You can't conduct raids with tanks and drones, you can keep the peace from an F-35, you can't patrol with an APC. In insurgent warfare Infantry ESPECIALLY matters. While formal militaries can primarily be fought with armor and air, occupations, and insurgencies can't.
>>28487641 Lord Obama's crushing victory over ISIS from the air, dropping tonnage not seen in modern wars, flying some sorties himself, and illuminating targets for other aircraft with the radiance of his smile.
>>28487299 I think "Infantry" in the mindset of almost the entirety of modern war (Modern being the introduction and standardization of firearms, from line infantry to present) is irrelevant now. I think it's entirely void of any future use.
However, the Infantry has evolved. Infantry has evolved gradually since the start of the modern era, but I believe it's evolved fastest in the last 20 years or so.
I believe we recognized that the Cold War would never become hot, and that on a large scale, the major military powers of the world would never directly engage each other.
So much more is required of infantry now than ever before, if anything, infantry is more relevant than ever. I just wish that the basic OSUT course reflected that better. One day it will catch up.
>>28487299 Infantry has always mattered, that's why every army in existence still has infantry. And even though armored vehicles, artillery, and aircraft are arguably superior to infantry, let's not forget the role of those things; to support infantry. Say you want to take a position from the enemy and set it up as an FOB. Any decent position for an FOB is going to be surrounded by lots of open ground, so you use armored vehicles to keep infantry protected while they close in. It's most likely going to be heavily defended, so you might call in artillery or airstrikes on that position to soften them up for the infantry. After the infantry have cleared the objective and set up defensive positions, you use aircraft or scout vehicles to screen for any counter attacks. After you have established the FOB, you build forward observation posts, manned by infantry, to eliminate the need to constantly have aircraft or scout vehicles patrolling your immediate vicinity. When it comes down to it, the key factor in your ability to take or hold a position is infantry. If you only have tanks, aircraft, and artillery, all you can really do is blow the place up. You need infantry to thoroughly sweep and clear an area, and then you need to "install" infantry at that location in order to properly defend it, otherwise, what's going to stop people from just wandering onto the base? It's beyond impractical to have armored vehicles covering absolutely every angle of approach at all times.
>>28488040 You got most of it right except: >let's not forget the role of those things; to support infantry. Not necessarily. Think of everything doing it's part to accomplish an objective. Tanks and fighters aren't just around to protect the infantry. On the contrary, infantry is used often to protect tanks and air assets as well. Combined arms is the name of the game. Not infantry and everyone else. And not air power and everyone else. Everyone plays their part. The infantry didn't walk to Afghanistan, and the Air Force didn't just start landing fighter squadrons in the middle of Bagram either.
>>28487299 infantry exists these days for the sole reason that the enemy does or may employ infantry. if you roll out with just a bunch of tanks and no infantry / scout assets ahead of them, it means that 1 or 2 well hidden enemy OPs with some radios or anti-armor capabilites can completely shit on your armor with zero consequence.
but basically when nukes and air power became advanced enough to in theory prevent a major ground war between any of the major world powers. and when warfare became more complex than simply who has the most men on the ground with the most training. guerilla warfare has shat on organized infantry for hundreds of years.
>>28487794 Really the USMC only serves as a recruiting tool. Really, they might as well hand over control to the army so operations can be taken care of more smoothly. >INB4 marine butt anger That butt fury will go away pretty quick once you can't get a hold of any air support or medevac because the army and marines are on two different frequencies.
>>28487794 They exist solely because of our military culture and the fanatic loyalty to them. No politician is going to disband them.
>>28487299 Until they manage to make mobile drones like in chappie, they'll always have a place.
>>28487327 There will always be a huge psychological component to tanks. To my knowledge, no US tank has been destroyed in the war on terror. That says a lot when habib realizes he can't durka durka it.
>>28491048 Tanks are breddy easy to durka durka once you take then out of their natural habitat (open fields) and jam them into mazes of mudbrick houses or shittily made sprawls of flats, especially when those areas are full of snackbars wanting to durka durka all over the infidels.
Its just a question of how many shells you daisy chain and where you put them, or how many kebabs with RPGs you can muster.
>>28492671 I wish I could use one of the m16s in our arms room, unfortunately they're reserved for the OPS people who sit in a room on the radio all day and leave them in a weapon rack the whole time. I beg the armorer to no avail. The m4 feels weird to me, I miss the m16 (feels more accurate to me too). Ironically, I couldn't wait to get my hands on an m4, now I don't want it.
>>28487419 >Export T-72M or just a T-72A hit from the side by a TOW2 in the middle of nowhere right in the open operated by the SAA who have shown no serious combined arms operations is proof that tanks are useless.
