Proposed doctrine

[We7det_el_qetal]

Sweden's
Air Force Rangers Flygbasjagara

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of a new Swedish defense strategy, the Swedish Air Force developed a new defense plan. Under the this new plan, termed Bas-90, airfields, aircraft, and supplies would be dispersed at various locations though out the Swedish countryside. Although this plan gives the aircraft a greater chance of survival during air attacks, it also makes them harder to defend on the ground.
The Swedish Air Force high command has determined that the greatest potential threat during the event of hostilities would come from enemy special operations forces (SOF). To counter this threat and any other that may develop, the Swedish Air Force formed a new counter SOF unit.

The new unit, known as Flygbasjagarna (Fbj), or Swedish Air Force (Air Base) Rangers (SAFRs), was formed in 1983. This highly trained unit is tasked with countering incursions by enemy SOFs. Unit members are trained to track, locate, and eliminate an enemy unit before it can strike. To accomplish this mission the unit uses specially trained dogs and dog handlers.

SAFRs are organized into platoons of five squads; one HQ squad, and four Ranger squads. The HQ consists of 8 men while the Ranger squads are made up of 8 men and two dogs. Within each squad each man will have a specialty; Squad leader, Assistant Squad Leader, dog handler, anti-tank/machine gunner, or medic. Squads can be subdivided into two groups of four men each, allowing them to cover larger areas.

Ranger squads patrol outside of the base perimeter at distances up to 15 KM, security inside the base perimeter is provided by Close Protection Platoons (similar to USAF SF). Patrols can last up three weeks in duration. During this time a great deal of physical stress is placed on troops. SAFRs use all standard Swedish small arms, heavy weapon, and vehicles.

source: http://www.specwarnet.com/europe/safr.htm

 

[Gremlin29]

So what's stops an enemy from mulitiplying his total number of tanks to say,.. 5,000? Can 2400 Jeeps with ATGM's be considered adequate to even slow down such a vast force much less stop it long enogh for it to be targeted and destroyed by long range artillery? You also don't seem to consider that your enemy will not be boxed up all nice and neat waiting to be engaged en masse by your jeeps, or your artillery. Your jeeps will most likely not even get within range of the main force because they will be systematicaly destroyed by attack helicopters using nothing more than chain guns and folding fin rockets as well as the much more maneuverable IFV's equipped with small caliber cannons and their own ATGM's. I'm also trying to figure out how your anti tank force will be sustained because they don't run on solar power. Going back to your original idea of having your 2400 jeeps attack on masse, stopping the enemy who would then be ravaged by artillery...well that's just rediculous. If you wanna believe that jeeps are going to do all that arguing about the rest of your fantasy force is an exercise in futility. There's no possible way for even a respectible percentage of your jeeps to even approach 2 armored divisions on masse let alone engage them. How would that be done...exactly?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Usually, whenever I see comments about the new "tank killers" that are "fleet of foot" and will make them (the MBT) obsolete, you invariably see that the proponent of the technology has a limited understanding of combined and supported arms with MBT's.

Any light vehicle that could close on an MBT has got there because the MBT support doctrine was not adhered to.

MBT's are supposed to operate with sympathetic assets, and certainly in an environment where the geography may favour an attacker.

No LOS = combined arms.
LOS = combined arms.
No Combined Arms = Moron

 

[Aussie Digger]

Don't bother guys, We7 will only reply along the lines of "oh yeah? How will YOUR armoured division get within range of my laser guided artillery and TBM's? Anything left can then be destroyed by my jeeps". (Btw "jeeps" haven't actually been employed by a military force for 40 odd years, but that doesn't seem to bother we7 either).

As I stated earlier I'm starting to wonder whether he's anything other than a troll...

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

If u give me a bit of time i'll answer all ur questions, and i'm not a troll

 

[gf0012-aust]

If u give me a bit of time i'll answer all ur questions, .....

Matey, all I can do is reinforce the below again:

Any light vehicle that could close on an MBT has got there because the MBT support doctrine was not adhered to.

MBT's are supposed to operate with sympathetic assets, and certainly in an environment where the geography may favour an attacker.

No LOS = combined arms.
LOS = combined arms.
No Combined Arms = Moron

Any MBT that went in unassisted without infantry as a supportive element would not be adhering to basic tactics - ipso facto it would lead to an advantage for MANPAT teams.

