Land Based Strategies

[Ender89]

What do you consider the most effective style of land warfare.
:bazooka

 

[webmaster]

Ender,

When asking such questions, it is better to provide YOUR OWN input on the subject matter before others would want to share their thoughts.

Answer questions your self, such as:

What land based strategy would you prefer?

Why?

How is it better than other land based strategies?

It should be good two three paragraphs with details and facts to support your argument.

Since, you are new that is why I just wrote this speech otherwise one line threads and posts get deleted automatically without a warning.

Enjoy

 

[Ender89]

Thanks for the warning.

I believe that guerila warfare is the best land based strategie because guerila forces move around constantly and are very precise when it comes to attacking a target. They gain as much information as possible before the window of oppotunity is gone. another reason I chose this style of warfare is because it is demoralizing to the enemy. Example the revolutionary war, colonial soldiers did thier best to stay alive and wither away the british from thier cover and quick strikes. This style of fighting mad the british army furious and could not fight back effectively with trained soldiers that stood in rows with no cover.:smash

 

[turin]

Sorry, but this question serves little purpose, since there is no definite answer to it due to being unspecific.

First off, armor, artillery and infantry are supposed to work together. Thats what their very design and structure nowadays is thought for. You need ALL of these elements for any decent general land-based warfare scenario.
Should there be a prioritisation for a specific part of these, eg. infantry etc., then this has to be based on an equally specific scenario (what are my objectives, what are the enemies forces, what kind of environment, political against military priorities etc..).

Also your preference of guerilla warfare in answer to such a general question is just making no sense. Guerilla warfare has advantages only under special conditions. For example, guerilla warfare is certainly no choice, should you plan to invade another country. However if you are defending your own soil, i.e. are familiar with the territory and the people living there, can draw upon the ressources of these two and have geographical advantages (jungle, mountains, extensive urban environments), that ease the movement of guerillas, i.e. mostly infantry/foot soldiers, then guerilla warfare serves a purpose and can be conducted in an effective way.

There are enough examples as to demonstrate where guerilla warfare has failed. This was mostly the case where invading (i.e. aggressive) forces used this without some of the requirements mentioned, and faced an opponent who employed SOF tactics combined with more regular military forces. Take for example the engagements of Executive Outcomes against guerilla forces of UNITA in Angola and RUF in Sierra Leone.

 

[driftder]

I don't think modern warfare will present the guerilla with tidy, packed rows of tin soldiers for them to pot. That phase was ended with the American Civil War, Boer War and the Franco-German War of the 19th century.

Guerilla warfare, for all its media hype, only takes place as a result of conventional forces being defeated, routed or totally disabled to such an extent that conventional warfare is no longer possible. For reference, we can look at Iraq after the battle of 73 Easting. And it - guerilla warfare, that is - can be defeated by thwarting the guerillas' claims and objectives, with visible economic and government stability. Once guerilla warfare is reduced and degenerated to a police action, that's the end for the guerillas. And there are dangers inherent to guerilla warfare in that it might degenerate into a mob action, with acts of cruelty and barbarism which in turn will hurt their political image. There are more to this of course and there are many good political science study material that cover these areas. Just my two pennies...

 

[Maverickjag]

I don't really think there is any specific strategy that is best as far as what you listed. It will take a combination of armor, artillery, infantry, special forces, helicopters, bombers, and jets. Basically, there is a reason why we have so many different types of troops employed in the US military. The US understands that to win a war EFFECTIVELY all branches of the military must be used to the benefit of the whole. Any one type of unit may be able to take and hold a position but would the friendly casualties have been less if a more versatile force was used to attack? The answer is usually yes, there are rare exceptions where, to bring tanks in, it would only put them in danger, whereas infantry would pull through unharmed and vice-versa.

Guerilla warfare is all well and nice, but do we ever see someone using purely guerilla tactics take and hold a critical, city, ridge, road, or bridge? No, because they know that doing so would only alert the enemy army of there presence and they would be quickly decimated.

 

[driftder]

Sorry, but this question serves little purpose, since there is no definite answer to it due to being unspecific.

you, sir, are a spoilsport :. I was hoping to get further mileage out of his presumption that guerilla warfare is bes.

