Can you win a war with only light infantry in the 21st century?

solarz said:

Really? What about the Korean War?

Click to expand...

I don't think the Korean War is a good example for this. Although PLA was inferior to the UN forces, PLA was not the light infantry in your original scenario. PLA was heavily equipped with artillery. On top of that, PLA had an air presence as well, including Soviets, Chinese and NK pilots.

PLA was well-equipped because they absorbed many light and heavy equipment from the Nationalists who were mainly equipped by the US. There were 8 million nationalist troops fighting the PLA during the Chinese civil war and most of them was equipped with US weapons and equipment. Not many of them went to Taiwan. Majority of the troops and weapons were left behind and absorbed by the PLA.

On top of that, the PLA absorbed many of Japanese equipment after WWII. The Machurian branch of the Japanese army was considered the most elite and most well-equipped among all Japanese units. After Japan surrendered, most of the Manchurian branch pulled back to Japan without bringing any of their equipment with them and left all their weapons and equipment in Manchuria by the warehouses. And almost all of these equipment was absorbed by the PLA. In 1947, PLA went into Manchuria, with the permission from the Soviets, on foot and with nothing but cloth on them. And overnight, they became well-equipped with the Japanese weapons and were able to stand up the American-equipped Nationalists almost punch-for-punch.

So PLA was definitely NOT the type of light infantry you have in mind.

Solarz, I think you are a little obsessed with what the CCP did in the 1930's and 40's. I have argued with you on this topic in another thread. Please go back and do a careful search. You'll find that the CCP was almost irrelevant before 1947. Before 1937 and the start of the WWII, they'd been losing battles to the Nationalists with almost no exception. The famous long march is simply the CCP's way of romanticizing their 10000 km escape with the Naitonalists chasing after them. And the CCP was not a factor at all during the WWII. They became a factor after 1947 because they got hold of comparatively advanced weapons left by the Japanese in Manchuria. Of course, history is written by the victor. When the CCP finally won, they had to glorify their history. Since they hadn't done much on the battlefield, the only way to emphasize their contribution was to over-emphasize what they did, which was guerrilla warfare.

So the notion that you can win a war with poorly equipped and poorly trained light infantry is simply a myth spread by the CCP to hide their not-so-glorious history.

PanAsian said:

You're kidding right?

With technology these days there is no way an infantry only force is going to defeat a force that can be considered 'top tier' today. The air force alone would render the infantry only force ineffective, just look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. Add in even a nominal ground force and the infantry only side is toast, evidence being the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, or the FARC in Colombia. The case of Iraq and Libya shows that not even a moderately equipped and trained ground force can withstand modern airpower.

The only scenario for an infantry only force to win is in the first moment of a civil war and they are part of the existing military, so they just turn around and shoot their fellow countrymen before anybody has a chance to be equipped with anything.

Click to expand...

the answer to this question like most I guess is IT DEPENDS! three important things to consider

How well are the infantry equipped?
who are they fighting?
What is the numerical ratio?
Geography and weather?

If you have 1 million highly trained infantry force with top tier comm gear, latest in high tech weaponry which includes battle field rifle, latest gen tank busters, MANPADS and an efficient supply chain that includes not just materials but food, medical supplies etc etc then there may be a chance even against a relatively well equipped enemy.

Are they fighting a 3rd rate army or are they going against the entire NATO alliance?

what is the ratio of fighting men? is it 1:1 or 1:100 ?

Where are the fighting? is it mountainous, open terrain, desert, ice etc? What's the weather typically like? hot, cold, rain, snow etc

vesicles said:

I don't think the Korean War is a good example for this. Although PLA was inferior to the UN forces, PLA was not the light infantry in your original scenario. PLA was heavily equipped with artillery. On top of that, PLA had an air presence as well, including Soviets, Chinese and NK pilots.

PLA was well-equipped because they absorbed many light and heavy equipment from the Nationalists who were mainly equipped by the US. There were 8 million nationalist troops fighting the PLA during the Chinese civil war and most of them was equipped with US weapons and equipment. Not many of them went to Taiwan. Majority of the troops and weapons were left behind and absorbed by the PLA.

On top of that, the PLA absorbed many of Japanese equipment after WWII. The Machurian branch of the Japanese army was considered the most elite and most well-equipped among all Japanese units. After Japan surrendered, most of the Manchurian branch pulled back to Japan without bringing any of their equipment with them and left all their weapons and equipment in Manchuria by the warehouses. And almost all of these equipment was absorbed by the PLA. In 1947, PLA went into Manchuria, with the permission from the Soviets, on foot and with nothing but cloth on them. And overnight, they became well-equipped with the Japanese weapons and were able to stand up the American-equipped Nationalists almost punch-for-punch.

So PLA was definitely NOT the type of light infantry you have in mind.

Click to expand...

Up to mid summer 51 most of PVA forces in Korea were light infantry. most of their artillery were left in Manchuria as they proceeded on foot into Hills of NK.
They were able to achieve the surprise precisely because they did not allow their movement to be dictated by the very few roads. which precludes heavy artillery.

do you think you can move heavy artillery and the support trains through North Korean Moutain Roads while your opfor has complete air dominace?

to say that they had meaningful artillery inface of US Army and Marines with airsupport is very antihistorical and would not stand up to analysis.


as for Japanese weapons left in NE China post WW2. yes, relatively speaking PLA in NE (The 4th Field Army) had better equipment sources than those that are formed in rest of china. but Remember Japanese surrendered to soviets. which in most cases carted away any weapons gthey found. what PLA got is what's left over.
so don't assume all the weapons under a standard kwangtung army To&E automatically went into a PLA 4th Field Army division.


The decisive factor is tha PLA in civil war and PVA in NK were well led. motivated. and had execellent battle harden veterans in its ranks. They were mostly light infantry so they fought as best as they could as light infantry.
KMT in civil war battle fields and UN forces in Korea were simply out classed by their leadership.

i.e. said:

Up to mid summer 51 most of PVA forces in Korea were light infantry. most of their artillery were left in Manchuria as they proceeded on foot into Hills of NK.
They were able to achieve the surprise precisely because they did not allow their movement to be dictated by the very few roads. which precludes heavy artillery.

do you think you can move heavy artillery and the support trains through North Korean Moutain Roads while your opfor has complete air dominace?

to say that they had meaningful artillery inface of US Army and Marines with airsupport is very antihistorical and would not stand up to analysis.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the war did not end until 1953. I was talking about the entire war, not only just the first 5 months. So please only start criticizing someone until you completely understand his points. PLA would not be able to sustain the fight without artillery, which was one of their strength. Especially toward the end of war where the two sides were going back and forth. Do you think actually think the PLA could withstand the bombard and attacks from the UN forces with only light infantry when they were mainly fighting stationary battles? So based on the style of battles throughout the war, it makes perfect sense for the PLA to have heavy artillery with them. And the fact is they did have heavy artillery and air force.



As you can see, #8 clearly states that "At the final stage of the war, PLA was able to mass up a good number of heavy artillery to break an ROK/US defense line by brute force". and the final stage of the war was critical to the final outcome of the war. So again, this is not the kind of light infantry we are discussing in this thread. This is what I was trying to argue in my original post. And evidence proves me right...

vesicles said:

Solarz, I think you are a little obsessed with what the CCP did in the 1930's and 40's. I have argued with you on this topic in another thread. Please go back and do a careful search. You'll find that the CCP was almost irrelevant before 1947. Before 1937 and the start of the WWII, they'd been losing battles to the Nationalists with almost no exception. The famous long march is simply the CCP's way of romanticizing their 10000 km escape with the Naitonalists chasing after them. And the CCP was not a factor at all during the WWII. They became a factor after 1947 because they got hold of comparatively advanced weapons left by the Japanese in Manchuria. Of course, history is written by the victor. When the CCP finally won, they had to glorify their history. Since they hadn't done much on the battlefield, the only way to emphasize their contribution was to over-emphasize what they did, which was guerrilla warfare.

