Light Infantry Outdated? Lessons from Bolt from the Blue

[Elxaime]

Reading an article in Time arguing the USA no longer needs a US Marine Corps or its Airborne Divisions got me to thinking. Here is the article:

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-u...apability/

I know this is very controversial, especially to former members of these forces. It is not a new argument and generally gets beaten back when appropriations time comes. But then I considered how these forces get treated in the one HPS game that models them, D85 and in particular the Bolt from the Blue. Granted this was a war that blessedly never happened and if history teaches us anything it is that most things in war never turn out quite as planned. However, if Bolt fromm the Blue has a modicum of predictive power, here are some observations.

NATO
There are numerous smaller units, but the main elite marine and airborne forces are:

- the ACE force in Jutland composed mainly of foot airborne from several NATO member states with some reconnaissance vehicles, some airmobile infantry, a few older MBT and weak artillery and a very few helos)

- the US Marine Division which arrives as a reinforcement over a beach in Jutland

- the French Airmobile division and Foreign Legion, which arrive as a NORTHAG reinforcement

- a British Para Brigade which arrives early to assist the BAOR plus a later-arriving "airlanding" division

- the West German airmobile paratroops attached to Korps

- the US Ranger battalion reinforcements

- reinforcing US 82 Airborne and US 101st Airmobile, with an airdrop option for the 82nd

None of these units has any significant MBT strength, nor are their infantry possessed of enough IFV to mount all their troops. Some do have helo lift. But basically everyone else marches on foot. Their main value lies in their high morale and decent firepower, especially those with night vision capability. They are most effective in holding or taking covered terrain.

However, when pitted against front line Soviet tank and mechanized divisions in other situations, they have real trouble. Aside from lack of MBTs, their main problem is weak artillery. The Pact has copious batteries that in a head to head struggle will decimate these troops. Their only counter is the same one NATO generally has, which is support from the superb first line NATO MBT of the heavier divisions and their corps artillery plus (hopefully) a wearing down over time of the Pact air defenses by NATO attack helos and air to enable NATO to attrition the Pact artillery.

And yet, this posture seems to support the conclusions in the Time article. Aside from nostalgia for historic names and emblems, arguably standard army infantry could effectively replace these elite troops in the ground taking/holding mission. Standard army infantry could also be trained for any airmobile and amphibious activity needed. Based on Bolt from the Blue, the light infantry troops with proud names often seem like hold-overs from another era. While they do have some nice capabilities, they seem in a way like the Guard troops of the Napoleonic era - status symbols.

The Time article points out that these troops generally have been deployed in the past against less equipped developing nations. Light infantry does have a role to play against these kinds of troops in these kinds of wars. But against a first line developed nation with heavy mechanized capabilities? Bolt from the Blue seems to argue they would have real shortcomings.

Of course, the Time article writer may be missing another point. Maybe future wars will be "hybrid" wars involving a mix of regular and irregular forces, heavy and light. In that case, it would be shortsighted to get rid of the elite light infantry.