Lights Brigades
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
its not so much an issue of packing a punch - its an issue of doctrine relevance.
light and heavy have discrete roles - you can't replace one with the other.
there are mobility and persistence issues.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not usually. I've yet to see a "light infantry" (I presume you mean) Brigade that is as combat capable as an Armoured (tank heavy) mechanised (mechanised infantry heavy) or motorised (wheeled IFV/AFV heavy) Brigade within the same force.
Some "top tier" light infantry forces, such as some possessed by the US or UK might be more capable than some "so-called" mechanised or Armoured forces within "third world" forces. But I doubt you'd see a light infantry brigade commander who WANTED to fight an opposing armoured force, without supporting armour of his own.
The ability to "maneuvre in the battlespace" still cannot be matched by "those who are doomed to move about on foot".
Plus the firepower differences are usually significantly greater too. In Australia for example, 1 Brigade has ASLAV's, M113's, Bushmasters, Leopard tanks (soon to be Abrams), M198 155mm AND 105mm howitzers, plus infantry etc.
3 Brigade has Bushmasters and 105mm Hamel guns ONLY. Bit of a difference in firepower and maneuvre capacity there...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
So could any number of possibilities. A light infantry brigade equipped with a large range of tactical nuclear weapons would pack a greater "punch" than a "heavy tank brigade" too.
Fact is Armies create "heavy tank brigades" because they ARE the most powerful. Look at US Armoured Brigades. They equipped with M1 Abrams, M2/3 Bradley IFV's, M109 Paladin 155mm SPG's, MLRS, Apache gunships, Mortar, ATGW's and air defence systems for their major platforms. No "medium or light" Brigade is going to pack more offensive firepower than that available in these formations.
Your "medium" brigade may come close in firepower, but it's ability to WITHSTAND fire (which is equally important) is not going to be as high.
The 3 basic requirements for a powerful force, comprise: mobility, protection and lethality. No ground formation has yet possessed these capabilities to a higher degree than high quality armoured forces.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
True, which is why most Army's exercise and have the current mantra of "jointness". The idea being that the "whole" is greater than the sum of the parts.
Army's constantly wargame and conduct "CPX's" in an effort to find better ways of employing their available assets.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Within Australia? There are in fact 2 "line" units equipped with ASLAV. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2/14 Light Horse Regiment (QMI) (Recon).
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
Thankyou for that, the last I heard about the ASLAV'swas the 2004 winter army journal where one operational regiment was discussed and the mentioning on the downfall of only having one modern regiment.
I belive Australia needs a sort of infantry support tank like the Puma or the Bradley or ASLAV for all RAR Regiments even if there is only one squadron
I belive Australia needs a sort of infantry support tank like the Puma or the Bradley or ASLAV for all RAR Regiments even if there is only one squadron
Tactical superiority is no argument. Why should the heavy brigade be commanded worse than a light one.
You always have to compare units which similar tactical capabilities.
There is no reason for comparing for example a UK para brigade with a third world armor brigade.
You always have to compare units which similar tactical capabilities.
There is no reason for comparing for example a UK para brigade with a third world armor brigade.
In my opinion a light mechanized brigade (with wheeled or light armoured vehicles) should be able to take on a heavier force, if they use their mobility, firepower (which is almost the same as current light vehicles can also pack 120mm guns, ATGMs and 155 artillery) and surveillance capabilities (like UAVs, helicopters and advance mounted and dismounted recon) to defeat and rout its opponents.
I believe it is being done already in exercises and the fact that countries like the US (Stryker), France (AM10RC) and South Africa (Rooikat/Ratel mix) are already experimenting with it, ony served this point.
I believe it is being done already in exercises and the fact that countries like the US (Stryker), France (AM10RC) and South Africa (Rooikat/Ratel mix) are already experimenting with it, ony served this point.
Tho it was never used, thankfully, NATO would have had invested quite a bit into man portable and "light" infantry systems , based on Milan and TOW, to take on the Soviets charging thru the Fulda gap. This would have been as close to the scenario described here as any I can think of and it would have been interesting to see, tho I am glad it never happened.
There is a difference however. This doctrine of "light" versus the heavy Soviet armor was part of the strategy of defense in depth, and besides, NATO commanders knew they didn't have the armor to stand up to the initial onslaught of Soviet motor rifle and tank regiments, and they hated the thought of using armor defensively in the first place. Add to that the strategy of using rear armor, and Yank armor being reinforced, in offensive roles once Soviet flanks became exposed and you see what Im talking about.
Of course there would have been NATO MBTs engaged immediately and we just wanted light mechanized and infantry units to hose down the first few waves of Reds, and of course artillery and air forces would have been heavily in action from the beginning.
But overall I'd say this doctrine would fit the criteria being discussed here.
