"Lessons from Ukraine: Supremacy of Light Infantry?" Topic

Should we take the lesson that in urban First World environments, light infantry are now supreme?

Still need supporting arms. Infantry backed by heavy weapons are always the preferred defender

Haven't infantry always been supreme in urban environments?

Should First World countries be considered entirely 'urban' now?

Sabre 6 +1

Haven't infantry always been supreme in urban environments?

Infantry in closed or mixed terrain, especially MOUT will always have advantages, generally. But Armor, FA & CAS support in many environments is a plus. We fight combined arms. I was an Infantry Officer, '79-'90, and have operated in jungles, swamps, frozen countryside, desert, etc. Everything depends on terrain & situation. That being said, Infantry can go places AFVs can't in some situations.

Should First World countries be considered entirely 'urban' now?

Not IMO, I operated in (West)Germany, the ROK and of course in the USA. Much of 1st World terrain is still rural and/or forested, etc. Albeit urban terrain is still growing. However, if at all possible MOUT is avoided. But sometimes it still occurs, e.g. Iraq or A'stan. Even in the Ukraine it seems at times.

In the middle of watching this video as I write this.
YouTube link

The only good lesson we can take from watching the Russian army right now is what not to do.

It depends, you could easily take the lesson that Blitzkrieg is the way go by-passing big urban areas. By attempting to invest cities the Russian army is haemorrhaging limited man power resources. Ukrainian also retains friendly land borders through which supplies can come.

I think it does underline the importance of motivated troops and post-war it might do Ukraine well to consider a Swiss-style citizen army model.

Looks to me more like Macross Missile Massacre is now supreme.

Infantry are only "supreme" if the enemy doesn't use a more wholistic approach to fighting, or they aren't willing to just burn it all the hell down from the sky.

The only good lesson we can take from watching the Russian army right now is what not to do.

Bingo ! Lazyworker +1

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa +1

Looks to me more like Macross Missile Massacre is now supreme.

Hyperbole ? Otherwise, would be a wrong take away as we saw in the former Yugoslavia, 1991-2001 [IIRC There are still UN/NATO forces there ?] …

link
Where some were saying Airpower can win a war on it own. That is incorrect, by all standards. And quickly dismissed.

Infantry are only "supreme" if the enemy doesn't use a more wholistic approach to fighting,

Again we fight combined arms as I explained in my post above. Missiles cannot "win" a war by themselves. Unless we talk nukes and then no one "wins" …

I think the lesson is, a place for everything, and everything in its place.

Fire and Forget tech is a big game changer compared to the olde wire-guided types.

That said, if there was combined, CAS/Helo, artillery, IFV/APC, and tank attacks, I suspect it would be a lot more difficult for the defenders.

Same goes if the Russians were able to move cross country with their vehicles, instead of being restricted to the roads.

General Mud is also very effective in his role in the battles.

Also probably worth a mention that the Russian communication system is a mess. Apparently they've been using cheap Chinese walki-talkies and at least one of the seven generals they lost was geolocated from the civilian phone he was using. Who also shared the same surname as as the guy who came up Russia's non-linear warfare doctrine.
link

I think the lesson is, a place for everything, and everything in its place.

A good Cdr knows what to use where & when. All based on terrain & situation …

Fire and Forget tech is a big game changer compared to the olde wire-guided types.

Major change ! Wire guided the gunner has to keep the missile on target. If he starts taking suppressive/H&I fires, etc., if he flinches. Chances are that the missile will not hit the target. Go to ground, etc.

That said, if there was combined, CAS/Helo, artillery, IFV/APC, and tank attacks, I suspect it would be a lot more difficult for the defenders.

Combined Arms – it works … and now CAS includes Drones.

Same goes if the Russians were able to move cross country with their vehicles, instead of being restricted to the roads.

Something I took for granted initially that since WWII the Ukrainian road network had improved. Like many places in Europe, etc. Of course it had however with much the Ukraine being farmland. That can be very muddy at times.

Regardless, with the Russians' poor tactical performance using combined arms, poor training, motivation, logistics and leadership … it may not have made a big difference. They were moving at WWI speeds if they moved at all.

Something else to consider farmland in generally is open, even wheat & corn don't provide much cover for AFVs, etc. An orchard could be better … depending on the time of year, etc. Hid my Mech Co in an orchard in [West]Germany.

…post-war it might do Ukraine well to consider a Swiss-style citizen army model.

I think they already did that.

I think relatively speaking they have a much larger standing army, post-war they will find that even more difficult to maintain. Ukraine's economy has never been in the best of shape to my knowledge. Clearly the territorial component also wasn't that well integrated at the onset of invasion. They are already part way there may be, but they could consider going the whole hog. I think its clear that Ukrainians are motivated to stand up and defend their country, and that I think will last several generations. It would seem sensible to try and harness that. Particularly if Zelensky left having to balance 'neutrality' and security, without 'triggering' Putin.

Of course, Ukraine has over $2 USD trillion (with a "T"!) in offshore oil and natural gas resources in the bay near Odessa. American and European companies were just putting the infrastructure in place to help them harvest that when Putin attacked. If they can repel this invasion and re-invite in foreign investment, they will have no trouble maintaining a modern standing military.

I think they already did that.

They did, but only for four months of service, about enough to put them through basic training. Odds are they will be extending that out to a year or two after this.