Print Page | Close Window

The way modern warfare is conducted

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23493
Printed Date: 23-Jan-2022 at 09:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The way modern warfare is conducted
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Subject: The way modern warfare is conducted
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 23:40
Worldwide, what are the doctrines behind modern land warfare? What are the main shifts in focus from the era of the World Wars to contemporary times? How important is the principle of 'combined arms?' How have the developments of asymmetrical warfare and advances in weaponry influenced contemporary warfare?

Discuss.

Caveat: The discussion is mainly to pertain to land warfare, but naval and air warfare ought to be discussed in their respective contexts' wit regards to land-based combat.


-------------
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.



Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 00:34
The Cold War doctrine was centered in the north European plain and consisted of the "air-land battle" backed up by a strategic nuclear deterrant.  Naval forces were to counter Soviet submarine capability and to resupply the air-land forces as that battle proceded.
 
That doctrine is now obsolete.  Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the face of modern land warfare.  Air warfare and sea warfare are merely adjuncts of land warfare, regardless of what was thought in Afghanistan (1990s), Somalia (1990s), the Balkans (1990s) and in Israel (2006).  Those actions are the "Bill Clinton Doctrine."  I.e., the political polls don't negatively respond to minor actions that cause loss to throw away military forces.
 
Contrary to the impressions of the 1990-91 campaign in Kuwait/Iraq, the doctrine there was also obsolete.  No one on this planet was able to contest the US in a conventional conflict.  You either had to have nuclear weapons or fight an assymetrical war with constantly replaceable guerilla forces. 
 
Now, not many can mount nukes to the degree that the US could not overwhelm, but the assymetrical approach seems the most logical response.  So, the US has to accomodate by going to war with such opponents, or those just posture and have little effect.  Does anyone really think the Taliban or Al-Quaeda can threaten the existence of the US or even damage it to any real degree?
 
The problem for the US is that it has to retain sufficient conventional forces to fight some level of armored/air battle, and sustain an increasing level of tactical level and special forces to counter assymetrical warfare.  Frankly, the US advantage in air and sea capability makes all of that one hell of a lot easier, but it still poses problems that have yet to be solved. 
 
The issue of nuclear obliteration is really not an issue at all.  Russia and China and India are all societies run by rational elites.  If some nuclear attack by insane terrorists killed 1,000,000 Americans, there would soon be no one left alive in a lot of geographic expressions on this planet that could be mentioned.  There would still be 299,000,000 Americans left.  And there would be a lot of votes in that, believe it.
 
           


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 01:31
In terms of conventional military alone.  The US army is based on speed and a network centric warfare.  Modern warfare is moving to a 4th dimension (not in a physics sense).

Traditionally, most people only see 2 dimensions of a military, its attack and defence. An M1 Tank can kill a T-90 at x range and can defeat n type warhead with its armor.

What people never factor in is the third dimension, mobility. The M1 can kill a T-90 because it can manuever itself into a position where the T-90 can't respond.

With information technology, we are moving into a 4th dimension. The M1 can kill a T-90 because it knows where it is relative to its environment and pin point a location that the T-90 can't respond rapidly. The M1 can then maneuver itself into that position and use its gun to kill the T-90.

Things like mobility and information dominance are intangible and contribute a much greater combat power than attack and defence alone. This is the reason why a Carrier battle group is so effective.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 03:33
There have been no sea battles worth noting since WW2 so I don't know what you are basing you opinion that carrier battle groups are effective on.

Nuclear weapons are a dud. They are feared so much that no-one will ever shoot one, even if the Taliban got one, I doubt they'd actually fire one. Similarly, the 'information technology' dimension is a dud. That is people thinking the world is like a computer game.
The M1 may be able to manuever into a better position than the T-90, but why bother? If you know where the T-90 is shoot missiles at it.
The M1 crew may be too scared to move out of cover because it knows there are enemy artillery spotters and hidden infantry scattered all over the terrain.
The enemy may have learned the frequencies that the M1 communicates on, and be flooding those channels with RFI.

War is the same as it always has been: flexibilty, intelligence and morale.

Recent wars have shown that well equiped, organised and determined infantry is the best defence, and a strong missile battery is the best offense. The difference between the rich and industrialised, and poor but determined has been reduced by advances in infantry arms.


-------------


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 23:25
Omar:
 
Mobility provides you with options.  Take the Indian Navy carrier group for instance.  By itself, it is in deep trouble if it gets detected, tracked, identified, and attacked by a full fledge alpha strike (alpha -all effort) by the Pakistani airforce.  However, a military operates as a team.  The value of the Indian navy carrier comes into full view if you see it in the context of the whole Indian military. 
 
In a hypothetical air war between India and Pakistan, the Indian carrier serves as a way to dilute PAF airdefences by posing a threat away from the main IAF threat axis.  The PAF knows that and IAF air attack will mostly come in from the West.  A prudent commander will put up defenses along this possible line of attack.  The IN carrier complecates this defence.  By manuevering to the Arabian sea, it creates another threat axis to the south and east.  The PAF commander must allocate forces to defend that sector as well.  This have an effect of weakining the main defense on the west.  In naval terms this is called, the fleet in being. 
 
The M1 may be able to manuever into a better position than the T-90, but why bother? If you know where the T-90 is shoot missiles at it.  The M1 crew may be too scared to move out of cover because it knows there are enemy artillery spotters and hidden infantry scattered all over the terrain.  The enemy may have learned the frequencies that the M1 communicates on, and be flooding those channels with RFI.
 
How would the T-90 crew know which direction to fire the missiles at.  Though I have no doubt that a good T-90 crew has an equal chance of knocking out an M1 1 vs 1, the T-90 must first acquire its target.  Here is where the US network centric warfare comes into play.  The M1 is linked with every other military platform in the US arsenal from JSTARS to Humvees.  It will have greater situational aware and greater ability to acquire the T-90 before the T-90 even knows its there. 
 
American crews are professional, your artillery will be knock out before a second round is fired, thanks again to network centic technology. 
 
Though no technology is jam proof, the US has a commanding lead in electronic warfare than anybody.  He commands the electronic battle field, holds command of the battle.
 
Recent wars have shown that well equiped, organised and determined infantry is the best defence, and a strong missile battery is the best offense. The difference between the rich and industrialised, and poor but determined has been reduced by advances in infantry arms.
 
It depends on your definiation of offense.  If you want to take and hold ground, you need an army.  
 


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 02:30
I agree. I believe infantry is still the backbone of any modern army. Even if you can bomb, subvert, propagandize, electronically disable, and fully reconnaissance an area, you still need boots on the ground to control it. 

-------------
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 04:22
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

I agree. I believe infantry is still the backbone of any modern army. Even if you can bomb, subvert, propagandize, electronically disable, and fully reconnaissance an area, you still need boots on the ground to control it. 


There has been a quite revolution in military affairs within the US military.  It is hard to quantify because it is very difficult to see its physical manifestations.  On the surface, the US Army of 2008 does not look all to different  to the US army of 1991.  All the hardware is the same, with minor upgrades.  What is different however is that all of its unit are "linked" together.  Every military unit from squad is wired (or is planned to be wired).  The specific aim is  increase awareness of one's own position on the battlefield and to have a clear sense of the enemy's position, in pursuit of the following goals: (1) increased lethality, (2) increased control of the tempo of warfare, (3) the reduction of instances caused by friendly fire.

In Desert Storm, it usually took up to two days for target planners to get a photo of a target, confirm its coordinates, plan the mission, and deliver it to the bomber crew.  Today US aircraft have near real-time imaging of targets with photos and coordinates transmitted by e-mail to aircraft already in flight.   In Desert Storm, commanders had to rely on maps, grease pencils, and radio reports to track the movements of our forces.  Today, US military commanders  have a real-time display of our armed forces on their computer screen.

The side effect of this is speed, not just that of troops but of the kill chain.  The process of detecting, tracking, identifying a target is now very rapid.  This makes  the US military operational tempo is extremely rapid for the enemy to response.  Enemy troop movement designed to counter US troop deployments, may already be obsolete by the time it gets to the hands of the front line commanders.  The result is shock and overload, the inability to do anything due to the fact that the battlefield is moving faster than your forces can adapt.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 06:36

As close to the dream of total situtaional awareness as it can get. The flipside is that US Army of 2008 moves just as fast as the army of 1991, so you reaction time is not equivalent to info time.