There is a difference however. This doctrine of "light" versus the heavy Soviet armor was part of the strategy of defense in depth, and besides, NATO commanders knew they didn't have the armor to stand up to the initial onslaught of Soviet motor rifle and tank regiments, and they hated the thought of using armor defensively in the first place. Add to that the strategy of using rear armor, and Yank armor being reinforced, in offensive roles once Soviet flanks became exposed and you see what Im talking about.
Of course there would have been NATO MBTs engaged immediately and we just wanted light mechanized and infantry units to hose down the first few waves of Reds, and of course artillery and air forces would have been heavily in action from the beginning.
But overall I'd say this doctrine would fit the criteria being discussed here.
deleted because it was basiclly repeating what GF was saying.
Last edited:
Why should they?
- The light artillery systems are not able to cope for example with a system like the PzH2000 and attached data ling assets when it comes to counterfire.
- There is not that much terrain where a wheeled AFV is more manueverable than tracked MBTs and IFVs. In fact tracked vehicles often enough have less problems with the terrain.
Show me a wheeled vehicle which is faster and more robust during cross country rides than a modern MBT.
- Heavy brigades are also supported by UAVs, Helicopters, modern recon assets, etc. This is no exclusive advantage for light brigades.
- The US Stryker brigades, France AM10RC units, etc are for sure not designed to go head on with heavy enemy forces. They are good for fast deployments, Iraqi style police operations and UN peacekeeping operations.
But all these countries still operate heavy units and are not going to kill them in the near future.
Thinking that a light brigade is going to take on a heavy mechanized unit and go toe to toe with it is nothing more than complete rubbish. I was actually part of an evaluation of the 9th light inf division, we hit them with one of the heavy mechanized inf brigades from the 4th inf division based out of Fort Carson, we hit them so hard that after a few hours of battle they had lost all unit cohesion and started giving up real estate, After a enemy force unit starts forcing you to give up ground the war is lost for you, I do not care if you are using STRYKERS, PUMA`s, AMX RC10`s or RUSSIAN BMP3`s and that your troops have the latest and greatest armor defeating toys at their disposal, a heavy mechanized unit will tear you to shreds. just think of the amount of artillery that you will be hit with, a 155mm HE round has a danger close of 600 meters and this is just one example. This is starting to become scary times with some of the countries out there that are trying to justify getting rid of their heavy forces completly when you have countries that are actually adding heavy mechanized units to their order of battle, Russia, Iran, India and China are just a few, and I think that some of you under estimate China`s capability and what she can do as a fighting unit, her past has shown different than what some of your rubbish suggests. let me give you a scenario that you could come up against with crazy eckherl, if I hit your light brigade I am going to attack you with Air and artillery barrages to keep your heads down, then when I feel that you are at your breaking point I will use my mechanized units to hit you hard, when you are retreating my attack helicopters are going to commit to some more of your demise along with you still being under artillery pressure, I will not let you go until you are completly destroyed or that you have surrendered. Light Brigades serve as good tools for conducting recons, some screening operations and holding ground that your heavy forces have taken, nothing more and history has shown what could happen.
I never said they will kill their heavy units and I agree that a Stryker brigade gets chopped up by a us tank unit. But given the current thought of deployability and rapid reaction, a light brigade is a good alternative.
Think of it, which is in Korea earlier if shit hits the fan, a combat brigade of US 1st armoured division (taking weeks to deploy to Iraq) or a light brigade which vehicles are able to be loaded more on one ship or even airlifted better than an Abrams
Think of it, which is in Korea earlier if shit hits the fan, a combat brigade of US 1st armoured division (taking weeks to deploy to Iraq) or a light brigade which vehicles are able to be loaded more on one ship or even airlifted better than an Abrams
You never said this?
And I think nobody here disagrees with you that light brigades are mich better when it comes to fast deployments.
But you don't want to go head on with heavy units if you don't have to. Especially when it comes to the Stryker brigade. The basic Stryker does not even has enough firepower to cope with enemy IFVs. So the dismounted Javlin system is the only weapon of the brigade which is directly able to deal with the enemy mech/armored forces (Aside from artillery and airstrikes).
I read it in this post if I misunderstood you I apologize.
And I think nobody here disagrees with you that light brigades are mich better when it comes to fast deployments.
But you don't want to go head on with heavy units if you don't have to. Especially when it comes to the Stryker brigade. The basic Stryker does not even has enough firepower to cope with enemy IFVs. So the dismounted Javlin system is the only weapon of the brigade which is directly able to deal with the enemy mech/armored forces (Aside from artillery and airstrikes).
Korea would be a bad example to use, we have the 2nd div. deployed there, all they are at the present moment is a speed bump for the North Koreans, that war will be decided by the South Korean ground forces, US air and naval power. We are presently going to move 2nd div further south in Korea which will be a good thing, it will get our bases out of artillery range and afford us enough time to get to our defensive fighting positions.