Motorized infantry is essentially light infantry made mobile by at least trucks and in better cases by APCs.What exactly is the difference between motorized infantry and mechanized infantry also, what sort of tactics are used by them?
So it is sort of like motorized infantry on steroids?Motorized infantry is essentially light infantry made mobile by at least trucks and in better cases by APCs.
Mechanized Infantry uses IFVs or at least APCs which can keep up with a tank and is much nore geared towards mounted combat in conjunction with tanks.
In short the vehicles in a motorized infantry unit serve as transports with limited self defense/fire support capabilities whereas the IFVs of mechanized units do fight while maneuvering and directly support their infantry with heavy fire support when dismounted. Mechanized units also ususally provide less boots on the ground.
And all this theory gets muddied by nomenclature and equipment in the real world...
Yes and no. I'll start from a ground-up, 'Western' perspective. From the Mech Inf platoon commander's perspective, besides having the usual platoon of infantry under his command, he will also have a number of IFVs at his disposal. So, clearing a defended position doesn't merely mean flanking on foot. It could mean pummelling the position with whatever main gun the IFV has (often a rapid-firing cannon of sorts, but exceptions exist) while the dismounts flank. Of course, a lot of training is required to get the co-ordination right in terms of fighting with the IFV, as well as with other brigade assets i.e. MBTs, and so that's why Mech Inf battalions are often raised on their own.So it is sort of like motorized infantry on steroids?
Which nation's army are you speaking of?Also, follow up question.
Are all cavalry mechanized or airborne in the army?
(are there any non mechanized/ aircav cavalry units?)
I don't really think this is the place for questions like this. Maybe check wikipedia first next time. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanized_infantry"]Mechanized infantry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]What exactly is the difference between motorized infantry and mechanized infantry also, what sort of tactics are used by them?
Cavalry these days is more of a name then a designation. Cavalry in the 'real' sense of the word is mostly ceremonial these days. They present in parades and celebrations. But nowadays horses have little real value in combat situations. Although there are some real cavalry units left, these have roles in policing rather than combat.Are all cavalry mechanized or airborne in the army?
(are there any non mechanized/ aircav cavalry units?)
Toptob, no doubt that prepared infantry in the right places is going to give enemy armour a headache, but things never turn out to be straightforward in life. The Thunder Run of Baghdad 2003 for example simply showed how with all the right pieces in place, the prepared infantry in a supposedly challenging terrain (urban) simply got blown away.The flip side of the same coin is that if your armoured forces are well trained, they could themselves conduct defensive operations in those challenging terrain types you listed. Based on the exercises I've been on...that defense can grind an enemy armoured assault, with its supposed advantages of speed, armour and firepower to a halt very quickly. You are right that infantry tactics will change, yet so will those of mech inf/motorised inf too.And I do have an issue with your view on dismounted infantry. I think well trained, supplied and equipped infantry is still a very powerful presence on the battlefield. Granted on a plains, like the Fulda gap they'd be hard pressed to halt an armored force. But in urban, forest or mountainous terrain I see them having a real advantage against mounted and armored forces. Specialized infantry like alpine troops would be far more mobile than a tank in for example the Alps, the Tatras or the Himalayas. And presumably all infantry continuously develop new tactics. I do not disagree with you, but it does raise questions.
Agree. In fact the biggest issue with light infantry is that expecting them to move on foot all over the battlefield, regardless of terrain type, then prepare defensive positions and expect to deal with an attack in a few hours time is going to stretch their endurance thin. Motorisation helps overcome the issue of battlefield movement/deployment/redeployent without excessively physically straining the dismounts who effectively are light infantry themselves too. The dismounted motorised infantry may not be able to depend on fire support from their vehicles, but that is alright if they are sufficiently rested and able to engage in fire-movement effectively.As I touched in my previous post infantry equipped with APCs won't be able to use their vehicles in the same way like they did in Afghanistan or Iraq. This means the APCs fall back into the more traditional role of battlefield taxis instead of direct support or they will fall prey to enemy AT assets.
I stand by my comment that pure light infantry lacks the punh to seriously maneuver and advance in the face of a competent enemy even in restricted terrain. Remember that in restricted terrain the enemy usually sits in fairly good defensive positions. Light infantry without lots of supporting assets just lacks the firepower to overcome this with fire and maneuver.
In a war against something more akin to a peer enemy there won't be lots of fixed camps or firebases with the battle itself waging more mobile in the more open areas.
The threat of enemy air and artillery is low in current COIN environments but an enemy with a indirect fire capability can ruin you day if you are lacking basic technics like dispersing and digging in for the lager. While moving closely together in order to defend the lager position against insurgents may be the right thing to do in a COIN environment it just presents a juicy target for enemy fire support assets.
