Best Light Infantry in the World?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

longrifle 3/26/2007 8:33:00 PM

Most people are answering with modern units so I'll take the historical route.

Forget weapons and technology for a moment and just consider basic skills and operational principals. I'll say that you would be hard pressed to find better light infantry anywhere in the world than could be found on the North American frontier in the 1600s - 1800s. It could be the 60th of Foot, aka The Royal Americans; any of several different colonial ranger units; any of several different frontier era rifle units; or one of many different Native American tribes; light infantry really came into it's own on the North American frontier.

I know that some armies in the phalanx era such as the Spartans used light screening troops up to a point, but that's not quite the same as pure light infantry (scouting, ranging, hunter, jager, etc.) operations.

Yimmy , correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe British excellence in light infantry probably came out of the North American colonial experience.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 3/27/2007 7:05:55 AM

Yimmy , correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe British excellence in light infantry probably came out of the North American colonial experience.

I don't know as much as I should on the subject, but I believe some British light infantry tradition goes back to North America in the 1750's.

The Rifles pages on the British army website has some info.

h**p://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regts/the_rifles/history_traditions/origins_campaigns/index.htm

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 4/2/2007 11:42:14 PM

There are good things about high levels of unit turnover. It provides a more well rounded infantryman. If you have a guy that has been air assault, airborne, mechanized, and light infantry, he is going to be a more well rounded individual and can apply lessons he learned from all the units he has served in.

Being the "best" does not mean that there isn't any room for improvement.

The US Army is "be all that you can be", not merely "just be better than everyone else".

Ha, that said, I'm a little unconvinced how transferrable lessons are between the mech world and the light world (Airborne, Air Assault, Light). Which situation is better: being assigned to the same unit throughout your career, but training *regularly* with other units (i.e., a light infantry brigade with a company of armor or two attached), or being assigned to one unit type or the other, and rarely (if ever) training with your counterparts on the other side of the light/heavy coin. Armor operates differently whether it is part of a mech TF or supporting a light infantry brigade...

I've darn sure seen leaders who grew up in one world refusing to assimilate in the current unit that they are in... with occasionally disasterous results. We are giving up a huge benefit in unit cohesion, for a very uncertain benefit in "well rounded leaders"

Sabre, you make some good points. But also consider this; just how often is there a specific task for just one kind of infantry? Not often is the answer, especially in unconventional warfare. Now ofcourse wel will always need Mech and airborne infantry for potential traditional threats that still do exist. These units did do some stuff that was related to their particular line of work at the beginning of the war, however the very unpredictable nature of war in general rarely means you can use a specifically trained unit in the exact area it needs to be. Intel has never been good enough for us to be able to pull that off, and it probably will never be that good. So it is good that the infantryman can take all the lessons he learned in the different units and apply them to his specific job or task. Hell, I never thought working as a dish dog would teach me things that I could use in the army, but it did.

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 4/2/2007 11:42:16 PM

Being the "best" does not mean that there isn't any room for improvement.

The US Army is "be all that you can be", not merely "just be better than everyone else".

Quote Reply

Ceetee 4/3/2007 3:18:26 PM

In British Army historical context "Light Infantry" refers to one very particular type of infantry company in every Regiment: The left-most flank company that "swung" the most and recruited the swiftest men of the battalion (The right pivot was the Grenadier company, the steadiest men). Only since 1750s did entire regiments become Light Infantry (or had it suffixed to existing name) as reward for performance. The big difference is that Rifles Regiment(s) started off as full-blown regiments - not companies. As per your definition "Light Infantry" Regiments are not Light Infantry at all! The Rifles Regiment(s) were the true, pure light infantry. And you would be correct in saying that: In British campaigns, Light Infantry companies were more often used in support of the storm-trooper units (the Grenadier companies) than in their intended swift-deployment mode (Ex. Battle of Long Island, Maratha Wars etc).

PS: I believe most Brit Rifles Regiments started off as Rifle Regiments at the get go, but in India the same formula of rewarding battalion with "Light Infantry" title was followed with the three Rifles Regiments (Rajputana, Garhwal, J&K) and one Rifles Brigade (Gurkhas).

Quote Reply

longrifle 4/3/2007 9:49:11 PM

Ceetee,

I know that light troops screening a linear formation could be considered one type of light infantry operation. However, when I said that light infantry really came into it's own on the North American frontier I meant pure light infantry operations that often didn't involve the classic 18th Century linear battle line at all.

The classic examples are punitive expeditions that involved long approach marches through the wilderness by horseback, foot, and boat before conducting ambushes, raids, deliberate attacks, etc. Some of the better known were conducted by Robert Rogers and George Rogers Clark but there were many others, especially the different Native American tribes. These operations involved superb fieldcraft, fitness, low level initiative, etc.

Quote Reply

Ceetee 4/4/2007 4:23:27 PM

Ceetee,

Didn't really disagree with your earlier post, just pointed to the semantics used by British Army historically.

On a side-note, until 1750s many of the operations you described were carried out... but by cavalry units (usually militia/irregular). The leadership of those times deemed the typical professional infantryman of those times as (politically) unreliable unless under draconian discipline and close supervision of officers and NCOs (i.e. people with nested interest in success of the operations). The cavalry - especially militia or irregulars who had local knowledge AND local interests - were tasked with scouting, raiding, unmounted ambush etc.

Quote Reply

rbarry88 4/7/2007 12:54:18 AM

Im in the army and the marines are the most gun-ho ive ever seen. they are probably the most capable, they have amphibious carriers with enough manpower and equipment, air support, land vehicles, landing craft, anything you can think of they have on those amphibs. They show up, they kick ass, and they move on. No question just on the basis of their training every marine whether he works in an office or on the field is trained to be one hell of a grunt. french foriegn legionaries are usually made up of alot of rejections from the US military. Theyre usually equipped with second hand shit, and if it looks like theyre gonna fail they get left to die. they're equivalent to the japanese in world war 2, suicidal. As for the brits theyre capable but British military technology isnt what it used to be.

Quote Reply

rbarry88 4/7/2007 12:57:39 AM

also, just saw something about the NVA and even the indians? Everyone knows we dont show half of what we can do in war games. and the NVA were pathetic in terms of tactics, they were slaughter their main stratagy was just launching wave after wave regardless of casualties, fanatical? yes, superior? no.

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 4/12/2007 12:06:39 AM

There is also a flip side to the unit cohesion in the regimental system of the British. One that leads to thinking my regiments way or the highway. Right or wrong, my regiment. They have unit cohesion within the regiment, and as a whole could damage a military. However, if one was moved around more, he would have no allegiance to any particular regiment or brigade, but to the whole army. I'm not saying that one system is better than the other, just that they both ahave their advantages and disadvantages.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT