Heavy or mobile brigades?

[remnant]

The battle front is getting increasingly complicated. Regular armies need a combination of attributes in order to optimise their chances of battlefield success. A combination of modern equipment, strategy and training works best and any deficiences in these elements might prove costly. I think we are moving to the era of light mobile brigades armed with sophisticated RPGs, long range machineguns and antitank weaponry instead of the more traditional main battle tanks which are a liability in urban areas. The real battle takes place here. In my opinion, large forces are likely to absorb more casualties than lighter well trained and highly motivated units which should spearhead attacks. These are likely to outmaneouvre heavy armoured columns especially in desert warfare. Whats your take?

 

[vash]

If you talk about open field warfare like in the desert, I think heavy armors should still dominant, but not without air support of course

Light infantry with mobile personal weapons are only good for maybe mountain battles, urban warfare, and maybe forest warfare.

While heavy armors are certainly more expensive than infantry equipment, I do not believe they will take heavier causality when two forces are pit against each other.

Think about a round of anti-infantry fragment shell from a tank's main gun can kill a group of infantry. While even a well placed anti-tank missile will at most disable a single tank.

Tanks still have their places when they have adequate air cover and infantry support.

 

[Signalian]

Mobile (air or amphibious) brigades are used for rapid deployment. Heavy Brigades can be used for maneuvering, flanking and spearheading assaults on heavily fortified enemy positions.