Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces

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

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Yimmy RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces 1/30/2006 11:02:53 AM

I can't say what the outcome would be, but something would have gone very wrong if 3 Commano Brigade had to tackle a Russian armoured brigade alone! The anti-armour firepower from such a light force would come from their supporting assets, such as Apache and Harrier, and their organic anti-tank missiles. If we did not have air superiority it would likely start to look like the paras in Market Garden.

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces 1/30/2006 11:15:18 AM

My first comment would be, "There can be no terrain neutral environment." Any terrain that would not offer a mobility impediment must be considered an advantage to mechanized forces. Too, if that same terrain provides for long LOS, target acquisition would probably weigh to the side of heavy forces. Without SIGNIFICANT augmentation by close air sorties, helicopter ATGW gunships, and adequate artillery to suppress enemy AAA and AA missile systems, your "terrain neutral environment" sounds like an enemy advantage. Faced with enemy commanders who understand how to engage their weapon systems and manuever tactically, and without augmentation in the forms suggested above, modern light forces, left to themselves, need the advantages that urban or close terrain offer. Moreover, that same terrain must be "key" terrain to the enemy commander, and requiring possession. Otherwise, the light force commander faces the distinct possibility of being pinned while his opponent manuevers around and behind him. Actually, it is here, however, where modern light forces might excel. A semi-autonomous environment, fluid and cut-off, should not necessarily panic the well-trained, professional light infantry force. Recognizing their limited mobility, modern light infantry are trained to fight armor with the expectation that they may be cut-off temporarily. All this implies, however, that even the finest light infantry do not anticipate extended combat against heavy forces without the terrain advantages necessary to their effectiveness and survival, as well as the firepower augmentation/relief that is not organic to their organizations, but utterly necessary if these forces are to survive and win. Guess that means I think there should be some qualifiers, huh?

Quote Reply

BRoger RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces 1/30/2006 11:23:16 AM

Agreed that you wouldn't want 3rd Commando Brigade going toe to toe with a Russian armoured brigade. However, the two mentioned UK brigades are amongs the most rapidly deployable combat brigades the country has - war can sometimes require you to throw whatever you've got in the way of the enemy. If a reasonable degree of air superioty can be provided, would not the large number of Apaches assigned to 16th AAB be a fair old leveller and provide a massive threat to enemy armour? Furthermore against the less capable foes listed in the orginal post, surely the anti-tank missiles, improved communications and air support would provide a significant boost to the light forces capabilities in tackling are more heavily armoured enemy? As for Market Garden, in that you had light forces of 50 years ago fighting arguably the leading exponents of armoured warfare in the world. Whereas in the scenario posted, you have light forces with the significant boosts that modern technology has provided to their firepower (e.g Milan anti-tank missiles) against a less well funded, technologically inferior enemny. Surely the two cannot be compared as to outcomes? Given the massive cost of equipping and training 16th AAB what is its purpose? Surely it cant all be to make sure they win any light infantry vs light infantry fight? For instance if they were to take and hold an airfield (a classic air assault operation) - presumably they're equipped to be able to hold it (at least for a while) from enemy armoured forces until friendly armoured forces arrive to relieve them?

Quote Reply

BRoger RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces - S2 1/30/2006 11:31:58 AM

Given that 16th Air Assault Brigade includes three regiments of Apaches, a squadron of armoured recon vehicles and 18 105mm guns in terms of artillery - these should be considered as part fo the brigade's capabilities - not "significant augmentation". I think if you want to compare the respective brigades firepower and capability, its only fair to evaluate the whole package not merely the firepower presented by the light infantry battalions. As for terrain neutral environements - I appreciate that in all likelihood an engagement wont be fort in such a circumstance. However, for the purpose of this scenario let us suppose that there is some impendiment to mobility (so the armoured forces dont have it all their own way), but the conflict is not taking place in mountainous terrain (or any other where the clear advantage is with the light forces).

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces - S2 1/30/2006 11:52:03 AM

"against a less well funded, technologically inferior enemny" At the end of they day you are still talking rifles vs tanks. 16th AA don't have that many AT missile launchers, and Russian tanks arn't -that- easily cracked.

Quote Reply

BRoger RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces - S2 1/30/2006 12:04:08 PM

I'm sure you're right about the Russians - but they are the most capable foe listed in the scenario by some margin. What about the others? Surely they could take the Syrians no? The "less well funded and technologically inferior enemy" comment was chiefly aimed at the other countries in the scenario.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces - S2 1/30/2006 12:59:00 PM

"What about the others? Surely they could take the Syrians no?" Well, I don't know to be honest. I dare say they would be a real headache for the Syrians, but at the end of the day if all they had were 50 T34's, if they all battern down their hatches there isn't a whole lot 3 Commando could do to them.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces 1/30/2006 8:58:10 PM

I would think the advantage of light armor would depend on the terrain and the situation. Light armor might have an advantage if it is on the attack and in soft soil/hilly terrain. But defending against armor would get crushed.

Quote Reply

GOP RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces 1/30/2006 10:26:51 PM

Very interesting post, BRoger, I am glad that you started this thread. My opinion is this: I am American, so not sure what exactly the US equivalant of the 3rd Commando's is, but I am guessing something along the line of the US 75th Rangers. The fact is this, if the 75th went head-to-head with a Russian armoured brigade, they would get chewed up very badly if they did not have airpower. The Rangers are expertly trained infantry, and therefore are excellent at killing enemy infantry, but they simply (in my opinion) do not have the portable assets to defeat a armoured brigade. We are talking 50 or so tanks with infantry attachments against roughly 750 Rangers, so the Rangers have got to have at very minimum 75 Javelins to be at all effective. The only way for the Rangers to win would be to use all 75 Javelins and hit/destroy 50 tanks, not very likely at all. The Iranians, Pakistanis, and Syrians are not a proffesional force at all, but the fact is that if my basketball team were taught how to fire a tank's main gun, then we could probably make it very hard for an equivalant unit of light infantry simply due to firepower. The one factor that the Rangers or 3rd Commando force/16th Air Assualt has going for them is that they never lose. Their soldiers >know< how to win, because they have always won, and human resolve cannot be underestimated. The Russian and Brazilians are better trained than the others on the list, and they also have better equipment, so the odds would probably be pretty high in their favor if the US/UK light infantry have no airpower. Who wins? I really don't know, but the odds are in the favor of the armoured force. Now, I would take a brigade (or in the US case, a Battalion) of US/UK light infantry over a division of Iranian, Pakistani, Russian, Brazilian, or Syrian infantry.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:Modern light and medium forces against 2nd and 3rd world armoured forces 1/31/2006 5:52:55 AM

The US equivalent would be a Brigade of the 82nd or 101st Divisions. It's no secret that none of these units could take on equivalent sized armoured units except in very favourable terrain and cirumstances. The Syrian example is quite interesting becuase the Syrian strategy to defend themselves against a US invasion has been to purchase modern Russian ATGW's and give them to their Special Forces Brigades (of which they have about six). The aim is to give their armed forces a lighter "footprint" that will be less vulnerable to US air superiority. It's almost like the Syrians will be trying to use light forces (albeit one's motorised in jeep type vehicles) to take out US heavy armoured ones which is a reversal of the usual situation. The Syrians still won't win, but its interesting anyway!

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT