Future of the infantry?

>At this point they are essentially glorified forward observers.

Not really. Just like eveyone sperged out on "there will never be a tank battle ever again" - and now look at the Ukrainian war.

Same with infantry - it's versatility is why I do not see it ever really going away - at the very least as a plan B if the machine FO system is disabled (have a look at electronic warfare in the same Ukraine war).

There are many areas in the world where drones are very ineffective, especially agaisnt guerrilla groups, who will continue to be the most prominant threat for the next century

You need infantry to take strategic positions without massive collateral damage, to fight in urban areas and to police populations. Infantry will be reduced in overall functions but still retain roles which other combat arms cannot fulfill.

>>33965649
Drone technology is still in its infancy and will only get much better. I'm talking about the future.

Machines are still not capable of thinking and making judgement calls like a human so the infantry will be more focused on unconventional COIN ops that involve attempting to spare and win the favor of the local populace.

>>33965648
Because unthinking pleb cunts equate shitsurgencies and asymmetric warfare with "HURR DEMISE OF THE CONVENTIONAL MILITRY"

>>33965652
>Because unthinking pleb cunts

It's always been that way, and always will be.

As the world becomes more urbanized, there is a growing need for MORE skilled infantry, not less. Technology can augment infantry, but it can't replace it, because humans are always evolving and adapting. If you send machines into an area, people will analyze them, and figure out ways to either block or defeat them. That's just what people do. It's always harder to adapt to a thinking human. Always.

Until governments decide to quit worrying about "collateral damage" and just bomb their enemies into extinction, there will always be a need for a thinking man on the ground, skilled at, and willing to perform, small unit infantry tasks.

File: 1493067244267.jpg (269KB, 1013x595px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1013x595px

Its inevitable that deploying military robotics will be banned and considered a crime against humanity via a treaty.

Exo-skeletons aren't that far away.

>>33965647
Not /his/ related, try /int/ or /k/

>>33965654
That will be prohibitively expensive.

>>33965647
Technological advancements have always been and always be force multipliers, good old ground pounders will always be around.

>>33965647
Seems to me that in urban combat and occupations you will always need infantry. Unless we get those call of duty style hover drones that can float through hallways and whatnot. Even then infantry will be pretty crucial in locking down and clearing buildings.

Also I see no reason why anti drone technology won't advance just as fast as drone technology. tanks were unbeatable till they invented rocket launchers

>>33965656
At first, yeah. It will become less over time.

>>33965654
All that fucking stallone dredd looking shit and they can't be arsed to give him a laser gun. It's a damn shame.

This is a /k/ topic, right?

>>33965656

Have you seen the fucking US military?

>>33965656
The United States launched 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a Syrian airstrip. Each missive costs around 1.7 MILLION DOLLARS. Price isn't an issue.

>>33965660
>even with the advent of military exosuits and sci-fi killdroids many decades in the future the standard issue rifle of the US military will be some variant of the M16/A15

Probably the most accurate part of the infograph.

>>33965661
>>33965655
/k/ is more about weapons, ain't it? Like fucking rednecks talking about muh cool guns?

>>33965647
Read >>33965650

>>33965654
Who would sign such a treaty? Robotics literally save human lives by removing humans out of combat situations.

>>33965647
Basically, we will see a devolution in the scale and size of infantry formations. The division is already an effectively obsolete unit on the modern battle field, with the US military beginning with Gulf War 2 to opt to utilize brigade-sized units to carry out combat operations with divisions sticking around more due to tradition than any practical use. Advancements in military technology are contributing to a maximization of the combat potential and capabilities of small units -- why send in and risk a company of infantry when a platoon or perhaps even a squad with sufficiently advanced and responsive support could carry out the same job? In modern war, speed is key. The more troops you field, the greater the logistical strain, the slower the collective unit response time, and the greater potential for casualties and general fuck-ups. The survivability of the infantryman is becoming of greater importance as well. The greatest contributor to failure of military operations since the end of WW2 has been due to loss of public opinion, and in a world of instantly available 24/7 news all it takes is a few dead GI's to sour public opinion.

tl;dr: Infantry units will become smaller and supplemented with more hardware to maximize combat effectiveness and survivabilty

>>33965663
Clearing out old stock is what that was...

