiority Qaddafi's government could have won the war. They are already closing in Benghazi remember?
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
I think the answer of winning with only light infintry is a resounding 'it depends.' If we're talking about a great power going after a thire-rate power, then the answer has already been proven several times on battle fields. The way US and allied air power "shaped the battle field" with 24/7 strikes of primary, secondary, tertiary, and finally anything that even smelled bad is the basic blueprint for all great powers against weak powers. Now if we're talking about near peer conflicts, then the answer is no way one side can win over the othe side in a real and sustained war without bringing everything to bear, and THAT is too terrible to contemplate.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
How about this scenario:

Sometime in the next 10 years, South Korea becomes really militant and decides to invade North Korea. The USA has no appetite for another war and decides to support SK with supplies only, and also sets up an embargo against NK.

The embargo causes NK to have a severe fuel shortage, making their unable to deploy any mechanized infantry or armor on a large scale. They are forced to rely on their infantry. Luckily for NK, China is also willing to supply them with weapons, but the narrow NK-China border makes it impossible for China to relieve NK of its fuel shortage.

Since the USA is not intervening directly, China will not either. It will be just NK with its millions of regular infantry and reserves against SK forces.

So would be the outcome of such a war? Are there any "game changer" technologies for NK? How about for SK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top