How about I turn the tables around and show a Export M1A1M with actual side armor taking hits.
With nuclear weapons large conventional militaries are fucking useless.
It's basically a vestigial organ, welfare for gung-ho people.
If 500,000 man army comes marching towards your country, just send some nukes every hour until they turn back...they will turn back or every city will be incinerated in their home country and everyone they love will die.
Much better off investing in nukes than man-power like tanks and shit.
In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies the buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud.
>>28487299 As a Brit Bong I can tell you in the British Armed Forces Infantry skills are more important than ever. The Royal Armoured Corps shaped itself from tankers to effective recce cavalryman for ops where tanks are not useful. 10 years ago to see a Royal Tank Regiment Trooper with a Sniper Rifle was unheard of. Now it is the norm for any RAC Regiment.
In the end, Infantry and the skills they have are VERY important to modern day operations.
>>28487407 >>28487484 It's not about killcounts, you need infantry to hold territory which is what really matters. Artillery, armor, airstrikes, etc. can kill 99.99% of the enemy troops but you can't seize and hold the enemies positions without infantry. Everything exists to support infantry in doing so.
>>28487502 It's not as bad as the "why don't we bring back battleships/infantry support guns/anti-tank guns/dive bombers" threads that happen like clockwork.
>>28493199 you need to get some OPPENheIMER dropped on your head >the nuclear apocalypse >being a thing both sides fear mongered hard to keep nuclear war from happening because it would fucking suck (mass death on a scale we've never seen, infrastructure and clay ruined for decades- negating the point of war), but if you honestly think the affected nations would cease to exist or have large surviving conventional forces...
if russia wanted NATO clay in europe, irradiating it, destroying most of the infrastructure and in return dealing with the aftermath of nuclear strikes on your capital and industrial bases doesn't make much sense. IE the nuclear deterrent.
>>28487502 Better than the dipshits who think the MGS and any other wheeled infantry support vehicle is a 'tank destroyer' and who think not being able to take a direct hit from a Russian MBT makes a vehicle useless.
>>28488426 You are missing the point. The point of war is to seize and hold ground. All military actions are designed to allow one of those things to happen. Therefore military forces are designed around the concept of seizing and holding ground. When it come to land based warfare that is the role of the infantry. We rock up and take someone ground and he tried to stop us. All other elements in a military force aid in that result. Tanks provided mobile heavy support, cavalry provides a sceen and long range ISR capability. Artillery provides the ability to kill and demoralise large numbers of enemy forces. Air support privide pinpoint ground to air fires. Air superiority fighters allow that air support to function. Ordanance and logisitcs groups allow all those forces to do the job as well. But then end result will always be an infantry man, walking that ground, digging in and holding it. He may not be able to do any of those things without the tanks and the cav and artillery and the logistics and the air support and the navy to secure a beach head but in the end it is the infantry that rocks up and performs that key element of ground based warfare.
>>28494444 Do you know any history? The concept of winning a war by occupying land is false. You have to kill or subdue the enemy in order to win, not sit on their land until an imaginary timer finishes counting. Look at Afghanistan. Occupation and war with foreigners for the past 4000+ years and still nobody has conquered the country.
>>28494414 let me guess, some college freshman tier opinion about the evil military industrial complex and muh contracts?
or are you the "just use nukes" guy or has he already caught the bus to middleschool.
>>28494444 the thing about it is my FUKKINQUADS having friend is that most everything currently and in the last ~30 years has been police action tier against irregular forces after the totally awesome week of conventional war before a US led NATO coalition finishes wiping the floor with latest and greatest russian export tech having tinpot dictator.
We're stuck taking care of the lingering problems of the shitty job the european powers had dismantling thier empires in the interwar years.
best case scenario is that ISIS establishes some semblance of a real state and attacks israel, then a NATO coalition comes in a steamrolls them and us goy give the clay to our favorite 5th dimensional hypercube. Israel can do no wrong because muh 6 gorrilion, so when they solve the problem of "the middle east" the only way that has ever worked (besides genocide) by ejecting every cameljockey out of their new borders and resettling the region we'll have a nonnuclear/nondictator based "peace".
>>28494480 because afghanistan has always been a massive shithole riding the daggers edge of "is the clay and resources worth killing/expelling all these afghans" It's an arid desert with mountains. It's like asking why african states don't fight over the vast tracts of saharan desert along their arbitrarily defined post colonial borders
>>28494500 Afghanistan is where a lot of opium comes from, and thus a lot of money goes into. As for Africa, African states are in constant war because they got gold and diamonds, and that shit's for real. Not with each other because each state is a combination of opposing groups, and thus you see only (technically) civil war. So yeah where's your rebuttal? All I got was an uninformed opinion on a country they know nothing about.
