First it was the right preschool, next it's the right D.I.

James Rogers
16 Jan 2003 20:05:47 -0800

On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 19:01, Mr. FoRK wrote:
> What are the chances that these troops are wiped out with wmd? What
> effectiveness would we have with losing large fractions of this force?

The doctrine of most militaries has been to use WMDs against the rear
echelon and logistical commands, not the offensive arm.  The assault
units are very sparse and difficult to localize, so WMDs would not be
very effective.  In fact, standard doctrine for light infantry units in
the field is that you don't concentrate in groups larger than a platoon
size, and typically you only move through hostile terrain in groups no
larger than a squad or two.  This may not seem like a lot of men, but
with excellent equipment and training you can cause serious problems for
a combat units many times that size on their turf (and if things get
ugly, you can always call for support, though don't count on it). You'd
have to paint the countryside with WMDs or you are unlikely to get more
than 10% of our assault troops in practice.  It is generally believed
that in a full-scale "anything goes" conflict, being in a light infantry
type outfit is one of the safest places you can be, mostly because the
only way to kill a good light infantry outfit is with a lot more light
infantry that can track them down.  Light Infantry units are very
"soft", so they are typically very adept at hiding from the bigger
machinery of war.  Much of the value of light infantry units is their
relative invisibility and ability to penetrate virtually any rural

-James Rogers