First off, armor, artillery and infantry are supposed to work together. Thats what their very design and structure nowadays is thought for. You need ALL of these elements for any decent general land-based warfare scenario.
Should there be a prioritisation for a specific part of these, eg. infantry etc., then this has to be based on an equally specific scenario (what are my objectives, what are the enemies forces, what kind of environment, political against military priorities etc..).

yes indeed, I believe they now call it combined-arms warfare, a very well-tested strategem. it's modern 20th century predecessor is called "Blitzkrieg!", IIRC. If turin's statement is not clear or understood, try to imagine a strong point bristling with infantry arnd a triple battery of long range artillery, with armour stationed at the wings. Then further imagine you were given orders to "take that obstacle at all costs, in the shortest time period", preferably yesterday .... of course, they never ever mentioned outright "preferably yesterday", but it's implied most of the times...

Also your preference of guerilla warfare in answer to such a general question is just making no sense. Guerilla warfare has advantages only under special conditions. For example, guerilla warfare is certainly no choice, should you plan to invade another country. However if you are defending your own soil, i.e. are familiar with the territory and the people living there, can draw upon the ressources of these two and have geographical advantages (jungle, mountains, extensive urban environments), that ease the movement of guerillas, i.e. mostly infantry/foot soldiers, then guerilla warfare serves a purpose and can be conducted in an effective way.

not only that, guerilla war is good if you are cut off within enemy lines, don't intend to surrender and obviously want to be a major pain in the bum to the OPFOR without being caught. done successfully, a large amount of their forces can be spent on hunting you down without it being use elsewhere.

There are enough examples as to demonstrate where guerilla warfare has failed. This was mostly the case where invading (i.e. aggressive) forces used this without some of the requirements mentioned, and faced an opponent who employed SOF tactics combined with more regular military forces. Take for example the engagements of Executive Outcomes against guerilla forces of UNITA in Angola and RUF in Sierra Leone.

erm...not sporting to compare Executive Outcomes with some ragtag guerillas, turin. Those chaps are ex-LRRP commandoes. It's like facing a werewolf with a melting popsicle.

 

[turin]

erm...not sporting to compare Executive Outcomes with some ragtag guerillas, turin. Those chaps are ex-LRRP commandoes. It's like facing a werewolf with a melting popsicle

Ah yes, my way of writing (in english at least) is misleading at times. Of course with the guerillas I was referring to RUF and UNITA, the example of an opposing organized "army" (of sorts) being EO in this case. Of course in Angola it helped that EO had some deep insight in the organization and tactics of UNITA due to former cooperation during the time of 32nd Btl.

you, sir, are a spoilsport

And I like to!

 

[ThunderBolt]

One great example of guerrilla warfare maybe the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War guerrilla warfare suited the best because of extremely thick jungles where the enemy had dug out tunnels as their escape routes and then they could come out anywhere anytime that they had wanted, ambushed the allied patrol and went back in the tunnels to pop out again somewhere else. But guerrilla warfare could never work out like in Iraq, it is just plain desert, with maybe good urban warfare there is no other place for the guerrilla’s to fight. So then with only urban areas to worry about the allied forces could now focus on one spot instead of being ambushed by the enemy anywhere (like in Vietnam). I am not trying to say that you are wrong because it’s your own opinion and I respect that, actually that used to be my favorite as well but now days I really think joint forces work the best in almost all situations. Because it has already proven in self during very recent wars. A soldier is covered by another soldier, these soldiers are covered by other soldiers, and all of these soldiers are covered by some sort of armored column. The armored column which provides effective support to the soldiers, is covered by antitank helicopters which protect them against other tanks and ground hazards. Then come in the air force jets which protect the helicopters against other air hazards. And I would say finally an airborne radar system which could warn the jets in the air in advance about possible sources of hazards. So technically it’s best to be covered by someone, just to be confident and feel safe. And of coarse the stuff in the middle like close air support to anti aircraft weapons to safe transportation. (just my 2 cents!)

 

[ThunderBolt]

Oh yes i forgot to add this:
I think that another great part of anywar has to have some sort of operations including the special forces, like Delta Force (US), JTF 2 (CAN), PARA COMMANDOS (INDIA), SPETSNAZ (RUSSIA), SSG (PAKISTAN), and many other great forces like SAS. These guys help alot in sabotage and blowing up stuff, like radio post, command post and so these forces can turn the tide of war on one factions side by doing some serious damage.

 

[turin]

But guerrilla warfare could never work out like in Iraq, it is just plain desert, with maybe good urban warfare there is no other place for the guerrilla’s to fight. So then with only urban areas to worry about the allied forces could now focus on one spot instead of being ambushed by the enemy anywhere (like in Vietnam).