>>33965666
There is a such thing as being over-geared. All that gear and tech can look cool, but too much can actually get in the way, and be a general pain in the ass. The human element will not completely go away anytime soon, but the mission will change drastically to becoming exclusively specOps type stuff.

>>33965658
>tanks were unbeatable till they invented rocket launchers
What are anti-TANK guns and other tanks?

>>33965665
Some of /k/ is rednecks and guns, and then there's some other bits like enlistment generals and they often have discussions about tanks, tactics (like OP's question), Syria, etc

t. /k/ regular browser

>>33965654
one cheap AC round from a cheap high calibur rifle and that $2 million soldier is thrown into the dirt.

>>33965666
>divisions sticking around more due to tradition than any practical use.
That's not true at all. The U.S. army tried to piecemeal combat commands, and operations, in Iraq and A-stan, and it was a giant clusterfuck. The army likes to pretend it's "one team, one fight", but nothing could be further from the truth because the low standards that some army units keep are fucking criminal, and that goes at every level from private to brigade commander. Shitty commanders create shitty units, and all they do is drag down the units that actually give a fuck. A division, as an organic formation, allows for a more uniform standard of performance than do separate combat brigades, and while that uniform standard can be bad, it can also be better.

>The more troops you field, the greater the logistical strain
Yes, and no. The more non-combat troops you field, the greater the logistical strain, as they don't do shit outside of logistical tasks and non-combat operations. However, eliminate the majority of those non-combat troops and add their numbers to infantry units, and the infantry can essentially support itself using a rotational support schedule of combat / recovery / support. This allows for troops to be rotated off the line in order to prevent stress overload and exhaustion. The best support I ever got was from my fellow grunts, and the most worthless pieces of shit I encountered were the REMF fobbit toads that sat on their ass behind a computer in air conditioning.

>Infantry units will become smaller and supplemented with more hardware to maximize combat effectiveness and survivabilty

That's possible, but there are some tasks, like isolate, secure, defend, that are just manpower intensive no matter the tech.

I would have loved to have had a decent drone I could have deployed, or a remote device I could have used to send into buildings, but even if I did, I still would have needed the same amount of dudes, and more, for operations.

>>33965671
>>AC round
They don't make Auto Cannon rounds for "cheap high caliber rifles". And the soldier on the right would be essentially immune to most small arms fire and would probably have a great deal of protection against MMGs and HMGs.

File: igc_ptrs_header.jpg (28KB, 650x305px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 650x305px

>>33965673
just takes one .57 cal bullet and one of these soviet surplus sticks that have been sprinkled all over the world to remove $2m. it's not practical.

>>33965648
>Just like eveyone sperged out on "there will never be a tank battle ever again" - and now look at the Ukrainian war.

... A war between two sides that are both using backasswards soviet-era weaponry?

How many of Americas enemies have used tanks against American troops since the Gulf War?

>>33965667
Just proves my point if that's true. If we're spending so much on defense that we need to fire millions of dollars of missiles to "clear out old stock" then we can afford exoskeletons. The technology isn't there yet though.

>>33965671
a 5.56 fired at close range is gonna drop a soldier worth $20,000, plus the accumulated cost of his wages and employment benefits.
Really now, why do we bother using things that are killable? Or destructible, for that matter?

>>33965674
>>not practical
What's not practical is expecting a weapon like that to replace things like assault rifles, and machine guns. The only thing your sniper will do when facing off against riflemen equipped with power armor is die, unless he is lucky and manages to cause one or two casualties before being ventilated.

