Proposed doctrine

[gf0012-aust]

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."

Actually the Iraqis were very creative at hiding assets. Theatre missiles were freighted in milk trucks, petrol tankers and placed under overpasses. Smaller missiles were placed in portable launchers in small delivery vans with collapsible tops. All of these assets had to be intercepted manually as they notionally (esp the milk trucks and small vans) were not war assets, so couldn't just be shot up at will. Thats why specwar units were tasked to tag and intercept rather than aircraft such as A-10's. The fact that the placing of missile systems in milk trucks, in protected areas was illegal under Hague Conventions didn't stop them.

There was an assymetrical war response in place for various "issues".

I wasn't that impressed with the Tofflers book, so you must have found something interesting that I didn't.

 

[Aussie Digger]

And I think We7, that you should actually try gaining your OWN military experience rather than simply quoting what others write about war. Without having read that article, unless it was an F-15E Strike Eagle, I'm not surprised an F-15 couldn't find a TEL. F-15's were designed almost purely for air to air combat only. They possessed only a limited "dumb bomb" munitions dropping capability are not (to this day) equipped with either a radar or optical/infra-red systems designed to locate ground based targets...

Even a Strike Eagle would have some difficulties in finding such a target. The Iraqi's as pointed out by gf WERE very adept at concealing their assets. During GW1, specwarops forces normally had to close to within 2k's before THEY were able to locate the Tel's... The USAF was massively unsuccessful in locating TEL's from the air on it's own...

During GW2 with the USA's massive investment in ISR assets between GW1 and GW 2 (a lesson learnt well from GW1) the Iraqi's despite possessing a similar capability to GW1 (with it's TBM's) were almost completely denied the use of that type of weapon system, due to the control the American's were able to exert from the Air.

The Iraqi's did disperse their forces. But if you're going to fight a simultaneous air and land battle against such a massively capable force such as that deployed by the US, YOU are going to need to deploy equally, if not larger forces, irregardless of the types of equipment you provide for them, and your ability to "hide" will become limited due to the sheer size your forces will need to be...

In addition, the ability to "mass" or concentrate forces at particular points on the battlefield at particular times is essential to winning the battle. Even your mate Hannibal would have been intimately familiar with that idea... This requirement is fundamentally opposed to your idea of extremely widely dispersing your combat elements. Often an enemy will seek to simply DISPERSE the opposing forces he's facing, knowing that once this task is achieved, HIS enemy will lack any real capability to conduct any significant operation against him for some time, giving him sufficient time to re-org, sort out his logistics or deal with any other problems he is facing...

Unfortunately my friend, I'm all to well aware of the size of a desert. Australia has vast desert's that (in parts) are even flatter and drier than those in the Middle East... I deployed on exercise to Woomera one time, (a few years back) as part of a motorised battlegroup, (using Perentie 6 Wheeled Infantry mobility vehicles, not tracked armour, a pic of which I just posted in the gallery), where we had a notional IADS system "protecting us" comprising RBS-70 MANPADS, Rapier Short range SAM's and a notional "Patriot" type system, supported by an extensive surveillance radar system to provide a layered air defence capability and a basic anti-ballistic missile capability. It was known as Exercise Ready Shield, (which GF may recognise)... The RAAF STILL smashed us... Woomera if you'd care to google it, is an extremely hot, dry, flat, dusty "hell-hole" located in South Australia, that I truly hope to never visit again for the rest of my life...

A Desert is NOT the best type of terrain to try and hide in either... MSR's (main supply routes, roads, train lines etc) are easily observable by Air, Ground and Space capabilities and your wheeled forces will have to make extensive use of these, as their offroad capabilities are extremely limited. "Mad Max" (or Road Warrior) type vehicles are hardly the answer either. They are fast, but they possess a very short range, very little load carrying ability.and very little offensive capability.