Are you kidding? There is an active guerilla campaign going on for two years now. The allied forces suffered much more casualties during the occupation than during the campaign itself. Add to that the numbers of wounded soldiers and destroyed vehicles and you get a clear picture.
Iraq is not just plain desert and a high number of attacks is directed against convoys outside of urban territories. Also an urban territory IS NOT just one spot. On the contrary. Why do you think small combat units worry so much about IED's and being ambushed?! These are extensive territories where an attack could occur nearly everywhere and everytime. In Vietnam the US tried to defoliate the jungle and used napalm to overcome such difficulties, yet in Iraq you cannot go that far, otherwise you would have to carpet bomb whole cities. Obviously that is no option.
So Iraq is even more problematic from a geographical point of view.
What Iraq lacks, is an organized guerilla movement, instead there seems to be a high number of more or less independet cells. However that only adds to the difficulties instead of making things easier.

 

[ThunderBolt]

Are you kidding? There is an active guerilla campaign going on for two years now. The allied forces suffered much more casualties during the occupation than during the campaign itself. Add to that the numbers of wounded soldiers and destroyed vehicles and you get a clear picture.
Iraq is not just plain desert and a high number of attacks is directed against convoys outside of urban territories. Also an urban territory IS NOT just one spot. On the contrary. Why do you think small combat units worry so much about IED's and being ambushed?! These are extensive territories where an attack could occur nearly everywhere and everytime. In Vietnam the US tried to defoliate the jungle and used napalm to overcome such difficulties, yet in Iraq you cannot go that far, otherwise you would have to carpet bomb whole cities. Obviously that is no option.
So Iraq is even more problematic from a geographical point of view.
What Iraq lacks, is an organized guerilla movement, instead there seems to be a high number of more or less independet cells. However that only adds to the difficulties instead of making things easier.

No i am not kidding. Okay well maybe some roadside bombs to a couple of suicide bombers how can you say that this is an act of guerilla warfare? Where do you think they can hide, cause there is NO JUNGLES!!! in Iraq to burn out with napalm, and ofcoarse they can't carpet bomb becasue of high civilian casulties. I say that the fire teams had to worry about being ambused in Vietnam was because you couldn't see your buddy past 5 meters and the AK's the enemy used could easily rip through thick bushes, and the M-16 on the other hand had to be cleaned atleast daily, so how can you say that they didn't had to worry about being ambushed?????? .

On the other hand yes the war in Iraq is only "sort of guirilla warfare" because in 2 years allied forces had way more casulties than they have now. Most of the terrorists blow up stuff and cause more civillian casulties than they cause the army, doesn't this give you an idea that these explosions occur in "URBAN" areas where people live not by the road side!!!...

 

[KGB]

There were no jungles in Afghanhistan, where the USSR was dealt a major blow by guerillas. No jungles in arabia where TE Lawrence performed his exploits against the Turks. No jungles in Spain where Napoleon was dealth a major headache by guerillas.

Guerillas don't need jungles, they ultimately need people to hide behind. The civilian population is as much their cover as the jungles and mountains. That's why guerilla wars are dirty affairs.

BTW, roadside bombs and potshots do constitute a guerilla war. Those insurgents are tying down 160,000 US troops and contesting for control of the population. They hit soft targets because they can. Now it would seem that the distinction between a guerilla and a terrorist is being blurred, but guerilla wars nearly eliminate the line between civillian and combatant. This is speculation on my part, but I feel that the reason why guerilla wars figure more prominently now is because of human rights concerns. The ancients quite pragmatically massacred/enslaved the civillian population of the losers, thus eliminating the necessary base for guerillas.

Despite the reports of abuses, the restraint used by the US forces seems remarkable. This is how the Romans would have handled Fallujah. Surround it,build a wall around it, starve it, crucify all the fleeing civilians in a ring around the city. Eventually enter the city and level it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier operating in an environment where anyone you meet could be an enemy, where the guy who smiles at you by day could be plotting against you at night. Where people who want to kill you are hiding among civilians. Wouldn't you come to the conclusion that there really are no innocent civillians?

 

[driftder]

No i am not kidding. Okay well maybe some roadside bombs to a couple of suicide bombers how can you say that this is an act of guerilla warfare?

all I can say is: you definitely are NOT a soldier and you definitely must be kidding cos from what you posted so far, you sure as hell don't even have an idea of what you are talking about. first, I believe you have not define what is guerilla warfare. another is you are going to enrage a lot of soldiers here, serving or otherwise with your callous statement that some roadside bombs and suicide bombers doesn't qualify as guerilla war. Esp the Brits and your country's VA. I say you definitely must be kidding as you won't know guerilla war if it come's knocking on yr door.

