Switch Theme:

What prevents infantry being rendered obsolete on a modern battlefield?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

By infantry this being “guys with guns” armed with assault rifles. Surely all the artillery, missiles, drones and planes means a guy with a rifle isn’t really that relevant unless he’s really just a radio operator calling in those weapons. In which case the gun is just there to stop a bunch of civilians hitting him with a big old rock.

Is stuff we see in Call of Duty for example where guys with guns win wars a bit like the cult of the bayonet in the 19th century where it’s wrapped up in romantic notions of war that bears no relation to what’s actually doing the killing? We still give soldiers knives and bayonets as well where again they see a lot more use in popular media far beyond their actual use.

Like what stops them going the way of cavalry, bayonet charges and pike squares? Infantry aren’t vastly more protected than they were in WW1 so why hasn’t the lethality of weapons reached the point where you can’t employ them? Modern weapons are a lot more destructive than in the Great War but this hasn’t led to people dropping infantry and they remain a core part of armies.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2023/04/01 18:18:48



Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Because when most wars are fought, they're generally being fought over something. Pounding that something into dust with artillery, air strikes, and tank brigades tends not to be very good for the thing.
Simplifying the concept of infantry to "Soldier with a rifle" is also hugely incorrect as there are also various roles and environments where infantry units excel. Engineers, scouts, snipers, infiltrators, or breachers are all vital roles that infantry units perform.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 18:47:04


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

 Gert wrote:
Because when most wars are fought, they're generally being fought over something. Pounding that something into dust with artillery, air strikes, and tank brigades tends not to be very good for the thing.
Simplifying the concept of infantry to "Soldier with a rifle" is also hugely incorrect as there are also various roles and environments where infantry units excel. Engineers, scouts, snipers, infiltrators, or breachers are all vital roles that infantry units perform.


Engineers are logistics and aren’t front line combat troops. Same as a medic or hospital personnel. Many of those roles could be demilitarised entirely and they don’t really need guns except for self defence from civilians throwing rocks at them.

The same reason a SWAT team or police aren’t soldiers? Most of the roles you list are counter insurgency and that heavily blurs the line between a war and a police action.

Recon can be done by drones. If it’s guy operating a drone that’s not really what most would understand to be an infantry soldier.

I think the term infantry is commonly understood to be “soldiers with rifles” in fox holes and trenches or deploying as the main body of the army. Which is how it’s depicted in popular culture and in the armies own recruitment ads. Not a supporting arm. Cavalry also had their uses in recon and policing actions even after they weren’t of much use on the larger battlefield. Why wouldn’t this apply to infantry with assault rifles as well?


Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




There's so many reasons.
One soldier with a rocket launcher can take down multiple types of vehicles and is a fraction of the cost.
Humans can manoveur areas that some or all vehicles can't access.
"Technically" CAS can cover a lot of ground, but they're a big target and still vulnerable to certain weapon systems.
It's basically given that you need boots on the ground in order to actually secure an area. Armor alone has visibility issues and is vulnerable to infantry.

Sure, you could glass an area, but the only time that would even be considered is if the goal of the war was to wipe out the opponent and nothing else...or in the case of the Pacific War, force a surrender.

The idea that infantry is just "guys with assault rifles" is false. Standard US infantry fire teams have, the last time I checked, at least 1 SMG embedded in the unit, and in the army I believe the TL carried a M203 Grenade Launcher. All four team members also carry grenades.

A US Marine company has an organic weapons platoon and they are equipped with MMGs, mortars, and SMAWs (rocket launcher).

Basically, no modern military is deploying a single infantry unit that is only "guys with assault rifles."

The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy 
   
Made in gb
Leader of the Sept







Bahkmut and Vuhledar point to the resilience of the infantryman with a good hole to hide in. They are cheap to create, but can be made to be very effective. So you can have lots of them and they can’t be ignored or else they will get in your back lines and do terrible things to your support troops.

Infantry spans the whole spectrum of violence from punching a guy in the face up to calling in massive artillery or air strikes. And then they sit on the ground that is yours to stop some other bugger nicking it.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot





The Dark Imperium

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

   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Spoiler:
 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Engineers are logistics and aren’t front line combat troops. Same as a medic or hospital personnel. Many of those roles could be demilitarised entirely and they don’t really need guns except for self defence from civilians throwing rocks at them.

Engineers are not just logistics. They're combat troops that perform duties such as EOD work, construction, and more. Likewise, battlefield medics are not rear echelon forces either but rather often deploy with their units and experience combat all the same.

The same reason a SWAT team or police aren’t soldiers? Most of the roles you list are counter insurgency and that heavily blurs the line between a war and a police action.

