Yes, they are complimentary. Armor keeps enemy aromor off the infantry and infantry keeps their counterparts off the armor. I know this. What we wind up with is armor that winds up performing infantry support in an urban enviornment which is not a good thing. A tank functions they way it does because it manuevers, not just because it has tremendous firepower. You cannot do this when you are in street fighting or tied to infantry.
Rather than a new platform, I'm thinking more along the lines of going back to an older (and seemingly discredited) way of waging war: total destruction, which was the hallmark of western military practice since ancient Greece. This "hearts and minds" b.s. does not work until the enemy has had the snot beat out of him and is in no position to continue resistance.
Again, we do not need a new platform for this. What we need is a return to an older mindset. We no longer have Pattons and Shermans in command of our armed forces. Instead, we have Dr. Phil or Oprah with four stars. A little less caring for the other guy and a lot more emphasis on WINNING and KILLING might actually be more beneficial than any new wonder weapon.
>>Rather than a new platform, I'm thinking more along the lines of going back to an older (and seemingly discredited) way of waging war: total destruction, which was the hallmark of western military practice since ancient Greece. This "hearts and minds" b.s. does not work until the enemy has had the snot beat out of him and is in no position to continue resistance.
Worth saying again. Carnage and Culture bump.
A big part of our problem in Iraq, is that the general populace in some areas, doesn't know they've been beaten. At the end of WWII, the German and Japanese people by God know they'd gotten the smack-down.