-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 03:13
Originally posted by IDonT

How would the T-90 crew know which direction to fire the missiles at.  Though I have no doubt that a good T-90 crew has an equal chance of knocking out an M1 1 vs 1, the T-90 must first acquire its target.  Here is where the US network centric warfare comes into play.  The M1 is linked with every other military platform in the US arsenal from JSTARS to Humvees.  It will have greater situational aware and greater ability to acquire the T-90 before the T-90 even knows its there. 

You missed my point. Why does the M1 crew need to destroy the T-90? If you know where the T-90 is, you should be able to destroy it with artillery and missiles (air, land or sea based)
American crews are professional, your artillery will be knock out before a second round is fired, thanks again to network centic technology.

That did the Israeli's a fat lot of good in knocking out Hezbullah's rocket capability.
Though no technology is jam proof, the US has a commanding lead in electronic warfare than anybody.  He commands the electronic battle field, holds command of the battle.

Until someone starts point missiles at satellites.
Originally posted by Brian


I agree. I believe infantry is still the backbone of any modern army. Even if you can bomb, subvert, propagandize, electronically disable, and fully reconnaissance an area, you still need boots on the ground to control it.

Exactly.
The US army absorbs ridiculous amounts of money, and certainly knows about every physical occurance faster than any other army, yet its effectiveness hasn't improved.
It lacks morale and tactics, and is being beaten by people without any fancy electronic gadgets.

In an even fight fancy electronics may tip the balance in your favour, but first you need flexibility, intelligence* and morale.


*Of course I realise that a lot of what you are talking about is better intelligence, but it only covers a small subsection of intelligence.

-------------


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 04:10
Originally posted by IDonT

In terms of conventional military alone.  The US army is based on speed and a network centric warfare.  Modern warfare is moving to a 4th dimension (not in a physics sense).

Traditionally, most people only see 2 dimensions of a military, its attack and defence. An M1 Tank can kill a T-90 at x range and can defeat n type warhead with its armor.

What people never factor in is the third dimension, mobility. The M1 can kill a T-90 because it can manuever itself into a position where the T-90 can't respond.

With information technology, we are moving into a 4th dimension. The M1 can kill a T-90 because it knows where it is relative to its environment and pin point a location that the T-90 can't respond rapidly. The M1 can then maneuver itself into that position and use its gun to kill the T-90.

Things like mobility and information dominance are intangible and contribute a much greater combat power than attack and defence alone. This is the reason why a Carrier battle group is so effective.
 
That's not really a modern warfare. The importance of mobility is already noted in WWII, and was practiced admirably by generals like Patton and Rommel.
 
I feel that tanks are becoming more obsolete these days. Sure, their armours played a huge role in WWII, but we are now entering the era where missiles and antitank weapons are more common than ever. M1 tank, costing a lot of money and experienced crews, can be taken out by a single Hellfire missile launched from any aircraft unit. While Hellfire is a formiddable and costly weapon, it's a lot less expensive compared to the tanks.
 
Perhaps the only change of warfare since WWII, as George Orwell noted, is the rise of highly mobile, effective and small warfare. Usually found in counterterroism operations, this could be classified as new warfare. While it is certainly true that elite military forces existed in the past, they were used as a small effective forces in the huge warfare. Now, small task forces, heavily armed and trained, silently move into enemies and wipe them out one by one until the threat is neutralized.
 
 


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 21:49
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Originally posted by Brian


I agree. I believe infantry is still the backbone of any modern army. Even if you can bomb, subvert, propagandize, electronically disable, and fully reconnaissance an area, you still need boots on the ground to control it.

Exactly.
The US army absorbs ridiculous amounts of money, and certainly knows about every physical occurance faster than any other army, yet its effectiveness hasn't improved.
It lacks morale and tactics, and is being beaten by people without any fancy electronic gadgets.

In an even fight fancy electronics may tip the balance in your favour, but first you need flexibility, intelligence* and morale.


*Of course I realise that a lot of what you are talking about is better intelligence, but it only covers a small subsection of intelligence.


Well, if the FUTURE WARRIOR programs are a success, the individual American soldier will become the most lethal soldier ever to stalk the battlefield. A Rifle that fires a 5.56mm NATO round with a composite 20mm exploding-projectile round launcher, infrared, night vision, thermal projection sight attatchment...

