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
[quoted original message omitted]
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....)
> --- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:
> Someone quipped once on this list "Why is it the
Part of the problem is with the hooah factor. "You're not a real man unless
you've got 60 lbs of crap in your pack." "Yeah, well I got 70 lbs." "Fine,
well I'll throw in another 20 in mine. Now I got 80 lbs."
And so on--I've heard of people getting stress
fractures in the hips as a result of this stupidity. Another part of the
problem is that people carry a
hell of a lot more than they need. SAS did long-range
recon patrols in Malaysia with less than 20lbs per man, plus weapon, ammo, and
a radio in the team. The whole intent of "travel light, freeze at night" has
been perverted into standardized packing lists at the batallion level which
mandates carrying everything including the kitchen sink and were drafted by
tubby CSMs who certaintly aren't walking anywhere.
Of couse the other side of it is that if an item you need is not on the
Standardized Packing List, it probably takes 3 reams of forms just to
request it. :-)