Where do you think they can hide, cause there is NO JUNGLES!!!

which book or manual or institution told you that guerilla war needs jungles? By your definition, then a lot of guerilla wars did not happen as it did not take place in the jungles? The Irish conflict, Palestinian intifada, the deadly game of hide & seek in Khost, Aden, the SA Bush War etc - all are not guerilla wars.

in Iraq to burn out with napalm, and ofcoarse they can't carpet bomb becasue of high civilian casulties. I say that the fire teams had to worry about being ambused in Vietnam was because you couldn't see your buddy past 5 meters and the AK's the enemy used could easily rip through thick bushes, and the M-16 on the other hand had to be cleaned atleast daily, so how can you say that they didn't had to worry about being ambushed?????? .

and this qualify as a criteria for defining guerialla war - that you must be ambushed in the jungles? FYI, that would be class as jungle warfare and no, you don't get ambushed daily in the jungles. something must be wrong with your organisation if that happens. bad intel, poor leadership, negligence or plain stupidity ie stepping where you should not - on landmines that is.

On the other hand yes the war in Iraq is only "sort of guirilla warfare" because in 2 years allied forces had way more casulties than they have now. Most of the terrorists blow up stuff and cause more civillian casulties than they cause the army, doesn't this give you an idea that these explosions occur in "URBAN" areas where people live not by the road side!!!...

in the soldiering business, there is no such thing as "sort of". if it carries a weapon, is identified as hostile and did not follow orders when clearly told ot do so ie "stop, put your hands up", "don't approach any closer" etc then SHOOT.

FYI the Allies in Iraq have more casualties then when facing the conventional Iraq army is mainly due to the guerillas, insurgents or terrs striking from the midst of the civilians. and that is a common theme in any war or campaign where the enemy is not clearly identified. And you really really should go talk to the soldiers who are coming back from Iraq. Your definitions are really really sadly warped.

 

[driftder]

Are you kidding? There is an active guerilla campaign going on for two years now. The allied forces suffered much more casualties during the occupation than during the campaign itself. Add to that the numbers of wounded soldiers and destroyed vehicles and you get a clear picture.
Iraq is not just plain desert and a high number of attacks is directed against convoys outside of urban territories. Also an urban territory IS NOT just one spot. On the contrary. Why do you think small combat units worry so much about IED's and being ambushed?! These are extensive territories where an attack could occur nearly everywhere and everytime. In Vietnam the US tried to defoliate the jungle and used napalm to overcome such difficulties, yet in Iraq you cannot go that far, otherwise you would have to carpet bomb whole cities. Obviously that is no option.
So Iraq is even more problematic from a geographical point of view.
What Iraq lacks, is an organized guerilla movement, instead there seems to be a high number of more or less independet cells. However that only adds to the difficulties instead of making things easier.

agreed with you - he gotta be kidding. but what works for the terrs might go against them. they like to hit the convoys when they about to enter the cities - their MO. now if they can be limited or penned in to the urban or sub-urban areas, the convoys for the most part will be safe as they can be monitored by UAV or some sort of "Eye in the Sky". if they try to hit a convoy outside of the cities, the Allies will have them. once those ambush points are pinpointed, its back to inserting a patrol near there and hitting back the terrs when another convoy passes.

as long as they are not organised or united and don't co-ordinate their attacks, the Allies should be able to handle them. but when the terrs do get organised, it mean a escalation up the next level.

 

[turin]

Despite the reports of abuses, the restraint used by the US forces seems remarkable. This is how the Romans would have handled Fallujah. Surround it,build a wall around it, starve it, crucify all the fleeing civilians in a ring around the city. Eventually enter the city and level it.

Interesting example.

Another one would be the german occupation of eastern europe in WWII. Here however the results were mixed. Although in some examples whole villages were destroyed, german forces were not successful in bringing down guerilla activity, on the contrary.
It depends much on which further measures the occupying force employs. The romans were very cruel in punishing occupied territories, where uprisings occurred. However they also offered some benefits in terms of administration, integration in roman culture and economy etc. These things certainly helped keeping down widespreading violence.
The german occupation on the other hand did not offer such benefits, the people were made to suffer much more and when you do not see any future for yourself, you still may choose joining guerilla forces regardless of the serious punishment you might face.
In Iraq the Coalition arguably tries to restore law and order and normal life to the country. However the cultural element of the conflict is considerable and therefore neither brute force nor any offer of improving living standards or political participation etc. may influence the outcome. Therefore the roman approach might be useless here as well.

now if they can be limited or penned in to the urban or sub-urban areas, the convoys for the most part will be safe as they can be monitored by UAV or some sort of "Eye in the Sky". if they try to hit a convoy outside of the cities, the Allies will have them. once those ambush points are pinpointed, its back to inserting a patrol near there and hitting back the terrs when another convoy passes.

