Women in Combat? Why?

I never asserted it was the "end all be all." I asserted that in the end every job in the military ultimately supports putting boots on the ground against the enemy.

Infantry is the most flexible unit on the battlefield. They can fight in every climate and terrain on earth. They're the only ones who can ultimately go in and get the enemy by the throat. You can hide from nukes, tanks, jets, artillery and every other type of machine. You can't hide from a human being thats actually on the ground with you. How is this so hard to understand?

 

sorry, but we do not agree. The US has many soldiers that have NEVER seen any combat of any kind. That cannot be said of the Israeli forces. The current American military has more combat experience that at any time since Vietnam, that is for sure. But every soldier is not in a life and death situation every day, as are the Iraqi forces.

 

SEALs are Infantry. I don't see how you don't understand that. They run around on the ground, they swim, they jump out of air planes and they close with and destroy the enemy by fire and manuever. What else on earth would they be? I don't think you seem to understand what exactly Infantry is. Infantry are soldiers (Sailors or Marines) who's primary mission is to fight on foot. SEALs fit that criteria....so do snipers, machine gunners, ATGM troops, mortar men, and various other sub specialties.


You don't understand the military, period. The Army and the Marine Corps both possess units capable of carrying out such a raid. Devgru were just the ones to get the call. They themselves said that it was a fairly routine mission that SF carries out daily in Afghanistan. If you also recall it was SFOD-D that was sent after Bin Laden in 2001/2002.

 

Japan surrendered before they were completely defeated...unlike Berlin. The U.S. was still preparing for the invasion of Japan. They knew that if Japan refused to ever surrender they'd have to put boots on the ground. They also knew that they wouldn't have another bomb for quite some time. Also, all those island hoping campaigns are what gave the Air Force the ability to launch the nuclear bombs.

You again are ignoring everything I'm saying. Every component of the military is neccessary. It's all one great big team. However, in the end the very tip of that large pointy sword that is the American military is the Infantry.

Why were you patrolling the road? To keep supply lines open with other bases? Also, your situation is rather unique. The Vietnamese were clearly incompetent at anti-armor operations. Tanks traveling without support down a road are sitting ducks for Infantry and combat engineers. I'm sure they never would have let you operate like that in large scale assaults again NVA, right?

 

The entire invasion involved Infantry operations. Units are trained to fight together utilizing supporting arms.

Light Armored Reconissance BNs as well as regular Reconissance BNs were the spearpoint of the Marine Corps advance all through Iraq. They are BOTH Infantry units. Armored Cav units and even regular Armored units all contain Infantrymen.

 

Wow you're naive. Machine guns CHANGED infantry. Just as the phalanx, shortsword, longbow, musket, and rifle did before it. In WW2 the VAST majority of the fighting was undertaken by Infantry. Even on the Eastern Front infantry did most of the fighting. You watch too many movies. In WWI tanks were used to break through the lines....whereupon Infantry would exploit the breakthroughs. In WW2 tanks became more reliable but were still reliant on the Infantry too catch up and consolidate their penetrations. Infantry are the only units that can truly take and hold ground.

Infantry in essence is anyone who fights on the ground.

 

You're a joke. I really think you're a troll at this point. No one can be this silly. I spent 7 months imbedded with a platoon of Iraqi Security Forces...and constantly interacted with and operated with the Iraqi Army. To say they have a long way to go would be an understatement.

 

Correct, it's the infantry on the ground that wins the war. Politicians certainly have been known to start wars though.

I disagree. The concept of the Marine Combined Action Platoons had they been utilized earlier in the war and on a much bigger scale would have been very effective and I think we could have tilted the war in our favor and made it possible for us to complete our objectives in Vietnam. The way the B-52 bombing raids were used back then, merely telegraphed that we were fixing to send in our infantry and so the enemy would hunker down and wait for the raids to finish and then wait for our infantry to arrive.

We didn't surprise anybody and the enemy got in close using a tactic referred to as "hugging" where the enemy were so close to our troops, we couldn't bring our firepower to bear against them (and the enemy did this intentionally because they knew that if we did try to bring our firepower to bear against them we would end up killing our own troops). This is why it is important for infantry to be very good at not just marksmanship, but also hand to hand combat. Again, firepower, air power, machines and technology are no substitute for tactical proficiency on the ground. We did a poor job in using our supporting arms tactically speaking and we relied to much on firepower and not enough on surprise and good tactics. The enemy was hardly ever surprised when our infantry arrived and surprise should be the norm, not the exception. This is what happens when you rely too much on air power, overwhelming firepower and become "machine dependent."

