Interesting to note that in Army circles that there has been much debate about a more deployable Army - light lean and lethal. More use of helicopters in asymetric warfare, deep fires et al et al. And yet in the Iraq conflict it appears from media reports . . . . . - Heavy armour was essential in the leading elements for the clearing of major Iraqi towns. A major force multipier. (Do we have the right balance at present ? Is there a case now for more heavy rather than medium forces than was originally thought ?) - Light forces (ie. on foot) could not be moved quickly around the battlefield safely and there was a shortage of sp hels to move them when they were really needed. (Light Bns - are there days numbered. If no tpt then useless ?) - Parachute forces - not used in role again. (Do we really need to retain this ability I wonder ?) - 16AA. Do they have enough protection, firepower and ground mobility once deployed ? Are we using them to best affect ? Views ?