Will infantry become obsolete?

Will it? Or maybe increased protection (better armor, force fields, crysis-like camouflage) will allow it to survive on modern battlefield?

obsolete? never

(better armor, force fields, crysis-like camouflage)

totaly possible even highly likely (force fields not included...) but that will be starting to go to the agend about in year 2060 and further in full force

For clarification - my definition of infantry includes not only human but also hypothetical future robotic infantry.

Garru - what do you think, would a large scale land Kursk-like battles have a chacne of ever occuring in the future? From what i see, size of armies ahs been decreasing since ww2 and frontages increasing - a ww1 German division attacked on a frontage of about 2km, a ww2 German division on a frontage of 7-8 km and a modern NATO mechanized division has a frontage of ca. 25km. I guess in 50-60 years a single division would be able to cover an area of hundreds of kilometers. So developed countries would have almost no need for land forces.

Or maybe increasing protection would somewhat coutner that trend?

In iraq sanctions did work... kinda. It prevented Saddam from rebuilding his army and by 2003 Iraqi army was outdated and short on spare parts. The only yhing they managed to do is buying some night equipment for T-72s.

Would would happen if Iraq started a massive campaign of rearment after 1991? How would the invasion proceed if coalition forces were met with T-90s, RPG=29s, Kornets, S-300s and several dozen newest MiG-29s?

Would end up with same result. Not because of equipment.

Absolutely no way to turn Iraqi army into an effective fighting force?

I realize the phrase "Arab army" is not exactly synonymous with combat excellence but there must be some way to make them good. Jihadists somehow manage to do that.

The only way you could get rid of infantry is if Air Forces could identify and eliminate every target infantry would be tasked to engage, and do so in large actions and at very lowered cost. Of course you would still need some kind of boots on the ground but they could be much smaller special forces.

[quote="Werewolf"][quote="Walther von Oldenburg"]Absolutely no way to turn Iraqi army into an effective fighting force? :roll:

I realize the phrase "Arab army" is not exactly synonymous with combat excellence but there must be some way to make them good. Jihadists somehow manage to do that.[/quote]

You asked if you could make Iraqi Army better with expectations of different results with the war against US and only starting rearmament after 1991. There is no way to optimize your army against an invader in that short time frame by just buying new more modern stuff. They lacked training, they did not have any virtual defence of their country, so the US could deploy and assure air superiority. If they wanted to defend themselfs they could not done it, period. Not in history as we know it.[/quote]



what russia did in this situation? they wanted to give weapons to iraqi? or they tried to avoid a conflict with the US and simply just watched iraqi being beaten by US? russia at least tried to impose some conditions in the involvement of US into the area? this equilibrium between Russia and USA is strong or Russia could deliver weapons to anyone with not restrictions but they dont want that?

[quote="Vladimir79"]The only way you could get rid of infantry is if Air Forces could identify and eliminate every target infantry would be tasked to engage, and do so in large actions and at very lowered cost.  Of course you would still need some kind of boots on the ground but they could be much smaller special forces.  [/quote]
yea and see who task those infatry to atack. but you cannot know all things. then better is to risk a bit and shoot as much as you can hoping that some of the target forces will simply say who they are. you can do that by one condition. that that you go closer to one or another force in the events and risk to be taken in their area

[quote="Werewolf"]Before infantry becomes obsolete we will arrive back at sticks and stones where infantry will become golden again.[/quote]
now would be needed few special conditions to reach such a thing what are those conditions because myself i dont intend to go back to sticks and stones ?

@werewolf


Agree about sticks and stones . What will become obsolete in the long run , difficult to say . But over reliance on electronics and radar may be bad idea . EMP devices and ECM together with low RCS vehicles may in practice render most modern weapon systems ineffective . Therefore every weapon system must have reliable non electronic systems . This means lessons learnt during WW2 , a pre- electronic age must be preserved and revisited . Navigating by the stars anyone ? Optical gun sites ? The slide rule ? These are hardened systems . All must know !

victor1985 wrote:
what russia did in this situation? they wanted to give weapons to iraqi? or they tried to avoid a conflict with the US and simply just watched iraqi being beaten by US? russia at least tried to impose some conditions in the involvement of US into the area? this equilibrium between Russia and USA is strong or Russia could deliver weapons to anyone with not restrictions but they dont want that?

Iraq was unlucky from 1991 to 2003, or Saddam's timing in 1990 was awful, because those were the "wimpy" years between the twilight of the USSR and the revived  Russia of Putin.

But more OT--What if active defense systems like Iron Fist proliferate greatly, and defy countermeasures? Under those circumstances, what use are tanks anymore? Maybe the infantry could predominate.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:
Would would happen if Iraq started a massive campaign of rearment after 1991? How would the invasion proceed if coalition forces were met with T-90s, RPG=29s, Kornets, S-300s and several dozen newest MiG-29s?

