Light Infantry Outdated?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.

[76mm]

I read a lot more about the US not needing armored divisions anymore, which frankly makes much more sense (and this from a former tanker).

Current developments in Ukraine notwithstanding, in my view for the foreseeable future the US needs more, rather than less, light infantry to deal with low-intensity threats such as we're seeing in Iraq, etc. Of course the US should retain some heavy forces as well, but not at the expense of reducing light infantry.

I would be cautious about drawing any conclusions from Bolt from the Blue, because both light infantry capabilities and the threat facing them have evolved very significantly since that time period.

[ComradeP]

Yeah, at the moment it's unlikely NATO will face a threat with anything near the MBT numbers the Soviets employed, unless you feel there will soon be a land war with China.

IFV's and MBT's worked well as supporting weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in the end it's mostly up to the individual infantry to do the fighting in the mountains and urban areas with the highest concentration of insurgents/opposing forces. Light infantry, with organic helicopter or fast (wheeled) transport capability is not outdated in my opinion. They've also evolved a long way since the 1980's and helicopter insertions are not like their Vietnam counterparts anymore either.

[Aaron]

Depends on the time period, as for the 80s and in central Europe yes they were out classed but still had some uses as securing the rear area and leave behind forces as in dumping 4 bns in hamburg as you retreat up the peninsula. As for confronting armored formations, no, they would be to easy to out maneuver and crush. But out of central Europe they still had many uses.

As for today I think special ops should be doubled across the board and yes I dont think the 82nd and 101st are needed. The 3 ranger bns are airborne qualified and that gives you more airborne troops then most country's of the world. As for the 101st helos I think they should be spread out with the other divisions to give them more flexibility. The marines still have a mission and a good structure for todays warfare, they have some armor, some apcs, art, own helos, and aircraft to make them very flexible which I think would be a better organizational structure for the 82nd and 101st to follow.As for the marines amphibious capability I think it should be scaled back and the money used elsewhere. We dont need to land a divisional size unit on a beach anymore and the military leaders probably wont do it anyways for fear of casualties as you mentioned.

All in all theres a place for both types depending on where you are in the world, they could sure use 2 of the US armored divisions from the 80s in Ukraine right now.

Aaron

[Tide1]

In todays world you need alot of light infantry but there will always be a need for heavy armor. Lots of countries still have tanks and you can't kill them all with drones and precision air strikes. After Desert Storm the Iraqi's admitted that the largest losses in armor came when they encountered units like the Marine Tiger Brigade and the 2nd ACR.

[JDR Dragoon]

Quite a few of NATOs light infantry formations were also slated for Norway, where the terrain would somewhat mitigate their lack of organic tanks and armored transport vehicles, by restricting the ability of the enemy mechanized forces to exert their full mobility.