"

The XM29 OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) was the name for a series of prototypes of a new type of battle rifle that fired 20 mm HE airbursting projectiles. The prototypes were developed as part of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon_program - Objective Individual Combat Weapon program in the 1990s. The term SABR (Selectable Assault Battle Rifle) was also used at certain points, but is less common.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XM29_OICW&action=edit&section=1 - edit ] Overview

Developed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliant_Techsystems - Alliant Techsystems , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch - Heckler & Koch as a major subcontractor, the most commonly seen version of the XM29 consisted of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm - semi-automatic 20 mm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grenade - smart grenade launcher, an underslung assault http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine - carbine (derived from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36 - HK G36 then in its late developmental stage) firing a standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO - 5.56x45mm NATO round, and a top-mounted computer-assisted sighting system with integrated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_range-finder - laser rangefinder , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_vision - thermal vision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision - night vision capabilities, and up to 6x optical telescopic sight. Earlier designs used different configurations and setups.

The launcher part has been described variously as a light semi-automatic 20 mm cannon, a grenade launcher, or an airburst weapon. It poses a classification problem, in that it does not fit neatly into any one category. On one hand, it uses much smaller shells and has a much flatter trajectory than grenade launchers. On the other, while its calibre and velocity is more similar to light cannon, it does share traits with other infantry grenade launchers."-Wiki



"Headgear Subsystem

The Headgear Subsystem, described in the Concept by FFW development team at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Natick_Soldier_Research%2C_Development_and_Engineering_Center - Natick as Information Central, is the situational awareness hub of the system. It would include integrated tactical processing by providing maps, routes, and data with a 180° emissive visor display, high bandwidth wireless communications, microelectronic/optics combat sensor suite that provides 360° situational awareness, and integrated small arms protection.

In the current development program, the FFW Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD), this subsytem is labeled Sensors & Communications Vision. Its current capabilities would provide networked FFW-equipped small units with robust team communications using JTRS Cluster 5 Soldier Radio Waveform, state-of-the-art distributed and fused sensors, organic tactical intelligence/collection assets, enhanced situational understanding, embedded training, on-the-move planning, and linkage to other Future Combat System assets.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_Force_Warrior&action=edit&section=3 - edit ] Combat Uniform Subsystem

The FFW project aims to help protect the soldier by providing full-body bullet and fragmentation protection. In the original concept, the Combat Uniform Subsystem, also known as Survivability Central, is subdivided into three layers, the Protective Outer Layer, the Power Centric Layer, and the Life Critical Layer.

Currently, under the Survivability Vision given by the Army's ATD, bullet-resistant armor provides protection to the upper arms, the upper legs and the chest and abdomen. These are currently made from bullet-resistant fibers such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar - Kevlar and hard ceramics but a joint Army-MIT subprogram is developing a ferrofluid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_material - smart material composed of iron particles suspended in a silicon oil that harden within milliseconds when a current is applied. However, the development team at MIT has said that it will likely take five to ten years before the substance is made truly bullet resistant. They are also looking into a material called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5_fiber - M5 fiber which is much stronger in the fields of slash, ballistic, and fire protection and is much lighter than kevlar.

In addition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_Holdings%2C_Inc. - Armor Holdings, Inc. has developed a product that is similar to the Army-MIT program, a "Shear-Thickening Liquid" armor additive produced from a mixture of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_glycol - polyethylene glycol , a polymer found in laxatives and other consumer products, and nanobits of silica, or purified sand. When struck with a significant impact, the armor stiffens instantly into a shield, then reverts to its liquid state just as fast when the energy from the projectile dissipates. The new armor, originally envisioned to be spread on like peanut butter, is instead sprayed onto Kevlar in ultra-thin coats. Armor Holdings planed to begin to promote this new armor in 2007, but it is not sure if this will be used as a substitute for the Army's Survivability Vision."-Wiki

In effect, you will have individual soldiers (as opposed to units) all digitally connected to the entire US CentCom, able to access all of the military's available intelligence, at a moment's notice. He will be able to call in air-strikes in real-time, access relevant combat databases, constantly broadcast his position due to its GPS signal, coordinate attacks with other soldiers in real-time without communications hindrances, all while constantly relaying relevant battlefield intelligence back to CentCom for access by other soldiers. A fully integrated soldier, in reality, as the Army says, "an Army of one," albeit with the backing of the entire US arsenal at his disposal. As Wiki states:

"Land Warrior is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army - United States Army program in 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior#_note-USCUT - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior#_note-SBNCUT - [2] that will use a combination of commercial, off-the-shelf technology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf - COTS ) and current-issue military gear and equipment designed to:

  • integrate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms - small arms with high-tech equipment;
  • provide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication - communications and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_%28Military%29 - command and control at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry - infantry soldier level;
  • look at the individual infantry soldier as a complete unit rather than as a segment of a larger force."
Intelligence is really what is shaping the battlefield in modern warfare.


-------------
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 21:53
Also, I wanted to add that tanks outdated, as Pekau insinuated, at least in terms of an occupational force. Light-response vehicles seem to be the way to go in the future, though certainly there will always be a use for mobile artillery platforms.

-------------
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 05:02
^
Iraq has disproved that "light vehical" mania once and for all. The US Army always has tanks nearby.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 11:21
Originally posted by pekau

Now, small task forces, heavily armed and trained, silently move into enemies and wipe them out one by one until the threat is neutralized.
 
 
Popski's Private Army?
 
There are few things certain in warfare. One is the immediacy with which the fog descends. Another is that when it clears, nothing is the same as was expected.
 
Mucj of this reads like promotional literature for the arms manufacturers or propaganda being used to sell the military budget to the government (not necessarily the US).
 
Originally posted by IDonT

The PAF knows that and IAF air attack will mostly come in from the West.  A prudent commander will put up defenses along this possible line of attack.  The IN carrier complecates this defence.  By manuevering to the Arabian sea, it creates another threat axis to the south and east. 
 
I don't follow that. Are you getting east and west the wrong way round, or am I missing something?


-------------


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 16:02
True, gcle2003. "No good battleplan ever survives contact with the enemy." I posted that lengthy Future Warrior thing to show in which direction military innovations are moving in Western countries. France, Britain, Germany, etc. are all developing similar technologies suited to their militaries. This just shows to what extent that information is becoming a hugely prominent part of the modern battlefield. Not to say that it always wasn't, but rather, to emphasize the fact that it is becoming so highly codified into military doctrine.
The Future Warrior, or British FIST programs, aren't important because of their armor or weapons or anything, but because they plug the individual combat soldier into the information databases, creating a multi-faceted, fluid response to battlefield conditions at the individual level.


-------------
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 16:19
Hello to you all
 
Modern warfare is now heavily dependent on overwhelming firepower directed on enemy concentrations including WWII carpet bombing techniques except now the bombs used are highly distructive 6-10 ton bombs like the daisy cutter if I got the name right which decimated the Taliban, they killed anyone within 500m from the center if I'm correct. Also the most important developement in my humble opinion is the full utilization and integration of Helicopter gunships in land battles. In the Iraq war the sandstorms that grounded the Cobras and Apaches for several days exposed how effective these weapons in modern warfare since they flattened enemy defensive positions and the only thing the army done was to advance and occupy the area. Iraq effectively utilized them in both the Iran war, where they were the main reason for the victories of the last months of the war, as well as crushing the Shia-Kurdish rebellion in just one week back in March 1991. If Iraq had enough helicopter gunships back in the 2003 war the US would have been in dep trouble though they will win but they would have sustained heavy losses.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 19:33
GCLE2003, I beleive he got that mixed up. Though it was done for the point of illustration, that is rather off on the PAF battle plan, which revolves around destroying the 4 main IAF air bases in the North.
 
The one thing everyone seems to have forgotten, is; logistics. Modern warfare is much more about logistics than it is about technology or tactics,far less glamourous, far more important.


-------------


Posted By: Tore The Dog
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 20:14
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Worldwide, what are the doctrines behind modern land warfare? What are the main shifts in focus from the era of the World Wars to contemporary times? How important is the principle of 'combined arms?' How have the developments of asymmetrical warfare and advances in weaponry influenced contemporary warfare?

Discuss.

Caveat: The discussion is mainly to pertain to land warfare, but naval and air warfare ought to be discussed in their respective contexts' wit regards to land-based combat.
 
Itīs about yours countrys power projection , as in mobility now days , and net centrick warfare , so you can "autmatic size" the war , any where on this planet , from "home".
 
Not an big army , but a rapid mobile one.
 
In other words , unmanned fighting machines , for uz western countrys.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 05:39

Well, if the FUTURE WARRIOR programs are a success, the individual American soldier will become the most lethal soldier ever to stalk the battlefield. A Rifle that fires a 5.56mm NATO round with a composite 20mm exploding-projectile round launcher, infrared, night vision, thermal projection sight attatchment...

The whole point I'm trying to get at, is that you are only lethal if you aren't scared to death at the bottom of a fox hole. Bringing the IT revolution to the battle field won't help you with the fundamentals.
Originally posted by Tore the dog

In other words , unmanned fighting machines , for uz western countrys.

And thus is invented the only machine able to be defeated by a blanket.
Originally posted by Sparten

The one thing everyone seems to have forgotten, is; logistics. Modern warfare is much more about logistics than it is about technology or tactics,far less glamourous, far more important.

Definitely true.


-------------


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 06:59
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Well, if the FUTURE WARRIOR programs are a success, the individual American soldier will become the most lethal soldier ever to stalk the battlefield. A Rifle that fires a 5.56mm NATO round with a composite 20mm exploding-projectile round launcher, infrared, night vision, thermal projection sight attatchment...

The whole point I'm trying to get at, is that you are only lethal if you aren't scared to death at the bottom of a fox hole. Bringing the IT revolution to the battle field won't help you with the fundamentals.
Originally posted by Tore the dog

In other words , unmanned fighting machines , for uz western countrys.

And thus is invented the only machine able to be defeated by a blanket.
Originally posted by Sparten

The one thing everyone seems to have forgotten, is; logistics. Modern warfare is much more about logistics than it is about technology or tactics,far less glamourous, far more important.

Definitely true.


Any nation's military trains for a reason; to ensure soldiers are not "scared to death at the bottom of a foxhole." Men have been training to repress their fear in battle since before recorded history. This is a moot point. Sure, some soldiers will always be scared, but with the IT revolution, scared soldiers in a foxhole can individually relay their respective positions and coordinate massive artillery bombardments and airstrikes to neutralize whatever it is that has them so scared down in their entrenchments.


-------------
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 08:05
The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies.
They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale.

Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy!
This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts.


*Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.


-------------


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 09:52
You all speak of high-tech armies fighting poor low-tech armies.
How about two high-tech armies fighting?
Having your M1 tanks fighting Leopard2 tanks, your M109A6 being destroyed by PzH2000, Eurofighters fighting your F-22, European forces using Galileo system instead of GPS, and GPS being intercepted and malfuncioning? How many Apaches could survive in modern warfare, being so lightly armoured as they are?
Things wouldn't work so easily then


-------------

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 14:00
Originally posted by xristar

You all speak of high-tech armies fighting poor low-tech armies.
How about two high-tech armies fighting?
Why would they want to?


-------------


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2008 at 18:53
Why would they want to?

Sht happens


-------------

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 02:01
I'd say only Europe, Israel and the US have high tech armies, and they don't seem inclinded to fight each other.
 
Other nations (Russia, China etc) while they have high tech components, don't base their strategies around them.


-------------


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 21:11
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies.
They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale.

Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy!
This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts.


*Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.
 
1.)  Not effectively challenge.  The right world is outlast.  Low tech armies, fighting on their own backyard can generally outlast, through attrition, high tech expeditionary armies. 
 
2.)  While the Vietnamese and Afghans surely did outlast the Soviet and US armies, they never won a single battle.  That is the weakness and strengh of the low tech guerilla armies.  Currently no low tech army can prevent the movement nor deny land from a Brigade or Division size professional army of either US, Russian, Chinese, and European origin.   
 
3.)  Guerilla based armies are historically impossible to destroy because they never stood their ground and fight and are best suited for defensive campaigns of wearing down the attacker.  Their offensive strength are marginal.  They could never take an entrench position.   


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 21:14
Originally posted by IDonT

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies.
They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale.

Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy!
This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts.


*Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.
 
1.)  Not effectively challenge.  The right world is outlast.  Low tech armies, fighting on their own backyard can generally outlast, through attrition, high tech expeditionary armies. 
 
2.)  While the Vietnamese and Afghans surely did outlast the Soviet and US armies, they never won a single battle.  That is the weakness and strengh of the low tech guerilla armies.  Currently no low tech army can prevent the movement nor deny land from a Brigade or Division size professional army of either US, Russian, Chinese, and European origin.   They can however make their lives very unconfortable the longer they hold the territory.  They never win in the battlefield, but win in the political field.  As a military tactic, it not the best way to defend (but you play the hand that your dealt) 
 
3.)  Guerilla based armies are historically impossible to destroy because they never stood their ground and fight and are best suited for defensive campaigns of wearing down the attacker.  Their offensive strength are marginal.  They could never take an entrench position or gain ground.  The Hezbollah was playing a defensive war for their survival.  In that conflict, defined on those terms only, they "won".  However, Hezbollah could never take and hold Israeli ground from the Israeli army.  Doing so will nulify their greatest asset, despersion and stealth.   


Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 21:18
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Other nations (Russia, China etc) while they have high tech components, don't base their strategies around them.
 
Why do you say that?  The Russian Army that took Chechnya certainly was based around high technology military.  They even copied the NATO/US method of press conference to show the before and after effects of their air strikes. 
 
The PLA is in a midst of modernization.  China has 2 foreign policies: secure energy to fuel its economic growth and prevent Taiwan from independence, by force if necessary.  They are building their high tech military around a doctrine that MAY one day require them to invade Taiwan.


Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 20:20
Personally it frustrates me that high-tech armies such as the US, Europe and Russia (I consider them to be in this category) are developing more and more technology when it won't help them win in their current conflicts. Obviously having an edge in technology over an opponent is an advantage but any war between two high-tech armies would break both their banks.
 
The Land-warrior technology, the gun that shoots around corners and bombs that can destroy 80 tanks at once are cool, yes, but how will any of them defeat 4th generation war (different from 4th dimensional war). Russia's problems are with Chechnyan rebels, France lost a war to Algeria and Indochina, Israel almost lost the war with the Palestinians and the US has lost to Vietnam and Somalia and is now involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would say political will is the greater weapon in today's war, with information as its underlying principle.
 
(Currently I'm doing an independent study on guerrilla warfare/insurgencies after being very impressed with The Sling and the Stone by Thomas X Hammes, worth checking out.)


-------------
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2010 at 15:33
The following site, might well tell you what is is like in Iraq, and maybe that other place that Obama is sending troops?

I obviously posted the wrong address!



Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Deano97
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2010 at 17:53
Its changed in the way that theirs absolutley no such thing as the low tech army any more.Almost half of ur fighting is now not done by humans.The times of 1 million soldiers meeting half a mile apart in two trenches is now over.

-------------
I fart in your general direction!Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries!


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2010 at 20:17
It really seems that all of those children we have trained to fight via remote control on the inter-net, are ready made warriors of the 21st century! Just move the man, ship, airplane, rocket, etc., and press "shoot!"

Remote control death! Just how soon it is reality is merely a guess?

Regards,

"It is only a flesh wound!"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Deano97
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2010 at 19:50
But think, will that not become the warfare of our future.Will wars be conducted by using only man operated machines, and at some point or another machines not powered by man at all?How long till Robots fight on the plain of battle as every part in the military.We already have Predator Drones and Recon Robots...But will it be 100?50?even 20 years till the Computer generation is running the military?

-------------
I fart in your general direction!Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries!


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2010 at 15:31
Actually Deano, I sometimes feel that many of those great battles that we now read about, were merely the accounts of great "chess games!", and I am not really kidding!

Chess or one of its comparable games which may well be extinct, could have easily allowed one "despot" to fight via slow mail, a war without death?

All one needed was a writer, who watched the match, and then prepared great events onto paper, or papyrus, or vellum, and left them for posterity! Ergo, then these "fictionalized" accounts were found and taken as "fact!" They (the chess battles) were then entered into "history", and especially "chronology", as "fact?"

Much the same could easily be done today with computer simulations! Why risk so much when a mere game with a "bet" is much easier for each "cousin" to accept? I use the word "cousin" because within the royal families of Europe and the surrounding area, most all rulers were related by "blood!" As they are today!!!

Seriously, just who knows?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: p,c,ma
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2010 at 22:26
Im not saying that its true that past wars were decided by a chess game, but it would be both interesting and life saving for modern wars to be decided by single mock battles.

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2010 at 22:32
Yes, if it were really so today!

But, in our past, we really do not know if what I wrote was true or not?

There have been numerous investigations into the fields of ancient battles that have returned "NOTHING!"

Just like the casualties a Chess Game would produce!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: p,c,ma
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 16:59

That could be explained by the recycling of arms and armor.

