striver44
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2016
- Messages
- 4,832
- Reaction score
- -16
- Country
- Location
The correct answer is to prioritize the air force and navy hehe.So which one is correct? Indonesia can't use mechanized assets effectively due to the geography, and therefore better invest in support assets, better equipped infantry and force multipliers, mechanized force is better designed around today's COIN scenario and asymmetric warfare, no more heavy ground assets as using them against the like of insurgents were proven ineffective and already made obsolete by the widespread use of ATGMs by light infantry element.
Or, is it better for the Army top leadership to invest more on the heavy mechanized tank force, as traditionally this element is better suited for rapid movement and firepower, a good mechanized element of the Army is key when fighting peer-to-peer scenario as when such event happened, we would have the upper hand from the very beginning and more options in both taking the offensive and deterrence factor, and in Asymmetric warfare scenario, would still be a boost the strength of the army as it will left the insurgents having less options and chance in fighting off the Army.
I don't have any capacity to say whether one is more correct than the another, but i'm leaning on the first one if at least there are program to upgrade the existing ground assets.
Btw i think the army should lean on equipping the infantry with more support weapons such as ATGM's,AGL,RPG's,squad machine guns,portable drones etc. Wich we lack, most of the time (at least based on my observation), our infantry fire team consist only of riflemen and few machine gunner.
Heck a syrian rebel in idlib is probably more heavily armed going to the battlefield, than our regular soldier
Np:this is just my opinion thou