Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.

Could we weaponize that?

[Parsely]

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.

Could we weaponize that?

In the war against the werewolves it would be highly effective.

[i2amroy]

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.

Could we weaponize that?

In the war against the werewolves it would be highly effective.

Of course we might need to exterminate all other species' puppies first to ensure that the targets were narrowed to those of our enemies.

[Tack]

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.

You kidding? It's the age of special forces.
As soon as we figure out the legality surrounding this 'gene' thing, we're gonna have bunches of CIA supersoldiers doing black ops.
Infantry ARE on the way out, and it's gonna be AWESOEM.

[Parsely]

Every time someone says "infantry are on the way out" a puppy dies.

You kidding? It's the age of special forces.
As soon as we figure out the legality surrounding this 'gene' thing, we're gonna have bunches of CIA supersoldiers doing black ops.
Infantry ARE on the way out, and it's gonna be AWESOEM.

No, I'm not. "Black ops", though they excite the hearts of civilians, do not win wars. Lots and lots of riflemen with good training, motivation, and lots of support from tanks, planes, and ships do. There isn't a single large scale war that did not involve mostly infantry fighting other infantry, and there is a very good reason for that. Everything else: cavalry, missile artillery, attack helicopters, battleships, and unmanned aerial vehicles have been evolved for one reason: to support the infantryman. As for the people who think wars are won with bombs, every single one of them is wrong, wrong, wrong. Your aircraft cannot operate if there aren't men on the ground finding targets for them. Aerial recon is expensive and no substitute for an infantry spotter, who is more survivable in a lot of ways than an aircraft. Aircraft can't screen the enemy's line of advance to stop them from taking ground. Aircraft can't search structures and clear a built up area. Sure they can level one, but how can you when the enemy's AAA and SAMs are still up? After all, you gave up your infantry, the guys who would normally do that job, because they were "obsolete".

Excuse me, but if you think that you can win a war without a large force of regular infantry, you simply do not know how wars are fought.

[Sheb]

Well, large scale wars are on the way out...

[Tack]

It's the same progression downwards which has been happening through the ages.
Massed infantry was ruined by the invention of automatic weapons. Now, with the invention of all manner of battlefield controls available to us, any infantry that are even known about can be easily cleared out.

Face it, one squad of SAS with full "missile artillery, attack helicopters, battleships, and unmanned aerial vehicles" support will wipe the floor with as large of a standing army as could be called in.
Infantry still have their place, but their place is to be the man with the laser light, marking targets for everyone else.


The only thing 'large force of regular infantry' is doing in Afghanistan is cop-work.

[Bumber]

War has changed.

[NullForceOmega]

Well, large scale wars are on the way out...

Sorry, but this is flat-out a fantasy.  The world is in constant flux, our current situation is temporary, eventually large-scale conflicts WILL return.

[Parsely]

Well, large scale wars are on the way out...

What makes you say that? It's been more than a decade since the last one, but I would say it's only a matter of time until there's another war with a 1,000,000+ body count. Does the recent civil war in Syria that's lasted for about 5 years not count as a recent, large scale war? How many people need to die until it counts as a "large" war?

It's the same progression downwards which has been happening through the ages.
Massed infantry was ruined by the invention of automatic weapons. Now, with the invention of all manner of battlefield controls available to us, any infantry that are even known about can be easily cleared out.

Face it, one squad of SAS with full "missile artillery, attack helicopters, battleships, and unmanned aerial vehicles" support will wipe the floor with as large of a standing army as could be called in.
Infantry still have their place, but their place is to be the man with the laser light, marking targets for everyone else.

The only thing 'large force of regular infantry' is doing in Afghanistan is cop-work.

There are counters for all of those controls you mention. And infantry no longer march in closed formation, but nonetheless their numbers remain quite large. Automatic weapons are force multipliers, they are not direct substitutes for manpower. Battlefields are much, MUCH larger than they were in the past, so you still need all of those people to cover all that extra ground.