Some armies work on the principle of saturated attacks, basically miniature versions of "cannae" against a target - but those MANPAT teams would never get in close if decent Infantry support was in play.

It's a fundamental doctrine issue. I'd suggest that any tank commander who went in with a squadron and lacked infantry support would be in for a bollocking after the event (especially if he lost his squadron)

The same philosophy comes into play when air cavalry is opposite, or when the anti-tank elements are arty or MLRS gridding a location.

Each anti-tank posture has a counter response, be it defensive or offensive. At the most simplistic descriptor level, that usually implies aggressive patrolling in advance, be it platoons, counter air (MANPADS or organic) or be it Offensive Air and counter Arty etc....

On that basis, Gremlin can explain the helo drivers role, AussieDig can explain the troopers role and land warfare perspective better than I can. They've got actual operational capability in these fields, so are worth listening to. They're not armchair theorists.

My skillset is mainly acoustic warfare and acoustic intel - so I can tell you how to take out the sniper or go to war in a submarine. I have tried to give you the basics though.

 

[Aussie Digger]

we7, I'm not entirely convinced by the (I'm not a troll) argument, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are serious about a military discussion there are some things to consider, that I'm not sure you've fully comprehended.

1. Developing REAL military capability is not achieved by flicking through brochures and picking out the military capabilities that seem to be the best. Developing significant usable capability takes time and a serious amount of thought. I kind of get the feeling that Iraq tried the brochure method under SH (who considered himself a military genius despite never undertaking a day of training in his life). Iraq pre Gulf War and pre Iran/Iraq war went on a shopping spree and bought the best and most capable "toys" available from the West and Soviet bloc, at that time (including: Mirage fighters, the whole MiG fighter range, Exocet, Scud, RPG, Milan and Frog missiles, Roland, Crotale, SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 SAM's, every available AAA and MANPAD type under the sun, the list went on and on).

Unfortunately when it came time to employ said weapons (despite the paper list) the actual capability generated was less than impressive. Even against Iran who Iraq outnumbered and (on paper at least) "out-matched" qualitatively the best they could manage (even when employing WMD's) could only manage a war of attrition and finally a drawn out stalemate. Against a modern professional force comprised predominantly of US/UK/French forces (despite outnumbering it, and possessing a paper "qualitative" advantage in many areas,) they simply couldn't achieve anything.

2. History is able to teach some very valuable lessons. You should never plan to "fight the last war" however valuable lessons are present in every war. One of the most fundamental (and one that many politicians conviently ignore) is that if a war starts you are limited to using whatever equipment/platforms you have.

Developing usable capability in these modern times, takes significant time during peace. You will be extremely unlikely to be capable of developing a significant new capability during war. Moving on from that if your vaunted SAM/TBM system fails, or an enemy is able to exploit a weakness which you didn't think of. That's it. You WILL lose.

The only way to properly provide for the defence of your Country is to acquire and develop your capability as matched against any potential enemies. What's the point of a 300K class TBM if your enemy is 400K's away? It is pointless picking YOUR favourite weapon systems to equip your force without conducting a thorough analysis of any likely enemy's capabilities. You cannot base a force structure on the paper statistics of a particular platform provided by the manufacturer. EVERY weapons manufacturer claims their particular system is the most capable. Only a detailed and rigorous analysis backed up by extensive simulation and operational analysis WILL provide the information that will truly help you sort the "chaff from the wheat". Paper statistics only publicly available websites are worse than useless. They deliberately set out to misinform... How can everything be THE best?

You are also not basing your force structure options on political reality. Your vaunted Iskander-E has NEVER been sold to anyone. It is only operated by Russia. Your S-400 SAM system IS still under development, (you can check this on their website if you like, just as I DID) and has yet to be acquired let alone actually deployed by anyone and like so many Russian programs these days stands a VERY good chance of being canned before it reaches fruition. Russia, like the USA and every other major defence supplier WILL not simply provide ANY weapon system that any particular country wants. This is particularly true for weapon systems such as TBM's, which provide a user with a relatively simple way of striking at an enemy...

Ponder these things and what gf and Gremlin have said, and we might be able to start a more interesting discussion... Cheers.