Engineers, scouts, snipers, infiltration units, and breachers are not automatically COIN forces. COIN operations don't actually use one specific class of soldier because it is not a role but rather as the name suggests, an operation. Technically you could deploy armour battalions on COIN ops it just wouldn't be very effective.

Recon can be done by drones. If it’s guy operating a drone that’s not really what most would understand to be an infantry soldier.

The type of drone you are thinking of supplies a wide range of intelligence but there are many ways to evade or confuse this technology. They also don't work in every single scenario.

I think the term infantry is commonly understood to be “soldiers with rifles” in fox holes and trenches or deploying as the main body of the army. Which is how it’s depicted in popular culture and in the armies own recruitment ads. Not a supporting arm. Cavalry also had their uses in recon and policing actions even after they weren’t of much use on the larger battlefield. Why wouldn’t this apply to infantry with assault rifles as well?

Infantry are the main body of every army in the world. That's not pop culture influence, that's a fact.
You're comparing apples and oranges when it comes to the cavalry comparison. Cavalry were used as breakthrough troops and for long-ranging recon missions. Both roles were taken over by the likes of armour, jeeps, and aircraft thereby rendering the cavalry useless outside of ceremonial duties. Nothing has even come close to supplanting the role of infantry in warfare.

Perhaps you should go and research the various roles, weapons, and equipment "basic infantry" possess.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 19:09:37


 
   
Made in gb
Leader of the Sept







Going back through the OP. Modern weapons in industrial warfare are collectively no more destructive than those used in WW1. Individually they are more accurate, but the collective effect is the same. Protection of your infantry comes either from a nice big sturdy hole, not being seen, or being positioned somewhere surrounded by things or people that the opposition is unwilling to turn into dust.

It’s hard to make weapons that can counter all of those defences, especially at the price point of a guy with a rifle (and a few other toys), hence the PBI continues to be a thing.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

If infantry are so good why did the US roll over them in both Iraq wars? Was that an aberration and if those Iraqi infantry had magically been same as US. All the javelins, training etc etc. that the outcome would have been different?

I am just not sure why if they’re so problematic you haven’t seen more investment into ways of killing them. Man in hole in ground shouldn’t be having it that good. Surely a shell or missile is cheaper than a marine?


Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
By infantry this being “guys with guns” armed with assault rifles. Surely all the artillery, missiles, drones and planes means a guy with a rifle isn’t really that relevant unless he’s really just a radio operator calling in those weapons. In which case the gun is just there to stop a bunch of civilians hitting him with a big old rock.

Is stuff we see in Call of Duty for example where guys with guns win wars a bit like the cult of the bayonet in the 19th century where it’s wrapped up in romantic notions of war that bears no relation to what’s actually doing the killing? We still give soldiers knives and bayonets as well where again they see a lot more use in popular media far beyond their actual use.

Like what stops them going the way of cavalry, bayonet charges and pike squares? Infantry aren’t vastly more protected than they were in WW1 so why hasn’t the lethality of weapons reached the point where you can’t employ them? Modern weapons are a lot more destructive than in the Great War but this hasn’t led to people dropping infantry and they remain a core part of armies.



Alot of the Russian-Ukraine war is currently being fought by infantry at relatively close quarters.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot





The Dark Imperium

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.

   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 Totalwar1402 wrote:
If infantry are so good why did the US roll over them in both Iraq wars? Was that an aberration and if those Iraqi infantry had magically been same as US. All the javelins, training etc etc. that the outcome would have been different?

Ah see now you're definitely trolling. Oh well.
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






I’d imagine having trained troops on the ground gives you a reactive ability remote monitoring just doesn’t. Dug in or hidden, they may overhear loose tongues. They may have opportunities to do real damage in comparatively small time windows.

Their presence I would imagine also slows down the enemy advance, particularly in urban areas. I’m far from a military expert, and novice barely does justice, but it’s a poor commander indeed who assumes any given building is clear of enemy troops. That means having to check building by building, floor by floor, room by room. That takes time. It exhausts your own soldiers - possibly more so if they know enemy units are, or at least were, in the area, as they’ll be on alert. The more you can slow an advance, the better as it lets you rally your own troops for counter pushes etc.

   
Made in hr
Fresh-Faced New User





Fact that human organism itself is still the most versatile tool. Sure, tanks can move more quickly... but they cannot go where infantry can. A tank or aircraft can carry more weapons - but cannot adapt as well as infantry can. Not everything can be solved by blowing stuff up.

It is the same reason why we still have conventional forces despite all major powers having nukes.
   
Made in ru
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

I'm going to take this to a slightly different, philosophical level.

If we were to render warfare into something done completely remotely using machinery, with no people involved at all, no risk to any human life, then what's the point? Would warfare even happen? Underneath the geo politics and strategic and tactical lingo, when we really get down to brass tacks, Is warfare not simply a primal drive to destroy, subjugate or defeat a set of people who differ in some way?