As I touched in my previous post infantry equipped with APCs won't be able to use their vehicles in the same way like they did in Afghanistan or Iraq. This means the APCs fall back into the more traditional role of battlefield taxis instead of direct support or they will fall prey to enemy AT assets.
I stand by my comment that pure light infantry lacks the punh to seriously maneuver and advance in the face of a competent enemy even in restricted terrain. Remember that in restricted terrain the enemy usually sits in fairly good defensive positions. Light infantry without lots of supporting assets just lacks the firepower to overcome this with fire and maneuver.
Ah, yes. All the more I would agree that a purely infantry force does not allow for effective offensive operations. As you neatly put it, they lack mobility, and things only go downhill from there i.e. encountering obstacles.I want to emphasize that my comments regarding the lacking punch of light infantry without lots of support assets is mainly directed at offensive operations.
Light infantry in restricted terrain sitting in well prepared positions is a pain to dislodge. But it's weakness also shows in defensive operations in less restricted terrain. They can dig in and may very well punish attacking formations out of their prepared positions but their lack of mobility makes it hard for them to reorientate or relocate in order to counter more mobile forces which are not directly attacking their front and their are also not able to trade space for pressure. They either win or get overrun in many situations.
Light infantry is usually without transports and could also be called leg infantry. Something like paratroopers jumped onto an objective.
But one shouldn't focus too much on the means of transportation. One could ferr infantry with corps trucks to their destination (them being motorized for this) and from there on they fight as light infantry.
The same applies for example to marines getting dropped by helicopters. After the insertion they are essentially light infantry for time to come. The same blokes sitting in an AMTRAC are motorized/mechanized infantry once they hit the beach.
As for modern infantry fighting outside of combined arms operations. The lighter is better fever gripped many western forces and one just has to look how the situation in Afghanistan evolved.
First it was mostly motorized infantry in APCs with some air assault elements sprinkled in. Fast air was the main contributor for fire support.
Once the fighting began in earnest NATO nations pumped more and more Artillery, Helicopters, IFVs and tanks into the theater on order to beef up their mainly infantry focused forces. Motorized infantry was still the main pillar of operations there but one realized (again...) that operating against a determined enemy with mostly light leg infantry, some APCs and some fast movers overhead is not very effective.
Sure light infantry forces retain their roles on the battlefield, especially when it comes to special terrain and/or insertion technics.
But I am actually of the opinion that the bulk of required boots on the ground should be provided by medium/motorized infantry units with their own organic APCs and support vehicles.
The Stryker brigades are somewhat of a role model to this as they combine protected mobility, lots of dismounts and support vehicles in a package which is well embedded into the networked force structure.
I like the idea of having one common wheeled chassis for such a medium brigade which provides the basis for most combat and combat support roles.
Retain some light formations for special roles and the heavy tracked brigades as the armoured fists.
2nd Cavalry Regiment stationed in Vilsek, isn't an Armored Cavalry Regiment. And hasn't really been one since 1992, when it's colors were transferred to Ft. Lewis and reflagged the HMMWV based 199th IN BDE (L). Which was all that remained of the 9th IN DIV (MTR) test bed.Agreed 100%. I believe the ACR we have in the EU is now a Styker unit. I think for Fulda etc a heavy Mech ACR would stand up far better
I agree. Cavalry units can mostly trace back their existence to horse or camel mounted units. As these grew obsolete, the animals were replaced with tanks but the designation of "Cavalry" was retained as a name. e.g.:-16th Cavalry regiment or something.Cavalry these days is more of a name then a designation.
The Indian and Pakistani infantry troops stationed at Siachen glacier are virtually outside a combined arms formation. No road connectivity and supplies periodically flown in by light helicopters.Is it even imaginable for a well organized modern military force to have infantry operating outside a combined arms structure against an equally well prepared enemy?
In context of the Siachen glacier standoff, I would say that sometimes, light infantry is your only option. With no airstrip and only a helipad for light helicopter operation, the heavy equipment (field guns and AAs) is actually dismantled and dragged to position in pieces and reassembled in place. Motoristaion in such circumstances is impossible. But since both belligerents suffer from the same disadvantage, their endurance is therefore equally thin.In fact the biggest issue with light infantry is that expecting them to move on foot all over the battlefield, regardless of terrain type, then prepare defensive positions and expect to deal with an attack in a few hours time is going to stretch their endurance thin. Motorisation helps overcome the issue of battlefield movement/deployment/redeployent without excessively physically straining the dismounts who effectively are light infantry themselves too.