They are also completely unable to conduct close combat as they possess no ability to withstand fire and what's more, you'd need tens if not hundreds of thousands of the things to equip a force sufficiently large enough to even contemplate engaging a US Division, let alone the Corps sized forces they used in Iraq... On top of that the command and control of thousands of "buggies" would be next to impossible and the whole idea is ridiculous in the extreme. It conjures up images of a swarm of flies circling an Elephant, to my mind and would have much the same effect in my opinion...

Specwarries use them for minor recon tasks and "hooning" around Ech (echelon areas, ie: a long way from the battlefield) areas looking cool for photo ops for the numerous Special forces books they're planning on releasing telling the world how they single handedly won the war...

Any serious tasks are completed by larger 4WD and 6WD vehicles, vehicles which have the range, endurance and normally the load carrying ability to sustain several troops for at least a couple of days. Your "buggies" do not even possess this, but even these larger vehicles are simply used to transport them to their TAOR, NOT to provide a close combat capability OR even a close recce capability... They are simple transport...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just as a side note. you'll find that all specwarrie buggies also have a "mothership" as part of the group. the sole purpose of that vehicle (such as a Unimog 4x4) is to provide extra logistics legs to the squad. Buggies on their own are useless at anything but surveillance and immediate close support if they sport a squad weapon or Milan on them. The Unimog acts as a mobile warehouse for fuel, munitions, extra food etc...

4x4 "Buggies" just don't have the autonomy to be able to provide the kind of leverage required to go in hard - especially against hardened assets, and especially against assets that are accompanied by ground troops.

Unfortunately the images of David Stirling attacking the rear of the Afrika Korp in Chev trucks and jeeps seems to have had a disproportionate effect on their actual contemporary capability.

In addition, any land force of significance would have SWR (or equivalent) radar deployed, plus their own ADS, so nothing within 40-400km at a ground level would get close. Add in UAV's and you have a holographic image of the battlespace in your area of ops. At division level they would also have artillery radar and if deploying aggressive patrols, sniper detection systems in place (which have been successfully first used in Bosnia in 1999). It also means that the interrogation systems also overlap each other for redundancy.

That gives you a cubic battlespace of 200sqkm (minimum) with a ceiling of 2000m to 9000m. A bee couldn't fart in that space and not get detected. A gaggle of 4x4's would be picked up relatively quickly.

 

[Pendekar]

that's why many small country prefer to adopt an assymetrical warfare when facing a major powers in war. the example is iraq. they knowthey will not be able to stop the allied advance. instead of going all out, they only fight to slow down the advance and kept most of their weapons for later use. what the american face in Iraq right now is an example of assymetrical war. the lack of visible front line make the occupiers unable to concentrate their superior firepower, instead the firepower was spread over wide area where their efectiveness was gravely reduce. in this type of war, occupiers rarely have the luxury of initiatives, except when the resistance decide to fight a pitch battle like in fallujah. mostly the resistance will attack and then they dissolve before anyone can really mount an effective counterattack.

one more thing about the assymetrical war is that the target is not necesserily military. one way of assymetrical war is to prevent the superior enemy from going all out and that can only be achieve through political measures. 20-30 casualties a month is not a big deal for a super power like USA but the public outcry resulted from the losses, the mourn of family members, might go a long way to thwart the greater capability of the occupiers.

 

[Gremlin29]

Small countries don't adopt assymetrical warfare, this is something that's undertaken by a violent minority and only works if it's carried out in certain types of societies. Does anyone here think that the insurgents in Iraq represent the majority of the Iraqi people?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Nope and if they WERE, there is no way the war could of lasted this long. Either the US would have had to withdraw, or destroy large sections of the Iraqi people, in massive pitched battles. Neither has happened to date...

 

[Pendekar]

I don't agree with u mr. Aussie (no offence). the only reason the resistance drag on is because they have a support from considerably large portions of Iraqi populations. in the underground group, only small percentage of them are active fighters, the one that doing all the combat oriented jobs. the large percentage however is a passive type, a supporter. this group provide shelters, provisions and informations to the active groups. this is the PR angle of the battle. purging this passive group, the resistance lifeline, also means to take a risk meddling with civilians. this is what tied up the hand of US forces in iraq from taking any efective countermeasures. the truth is, the resistance group in iraq is well aware of the US forces stregth and strategies. If you consider the frequencies of the attack, one can say that the resistance is considerebly large and well organize and they also gain a supports from a significant portions of iraqi populace.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I disagree, mr Pendekar. IF a "large" porportion of the Iraqi people were involved in supporting the insurgency it would have been far more effective than it has been to date.