It ties into the whole AI debate. Warfare is part of human nature. If we remove ourselves from it too much, it's no longer in our realm, so why bother? I may be wrong of course, but I think part of the reason people are still involved is because people need to be involved, on a spiritual level.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'm going to take this to a slightly different, philosophical level.

If we were to render warfare into something done completely remotely using machinery, with no people involved at all, no risk to any human life, then what's the point? Would warfare even happen? Underneath the geo politics and strategic and tactical lingo, when we really get down to brass tacks, Is warfare not simply a primal drive to destroy, subjugate or defeat a set of people who differ in some way?

It ties into the whole AI debate. Warfare is part of human nature. If we remove ourselves from it too much, it's no longer in our realm, so why bother? I may be wrong of course, but I think part of the reason people are still involved is because people need to be involved, on a spiritual level.


it would just become a game - and how many of us already do that

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

Okay those all make a lot of sense. We aren’t quite at the point where you can drop a missile or shell on ever guys head without breaking the bank. Infantry still are needed to do some tasks. Plus they can just be a sidearm for rockets launchers, grenades and more impressive weaponry.

If that’s the case, two scenarios:

- US infantry is on its own. What stops them being on the receiving end of artillery and drones? How well would US infantry do if they were in this situation? Looking back at old footage of 2003 at times you had whole mobs of them on the roads to Baghdad like something out of the Napoleonic wars. 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?


Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Oxfordshire

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Surely all the artillery, missiles, drones and planes means a guy with a rifle isn’t really that relevant unless he’s really just a radio operator calling in those weapons.

Cost.

I'll start with the low hanging fruit:
Planes - most modern planes shoot their target without seeing them (there are a lower number of close support planes, but they have their own drawbacks). Most modern planes do not have a high number of munition attached to them and have a limited mission time. Those aircraft that can loiter are usually light, recon and more frequently RPAS. Putting an attack aircraft in the air is 'ing expensive for limited return. And that's before you start on the support infrastructure for them.
So why have planes then if they are that inefficient? Simply because they give you a distinct advantage, you want air power and you want to deny air power. But it is only useful as a limited tool as part of a combined military force.

Artillery - fantastic stuff, great when it's in place with supply lines, engineering support, with an easily detectable target that prefers to be stationary. Not so great when your enemy decides they are going to move somewhere else, or your supply lines get cut.

Missiles - you serious? you have any idea what a missile costs? You can churn out NATO standard rifle rounds by the billions for the cost of one missile. This ain't call of war.

Drones - actually we're seeing in Ukraine an example of modern'ish armies using drone support. This is new stuff and it's going to take some time before existing materiel is adapted to exploit and defend from drones. Why is this an interesting development? COST! This stuff is super cheap to deploy, requires minimal training and infrastructure. We won't immediately know how existing structures will change to account for this development, but this is one to genuinely watch out for.

Infantry - why use infantry? Aside from being mostly self sufficient (people will cannibalise anything on the front line), very mobile, adaptable to different roles, and easily replaceable? COST! Even after training, kitting, transport, accommodation, wages, health support; infantry are cheap, re-useable resources that (usually) get better over time. Nothing is as versatile for the cost. It's even cheaper if you can get the plebs to do it and pay them less than a living wage, which is what we in the west do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Totalwar1402 wrote:
If infantry are so good why did the US roll over them in both Iraq wars? Was that an aberration and if those Iraqi infantry had magically been same as US. All the javelins, training etc etc. that the outcome would have been different?


Combined arms + modern training
If the Iraqi forces had the same training as the coalition forces they would have been better, but probably still would have failed due to lower value equipment and resources.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Surely a shell or missile is cheaper than a marine?

No.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 21:17:11


 
   
Made in gb
Leader of the Sept







 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Okay those all make a lot of sense. We aren’t quite at the point where you can drop a missile or shell on ever guys head without breaking the bank. Infantry still are needed to do some tasks. Plus they can just be a sidearm for rockets launchers, grenades and more impressive weaponry.

If that’s the case, two scenarios:

- US infantry is on its own. What stops them being on the receiving end of artillery and drones? How well would US infantry do if they were in this situation? Looking back at old footage of 2003 at times you had whole mobs of them on the roads to Baghdad like something out of the Napoleonic wars. Like, zero concern that they might have artillery shot at them in some photos.


You stop being on the end of artillery either by not being where the enemy can see you, or by stopping the artillery. In Iraq the allied forces were ‘t concerned about artillery particularly because they had total air superiority. The opposing artillery couldn’t get set up anywhere useful without getting annihilated by air power.