That would have been politically impossible for us and not very smart if we followed the Bible's way of thinking in fighting the war in Vietnam.

 

you really do NOT understand war today. When America enters a war it is NOT for the purpose of taking over the nation, it is NOT for the purpose of putting boots on the ground, it is NOT for moving immigrants into new land. IT IS for the purpose of stopping perceived agression and infantry are NOT needed to meet that end. In Iraq, the infantry were used as POLICE, not as war winners. The war was over before the Infantry did anything much more than take charge of the tens of thousands of prisoners taken by the armored troops. BUSH announced the war was won a couple weeks after it started. We had STOPPED the nation of IRAQ, we had done what we set out to do..Then because of stupid politics we stayed around and lost 4000 American soldiers--mostly infantry for NO reason. America would have been better off, without the "police action"in Iraq that killed over 4000 great American citizens. You are free to brag about how wonderfully the infantry handled the "insurgency" but, it was NOT a war, it was police against terrorists, the nation of IRAQ had already surrendered. Killing terrorists is NOT war--war is between nations, not between armed men and insurgents. Just like the concept of the WAR ON TERROR is total nonsense, the 7 years of insurgency policing in IRAQ was total nonsense, unnecessary and a total waste. The same can be said for my war, Vietnam--we lost over 70,000 troops for no reason, none at all.

 

We totally disagree, but of one thing i am quite sure of. The Infantry is so good at brainwashing their soldiers that they must have studied the methods the Chinese communists used to brainwash half a billion people at the end of world war 2.
Nuff said, you deny the facts, I cannot agree with you and this in no longer a discussion, just an argument--so, being the better person, I will move on.

 

Ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

I'd like to see anyone other than Infantry lead the offensive into Fallujah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korengal_valley

I'd also like to see a soft skilled MOS in control the Korengal Valley.

Frankly, if you had left all the Infantry at home during the entire span of both wars, casualties on our side would of gone way up, and casualties for the enemy would be way down.

It is what it is.

 

This guy doesn't understand the most basic of tactics. He really thinks that tanks drove all the way through Baghdad capturing everything themselves. He doesn't understand that tanks can't take and hold territory or capture prisoners. He doesn't understand that tanks are vulnerable to ATGMs without infantry support. He doesn't understand the tanks are pretty useless when used in cities and heavy terrain. He has a 7 year olds understanding of tactics.

 

Wait, what? You mean you can't do CQB with tanks??? Since when?!

To further your point, and something he may be able to understand being in Nam...

LRRPs were a HUGE game changer, and they were Infantry.

 

No, he thinks that Special Forces aren't infantry...haha.

 

They aren't just infantry.

Spooky and Spectre AC-130s belong with Spec. Ops squadrons...
they are most definitely not infantry. They may support folks on the ground though.

Iraq and Afghanistan are asymmetrical wars, therefore boots on the ground will take precedent.
The Battle of Fallujah was mentioned...and this needed to be dealt with more surgically, so ground forces were sent in.
If the goal was simply wiping the town off the map as it would be in a conventional war...no ground troops would have been necessary. Air power would have accomplished that.

Let's look at Gulf War I however...a more conventional war.
In theater roughly 65% of the Iraqi forces were attrited by air power.
After action reviews indicate that Coalition ground forces dispatched approximately 30% of the remaining ground forces.

 

Another historical example...

It was air power that eventually caused Japan's submission and eventual
unconditional surrender; saving a protracted ground invasion of the main island of Japan.
Plans were already in the works...Operation Downfall and Operation Olympic.

Estimates for U.S. casualties on the ground, had these operations actually gone to fruition, range as high as 1/2 million.

That's 500,000 casualties...KIA, WIA or MIA.

On the flip side, it was island hopping Marines and soldiers on the ground who secured air fields to allow air power to reach out and touch Japan.

Wars aren't fought one dimensionally with a guy on the ground holding a rifle.
They aren't fought with just bomber planes and aircraft carriers...

There are support elements every step of the way, and without support
elements the guy on the ground holding a rifle wouldn't survive very long,
and neither would a pilot in a plane, or a sailor on a boat.

It's a concerted effort done by all who serve in the military...from the glamorous
to the not so glamorous jobs and occupations.

No one element wages and wins a war by itself.

Rambo is only a figment of Hollywood's imagination.
The lone rifleman against all odds.