>Daddy D.A. says, "I'm a lifer, Joker. Hell, I love this damned Marine Corps an' shit. But Khe Sanh was never a battle: it's been a publicity stunt. And green Marines are not elite troops; we're movie stars. The Marines at Khe Sanh were just show business for Time magazine. We're straight men, feeding lines to the gooks. The brass has demoted us to being live bait for supporting arms. We're nothing more than glorified forward observers, recon for an avalanche of bombs and shells. Guns have made war less than a gentleman's sport. Modern weapons are taking all of the fun out of killing. We might as well just prop up some wooden Marines like duck decoys and dee-dee back to the World and get pogue jobs and make lots of money.
>>28494587 >real nations caring about opium besides destroying it the war on drugs isn't actually a war anon >gold and diamonds >sahara desert reading comprehension isn't your strong suit; I'm specifically paralleling the cold mountainous wasteland of afghanistan to the parts of africa africans don't fight over. >bu...bu...bu...muh unconquerable afghan people afghanistan all three anglo-afghan wars and the british empire still left. Not because they couldn't brutally suppress rebellions like in all thier other foreign colonies but because they quickly realized building a puppet state to harness the "wealth" of the region requires the region to have wealth.
>>28494796 Opium is a valuable resource. It's Afghanistan's entire economy. Are you really telling me that a nation's economy and their military power aren't intertwined? Like I said before, pure naivete.
Okay, Saharan desert doesn't have much going for it, I was referring to other African countries. And Afghanistan is not all wasteland. Are you devaluing the importance of land? You might very well be undermining your own argument if you head further in that direction.
The first and second wars were to curb both political power within Afghanistan and political power from being exerted onto Afghanistan by other foreign powers, primarily Russia. The brits gained land and joined it with colonial India, but it was costly. The third war was a failure, mind you. The whole point of all three wars was to in fact suppress rebellions by Afghani nationals. So if that's not the case, then tell me why you think the British invaded Afghanistan in the first place?
>>28494796 Well since you won't let go of your false conceptions of you think war is, there's no point in continuing arguing. All I'm trying to say is, you don't declare war on a land, you declare war on a group of people (or emus), and conditions for victory is getting that group of people to either submit or die off, depending on what the objective of the war is. If you can't accept this concept then whatever I'm done with this either way. Just don't go around being the true authority on "what war is", because that's Sun Tzu and he's long dead.
>>28488936 >Meanwhile TOW 2B [top attack, standoff, twin-EFP with counter-APS system and boosted aerodynamics] is rated effective against all existing and near-future active protection systems. 'Merica.
Holy fuck, you literally had a quote on hand for this post.
>>28487794 The USMC should be restructured into something more akin to the UK's Royal Marines. More elite, higher standards, and smaller status and heavily focus on MEUs. Everyone's first enlistment or 1/2 of first enlistment feed them into a MEU's BLT then allow LAT moves.
>>28487382 The u.s. army has been using m4 carbines as a standard since the mid 2000s. By 2012, even basic training and national guard infantry units were fully m4 carbines. The marines are slower in this regard due to retarded leadership thinking that the m4 was an extension of the pistol
>>28494480 >The concept of winning a war by occupying land is false. You have to kill or subdue the enemy in order to win if the enemy can operate on the ground to the point that it stops you achieving objectives then the ground has not been seized. You're misunderstanding the meaning of holding territory.
>>28496355 Not that guy, but as someone on benefits right now, I can honestly tell you that the government doesn't pay my amputeed ass nearly as much as they would be paying another soldier every month.
...no...in real life, the Defeat of Spartans, Knights and Samurai even before gun powder, proved that anybody given a few months of training can still take out a life long warrior class.
Royal Marines die when shot by bullets just a much as a Territorial Army volunteer. This isn't like a video game where your education or workout of a muscle group gives you permanent gains to your stats.
>>28488936 >It's shown that shitty Russian missiles are vulnerable to newest Russian defences. The newest Russian defences are the ones on their T-14 you dumbass, which were IDK, thousands of miles away and in testing. >>28488936 >Meanwhile TOW 2B [top attack, standoff, twin-EFP with counter-APS system and boosted aerodynamics] is rated effective against all existing and near-future active protection systems. 'Merica. BS. it sets off its EFP warhead barely 3 m from the top of the tank and comes in horizontally- meaning its well within engagement zone of most APS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IjAPVTtYDE
>>28507219 Read lawerance of arabias book. Gives good insight as to why there is such difference in performance in arab insurgencies compared to traditional warfare. Hes part of the reason they are good at the in the first place.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.