Motorized Infantry

Plan made by people who aren't moronic:
>attach transport battalions to infantry units to motorize them or organically have more transport units within said infantry units to motorize them

The US Army:
>Put infantry squads into off road golf carts and have them zoom zoom towards enemy positions

Why has the US military been so moronic when it comes to troop transport?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stryker units are the American equivalent of motorized infantry. The ISV is going to light infantry units.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      IBCTs are already motorized

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you put everybody in an MRAP, they cant go most places which makes them useless as a maneuver element. MRAPs weigh 10-20 tons, restricting their airlift to hard airfields as you can only fit one in a C130 or two if you strip off all the operational addons; forcing any serious deployment to use globemasters and galaxies. Plus they're restricted in what they themselves can drive on. I know its an epic meme to seethe about muh golf carts because russia uses le golfcarts and therefore they must be le bad; but they need to be light to move which is the point of light infantry and there's no getting around that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's not the point of light infantry though. The point of light infantry is to use them in restrictive terrain, economy of force, quantity (you lack the resources for armored forces), and for them being cheap. If you want infantry that can move quickly, you use mechanized or armored units. There is no point in motorizing light infantry, the whole point is that they are on foot and not bound to vehicles. If you need to simply move them quickly from A to B, then just put them in trucks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The point of light infantry is to use them in restrictive terrain
        Such as terrain too soft or unsteady for armor to traverse? Hence the two ton pickups.
        >the whole point is that they are on foot and not bound to vehicles
        Thats asinine, you dont just walk all the way to berlin. Western light infantry has had wheels since the cold war.
        >then just put them in trucks
        Thats what these are, except with the understanding that they will unavoidably face contact on their journey since the age of frontlines is over and they are more likely to survive in fast squad-sized vehicles with turrets rather than having whole platoons in the back of a FMTV.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the age of frontlines is over
          Have you been asleep for the past 2 years?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's talking about drones & missiles mate
            Backline attacks in the past were no where near as numerous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            As in "Backlines aren't safe anymore". He's still moronic. Armour is much better to have in your backlines and you need to pay more attention to securing your backlines and protecting your logistics, not getting very less armour and try to Tokyo drift in your backlines to avoid fpv

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > just put them in trucks
        Soft-skinned transportation :/
        Soft-skinned transportation, only heavier, slower, and with worse offroad performance 😮

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > If you need to simply move them quickly from A to B, then just put them in trucks.
        You now realize that's what ISV is.

        Step 1: let's airdrop our lads on target!
        Step 2: oh no, airborne is obsolete because manpads/s400/etc!
        Step 3: drop them farther away
        Step 4: but oof, they'll be tired when they get there bv walking 6 hours
        Step 5: airdrop trucks with em so they're fresh

        How does this diifer form russkie golf carts? Americans use it to get to the battlefield, then step off; Russians charge machineguns in theirs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Step 1: let's airdrop our lads on target!
          *dies from manpads, AAA, SAM's, and units calling in artillery on drop zones and assembly areas*

          >Step 3: drop them farther away
          >He thinks enemy air defense would be massed in a single location and that there wouldn't be an extensive security zone that can reach out to tens of kilometers with just the enemies organic recon and ISR assets, hundreds of kilometers with supporting ISR and recon assets
          >wew

          >Step 4: but oof, they'll be tired when they get there bv walking 6 hours
          >Step 5: airdrop trucks with em so they're fresh
          >successfully force your light infantry force to have to rely upon natural lanes of drift and roads so that their vehicles can actually work
          >give the enemy easy ability to interdict them on transport towards their objectives
          >still have to designate security forces to stay behind with the vehicles because you're not just dumping them off somewhere, reducing your already limited light infantry force even more

          What your nice little graph leaves out is the fact that one of the main advantages that light infantry have is their ability to move through restrictive terrain which makes it easier for them to move in a decentralized manner. Which in operations that go beyond shooting fourteen year old opium farmers in a low intensity conflict, is essential not only for mission completion but just for survival. Also:
          >100 pound loads

