Re: Light infantry versus light infantry

I will rather wryly observe that I have yet to ever meet any "light"
infantry (having essentailly been one myself for over twenty years) that
are
not as heavily or more heavily encumbered than their standard or
mechanized
brethern. Realistically this term implies more to operational issues
such as
type of transport, heavy artillery armor and anti-armnor capability,
strategic mobility and air deployability and other factors well over the
scope of stargrunt.

Los

----- Original Message -----
From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: Gzg Digest (E-mail) <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:53 PM
Subject: Light infantry versus light infantry

> Light in one context (movement) implies not heavily burdened. Although
this
> is never explicity defined, one would take this to mean lacking in
vast
> heavy ass packs, lacking in piles of very heavy weapons (HMGs, GMS/L,
etc),
> lacking in very heavy hardshell armour. This probably merits an 8"
movement
> rate... although the better training and toughness of the force, the
more
> you can probably carry and sustain this as a combat speed.
>
> My Gurkhas (for instance) move 8" because they are tough little
fellahs,
but
> they basically have D4 armour (which hurts when you get shot up). They
have
> packs and IAVRs but they have a very rigorous selection program and
are
very
> used to burdens.
>
> The other context of "light" infantry does not refer at all to
movement
> rates, rather to how they are deployed. Light infantry in this context
> implies limited support so they tend to have no armour and perhaps
less
arty
> to back them up. The one thing this tends to do is mean they end up
carrying
> more stuff themselves (kinda like the Gurkhas). They are not really
designed
> for 1 on 1 fights with very very tough opponents - this kind of light
> infantry often is a rapid reaction force - whose job it is to get in
and
> hold some ground until the regs arrive. This kind of force is more
used to
> using the Two-Step Black Cadillacs as mobility than are conventional
forces.
>
>
> Someone quipped once on this list "Why is it the _light_ infantry
always
are
> carrying the huge ass packs?". That's because that's the place they
carry
a
> lot of what they might need - since the support train is smaller for
these
> forces. "Light" infantry is (in one sense) a misnomer.
>
> So, some forces are "light" (in terms of easily mobile) infantry such
as
> scouts, skirmishers, snipers, etc. Some forces are "light" in terms of
> external support and their mobility type such as LRRPs, rapid reaction
> forces, etc.
> Some classify as _both_ such as (IMO) the Gurkhas and many SF
units....
>
> That probably only muddies the whole issue I realize..... ;)
>
> (And of course, "Full Metal" Atkinson  <*Hi Jon!*> with his D4
diplomacy
and
> D8 or D10 actual knowledge may well tell me I'm raving.... and be
quite
> right... this is only my own limited observation of these matters - my
> infantry unit was never "light" in either sense unless you count the
> Canadian lack of budget to supply us with wazoo kit and loads of ammo
as
> being "light" (a third definition creeps in....) - we didn't move like
the
> wind often and we always felt like we were carrying rocks which only
turned
> out to be true sometimes....)
>
> Tomb