 

I apologize, I mispoke. He had mentioned SEALs earlier. The majority of the air power and other units in SOCOM are there to support the ground pounders though....like the Night Stalkers for example.

Do you have the link to that 65%? Also, consider how many weeks of bombardment DIDN'T deter Saddam versus what...100 hours of a ground war?

I've been looking for the quote but can't find it. An Iraqi armored commander was asked about what his thoughts on air power during the war. He said he had 30 tanks at the start of the war and 25 after weeks of an air campaign. He said that in 30 minutes engaged with ground forces he had ZERO tanks left. I think the Balkans campaign also showed some of the limitations of air power. The Serbs were quite successful in hiding their armor from U.S./NATO aircraft.

I'm not downplaying the importance of airpower. It's incredibly effective at preventing armor from massing or moving. However, it's not that difficult to hide armored vehicles from aircraft if your tenacious enough. It's also more difficult if your enemy has SAMs, Stingers, and their own aircraft.

 

Of course what you're saying is true. This guy has been trying to imply I'm saying its only INFANTRY that win wars. I'm saying that its a combination of all branches and specialties that combine together to win wars. My point is though that ultimately to bring a country to submission and accomplish most tasks you have to put guys on the ground. We had overwhelming air superiority in Iraq I, Iraq II, Balkans, Panama, Afghanistan, and various other conflicts and yet always ended up putting boots on the ground. You can't really put your boot on the throat of an enemy if you don't have your own people running around his cities and inside his houses.

 

I know that tactics is unit level planing, and it a minor part of over all strategic planning, do you?
Please check out this list of TACTICS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics
Notice that the infantry is used as a assist to the other units, in handling prisoners, in defending stationary redoubts, in building to building warfare when it is not wanted to destroy the area. The use of infantry for taking towns and cities is ONLY a political need, it is NOT a military need. If we had wished to demolish Baghdad or any other city in Iraq, we would not have needed a infantry person withing a thousand miles. Oh and in Iraq, the armor did capture literally thousands of enemy soldiers, tens of thousands actually. And, then they did need infantry to play cop and guard the enemy soldiers they (the armor units) caused to surrender.

OH, by the way, during the march to Baghdad ARMOR led the way, at times 50 or miles ahead of the mounted infantry. OH, and in the entire second gulf war, only 18 tanks were lost due to ATGM attack and all of those occurred in and around Baghdad. In the open country of southern IRAQ tanks do not have a huge worry from enemy soldiers with ATGM's the range of tank weapons is far greater than that of man carried missiles. In cities yes, the missiles are a great danger. But with modern tanks and modern reactive armor they are no where near the danger they were just 20 years ago. The main gun on a tank can hit a target by direct fire at over a mile and by indirect fire at 15 miles, its secondary weapons can demolish small buildings, cars, trucks and lightly armored vehicles. Foot soldiers hiding in trenches are NOT safe from an air burst from a main gun, nor from even a delayed bounced shot. with the little bitty toy airplanes flying over the battlefield with cameras notifying armored units where infantry are hiding, they are not a huge danger to armor anymore, except in close terrain. Even in close terrain the advances in protective devices have drastically reduced the danger from foot soldiers. The days of running up and slapping a magnetic charge to the tanks tracks is over. Modern tanks going into such a situation can carry anti infantry fragmentary devices that are automatically set off at the approach of an enemy foot soldier.

So, to sum it up, while infantry can be useful and often is, they are NOT needed to win or end wars today. Their main use is ornamental, to keep America looking good by limiting civilian collateral damage.
Infantry, needed, yes.
Infantry useful, yes.
Infantry necessary, no.
Women in combat -necessary-YES- for the honor, pride and fairness of America.

 

Look at the Iraq war order of battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iraq_(2003)_order_of_battle

All the bolded units are Infantry or possess a significant number of Infantry forces. Note that virtually every armored regiment in the Army has Infantry organic to it.