And not to blow my own trumpet too loudly, but I spent 6 years in the Australian Army's Infantry and Armoured Corps and was an NCO when I resigned. I know a thing or 2 about land warfare, particularly small unit tactics...

 

[Awang se]

Everythings look good when planners explain it on the piece of maps and papers. but once you throw the idea on the field, there's always somethings unexpected come up no matter how prepared we are.

anyone knows jeep can be an AT platform, but that is for someone who don't have their own tanks or can't bring one in on a short notice. also they usually use it on ambush on the column flank or rear and in a hit and run tactics. i can't imagine a jeeps that suppose to go face to face with the tanks. even an armored TOW hummvee won't make it out in one piece. the thought of it make me shudder.

 

[BaLRoG]

i'm we7's brother, i wanted to say that aussie is right this is a force structure not a doctrine because we haven't specified the enemy or the objective, not to mention

political and economic facts. from the previous posts i see that the rival was considered the US since some suggested the use of B-2's.

first as for missiles i personally in a normal situation would choose an aircraft over a TBM but that's not the case. aircraft tend to need airbases which tend to be stationary and vulnrable, so there's no point of spending billions on an airforce which will never act, simply trying to compete with the US on air superiority using their methods is just stupid. so which is better having a better strike force which will never see action or having a weaker one which has a very good chance of survival.

second yes aircraft's are very effiecent at air defence but i must be able to keep them alive, the US can strike the airbases with B-2's or if their's a huge air defence it might try using TBM which by my knowledge never has. i have no objection on VTOL/VSTOL aircraft but most of the army must not be centralized because stationary targets are easier to bomb cause they're easier to plan the striking mission for. unlike moving targets which are harder to destroy.

as for missile/airforce comparision iraq had hundreds of aircraft, how many bombed anything, on the other hand iraq was able to launch scud's, i'm not talking about the effectiveness of a missile strike and an airstrike i'm just saying one has a much greater probability to reach it's target than the other. so the only way to have an airdefence is SAM's and i guess that the S-300 PMU is very effective, it has a 150km range and it's mobile, it has a deployment time of 5 minutes, so constantly moving airdefence batteries will be very hard to counter. and i'd like to know what anti-radar missile has a range in excess of 150km. another idea is to buy 3 times the radars needed and i mean mobile radars.

here is how it works, only one radar is operational while the other two are on the move, and then one of them goes online and the first goes off and starts moving this is repeated periodically which will make air missions targeting radars very confusing. as for jeeps having less manuverability in desert terrain, u have got a point and i would suggest a tracked vehicle like the BMP-3 armed with the AT-5 missile which has a range of 6km that's way out of the range of the M1A1, now what would happen if the M1A1 charged and the BMP's retreated will firing, the only solution left would be helicopters which btw can also be engaged with the AT-15. the tanks will have no choice except to continue forward because if they stop artillery will show no mercy, if they retreat the BMP's will pursue.

i know BMP's can't stand ground infront of tanks but u have a technologically superior enemy so u can't hope to stand head to head with him u must improvise. the only reason why i'm thinking this way is because the realistic situation demands that i think differently. i'm not saying i'm right i'm just asking what's wrong with that. and i almost forgot as for the offensive we'll primarily relly on a small number of strikes with extreme force, first because if i don't fire that missile i don't know if it will be there tomorrow to fire.


second to defeat the US u don't have to take over bases u just have to inflict enough damage so that the war becomes intollerable and that's no easy task, americans are not weak nor are they cowards. i must try to make war as short as possibly because economy wise there's no comparison, plus having a 1000 dead in one week makes a lot more effect than in a year. i'd appretiate all comments on this.

 

[Gremlin29]

I'm going to address BaLRoG's method of dealing with gunships. They will be screening the armored force so your BMP's have to get past that obstacle first. While you could theoretically engage helicopters with the AT-15, chances of success are dismal. I've been engaged by ATGM's and always managed to evade them with relative ease.

Now an issue your BMP's face is with a system like the Hellfire for example. The Hellfire has the AT-15 outranged, and it's mounted on a platform that can maneuver quicker, farther faster. Secondly, if your facing a fairly well equipped modern adversary, their MBT's are going to be supported by infantry and more importantly, mechanized infantry who's vehicles are going to be equipped with the same ATGM type weapons your BMP's are armed with. You will also have to deal with Cavalry units who are likewise equipped with ATGM equipped IFV's. Adding to the fray will be mobile artillery who will have missions called in on your BMP forces.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The USA does have a TBM it's known as the ATACMS and is fired from the MLRS system and has a 300k range.

V/STOL aircraft provide an excellent opportunity to disperse your air force in an emergency, but certain other tactics (such as that used by Sweden, Singapore etc) like using civilian roads to operate jets from have a degree of operational utility. However, they have significant payload/range issues and basic airframe performance issues, due to the design necessary to achieve their V/STOL capability. They are useful, but they are not a genuine replace for a conventional take off and landing aircraft.

Let's be realistic here. Any small to medium power IS going to get annihilated by the USA in a conventional war. It's as simple as that. A small insight into the capability of the USA is that at the time of the Second Gulf War despite the preponderance of specwarops forces utilised in the Gulf the USA was concurrently running 29 specwarops throughout the world. If they wanted to destroy your country, there is very little most countries could do about it.

Worrying about how you force structure is going to deal with the USA is pointless. There's only 1 or 2 in the World (China or perhaps Russia) that could resist the USA conventionally for very long.

A more realistic goal is the capability to deal with any reasonably forseeable regional conflict. That (and the available budget) is what decides your force structure. When talking about strike capabilities you need to compare them to that which your "enemies" possess. If you want to possess a "defensive" force, than matching the enemy only is what you need. It doesn't have to be the same type of capability, but the minute the enemy thinks you have out-matched him, your "enemy" will start to think about equalising this situation. That is what is unrealistic about We7's force structure. His reliance on one offensive system means that his force structure WILL not provide sufficient options in the face of an attack should it's capability by nullified by acquistion of a similiar capability.

Even if his TBM's ARE as capable as he believe's, the other Countries in his region that he want's to defend against, are going to acquire capabilities to match or exceed yours. Your "defensive" effort will simply turn into an arms race.

In addition the acquisition of such capabilities will simply gender suspicion amongst your "enemies" no matter what you say about your intentions with them. The post I made about Australia's proposed acquisition of air-launched standoff missiles, illustrates this perfectly. Despite Australia reducing it's overall strike capability, and it's statements about the use of such weapons, it's "enemies" have made their own decisions about our acquistions of such weapons...

 

[BaLRoG]

i'm not sure about the fact that it's impossible to defeat the US, i consider the vietnam war a defeat to the US, and vietnam wasn't the second or third superpower, yes it was supported by china and russia, these are political concerns but the country itself was no superpower.

a more extreme example hannibal defeated the romans in many battles, yes his home land was eventually destroyed but for some time he did something no one thought possible. i'm not saying i'm hannibal, just that there's nothing impossible. and it's never pointless to try think about how to defeat your enemy, no matter how strong he is and how weak you are. it just gets harder never impossible.

all i'm trying to propose is a question, does this force structure stand a chance to inflict casualties on the US forces like the vietnamese did, i.e. 58000 casualties. that's the whole question. and personally i don't consider it such a redicolous argument.

 

[Gremlin29]

Vietnam does serve as an example that conclusive military victory is not necessary under certain situations. Recreating a similar scenario however would be tremendously difficult if not entirely impossible. To begin with, the America of today is nothing at all like the America of the 1960's. The anti-establishment movement back then played a bigger role in American withdrawl from Vietnam than any other single factor. Vietnam was not a military defeat for the US, it was a political defeat. In addition, the US didn't even fully prosesecute the war. An example would be keeping Hanoi off limits to aerial attack throughout most of the war. In any case, it's a given that the conclussion of the war can be born through military action, political action, or combinations there of. North Vietnam can not claim a military victory because they had their butts handed to them on a silver platter. Ultimately however despite their military failure, they were able to achieve their agenda of uniting both countries under the single flag of communism which was their goal. In any case, the US lost 58,000 troops through the course of 10 years of fighting.

Answering your question more directly, based on your concept I don't see how you could inflict losses of that nature in a short time period with your proposed system, I would expect such a campaign to be over rather quickly with minimal loss of lives based on the destruction of your anti-tank assetts which would occur pretty much as I stated in my last few replies.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The USA never lost a battle in Vietnam, they were in the end however unable to continue participating in the war. This was as Gremlin pointed out due to political reasons rather than capability reasons. America deliberately hamstrung itself in Vietnam and yet inflicted over 2 million casualties on the North Vietnamese forces. Could Vietnam have continued to withstand this, if the USA prosecuted this war to it's fullest extent (conventionally that is) and stopped the support flowing from Russia and China? I seriously doubt it, however it is a moot point.

You don't need TBM's to inflict Casualties on US troops. You are quite right theyy ARE not invincible. Look at Iraq today, they are suffering far more casualties now than they did during the actual "war".

Their capabilities at present are such that in a conventional war they will destroy any opposing force that does not match them qualitatively. Quantity no longer matters. (The USA and it's allies were out numbered on a man to man and platform to platform basis in GW 1 AND 2)... As it is widely recognised that NO-ONE can match the USA qualitatively across ALL the spectrum of capabilities required for modern warfare, this is why I do not believe any Country (even China or Russia) could withstand the US in a conventional battle at present.

This is not to say that a situation like Iraq wouldn't occur. The USA may indeed smash their enemie's main forces, but then "die the death of a thousand cuts". However I'd be stunned if they weren't better prepared for this sort of thing, next time they decide they need to invade someone...

Why do you guys insist on bringing up Hannibal over and over again? Yes "he"
defeated the Romans in some battles, so did the Huns. This does not apply readily to modern warfare, particularly warfare with the USA, for one reason. The level of over-match currently possessed by the USA against any likely adversary is unprecedented in human history. Did you not take on board that little insight into the USA's specwarops capability? EACH of the USA's military capabilities is compartively as vast as their Specwarops capability...

Look at other aspects of their capability, then if you're still not convinced. A single US Navy Aircraft Carrier, has more capability in it's Air wing, than the combined forces of EVERY other operational Aircraft Carrier in the WORLD (at present). And the US has 12 of the things!!! Very few Navies (easily less than 10) operates a surface combatant that approaches the capability of an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer (DDG). The US navy operates 56 of them!!!

Only 3 (Russia, China and India) Countries operate a bomber aircraft that even approaches (or even matches, let alone exceeds) the capabilities of any of the USAF large bomber trio (B-52, B1-B, B-2). The USAF currently operates around 60 B-52's, 90 B1-B and 21 B-2's. It also operates around 80 F-117 Nighthawks... Maybe you'd like to consider fighter capability? The USAF alone, operates around 700 F-15C's, around 350 F-15E strike Eagles and around 1800 F-16C's. It also operates around 400 A-10 Warthogs, and then on top of this force you can roughly double these figures by adding in the US Air National Guard fleet. on top of that you can add the US Navy (1000+ modern fighters and the US Marine Air Corps forces 400+).

In addition the USAF, operates a fleet of over 50 E-3C AWACS aircraft, around 25 J-STARS, about 500 Air to air refuelling aircraft and a 600+ strong fleet of mil-spec transport aircraft (C-5, C-17III, C-130 and variants). Each and every one of these aircraft and naval vessels are either rated as the very best of it's type anywhere in the world, or was until very recently and is still ranked amongst the VERY best.

I could go on if you'd like and describe the roughly 9000 M1A1/2 MBT's operated by the US Army/Marine Corps, the 1000+ AH-64 Apache gunships, the 15000+ Bradley IMV's or perhaps the 500+ MLRS vehicles and 5000+ artillery pieces operated all up by the US Army/Marine Corps? I could then mention how'd you need to expand these figures by adding up the numbers operated by the US army reserve and US National Guard, but I'm sure you're starting to see my point...

IF you're planning (even as only a fun exercise) on taking on the USA, (particularly in a predominantly flat desert environment) you are going to start to need a whole lot more toys and a vastly more capable range of military options if you hope to even match what Iraq did... I (and other former military operators who post here), think you're planning is woefully inadequate at present...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think what a lot of people forget are the basics as well when discussing the notion of total warfighting. There are a number of factors which are seen as being absolutely critical if a nation is going to succeed:

Persistence
Projection
Political Will and Intent/Purpose
Planning
Precision

The US is the only country in the world that has been able to fight at an intercontinental level, ie deploy and conduct war outside of it's own continental land mass, and project that capability to another continental land mass. - No other country even remotely has the logistics to be able to do that. Even the Russians in the halcyon days of the Soviet Union in the early 80's (where they were probably at the only point of the Cold War of being able to adequately fight the USA) were a transcontinental power. - They were never a conventional intercontinetal power.

No other country can remotely approach the uplift capability of the US. In fact, I'm certain that the USNS (navy logistics) fleet is bigger than all other Non US military heavy lift fleets combined. (and non US fleets are usually part of the existing navy fleet structure, they are not a separate arm like the USS and USNS prefixed vessels)

Aussiedigger mentioned the USN's 12 Carrier Strike Forces, but in addition to that the USN also has 10 ARG's or ESG's which have Helo carriers that are bigger than nearly all of the existing non-US aircraft carriers (the exceptions being UK/France/India's ex Gorshkov). That's 22 strike fleets with organic air that can be used. They have so many carriers that the normal process is to have 2 in a theatre. One is maximised for flight operations, and the other is used as ongoing support and maintenance. So the actual strike rate and sortie rate is far greater as one carrier acts as the logistics unit (spare fuel, spare weapons storage, daily maintenance, rotor operations (ASW management etc...)

Or to give another example of historical "training knowledge". The US has built nearly 200 nuclear subs since the USS Nautilus, she has built over 30 super sized air craft carriers (ie a carrier that is more than 65,000 tonnnes), in fact the USS Midway built in WW2 (and in the reserve fleet) still has a greater aircraft handling capability than Frances Charles de Gaule). Since the end of WW1, the US has built over 300 aircraft carriers (CV, CVE, CVL, CVN) - so their knowledge about intercontinental blue water prosecution absolutely dwarfs the combined knowledge of every other navy that has even had air craft carriers since the beginning of WW2.

The USCG is also considered to be more powerful than most navies - especially those without carriers, and yet, this is a force that is fundamentally designed for littorals policing. In fact the USCG now operates vessels with the Carrier Strike Forces as they use them for boarding and hunting capability.

As an extension of the uplift issue, not only does the US have something like 7000 Abrams available for warfighting, but she hasd the capability to get them into theatre via sea and airlift. She can pull assets out of any of her bases in Europe or other locations without regional debilitation - and she can get them in theatre faster than some transcontinental powers who are nearby.

However, just looking at the absolute numbers means little, when you add in the fact that the US has not been committed to total war since the end of WW2, then you can start to appreciate the fact that if both hands are untied, they will do an awful lot of hurt at a time and place of their choosing. Take away the political side of the warfighting argument, and no nation can stand up to her in absolute warfare terms.

Just in case someone tries to bring up the tired old argument that "we have 500,000 or 2 million men in our military and we can crush them if they land" etc... Modern warfare doesn't need to have boots on ground unless you want to sieze territory. The US is quite capable of crippling militarily the structure and the military economy of any nation from a distance. Her space command structure alone is able to see more than all of the sophisticated satellite users combined - even if you include russia's satellite capabilities. She is the only one that has a redundant 24/7/365 orbital viewing capability - the USAF satellites alone are larger in quatity than all other Non-US sat users combined.
Speaking of which, she is the only nation that has managed assets in full combat from space (1991) No one else has demonstrated that experience. More to the point, when they next used space based asset management in 1999, the comment was that the 1991 warfighting concept using satellites had been made obsolete - how many nations have hit their 1991 management and EW capability? - NONE

What I'm talking about is really the tip of the iceberg as the capability is far more complex than just the numbers I've portrayed. When you add in the elements of actual experience in combined arms, the potential to surge, the ready reserve elements, the fact that all their Carrier strike elements and land based offshore assets enable them to reproduce a 21st century version of Cannae by having geographical leverage for constriction and compression already in place - then you can start to understand why there is no power even remotely close that can wage total conventional war and survive the attrition. In nuclear terms her absolute tonnage of yield is only challenged by Russia. IIRC the next largest is the UK, then France, then Israel.

Finally although it's an unfortunate example, what countries like China have noticed is that with the recent Tsunami disaster, the USN had 2 fleets and over 15,000 men, aircraft, construction equipment starting to arrive within 48hrs of the disaster. They were clearing ground faster than the affected countries because they had capability on board to construct airstrips, landing pads, earthmoving equipment as part of the ARG's etc.... The engineering capability they had on board those vessels meant that they were able to make facilities required for reconstruction.

The important thing about warfighting are the "P"s that I outlined before, and without logistical power - you're not going to last long.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Indeed, gf, I completely agree with you. People who speak of "fighting the US" generally have no real comprehension of the US's real capability. I was attempting to illustrate some basic facts, which We7 and Balrog, seemed to yet to have grasped fully. I boiled it down to simple numbers for them, to try to get them to understand how inadequate their "light force" would be in a conflict with the USA...

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

I'am well aware of the numerical as well as technological superiority of the US,

people often mistake assymetric approach to fighting as a nicer name for terrorism ,

assymetric approach means using un-orthodox methods ON the battlefield to offset the enemies advantages and exploit his weaknesses, so it's not about lunatics blowing themselves up ,

It's the very essence of open mindedness, the US spend over 60 years strengthening conventional approaches to battlefield tactics to ensure a fight by the book achieving air superiority and CAS for it's armoured formations to try to extend the Blitzkreig concept to be 3 dimensional in air land battle doctrine, any body who reacts conventionally WILL Have the conventional outcome of anhhilation, so don't expect a balanced response, coz balanced responses just boil down to resources which are greatly against us.

BaLrog will elaborate shortly after this post, i hope by today.

 

[Aussie Digger]

But We7, you don't give anyone else credit for the same ability to think as you yourself possess. You stated it earlier when you said no-one else can "think outside the square"... Just because the US Forces possess overwhelming force, doesn't mean they are stupid and unable to react to assymetric warfare.

I defy any force to withstand "pinprick" attacks, by an opposing force that has the luxury of being able to hide places their enemy will not generally attack, ie: civillian infrastructure, Mosque's etc/ That is what is happening in Iraq at the moment.

The attacks the American's have faced for nearly 18 months now, have had virtually no effect on their military capability present in Iraq. What it does engender is mass Media coverage. It's not a means to fight a war. It's a means to score political points. The terrorists showed this by attacking the Shiites just recently. It's not about liberating Iraq from the aggressors (ie: the US).

The terrorists have done far more damage to the Iraqi infrastructure than they have to the US military machine.

Organisations conducting assymetric warfare (by it's very nature) cannot withstand an attack by a modern conventional military force. THAT's why it's chosen. It's their only option, other than surrender. This is why your force structure is so weak. It's very difficult (if not impossible) to engage in assymetric warfare in the open desert. You simply cannot hide, and that's what you need to do predominantly in order to survive, against a modern conventional military. Al Qaeda have shown this in Afganistan, the terrorists in Iraq have also shown this.

Where do you see the terrorist attacks occuring in Iraq? In the open desert, or in the cities where the terrorists have some element of surprise?

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Actually i'll post an article were an F-15 crew actually saw a scud launch when they were airborne and couldn't find the TEL after the launch, the desert is a very very BIG place contrary to what everbody believes, Iraqi's got creamed coz they didn't disperse and didn't think smart, what i'm exploiting Aussie is what's called Creative Inertia i,e: US planers are still mind fixated on the cold war doctrines, even if they try to inovate they still are a lot behind, war is about ideas not about hardware, i highly recomend "War and Anti-war."

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'am well aware of the numerical as well as technological superiority of the US,

people often mistake assymetric approach to fighting as a nicer name for terrorism ,

assymetric approach means using un-orthodox methods ON the battlefield to offset the enemies advantages and exploit his weaknesses, so it's not about lunatics blowing themselves up

Actually, the only people I know who associate the buzzword of assymetry in warfare are journalists and some enthusiasts.

Nobody I know in the military has a restricted comprehension of assymetrical warfare.

In fact I can think of half a dozen conferences I've attended in the last 2 years where assymetrical warfare was a session item. To assume that "conventional" militaries don't or haven't considered how to deal with assymetry as a variation of OOTW (at a conventional force majeur level) is a pretty risky calculation.

It's almost a standard assignment for 1st year students at most military colleges I am aware of. (Russian, French, Italian, US, UK, Australia, Germany) In fact sessions have been run by different countries at every session to allow an understanding of how each nation approaches it.