>>33965678

that's an anti-materiel rifle

you're also implying the "sniper" is outnumbered, as if isn't cheaper to outfit a group of men with those than literal spacemarine POWA ARMOR

File: 1486102522425.jpg (436KB, 800x1198px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 800x1198px

>>33965679
There are counter sniper equipment in circulation like gunshot audio detectors, which can triangulate the sound of a shot and estimate the location of a sniper.
With exoskeletons, you can also equip more soldiers with "smart" weapons such as counter defilade grenade launchers, which can fire airburst munitions programmed to explode at a certain distance, defeating cover.
Anyways, if it was so practical to spam antimaterial rifle equipped snipers against americans, why hasn't anyone done so?
Every armed nation and dipshit militia like ISIS are still rolling with various intermediate cartridge rifles and the occasional MG and marksman rifle. I'd be more concerned with EFP's and such.

>>33965680
>spam antimaterial rifle equipped snipers against americans, why hasn't anyone done so?

AMERICANS ARENT IN POWER ARMOR ATM YOU KNOW

what do you think happens when two groups of dudes in power armor come up on each other packing .223? Fuck all that's what. If this tech develops you have to be able to defeat it, and regular small arms won't cut it.

>With exoskeletons, you can also equip more soldiers with "smart" weapons such as counter defilade grenade launchers, which can fire airburst munitions programmed to explode at a certain distance, defeating cover.

those are pretty expensive you know. You have to think about numbers here.

>>33965675
Modern warfare is not limited to the US stomping brown people.

Point being - all that talk about "new age warfare" went out the window and now we're cramming good ol' land forces into Poland and the Baltics to deter the Ruskies.

>>33965665
>Who would sign such a treaty? Robotics literally save human lives by removing humans out of combat situations.

Not that anon but there are literally already calls to do exactly that. Check out the "Campaign to Stop Killer Robots" and the organizations associated with that.

>>33965680
>With exoskeletons, you can also equip more soldiers with "smart" weapons such as counter defilade grenade launchers, which can fire airburst munitions programmed to explode at a certain distance, defeating cover.

I see exoskeletons being developed with armor, climate control, thermals, supporting weapons, and being used as mobile support positions for light troops, much in the same way we currently employ belt fed 7.62 guns today. The heavy troops fix the enemy in position until the light troops can move to fix the enemy, and then the heavy troops slowly close with and kill capture the enemy, supported by light troops as needed.

https://youtu.be/RKcqHaPhkkM

>>33966521
that's for autonomous robots though, anything controlled by a person would not be covered

You can arm infantry with antitank weapons and anti-air weaponry. Infatry is verstaile and can in theory tackle any threat in combat and you need infantry to occupies territory. And the best thing is infantry is cheap. Men with rifles will not become obsolete.

>>33965647
yeah dude.

let the drones and robots hold ground lmao youre a retard

>>33966685
Plus men with rifles can traverse almost any terrain, and function on calories and water.

t. Light infantryman

>>33966831

G'damn right we can.

File: marinenz.jpg (149KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x667px

>>33966831
And banter. It's fuel.

IMO light infantry is less relevant than it was in open terrain. Yes you can use the ground to creep around even when it's relatively open, to get yourself close enough. Hammer it with arty and go clear the pits. But why not use mechanized. Yeah you might lose some if they've got TOWs in the pits I guess but you can get around a lot better in open terrain with a vehicle. If they've got a lot of guns up there pre dialed in and you have to cross open ground which you will if they've put it in a good spot... good fucking luck. Guess that shit hasn't really happened since the Falklands and it was a bit too mountainous there for vehicles.

The jungle and the urban environment infantry is still the king and I can't see that changing

>>33967046
Modern infantry is always mechanized of course.

>>33965666
>why send in and risk a company of infantry when a platoon or perhaps even a squad with sufficiently advanced and responsive support could carry out the same job?