You could not be more wrong. It is impossible for...I don't even know the order of battle for the SAS, but let's just assume a squad is 12 guys. It is utterly impossible for 12 men, regardless of who they are, to win any kind of war no matter how many bombs and gunships they have behind them. You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

You're not wrong, but the war in Afghanistan is not being waged against a conventional force, and as such should not be used as a yardstick to measure how every future conflict involving the US Army will turn out. There hasn't yet been a war where all the recent modern firepower of first world nations have faced off against one another, but men train for it every day, and when that day comes, there will be a great need for the scores of riflemen and their ability to be in a lot of places at once. I'm not saying that there is no place for special forces in war, but there is no such thing as an entire army composed of elite forces.

[NullForceOmega]

And each drone costs more to build, maintain, and operate as an entire squad of infantry, requires more downtime per hour of operation, and is a vastly higher-priority target.

[mainiac]

A predator drone costs 4 million.  This source says that an injured soldier costs 2 million dollars on average: http://www.businessinsider.com/it-will-cost-2-million-for-each-injured-us-soldier-from-iraq-and-afghanistan-2013-5
This is in addition to the costs of recruiting, training and supplying a soldier.  The cost just of Iraq war operations (so ignoring training for instance but including combat pay and equipment) was close to a trillion dollars.  The cost of long term healthcare operations for soldier who weren't wounded is going to be several trillion dollars in the decades to come.

So no, soldiers are not cheaper then drones.

[NullForceOmega]

4 million is the pricetag, not operational lifetime costs, which is what the figure of 2 million is for the soldier.

[GiglameshDespair]

Drones are also vulnerable to enemy aircraft, AA, jamming and hacking.

Do not confuse drones blowing up Pakistani militants and/or children as a good demonstration of the use of drones against a military.

A predator drone costs 4 million.  This source says that an injured soldier costs 2 million dollars on average: http://www.businessinsider.com/it-will-cost-2-million-for-each-injured-us-soldier-from-iraq-and-afghanistan-2013-5
This is in addition to the costs of recruiting, training and supplying a soldier.  The cost just of Iraq war operations (so ignoring training for instance but including combat pay and equipment) was close to a trillion dollars.  The cost of long term healthcare operations for soldier who weren't wounded is going to be several trillion dollars in the decades to come.

So no, soldiers are not cheaper then drones.

How on Earth does measuring the purchase cost of a Predator provide a fair analysis against the long term costs of a soldier?

And which kind of Predator? The flyaway costs for MQ-1 are around $4mill, but the flyaway of a MQ-9 is $16.9 mill. Again, flyaway prices, not operational lifetime costs.

[Parsely]

And each drone costs more to build, maintain, and operate as an entire squad of infantry, requires more downtime per hour of operation, and is a vastly higher-priority target.

Nah. A Global Hawk surveillance craft costs 227 million dollars today. Here is a 2014 presentation by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments regarding defense costs. The particular slide I linked to shows that the majority of costs requested (the slide shows a procurement request not actual spending) comes from the field of aircraft (approx. 33 billion dollars requested in 2014). Here's a PDF of the slides from that presentation.

And before you get excited, if you watch the video, you will see that a soldier does indeed cost much more than his equipment because of benefits programs (military personnel cost more than 200b dollars total in 2014), but the equipment is only valuable when used in combination with the infantryman. The infantryman is not a missile. He can be used to kill the enemy, taught to fix things, fly aircraft, build defenses. We would not spend this much money on infantry if the man's years long career was not worth the cost.

How on Earth does measuring the purchase cost of a Predator provide a fair analysis against the long term costs of a soldier?

Indeed. Not only that, but I don't think people are fairly considering how USEFUL a person is!

Dude. We already have drones. Please.

They may not be as, dare I say it, expendable as infantry, but they are better armed, more survivable, faster, and do not need feeding.

The real use for infantry is occupation. The other possible uses are breaching, and that's only if you've not enough equipment.

They're not better armed so much as differently armed. A Predator can fly out, perform a strike mission, then it needs to return and rearm. This takes hours. Infantry with their support vehicles can at the same time advance and remain in place to deter an advance. Drones just can't do that. You talk about "occupation" like it doesn't involve fighting. It is not a simple task, and one that is impossible for aircraft or artillery to do alone.