1st Marine Division (Rein)
1st Marine Regiment
3rd BN, 1st Marine Regiment
1st BN, 4th Marine Regiment
2nd BN, 23rd Marine Regiment
2nd Light Armored Recon Battalion
5th Marine Regiment
1st BN, 5th Marine Regiment
2nd BN, 5th Marine Regiment
3rd BN, 5th Marine Regiment2nd Tank Battalion (Has infantry attached)
1st Light Armored Recon Battalion
7th Marine Regiment
1st BN, 7th Marine Regiment
3rd BN, 7th Marine Regiment
3rd BN, 4th Marine Regiment1st Tank Battalion (Has infantry attached)
3rd Light Armored Recon Battalion11th Marine Regiment
1st BN, 11th Marine Regiment (155T)
2nd BN, 11th Marine Regiment (155T)
3rd BN, 11th Marine Regiment (155T)
5th BN, 11th Marine Regiment (155T)
3rd BN, 27th Field Artillery Regiment (MLRS)
2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (TF Tarawa)
2nd Marine Regiment
1st BN, 2nd Marine Regiment
3rd BN, 2nd Marine Regiment
2nd BN, 8th Marine Regiment1st BN, 10th Marine Regiment (155T)
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (SOC)
2nd BN, 1st Marine RegimentS Btry, 5-11 Marine Regiment (155T)
24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
2nd BN, 2nd Marine RegimentF Btry, 2-10 Marine Regiment (155T)
1st (UK) Armoured Division
7th Armoured Brigade
Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Armor)
2nd Royal Tank Regiment (Armor)
1st BN, The Black Watch (Mech)1st BN, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Mech)
3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery (155SP)
16 Air Assault Brigade
1st BN, The Parachute Regiment
3rd BN, The Parachute Regiment1st BN, The Royal Irish Regiment (Air Aslt)
7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery (105T)
3 Commando Brigade
40 Commando
42 Commando29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery (105T)
[edit] V Corps (LTG Wallace) 3rd Infantry Division(Mech)
1st Brigade
2nd BN, 7th Infantry Regiment (Mech)
3rd BN, 7th Infantry Regiment (Mech)3rd BN, 69th Armor Regiment
1st BN, 41st Field Artillery Regiment (155SP)
2nd Brigade
3rd BN, 15th Infantry Regiment (Mech)1st BN, 64th Armor Regiment
4th BN, 64th Armor Regiment
1st BN, 9th Field Artillery Regiment (155SP)
3rd Brigade
1st BN, 15th Infantry Regiment (Mech)
1st BN, 30th Infantry Regiment (Mech)2nd BN, 69th Armor Regiment
1st BN, 10th Field Artillery Regiment (155SP)
101st Airborne Division (Air Aslt) 2nd Brigade
1st BN, 502nd Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)
2nd BN, 502nd Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)
3rd BN, 502nd Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)2nd BN, 70th Armor Regiment - Detached from 1st Armored Division
1st BN, 320th Field Artillery Regiment (Air Aslt) (105T)
3rd Brigade
2nd BN, 327th Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)
1st BN, 187th Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)
3rd BN, 187th Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)3rd BN, 320th Field Artillery Regiment (Air Aslt) (105T)
82nd Airborne Division
2nd Brigade
1st BN, 325th Infantry Regiment (Abn)
3rd BN, 325th Infantry Regiment (Abn)
1st BN, 41st Infantry Regiment (Mech) - Detached from 1st Armored Division2nd BN, 319th Field Artillery Regiment (Abn) (105T)
1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division
1st BN, 327th Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)
3rd BN, 327th Infantry Regiment (Air Aslt)2nd BN, 320th Field Artillery Regiment (Air Aslt) (105T)
4th Infantry Division(Mech) - Unable to deploy in time to start the invasion but joined it as a follow-on force 1st Brigade
1st BN, 8th Infantry Regiment (Mech) - Detached From 3rd Brigade
1st BN, 22nd Infantry Regiment (Mech)1st BN, 66th Armor Regiment
4th BN, 66th Armor Regiment
4th BN, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment (155SP)
2nd Brigade
2nd BN, 8th Infantry Regiment (Mech)1st BN, 67th Armor Regiment
3rd BN, 67th Armor Regiment
3rd BN, 16th Field Artillery Regiment (155SP)
3d Brigade
1st BN, 12th Infantry Regiment (Mech)2nd BN, 68th Armor Regiment
3rd BN, 29th Field Artillery Regiment (155SP)
Corps Asset