That might improve the situation of convoys, but I am not sure wether the sheer number/length of such supply routes and possible location of ambushes might limit any effort of reacting to single attacks. I remember having seen a map of Iraq with markings showing insurgency attacks on convoys, patrols et. and the number of these markers was huge. Dont know where to search for this map though. It was somewhere on the net and the source was quite reliable.

 

[KGB]

Interesting example.

It depends much on which further measures the occupying force employs. The romans were very cruel in punishing occupied territories, where uprisings occurred. However they also offered some benefits in terms of administration, integration in roman culture and economy etc. These things certainly helped keeping down widespreading violence.
The german occupation on the other hand did not offer such benefits, the people were made to suffer much more and when you do not see any future for yourself, you still may choose joining guerilla forces regardless of the serious punishment you might face.

Well I have to say you're right. The proverbial stick must be matched by a carrot. A sociologist, Erick Hoffer in his book "The True Believer" wrote that one of the most powerfull social drives was a man's desire to improve his lot. He said that the US where the prospects of self advancement was virtually "limitless" enjoys a very stable society. Where this is not possible the drive is expressed in migration, then in wars and revolution.

Perhaps this explains why Israel continues to suffer from terrorist attacks despite their very capable, and arguably ruthless security forces- the palestinians do seem to have a hopeless position. In contrast the US conducted a very successful anti insurgency campaign in the Philippines in the early 20th century. Their "stick" was an utterly ruthless military campaign so brutal that the letters the soldiers sent home were censored to keep the atrocities under a lid. The "carrot" consisted of buying off the ruling elite with various incentives and business deals. Finally, this was matched by a MASSIVE investment in public education and public infrastructure. The result, by 1942 the population was so pro-US that the Japanese invasion was fiercly resisted, and the subsequent guerilla movement against it was widely supported.

By the way, this is my favorite land based strategy: Build a high tech army, publicize it, bluff about creating super high tech abilities like a Strategic Missile Defence, then watch your opponent go bankrupt trying to match you. Sun Tzu would approve!

 

[driftder]

By the way, this is my favorite land based strategy: Build a high tech army, publicize it, bluff about creating super high tech abilities like a Strategic Missile Defence, then watch your opponent go bankrupt trying to match you. Sun Tzu would approve!

Yes, but R. Reagan stole a march on you, so you will have to play catch up. Now if some one can shed some insight as to the inner workings and decisions during that period.....

What further endorsement that the fall and evolution of the former SU into a semi/pseudo democratic nation? Of course the resulting instability in the various regions - Aberzaijan, Chechnya, Georgia etc throws a ink blot. All other data considered, it can't be used all the time as the oppo nation might just not take part in the race and bankrupt itself. Imagine it being applied to the Taleban or Saddam. It will have to be by regional proxy.

 

[driftder]

Interesting example.
..........That might improve the situation of convoys, but I am not sure wether the sheer number/length of such supply routes and possible location of ambushes might limit any effort of reacting to single attacks. I remember having seen a map of Iraq with markings showing insurgency attacks on convoys, patrols et. and the number of these markers was huge. Dont know where to search for this map though. It was somewhere on the net and the source was quite reliable.

I saw that on CNN during a debriefing done by a Marine(?) officer. The map was highlighted with red areas and arrows showing where US casualties took place and where fighting is. Well I was thinking as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) in Iraq and that would be what I do - spot the pattern and turn the tables on the terrs. That is keep doing the supply run on the same stretch, monitor it for patterns and mark the spots where the attacks happen, then hotspot it ie put a patrol or hit team there to counter-ambush the terrs. In other words, contest the terrs, bleed them by enticing them to attack defended convoys with the risk of being ambushed from compromised sites. Better yet, do a trail and follow to the terrs hideouts and bases once the attack is sprung and foiled. Then break their logistics & sympathisers network, safe houses from there. The darn thing is taking the terrs alive for interrogation - which is not easy.

Study the south Iraq side - the Brits are teaching the terrs to mind their manners and doing quite well with the civil and admin side.

And my apologies to all for hijacking this thread and sidetracking into counter-guerilla warfare, which is a topic close to my heart :

 

[marxist_command]

well,there is no dominant power in land yknow. Sometimes wecan't rely only to heavy Arsenal. :roll2

Y' see when Indonesia fightback against holland we only used japanese standard weapon. And some of us has Machine guns. With no fighter planes.

Inland area, I suggest to use guerilla warfare against bigger army :jump :lol2