Also mock battles did kind of take place among the people of the classical world in the form of single battles.


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 18:17
I will also suggest that often or not, sometimes the "Jousts" were a means of settling differences!

Of course in the Greek world, there does exist a chance that the Olympic Games performed the same? Please look up the ancient game called, I think "Hippias?"

It is merely a childs way of practicing for a joust!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: p,c,ma
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 19:46
I tried, but I kept getting the tyrant Hippias.

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 22:24
Maybe it was spelled Hippas? Like hippos, horses, etc.? Although Hippias is also important!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: p,c,ma
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2010 at 19:52
Still not it.


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 15:47
Actyally p, c, ma / Hunter! Hippas is it! Perhaps you should get a new search engine?

This site is merely one of them;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3918310/Book-from-1801-outlines-Christmas-family-games-such-as-Hot-Cockles.html

Note that Hippias was noted for going to a few Olympic Games!

Sosrt of warms the "Cockles of your heart!", does it not?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 20:00
You must note Hunter that I do not agree with a lot of modern day etymology! That is, I find that they tend to ignore some obvious relationships, or they are unable to actually recognize them, or they merely discard them for the most accepted version, etc.!

Thus, before you get all mired down and end up searching and find out that "hippo" actually seems earily similar to "hippa", etc., and then migrate to "potamus", etc., then perhaps you might want to read this;

The following can be found at "The word detective.com"

Dear Word Detective: A co-worker and I were having a discussion on the word "potable." Where does that word originate, and why isn't it just "drinkable"? His theory is that you put water in pots, hence "potable." I say hooey. -- Matt Meade, via the internet.

I say "hooey" too. In fact, I say "hooey" so often during an average day that one of my dogs now answers to "hooey." Of course, she also answers to "tuna," "telephone" and "lint," so maybe I just need a smarter dog. But "I say hooey" makes a fine all-purpose motto, and as soon as I finish answering your question I'm going to have some "I Say Hooey" t-shirts made up.

In the case of "potable," however, I can only declare a "partial hooey" on your co-worker's theory. Although he isn't exactly right, he's not completely wrong: there is a connection between "potable" and "pot."

It all began way back with Indo-European, the precursor to most modern European languages. The Indo-European root word "po" meant "to drink," and gave us the modern words for "to drink" in French, Russian and Welsh, among other languages. In Latin, "po" produced the verb "potare," also meaning "to drink," and "potare" begat "potabilis" ("drinkable"), which led directly to our modern English "potable," which first appeared around 1572.

Now we'll take a few steps back and explain why your co-worker is not completely crazy. That little root word "po" also produced the Latin noun "potio," meaning "a drink," which eventually gave us the English words "potion" and "poison." A related word ("potus"), also meaning "a drink," survived into medieval Latin, where it came to mean "a drinking cup or vessel." This word "potus" gave us a wide variety of modern English words, among which are "porridge," "putty," and, as you've probably guessed by now, "pot."

So while "potable" does not come directly from "pot," they do share a common (and very prolific) ancestor.

As to why we say "potable" rather than "drinkable," there's no particular reason, aside from tradition and a historic preference among English grammarians for fancy-schmancy Latinate constructions. But there's nothing wrong with saying "drinkable," especially considering that we've actually been saying it since around 1611."

And to the "Word Detective", I also say "hooey!", as well as "phooey!", ahem!

I assert, as my God given right, to propose that "potamus", etc., meaning river,or stream or even "spring", also meant "drinkable!" or "fresh!" This was of course from a time when such water supplies were certainly more drinkable than todays!

Hippos, of course, means the same as "horse" and surprisingly, horses or known to drink from rivers and streams, as were men and women during the ancient past! Boiling water to drink, was still a few centuries distant, depending upon, of course, where one lived and from what place in the stream or river one drank from! Surprisingly most humans develop a resistance to water that would make us all sick, just as horses have the same resistance!

I contend that "potamus" and its various spelling, meant at one time, only "fresh water" as opposed to "salt" or "sulfur" water, etc.! Thus in those days whilst one "could not lead a horse to water", it was certain that a horse could lead a man to "fresh water!"

This is my theory and I'm sticking to it!



-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: p,c,ma
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 21:10
Ron I seriously worry about you sometimes.
 
I still want a shirt though.


-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com