18th Military Police Brigade
205th Military Intelligence Brigade
22nd Signal Brigade
130th Engineer Brigade
17th Field Artillery Brigade
41st Field Artillery Brigade
214th Field Artillery Brigade
[edit] Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-North (TF Viking)10th Special Forces Group
173rd Airborne Brigade - Conducted a parachute drop into northern Iraq on March 26, 2003
1st BN, 508th Infantry Regiment (Abn)
2nd BN, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Abn)1st BN, 63rd Armor Regiment - Detached from 1st Infantry Division
D Btry, 319th Field Artillery Regiment (Abn) (105T)
2nd BN, 15th Field Artillery Regiment (105T) - Detached from 10th Mountain Division
26th Marine Expeditionary Unit(SOC)
1st BN, 8th Marines Regiment[edit] Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-West (TF Dagger)5th Special Forces Group 1st BN,124th Infantry Regiment - FLNG
2nd BN,14th Infantry Regiment - Detached from 10th Mountain Division

 

That 30 minutes was against American Armored units, in fact against ONE American platoon of 5 tanks. At the end of that "battle" the Americans still had 5 tanks, and without the assistance of the infantry.

Oh, and I saw earlier where someone mentioned sarcastically that Armor could not do Close Quarters Combat/Battle. LOL CQC/COB is an INFANTRY designation for such actions as attacking a farm house or troop truck, a small limited action in which a quick and close in attack is used, sometimes even ending in hand to hand combat. LOLOL, A tank would just use one round from the main gun to settle the deal without getting in bayonet range. However, don't thing that bayonet range with a tank is safe. 60 tons has a lot of crunch power and a fragmentation device mounted to a tank can do a lot of damage at hand to hand range.

 

I don't think you understand ATGMs. The main armament of the M1A2/A1 is the M256, it's also used in Leopard 2s. This gun has a max effective range of 4,000 meters. The TOW system, which the U.S. and multiple other countries arm their infantry with has a max range of about 3750 meters (newer missiles have somewhat better range). The Javelin, which can be easily operated by a two man team, has a max range of 2500 meters. We'll take the shortest of these ranges, the 2500 meters and apply it to the battlefield. There are very few places on earth where you can consistently get 2500 meters of unobstructed visbility between to points. Even in the desert sand dunes, villages, palm groves, and other things often get in the way.

At 2500 meters a two man team of infantry can pop out of a spider hole, lock onto a Main Battle Tank, fire their missile, and be back under cover within 30 seconds. A TOW mounted on a Humvee can pull around the corner of the building 3750 meters away and do the same exact thing. Both of these weapons are capable of killing every main battle tank on earth at these ranges.

UAVs work both ways. A big tank is 100 times easier to see than two guys hiding inside a building. I've never heard of these infantry fragmentary devices. Even if they do exist what could would they do? Tank mines, IEDs, and close in shots with rockets/RPGs negate this completely. When you also consider the dangers of civilain casualties (which you somehow don't think matters) they're not effective.

Read up on the Battle of Gronzy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994-1995)

Russian armored columns entered the city of Gronzy with a similar mindset to you. Chechen hunter killer teams armed with RPGs and a variety of other devices devestated their armored columns. Its estimated as many as 5,000 Russians were killed. It's considered by most military officers to be the best example of modern infantry's ability to devestate armor.

 

Tanks can't destory an entire city. Read up on Stalingrad. When you destory the city is becomes impassable to vehicles and becomes one massive quagmire that just makes armor more exposed to infantry. Subterranean basements and bunkers can easily survive bombardments.

 

You have repeatedly said that it is NECESSARY for the infantry to go in on the ground to win a war and I keep telling you it is ONLY needed for political reasons for the infantry to go in. Panama was not a war, it was an action of policing criminals. We used our cops to take care of it, the infantry. Afghanistan will never be won by infantry, or anything else until it is nuked to parking lot status. Iraq and Kuwait were won by air and armor, not by infantry. The infantry entered Iraq and Kuwait for political reasons, not for military reasons. the infantry day is a huge police force, trained in exactly the same things the police in my city are trained in, armed entry, bomb disposal, bomb detection, civilian control, criminal arrest, etc. The infantry also has training in good old-fashioned riot control. Oh, and they do receive some military only training, lol. How much of what the infantry did in Iraq was police work, and how much was real infantry action, such as took place in WW2, or Korea or even Nam? very little.

By the way, just a thought, if our infantry is so great, why do we have thousands of "civilian contractors" on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing the same things the infantry is doing?

 

We don't. You've just bought into the media's portrayal of "mercenaries." Contractors have been used exclusively in protective details. They do NOT and have NOT ever conducted offensive operations. They run convoys and protect bases and VIPs. It may be sexier for you to think they run covert missions but its not true.

There were some viscious Infantry battles in the invasion. The battle of Nasiriyah and ambush alley, the Battle of Najaf, the taking of Basra, and various battles fought up North with SF.