So the notion that you can win a war with poorly equipped and poorly trained light infantry is simply a myth spread by the CCP to hide their not-so-glorious history.

Click to expand...

Actually no, I was thinking of the Korean War. As I.E. pointed out, the PVA achieved their successes based almost exclusively on light infantry maneuvers. It was only during the stalemated later years that Chinese artillery came into play. However, had Mao decided to stop at the 38th parallel, the Korean War would have ended right then. Therefore, I feel that the Korean War is a good example of light infantry overcoming a technologically superior combined-arms army.

Now of course, with the advent of satellite recon and night-vision, the tactics used to great success by the PVA would not work anymore. That's why I'm wondering if there were technological developments that gave an edge to infantry, or is the foot soldier being more and more sidelined, in a conventional war at least.

solarz said:

Actually no, I was thinking of the Korean War. As I.E. pointed out, the PVA achieved their successes based almost exclusively on light infantry maneuvers. It was only during the stalemated later years that Chinese artillery came into play. However, had Mao decided to stop at the 38th parallel, the Korean War would have ended right then. Therefore, I feel that the Korean War is a good example of light infantry overcoming a technologically superior combined-arms army.

Now of course, with the advent of satellite recon and night-vision, the tactics used to great success by the PVA would not work anymore. That's why I'm wondering if there were technological developments that gave an edge to infantry, or is the foot soldier being more and more sidelined, in a conventional war at least.

Click to expand...

Please go back to my last post #45. I found a website that clearly shows PLA had heavy artillery that was effective enough to break US defense by brute force. So the Korean War is NOT a good example, IMO.



Again, it says artillery played a big part in PVA's victory in Korea.

vesicles said:

Please go back to my last post #45. I found a website that clearly shows PLA had heavy artillery that was effective enough to break US defense by brute force. So the Korean War is NOT a good example, IMO.

Click to expand...

8. How was the PLA equipment in the Korean war?

PLA was basically a rifle infantry with almost no heavy weapons beyond mortars, their rifles were mostly captured from Japanese and KMT armies in the anti-Japanese war and the civil war, and they lacked ammunition. When the Korean war started, PRC was less than one year old, and it was focusing on reconstruction of a nation which suffered 8 years of Japanese aggression and plundering. China's steel production was a meager 0.6 million tons (in comparison, US figure was 87 million tons). China had almost no industry, it could not make weapons at large quantity, especially heavy weapons and their ammunitions. A PLA army then had less than 10% of the fire power of a US Corps, it had only 36 artillery pieces of 76mm or larger, while a US Corps had over 300 guns of 105mm or larger, PLA army had no tanks. PLA also lacked transport, a PLA division had only scores of trucks, and its supply had to be carried by porters.

After PLA's first successful campaigns in Korea, PLA bought Soviet weapons enough to equip 20 divisions, thus improved its fire power. At the final stage of the war, PLA was able to mass up a good number of heavy artillery to break an ROK/US defense line by brute force.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that I'm talking about the initial stages of the war, when the PVA pushed the US-SK forces back to the 38th parallel. During that time, the PVA may have had a few pieces of artillery here and there, but they were certainly not enough to have an impact in most engagements.

***

Back on topic: what if the infantry army had access to state-of-the-art mobile SAM platforms? How well would they fare then?

vesicles said:

Please go back to my last post #45. I found a website that clearly shows PLA had heavy artillery that was effective enough to break US defense by brute force. So the Korean War is NOT a good example, IMO.

Click to expand...

First part of it was.

solarz said:

Keep in mind that I'm talking about the initial stages of the war, when the PVA pushed the US-SK forces back to the 38th parallel. During that time, the PVA may have had a few pieces of artillery here and there, but they were certainly not enough to have an impact in most engagements.

Click to expand...

One cannot isolate one period of the entire war and emphasize the usefulness of the strategies used in that period. Many strategies have tactical advantages, but lack strategic depth. Your initial question was whether a light infantry could win a WAR, not one or two battles. So win a few battles? yes! but winning the entire war with light infantry only? Absolutely NO!