To Build Infantry for the Future, Look First to the Past
Edward G. Miller | October 15, 2018
Papa Hemingway made his observation about infantry replacements in a novel about WWII, but he was on point. Presumptions about the nature of future close combat may be correct—support from drones, or swarms of drones; battlefield 3D printing of spare parts; mechanical augmentation to improve strength and endurance; ruggedized mixed/virtual reality eyewear with real-time intelligence feeds, and so on. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that infantrymen will sustain a relatively fewer level of casualties in the future than in the past. As George Marshall said, “We expect too much of machines.â€
That’s why, earlier this year, the secretary of defense established the Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF). Charged with maximizing the “lethality, survivability, resiliency, and readiness†of the basic, tactical ground combat unit—the infantry squad—the CCLTF will face both new and old challenges as it develops ways for the Army and Marine Corps to gain more power from the national investment in the armed forces. But the need for lethal ground combat forces, and the recognition of that need, is not new. There are striking parallels in particular between the present and the situation faced in World War II by the Army. Media reports on the CCLTF have noted that infantrymen need a specialized skill set; the military drew the same conclusion in World War II. The need for incentives for the infantry were a priority then, too: hence, the creation of the Bronze Star Medal and the Combat Infantry Badge. Combat pay? Same thing. Attracting the best and most mentally and physically fit soldiers? Another concern the Army had decades ago. Replacements and casualty projections? Improvements in training? It was all there.
https://mwi.usma.edu/build-infantry-future-look-first-past/