          That's just GWOT autism. There's no reason why an infantryman should be carrying more than a fighting load and 24 hours worth of supplies. At most you would have rucks that would be loaded with food water and ammo that should still never come close to 100 pounds. If your airborne operation requires each infantryman to carry 100 plus pounds of shit and move rapidly over dozens of kilometers to the point of physical exhaustion, then maybe the mission itself is kind of moronic and shouldn't be done.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wdym hard landing strips?
      are the galaxies and globe masters too heavy so their wheels sink in dirt strips?
      I'm aware of the concepts behind airlifting units, like number of vehicles per lift, how many you can fit based on size and weight, time needed etc, but can someone give some more in depth knowledge about the topic?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >>Put infantry squads into off road golf carts and have them zoom zoom towards enemy positions
    Thats not the plan. Go be moronic someplace else.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is the point of this thing actually?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the humvee is being replaced by two vehicles instead of a single do all vehicle. you've got the jltv and the isv. there's still specialized vehicles like the gmv but the isv and jltv are the ones being made in large quantities.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Motor Pool
          Yeah, I was in the 82nd. Maybe they don't understand light infantry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what are the roles of the jltv and isv?
          what different niches do they fit?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what are the roles of the jltv and isv?
            JLTV is armored but can't fit into Chinook.
            ISV isn't armored but can fit into Chinook.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              but if you're going to airlift them into a theater you're not using helis, so does that difference matter so much to differentiate them compared to other factors?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's a difference between strategic mobility and operational mobility. Airlift is for the former, air mobility is for the latter.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I know, but what I mean is: is the main difference between them the fact that one is halo mobile? and is it reflected by the doctrine of the formation using it? or are there other differences I'm their role and that's just one among the many? I dont think the point of IBCT is to be helo mobile

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The humvee isn't being replaced only the armored humvee is. Stop. Just stop.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well, moron, it depends on the unit but basically
        >instead of having your weapons section in a fat slow vehicle, you put them in a light fast vehicle so they can zip around just behind the frontline to deploy javelins in response to specific threats.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Light infantry.
          >Trucks.
          Yeah moron. Let's give light infantry organic vehicles at the squad level.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the ISV is a golf cart
    you are so fricking moronic holy shit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They never heard of a scissor lift

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Scissors are heavier and occupy more space

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're too fat to ride motorcycles into battle like the Japanese.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >attach transport battalions to infantry units to motorize them
    What's the advantage of putting the transportation in a different unit solely for administrative purposes?
    >organically have more transport units within said infantry units to motorize them
    Neat idea. We should give the infantry squads some sort of vehicle. Maybe we could call it the "Infantry Squad Vehicle". Hey..!

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's airmobile. The alternative is a softskin Humvee.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The operational requirements of the ISV were nine passengers, a payload of 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg), transportable by external sling load by a Sikorksy UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, internal load/external lift by Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter,
    It's capabilities mostly shaped by theese tight air transportable requirements. How important are these is another question. But it's helo mobile transport first, everything else second.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Put infantry squads into off road golf carts and have them zoom zoom towards enemy positions
    It's just a better HMMWV. If you're going to have a lightly armored vehicle, well... you genuinely might as well just make it an unarmored vehicle if you're not going to uparmor the frick out of it, in which case you might as well just have a Stryker. The major advantage these have over a HMMWV is that if you take contact you can immediately get the frick out and into cover without getting stuck on doors. These aren't assault vehicles. Light infantry is going to be assaulting on foot, not in their unarmored vehicles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You'll be dead if you take contact in the ISV. The point is to be dismounted before contact.

      Armoring against at least 7.62x51mm is necessary as the berets down in Nigeria found out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Those green berets in Nigeria all got out of their vehicles to start engaging on foot when they could have just driven away.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >attach transport battalions to infantry units to motorize them
    OP is an idiot, motorized infantry by definition have organic transport
    if it has to be attached from a different unit, its no longer motorized

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Put infantry squads into off road golf carts and have them zoom zoom towards enemy positions
    Projecting again, Ivan?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Cavalry
    >Dragoons
    ITT, morons who don't understand light infantry.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I won't like these until you can at least put add on armor onto it. You drop once and are on the ground forever. As much as the US wants to use air transport, an army will always be a ground force.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I won't like these until you can at least put add on armor onto it
      the JLTV is armored
      the ISV is for motorization, the JLTV is an alternative for when protection is required

      >. As much as the US wants to use air transport, an army will always be a ground force.
      air mobility is an important criteria to make it to battle in time
      transporting by sea takes weeks

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    But that sort of vehicle would be used for scouting and recce, and even then, I think it might have been superceded for that purpose ever so slightly given the Russo-Ukrainian war. Light speedy unarmoured transports have very specific use these days in ambushes and maybe some recce in force shit but I can't imagine a world where there aren't eyes in the sky that will see you quickly

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >But that sort of vehicle would be used for scouting and recce, and even then,
      ISVs will be organic to rifle brigades as a means of moving soldiers around the battlefield, its the same as motorized rifles were equipped in WW2

      > Light speedy unarmoured transports have very specific use these days in ambushes and maybe some recce in force shit but I can't imagine a world where there aren't eyes in the sky that will see you quickly
      or so soldiers dont have to walk everywhere or carry all their gear all the time

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *