Using the 173rd as the model, all infantry are "Light", and mechanized tactics are built around light TTPs instead of separate TTPs.
No surprises I'm with a_majoor here.
Andy365 made a comment about mobility. I agree with the mobility aspect. I disagree with the heliborne aspect. It seems to me that there have been a large number of helicopters downed. I understood that helicopters survived by using terrain. If you are working on flat land with no trees it seems likely difficult to find cover to exploit. Even in urban areas there are seemingly problems flying Nap of the Earth. Surely those are among some of the lessons of "Blackhawk Down"?
On the other hand the mobility that the Malaysian Wheeled APCs supplied, similar to but less capable than the Strykers, was more appropriate and more effective than the Blackhawks or the Hummers.
That suggests to me, as to others, that vehicles should be built around the section, not the other way about. Vehicles can be built for specific environments - helos, APCs, Snowmobiles, Amphibs, boats even, but their primary purpose is to deliver infanteers with the kit they need. They will continue to do their work on foot.
Vehicle mounted patrols and vehicle mounted fire support, where nobody gets out of the vehicles is surely the province of Cavalry - tanks, jeeps, LAVs, helicopters are all used by Cavalry - is it possible to envisage a boat mounted Cavalry?
Another characteristic of where we seem to be headed is permanent garrisons overseas. However instead of friendly Germans the locals are likely to be less welcoming. Such garrisons need to be defended and usually that means that a large proportion of the inhabitants end up watching walls and gates and potentially responding to intrusions.
Is it possible that the Army might learn something from the Navy? Could the Army apply the Combat Information Centre concept? The FELEX programme being discussed on this board has posted drawings of what the revised Frigates are supposed to look like. The CIC or Operations room only has seats for 13 people. Those people, as I understand it, get information from 2 sonars, 4 radars, a helicopter, crew members, other ships in the area as well as aircraft and satellites. They are capable of deploying torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, various calibres of guns, recce assets, and even boarding parties without leaving their chairs.
Are garrisons likely to be more like the Frigate or even a modern office building, with a small number of duty personnel, a large number of screens and sensors and various fixed and mobile, unmanned weapons systems?
Why does this matter? Because if the fixed and wired garrison/fire base becomes a reality, and it can supply an umbrella of support and observation out 70 km? 100 km? from a CIC with 1 or 2 dozen people on duty then that frees up bodies from the walls to be out in the area doing foot patrols, small unit assaults and temporary OPs. At the same time the Cavalry is responsible for roving patrols and hasty or expedient fire support.
One group that I would see greatly affected by this, more than any other combat arm, is the artillery. The artillery used to be comprised of Garrison, Field (infantry support) and Horse (cavalry support). There may be a move back towards that split but .... how many gunners will be needed in each specialty? It doesn't look like many from where I sit. Garrison Artillery is likely to get competition from the Engineers for that job if wired in autocannons, machine guns, mortars, missiles become the standard. Horse artillery - is angle of elevation sufficient reason to separate fire support? Even FOOs for infantry and cavalry seem endangered if everybody is netted in and capable of giving a GRIT via a Blackberry. This effectively leaves the Artillerist as a specialist in Planning and Coordinating fire support.
Anywho - wandered a bit out of lane but I wanted to point out that all other specialties are functions of their technology. The infanteer's job, regardless of technology, is essentially unchanged.
It is not "close with and destroy the enemy". That is but one task for an infanteer. The real task for the infanteer is to close with the population and exert authority. Destroying the enemy may be part of that job.
If the populace, including the enemy, knows that a press of a button can result in grievous harm, then the individual with the finger on the button will be granted control of the situation, even if she is other wise unarmed.