Intell starting to come in from captured "freedom fighters" has shown that the majority of the support received by the insurgents is actually coming from Iran and Syria, through various (non-official HOPEFULLY) channels in Syria and Jordan. Despite the media coverage, the effects the insurgents are having is quite minimal overall.

Industries throughout Iraq are operating at greater levels than they were pre GW1, Iraqi people have greater access to modern conviences such as media, (both domestic and foreign) both print and televised, mobile phones, free speech and other such freedoms.

The insurgents goals have seemed to be to try and create a civil war in Iraq. To date this has not occured, despite insurgents attacking US (and coalition) forces and even "shi-ite" muslims in Iraq. If this is true, than they have failed miserably to date...

But anyway we should get back on topic I guess...

 

[driftder]

Oh yes back to topic indeed before it gets derailed, hijack or flame broiled . Actually I wonder if there is a topic. If there are any Israelite tankers from the Yom Kippur War around, I bet he might get reminded of the way the Egyptians used the almost same strategy/doctrine/force structure/whatchamightcallit on them - which is a combo of SAMs for air coverage/umbrella and Saggers AT. Sure at that time they don't have MRLS but its almost the same.

What tickles me is the way every time AD points out a loophole in We7 plan, he (We7) will cover it up along the lines of "ah but I have not included that" or "ah I was about to reveal it" etc etc. All I can say is he sure ain't no soldier nor ever serve in any military. Maximum security detachments against SF...really the idea sounds like something from a computer game . As if SF can be easily turned aside just cos you closed the doors and hang a "No Entry" sign. They did not earn their title for nothing and if anyone think they will get predictable all the time, think again.

And sensor grids of fibre optics and remote sensors in a desert environment - shifting sands, high temp, maintenance etc. Gads, the costs involved! Not to mention the energy source to run them - which gets tag as a priority target in any war.

Lets see if I get it right - AD's battlegroup will start a deliberate attack or bait We7 jeep AT force to attack them. Response will be a "rain of AT missiles" - read it somewhere in this thread - and the expected demise of AD's tanks right? Well surprise, AD's tanks have something called a smoke screen. According to the latest tech report, the modern smoke screen got anti-IIR/laser elements - in other words you can't see anything behind the smoke screen with IIR scopes. Its like getting sand in your eyes. BTW did We7 put in IIR scopes on those HJ-9? And while shooting their ATGMs at AD's force at "extreme" range, unlike "optimum" range, which means a longer flight time and focus on target, they will get AD's choppers sic on them or get mortared - think the choppers more likely. So We7 will get his jeep force to engage the choppers with Iglas or SA-7/18/etc and at the same time keep an eye out for AD's MBTs and IFV hiding for dead ground or manuevering their way to get at the jeeps. Don't know the rest of you but sounds like We7 got himself a stash of Superman to be able to take on MBTs, IFVs, choppers and mortar fire at the same time. I sure can't do it if I were in the jeep force.

At this stage, the jeeps will call for the arty support to kill the tanks and the SAMs to knock out the choppers - again at extreme range. So lets see - the Smerchs will open up on AD's force at "extreme" range, not "optimum" range for fire support. And his SAMs will be called on to swat AD's choppers out of the sky. I can go on but...I guess most will have seen what's the mess going to be like? Oh BTW, I forgot - if AD is one of those typical diggers I run across, they don't fight with one hand tied behind their back. Oh and no, diggers definitely DON'T fight on ground or conditions the enemy choose for them. If they ever do, trust me its cos they have change the rules i.e. cheat

Now how the heck do I know they cheat? Ah that story involves a jungle ridge and some dunce saying tanks can't get up there. But it will be off topic so I can't tell it here :