How is infantry still relevant?

Tactical PEZ dispensers, for mid firefight blood sugar boosts.

Ive always seen this but never got the story. Is that really a dude on the right and is he alive?

ISIS tunneled under an Iraqi position on a hill, filled the tunnel with explosives, and disappeared the hill. That is a guy and he is most likely living impaired

>Is that really a dude on the right

Yes, his name is Brian Krassenstein and yes, he is still alive

duh you drone strike it

You don't 4th generation war much, do you son?

Attached: Robert-Scales-1-1000x600.jpg (1000x600, 52K)

There is (LITERALLY) nothing that an infantry can do that an unmanned bomber cannot do better, cheaper, and (most importantly) much, much, much more quickly.

Prove me wrong.

Oh, right...you can't :)

pretty sure it was from a JDAM

They can not accidentally a school bus a bit better. And people tend to get less uppity about doors being kicked than they do blocks being leveled

>Dude, lets just like nuke every country we fight and murder their entire population, surely then we will be supported by our allies!

Thats not how war works user

Jerk off in a portaloo

Checkmate autists

What's your point?

you can blast, bomb, or gas a region all you want
but ultimately, you need men to secure it afterwards

even if you blow a fort into a crater, the men will fortify the crater
the ability to fortify a region with more and more men outstrips the ability to bomb it into submission

unless you can ring them and stop all supply flow, they wont surrender
trying to siege them, however, would need men to physically block the ways in and out

Nah man it was multiple JDAM strikes by USAF on an ISIS position during the Battle of Kobani

*boops u*

Attached: 5a43f781fc7e935b138b4567.jpg (900x506, 168K)

AAA can't bomb things

Try again retard

Infact yes it can. There is a few SAM systems that can be used against ground targets/ships too

can't do that without infantry, homes

It can bomb your unmanned bombers and neutralize air assets. Now you're forced to fight infantry and you have no infantry.

I'm not sure when Infantry last was the main killing force in war.
In WW1 and WW2 the vast majority of kills were scored by artillery. Infantry's contribution was negligible. Infantery rather served as a living wall against the enemy Infantry, which otherwise would have wreaked havoc amongst gun crews. In modern warfare, you need Infantry to laser designate targets for the Bombers and they also come in Handy to lure your local insurgents into the open so they can be taken care of by heavy weapons. They keep the enemy occupied and limit their maneuver by firing on them so they make a better target.
Infantry are pawns. Ask a chess master if he'd want to play without them.

Guard your bomber base, hanger and fuel depot, 24/7 from thieves, spys, commandos, etc.

Bombs can only destroy the infrastructure you're trying to capture, this is why you need door kickers.

They havent been the main killing force since the 1800s, but that doesnt mean they arent relevant user.

Fighter jets and drones are not very good at kicking JUST the door in. Also pretty shit for patrolling city streets in occupied territory.

The 90s called they want their military meme backs

Pawns that get behind the enemy and reach the end of the board become Queens.

Infantry are becoming more relevant because support corps are increasingly being replaced by technology, more and more roles are becoming nothing but repair technicians due to the increasing ease of equipment.

Most dumb grunts can with a 3 week course and a modern combat radio get satcom with nearly anyone.

Platoon level drones are increasing ISR to a new level allowing cheaper and almost constant organic aerial surveillance.

The US Army is now starting to look at kamikaze drones launched by an operator on foot that are essentially small controlled missiles, reducing the need for artillery support.

The last 20 years has proven you still need infantry to interface with human terrain as well as seizing,holding,clearing and exploiting physical terrain.

You can only control territory with men, forged in the heat of combat, and bound together in the spirit of brotherhood and martial spirit, which no challenge can break asunder. It takes a special mindset and will of iron to impose your will on an enemy at your door.

>libertarian infantry
>sure I'll help push the right flank, how many buttcoins?

The better question is why would you call anybody but child soldiers infantry.

Because you need it to hold stuff and do reconnaissance and ambushes and things.

Future wars/security problems are likelly to occur in expanding metropolitan areas on the coasts of various third world nations. Infantry is best for those enviroments.

In ters of comventional wars planes might do the majority of the killing gut unless you can take and hold ground you will get nowhere.

Potential enemies of the US are investing heavily in SAMs to reduce US air superiority. Unless the US wants to take expensive casualties it will need to engage in land warfare.

Also moat people entering special forces units served in the infantry first. Without infantry it would be very hard to select capable people. IMO the US should stop direct recruitment to SF units and only recruit from existing soldiers with a minimum of 3 years experiance, as most other countries do.

NCD’s

Making it simple, infantry are better eyes on the ground and can make lasting relationships (when they aren't pissing people off) with locals. You can't do that with UAVs, and there isn't enough SOF and NGO support to go around.

Why wouldn't you just bomb the shit out of people every few months inbetween dumping leaflets until they get tired and change their actions?

Because your people will vote you put to end the war.

Korea there was a lot

Can bombers hold outposts you fucking idiot? Can they win hearts and mind or patrol through territory?

No trannies in my armed forces.

Accept surrender of enemy personnel, disarm them, escort them to interrogation and/or holding facilities, minimise civilian casualties, etc.

You're forgetting something important: the insurgents ARE infantry.
Maybe using them in the conventional way is inefficient, but as guerilla fighters and saboteurs they're absolutely vital for a modern war machine. Special forces are basically guerillas you can but into enemy territory in order to blend in and disrupt it in the same way home-grown insurgents can on their own turf.

Only if you're America. Russia and China have no artificial handicaps like that.

A bomber can't rape and murder an Iraqi family in the dead of night :^)

Oh hey another thread where virgins who never served try to discuss warfare based on their battlefield experience

Would be cool if we called ground troops "Adulterators"

That spic in the picture will leave the army and promptly get himself on VA welfare and live off the government for the rest of his life. POGs do this too but infantryman are egregious welfare queen pussies.

>russia
>shooting down anything but airliners

You can tell the little faggots that never actually fought in a war pretty easily

It's how the United States has been operating for the past 40 years

Emergency crayon ration

It is you have the ability to kill everyone else there.

Yeah how many of those wars have been decisive victories?

As in.. by itself without a crew? I guess not.. but bombers were invented almost solely for murdering people in the dead of night.