If the infantry is alone and unsupported then regardless of how well trained they are, they are likely dead. Modern militaries try to control that risk through intelligence and controlling the battle space’and making the that their infantry isn’t left alone out in The open with no friends.



- 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?


Depends on how their morale is, but yes. If they were defending then just absorbing casualties is a valid tactic until such time as either the opposition or their side runs out of munitions, or the will to fight. Attacking is a bit harder as infantry doesn’t project power very effectively, especially in the face of modern artillery and air power. Again, all of this is being laid out in Horrifying fashion in Ukraine just now.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot





The Dark Imperium

 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.


   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






My man's thinks actual war is like an RTS.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

 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.

You hear over and over again when discussing WW1 that soldiers didn’t appreciate the destructive power of modern weapons but…this is a thing and they get away with it.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 22:46:27



Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot





The Dark Imperium

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/01 22:46:53


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:
 Totalwar1402 wrote:
If infantry are so good why did the US roll over them in both Iraq wars? Was that an aberration and if those Iraqi infantry had magically been same as US. All the javelins, training etc etc. that the outcome would have been different?

Ah see now you're definitely trolling. Oh well.


I don't think he's trolling, I think he's just that <redacted>.
Especially because asymmetrical infantry literally never gave up in the WoT and eventually "won" in Afghanistan.

The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

From Heinleins Starship Troopers (and he may have also said “If you can’t stand on ground you’re claiming, you don’t own it yet.” Or similar)

There are a dozen different ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships and missiles of one sort or another, catastrophes so widespread, so unselective, that the war is over because that nation or planet has ceased to exist. What we do is entirely different. We make war as personal as a punch in the nose. We can be selective, applying precisely the required amount of pressure at the specified point at a designated time…

We are the boys who go to a particular place, at H-hour, occupy a designated terrain, stand on it, dig the enemy out of their holes, force them then and there to surrender or die. We're the bloody infantry, the doughboy, the duckfoot, the foot soldier who goes where the enemy is and takes him on in person. We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very little change in our trade, at least since the time five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry "Uncle!"

Maybe they'll be able to do without us someday. Maybe some mad genius with myopia, a bulging forehead, and a cybernetic mind will devise a weapon that can go down a hole, pick out the opposition, and force it to surrender or die--without killing that gang of your own people they've got imprisoned down there.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/02 02:38:29


Thread Slayer 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

Infantry is the best thing there is at holding stuff. Usually wars tend to have material objectives that need to be conquered and hold, both as territory, populations and/or infrastructure.

Infantry does that because infantry can stand around and look pretty for 99.999% of the time (and provide suppressive fire to pin down enemy infantry in that remaining 0.001% of the time) and while that may not be a particularly glamorous role, it is a fundamental part of winning a war.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/02 02:57:26


 
   
Made in gb
Leader of the Sept







 Totalwar1402 wrote:


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.



This is not an infantry problem though. Neither country has sufficient force projection or logistics capability to invade the other and overcome the morale of the other. So it would either come down to wearing the other down logistically, or the nukes come out and the world dies.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

trexmeyer wrote:
 Gert wrote:
 Totalwar1402 wrote:
If infantry are so good why did the US roll over them in both Iraq wars? Was that an aberration and if those Iraqi infantry had magically been same as US. All the javelins, training etc etc. that the outcome would have been different?

Ah see now you're definitely trolling. Oh well.


I don't think he's trolling, I think he's just that <redacted>.
Especially because asymmetrical infantry literally never gave up in the WoT and eventually "won" in Afghanistan.


Gert is salty because of something I said a year ago about Halo and he lurks in stuff I post ever since then.

That and I said the Dune film was right wing conservative slop. Maybe it was that one that he started.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/02 11:31:50



Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The guys salty because of something I said a year ago about Halo and he lurks in stuff I post ever since then.

That and I said the Dune film was right wing conservative slop. Maybe it was that one that he started.

My guy, I didn't even post in the Dune thread...
I do remember interacting in the past and being disappointed with your lack of knowledge or willingness to engage properly with someone who does have that knowledge, something that once again you have shown here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/02 11:36:18


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





England: Newcastle

 Gert wrote:
 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The guys salty because of something I said a year ago about Halo and he lurks in stuff I post ever since then.

That and I said the Dune film was right wing conservative slop. Maybe it was that one that he started.

My guy, I didn't even post in the Dune thread...
I do remember interacting in the past and being disappointed with your lack of knowledge or willingness to engage properly with someone who does have that knowledge, something that once again you have shown here.


Bit difficult when people’s idea of “proper respect” is don’t talk back and don’t ask questions in the first place. Which in a forum is an odd position to take.



Starting Sons of Horus Legion

Starting Daughters of Khaine

2000pts Sisters of Silence

4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts



 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: