I don't think you can say the PIRA would good light infantry.

 

you want the best light infantry on earth you'd probably wind up with ghurkas.  even the best of the rest are going to sweat some bullets at the though of having to go against a ghurka company in the bush.

>>RE:Best Light Infantry in the World? - Sam/Ambush 8/27/2005 7:07:41 PM
Since you have worked with these guys, I am pretty sure you are right. But, what is the deal? Why can't we get the training thing right? We spend an ungodly amount of money on training, much, much more than any other nation, but everyone talks about the Brits. What is the deal?<<

I would boil it down to a few basic problems that "hold us (US ground combat units) back":
Trying to use the Military Decision Making Process, and the entirely too-complex OpOrder process, all the way down to company level, or lower. Ridiculous for anything below Corps or Division... for the uninitiated, the MDMP is basically the staff dreaming up some possible courses of action, recommending them to the commander, followed by lengthy OpOrders and FragO's.  Best (training) battle I was ever in: the Battalion CO gathered us on a plateau, a few minutes after a successful attack, and described how we were going to defend our newly won positions. Took less than 30 minutes, everyone was quite clear on what to do, and we could start digging in immediately.  It was amazingly effective, and we could get right to work!  Some OC must have gotten to him, because a few hours later we had to "cease work", and wait for the OpOrd brief/process, which wasted many, many valuable hours, and left us scrambling to meet our "defend no later than" time.

 

Unit turnover and no cohort system:  I spoke with a "cohort" Ranger, who was in back in the 80's when they tried that sort of thing, and he agreed: the longer a unit is together, the better it performs.  Yet, despite being much larger (which should make it easier) and better funded, the US can't seem to implement the regimental system similar to the one that the Brits use.  The personnel "system" is appallingly bad.  We (the US military) sacrifice unit cohesion, which has a very direct, tangible effect on combat effectiveness, for what? "professional development" (seeing how other units do things)? fairness? (i.e. everyone gets some time in the few "garden spots" and some time in the "s**tholes")?  That is sacrificing an enourmous potential advantage for some crappy trade-offs.

Lack of faith in subordinates (and the "officer bloat" - I read somewhere the ratio of officers to enlisted is almost 1 to 4, but it can't possibly be that bad).  Articles are written about how war requires more resposibility be taken by lower levels in the hierarchy, yet some units won't train everyone to call for fire (or won't even deploy any artillery to support them!), won't equip soldiers with weapons like the Mk19 because "they can't handle it" etc.  Like it or not, our soldiers will find themselves outnumbered, we needn't add "outgunned" to that.

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"

Pfftt. It's definately  the Spartans. "For Sparta!"

The Greek Phalanx is to light infantry as American muscle cars are to a Lotus, Stout is to lager and tantalum is to titanium.