Iraq was not a superpower and would probably end up getting beaten again. Still, equipment was a big factor in '91. Iraqi T-72s had no ammo capable of penetrating M-1 front armor and their means of target acquisition and ranging were far inferior. If Iraq had plenty of the best available Russian weapons, it might not have won in a conflict. But the prospect of heavier casualties might've deterred the invasion of 2003. Btw if Iraq were able to acquire the best, across the board, by the mid/late '90s, it would've had enough time to train personnel for a crisis in '03.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Absolutely no way to turn Iraqi army into an effective fighting force?

I realize the phrase "Arab army" is not exactly synonymous with combat excellence but there must be some way to make them good. Jihadists somehow manage to do that.

And so did reformers of the Egyptian army, like Fawzi and Shazli, prior to the '73 war. Iraqi performance against Iran greatly improved by c 1988, and it could've improved against the US, had Saddam been able to rearm massively with the best.

starman wrote:

victor1985 wrote:
what russia did in this situation? they wanted to give weapons to iraqi? or they tried to avoid a conflict with the US and simply just watched iraqi being beaten by US? russia at least tried to impose some conditions in the involvement of US into the area? this equilibrium between Russia and USA is strong or Russia could deliver weapons to anyone with not restrictions but they dont want that?

Iraq was unlucky from 1991 to 2003, or Saddam's timing in 1990 was awful, because those were the "wimpy" years between the twilight of the USSR and the revived  Russia of Putin.

But more OT--What if active defense systems like Iron Fist proliferate greatly, and defy countermeasures? Under those circumstances, what use are tanks anymore?

Err what?

Infantry is the measuring stick for any combat asset.

You want tanks, you have to man them, guide them, support them.
You want Jets, same.
You want boats same.

At the very least infantry capabilities would need to be retained because every crewemember can come back to the lowest cog in a fighting force. Which is a man and his weapons. Individual and portable.

Iraq made huge procurement mistakes because of the nature of the Persian Gulf war. They were hitting Iran in poorly organized mechanized thrusts supported by large scale bombing runs. The Iranians, they learnt pretty well from the Syrian experience vs Israel and they insisted on ATGM's (Iran-Contra was in good part about TOW parts and missiles) to offset the seemigly endless stream of armour coming out of Iraq.

So when the US came knocking Iraq was geared to a peer regional contest with very little assets to actually switch to a guerilla warfare. The total stock of found and destroyed ATGM's in Iraq in 1991 was 486 missiles and about 35 launchers. They were deemed, rightfully, as a SOF type of weapon. And the the Kuwaiti debacle didn't allow Iraq to use them. The US avoided getting into that fight. And then Russia simply didn't sell to Iraq enough assets. In 2003 less than 80 ATGM's were found (mostly unused) about 20 attacks were recorded and in total there were about 60 cases of suspected ATGM's use. So in all you have a country like Iraq with 150 ATGM's...WHAT THE F*CK.

Ironically the disorganization of Iraqi armed forces also hit low on Iraqi resistance. Most of it was straightforward, very localized and very unreliable. You can have good hit&run tactics when you have a whole country to run (like Afghanistan back in the day) but because Iraq was totally shattered all groups were very localized so with time going on, the occupying force would take care of them.

So back to infantry, the infantryman today isn't going away, but he must be formed to the whole game. Not simply mechanized, COP warfare but pretty much a whole array of special forces technics and trades. It also needs to think on its feet. We have seen that assets are set in stone but their use can be wholly different when tactics require it.

Infantry needs to get smarter and that doesn't mean more asset input, simply a smarter group of guys motivated and volunteering.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
You want tanks, you have to man them, guide them, support them.
You want Jets, same.
You want boats same.

Drones, robots and AI will probably play an increasing role.

Iraq made huge procurement mistakes because of the nature of the Persian Gulf war. They were hitting Iran in poorly organized mechanized thrusts

Pollack wrote that they had greatly improved in 1988. Effective Iraqi offensives forced Iran to "throw in the towel."

The Iranians, they learnt pretty well from the Syrian experience vs Israel and they insisted on ATGM's (Iran-Contra was in good part about TOW parts and missiles) to offset the seemigly endless stream of armour coming out of Iraq.

The Iranians would've procured more armor from 1980-88 if they had good sources. The US and USSR were siding with Iraq. Chinese T-59s weren't optimal...

The total stock of found and destroyed ATGM's in Iraq in 1991 was 486 missiles and about 35 launchers. They were deemed, rightfully, as a SOF type of weapon. And the the Kuwaiti debacle didn't allow Iraq to use them. The US avoided getting into that fight. And then Russia simply didn't sell to Iraq enough assets. In 2003 less than 80 ATGM's were found (mostly unused) about 20 attacks were recorded and in total there were about 60 cases of suspected ATGM's use. So in all you have a country like Iraq with 150 ATGM's...

What do you expect? Iran had by 1988 little if any armor left, and Saddam didn't anticipate a war with the US.

I'm not a SciFi fan but didn't even the machines have to build cyborgs to close with and finish off the enemy in the Terminator series