They simply can't when you consider they're there to control the ground. No matter the tech the men can't be in two places at once.

File: jungle-04.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px)

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>33967067
Nah, not in here, or inside a building, or up in a snow cave doing recce.

>>33965647

Replace everything with ED-209. Everything, tanks, cars, people, that way all of humanity becomes robots. So Nier Automata basically happens. Why? Because Skynet wanted to do it.

>>33967067
Flip it around though and think of light infantry being the defender in this situation. A whole battalion say, filling a gap between a couple of mountains where the main route goes. Dug the fuck in. Going to be pretty hard to move them, and they don't need much to be able to stay there.

>>33967080
Well of course you do not go to adense forrest with a vehicle, but this is an exception. Infantry enters urban areas with vehicles and they are used as support, eventough they are not drived inside a building you dingus

>>33967094
An exception that makes up half or more of light infantry training in some places. A lot of the world is covered in jungles and forests

There is no point to warfare if human lives aren't on the line. If warfare is reduce to robots vs robots, then who wins? Is the end game the total destruction of a civilian population?

>>33967117
Infrastructure, industry, shipping. There's plenty of things people value besides their lives.

>>33967107
Yeah, but when there is use for vehicles, they are used.

>>33967152
People only care about those things because they need them to live.

>>33966943
>>33967046
Ain't no place for humour civvies will never understand like 60h of almost no sleep into a field exercise.

First you envy the mechs, then you loathe them, after seeing their attempts at improvisation, or finding some area impassable.

Sure, you lob around all your crap, but you're versatile as fug for it. Dig in? Fuckin a, let them come.

>>33967094
Have you ever actually done OBUA? Unless you level the buildings in question, if attacking, or the enemy is willing to, and you're defending, infantry is the only way to both clear and hold an urban area.

Our military presumes 60+% losses of units invokved in taking a fortified urban area - that's with infantry holding the damn place.

>>33965681
Not him but m80, come on.

>AMERICANS ARENT IN POWER ARMOR ATM YOU KNOW
No they aren't, but they are wearing rifle plates that can stop intermediate cartridges. Meanwhile, everyone is still using intermediate cartridges.

> what do you think happens when two groups of dudes in power armor come up on each other packing .223? Fuck all that's what. If this tech develops you have to be able to defeat it, and regular small arms won't cut it.

Yes, and they'll use the superior endurance and strength provided by powered exoskeletons to be able to field those heavy weapons effectively. Without PA, they aren't feasible to field en masse.

Soooo how is that does that work out with your "nobody will wear PA because AMRs exist"? Can't have it both ways.

>those are pretty expensive you know. You have to think about numbers here.
Says the one that wants to general issue AMRs.
But also Soldiers are expensive. To train, to equip, to field and to have die.
Losing Existential Wars is expensive.
Hell, all the ammo used in covering fire for maneuver is expensive.

File: have you ever had a dream.jpg (69KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1920x1080px

>>33967326
>Soooo how is that does that work out with your "nobody will wear PA because AMRs exist"? Can't have it both ways.
> How is that does that work

Fuck. I sound like pic related.
"Soo how does that work out.."

>>33966677
Anything controlled by a person has latency.
Anything controlled by a person can be jammed.
Anything controlled by a person doesn't work underground.
Anything controlled by a person can't work in Faraday cages.

>>33965647
>what will be the future of infantry?
obsolete, just like tanks, artillery, planes and everything else that autistic /k/ommando /k/ucks think will be.

>>33965647
More sneaky, more social (bribe-y), more supported. Lots of scouting and talking with locals with drones to take most of the heat and weight. Already, we're seeing that being seen is often a death sentence so future infantry will concentrate at not being seen.

>>33965665
There's also a lot of geopolitics related to war, eg possible war outcomes between A and B, nuclear outcomes, flash points, etc. They're what I as a nogunz primarily come here for. Well, that and subs, because they're fucking awesome. And occasional F35 shit posting