Lord Jim wrote:holes in the lines.
runs sort of contrary to the thought of dispersed battle?
Lord Jim wrote:All of this is going to be very new.
Researching the primary sources for the subject of “light infantry” the puzzling fact is that there are little or no references to the subject. Ancient historians like Thucydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, do not refer to “light infantry” troops, instead they use term peltast. It appears that the term peltast
signifies a “light armoured warrior” as opposed to the heavy phalanxes and to the light infantry of the time that would slip through "the lines" in a guerrilla fashion and then destroy the enemy's crops (i.e going after the 'logs tail' - command centres were (then) off limits as they were within the main formations).
As for the modern-day-newness of light, armoured formations, I see that in addition to the agility (ref: previous post, includes 'quick to action, and then able to act' against heavier enemy, as per LJ) they are also an attempt to rectify the low numbers of infantry in armoured manoeuvres... what isn't armoured these days?
AI as a concept grew from the necessity of having (protected) infantry, capable of advancing with tanks, and thus shielding them from opposing infantry's ambushes
- to do this, small numbers were acceptable
- however, as western armies have shrunk (BA included) we have reached the situation where only three AI bdes could be fielded (with a sprinkling of artillery from the single arty bde) onto a modern battlefield. How many bayonets in 6 (to be 4) infantry bns?
- suddenly we will have those 4 plus another 4 from Strike bdes (if anyone knows about the equipment plans for the paired reserve bns that would be welcome info as we seem to be struggling to field = kit out even these regular ones)
- once you have more dismounts you can actually secure e.g. high ground in pinch points through which the heavier parts of the bdes will need to pass, in order to bring their effect to bear somewhere "ahead". Having 16X attached to our "warfighting" 3rd D is a good thing, but it is itself short of infantry (and half of 'its' Apaches are nowadays "attached" to the early entry forces... where ever they might be "at the time") - having to take each hill top with a helicopter load of troops may not always work
Lord Jim wrote:Unlike some other nations who have medium weight [1] formations we intend to use ours against heavier opposition in high intensity conflicts, to buy time for heavier[2] friendly formations to come into the line. This is totally new to the British Army
I would say this is exactly what O'Connor did in N. Africa with [1] Bren carriers and light tanks and brought the few [2] lumbering Matildas to bear only when the situation on the ground had been "shaped" by preceding manoeuvre
All this might sound like writing a field manual, but the starting point is not to have (only) Puma/Lynx/the proposed AJAX troop carrier like vehicles @ £6 mln a pop and with 7 dismounts (each then comes @ almost a million £££s; no wonder we keep running out of money)
- BUT also the more spacious (in our case) Boxers... that can race ahead, and do what they
are supposed to do. Whatever that might be as the Strike Bdes still only exist as an experimental unit. Just a thought, to relate to Recce Rgmnts: they
were never meant to hold ground... as they did not have infantry in them
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)