What prevents infantry being rendered obsolete on a modern battlefield?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Adeptekon**

It's the battlefield that's changed, not the use of foot soldiers.

**Adeptekon**

We're also not at the point Urban warfare can be done merely with drones. I also tend to stick with the official definitions of words as they've been understood for generations.

I mean politicians often talk about bombing adversaries back to the stone age to get elected, but some form of ethics in addition to good common sense still calls for the need of boots on the ground.

**Adeptekon**

Totalwar1402 wrote:
Like, zero concern that they might have artillery shot at them in some photos.

- What stops a country with, not naming names, but if they had 2 billion people, spamming infantry with modern missile launchers? Would that opponent be able to simply absorb the damage of US artillery, aircraft and drones?

Spamming what? Are you talking about invasion? Whole lot of questions there. But in regards to zero concern. I think that's a bit of mis-characterization by the media you took in. The media paints whatever picture it wants.

**Adeptekon**

Totalwar1402 wrote:
Adeptekon wrote:
Totalwar1402 wrote:
Like, zero concern that they might have artillery shot at them in some photos.

- What stops a country with, not naming names, but if they had 2 billion people, spamming infantry with modern missile launchers? Would that opponent be able to simply absorb the damage of US artillery, aircraft and drones?

Spamming what? Are you talking about invasion? Whole lot of questions there. But in regards to zero concern. I think that's a bit of mis-characterization by the media you took in. The media paints whatever picture it wants.

Infantry. China has two billion people. That’s a problem. If the US plan is they surrender once the fleet has been sank that’s a big assumption to make.

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/130314204911-01-iraq-war.jpg?q=w_2050,h_1153,x_0,y_0,c_fill/w_1280

I couldn’t get the exact image. It’s where there was like five hundred guys on this dirt road and one was carrying this triangle shaped flag at the head of the column. But stuff like this where you’ve got a few hundred guys crammed like sardines in one area. Or any of those traffic jams they had. One shell and that’s more than they lost in the whole Gulf War.

Yeah the area has been cleared, and most likely the locals at that point in time in that area were not hostile with them. That said even though a picture is worth a thousand words, we simple just don't have enough context.

I've spoken with and am related to a few veterans. This image doesn't depict door to door operations, nor movement into hostile ground of which there is most certainly great concern, as that's where people get killed and there is enough depression, and PTSD being treated to prove it.

**Adeptekon**

So it seems this topic was a trap all along.