Land Based Strategies

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE BEST LAND BASED STRGY

  • ARMOR/ARTILLERY

    Votes: 12 30.0%
  • Infantry

    Votes: 12 30.0%
  • guerilla

    Votes: 15 37.5%
  • other: please post your pick

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • Total voters
    40

Big-E

Banned Member
marxist_command said:
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
Thanks for bringing up this 6 month old train-wreck of a thread.:bum

I vote for FCS, total integration of all aspects of warfare with rapid mobility. That's how you win a land war.
 

merocaine

New Member
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.
I have, proportantally the British have suffered the same level of causltiys as the americans in the center. Also the British have done a deal with the devil by letting the shia islamic party's run the show in Basra. The south is becoming more unstable as the months go by. The British have managed to keep a lid on things by turning a blind eye to the power of the militas, this policy is only sustainable if they know there not going to be there next year.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I agree with Big E in the right circumstances. The 21st century form of combined arms warfare. However this only works if you have seperate arms to combine (eg a large modernized army), and are facing an industrialized modern opponant with some sort of a standing army. On compleatly uneven terms i.e. Viet kong/NVA or the somalies in 96, Asemetric warfare or (gurilla warfare) is the only option and can be sucessful. Its really only common sence to attack the stronger enemy where he's weak and dissapear before he can concentrate. This question was kind of flaued. Certain sets of military tactics are only sucsessfull in certain tactical situations. But thats my 2 cents anyway.:roll
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
we never never really learn do we? Once a war is won, (on foreign soil),you have to leave or lose. Occupieing forces will always be attacked by "terrorists,insurgents,resistence,partisans...whatever. There are ways of countering these attacks, but history tells us that they will never stop untill the occupying force leaves, then often these attacks will be directed at the new govt appointed by the occupying force.
 

Lujan AusMUR

New Member
Well.... so much of stuff ro respond to... my 3k cents coming up,

Counter-Geurilla warfare is an adminstritive one... simply out suply, stabalise your logistics and support all available ambushed patrols along the way.

The common way that attacks are used are as such. Your one HIS land, amoungst HIS Homes that HE built and wich HE lived in for most of his life... he even knows wich bricks in which wall are movable fire holes.

The occupying army is trying to STABILIZE- Hence to always send terror and chaos- the new government in the most harsh area were the iraqies occupy, the iraqies dnt want them there, BUT are very content to choose the lesser of evils, being the massacre of all iraqies if the kurds and all the others are allowed to take revenge on the poor buggers for not uprising against thier mad country-man siddam.

So the army is moving basic administrational equipment through the streets of already upset populous that SOME commonly throw rocks and spit in their direction, after all its a moving convoy. So the children, having their toys broken by troops or just being obedient, tell their insurgents fathers-friends-brothers-cousin info of a convoy going dwn the wrong way from the rooftop while enjoying the rays.

Now he attacks a convoy at the most weakest time, during a corner or non-defensive position or non-monauver-able area with A single suicider, carbomber, ied or rpg... With around 4-9 other task forces!

option A) If it strikes up a fuss or more chaos and weakspots and the effort would serve a worth the would then strike again and again and again... ... and all in the matter of 5 secs, then they would have mad a hell of alot of damage. To occupants administration and ecconomy (shouting a highly trained horse is most costly than the rider), their army and moral, the moral and politics back home and again cause it was so organised and able to dissapear in the mist. And of course they are amoung the civies!!!!!

Option B) If the occupying army is well administed, supplied, drilled, and supported asap in comms. they would dissapear in the day without any worry of exposing further insurgants for a negitive cause... Giving them a victory! NO MATTER HOW BIG, A VICTORY IS A VICTORY! and a political one and one to tell ya mates, diggers and troops are the most damaging.

And that is how it is being fought! any discension is a bad one. And we must be political! So we also allow them the frredom to earn their freedom. Big point!!!!

We learnt from Vietnam. "We cannot give something of value cause as soon as you give it it has no value and they will not think it has ever again. There is no free democracy, we use political force, And force is violence, the most highest of wich all other authorities are dirived!"

What would hiroshamas founding fathers say??? NOTHING! because they were destroyed with the city... Our democracy was hard earned through the civil war, independence, eureka, against hitler, the jap, stalin, osama. We must fight for every step of land. Nothing is just free...

the coilition knows the iriaqies must form their own police and army, and bleed a hell of alot more to earn and build their version of government because we cant impose our governments, cannot occupy or split all their people throuhout the roman empire or just annilate them as the crusades. We cannot afford that for any of our nations, shouldnt have to afford a war that is not ours and making the weakest part of the world finally stronger and civilised. in their own right way and with their own government.

Now i feel damn right sorry for the bloody poms and good on them all the way! Cheero lads and 'ET 'EM HAVE A G'EO AT YA!

Now with the occupation the seccond time, the insurgents just let them in and then started the real confict on a day to day hitting every soldier home that may have to shoot a girl with grenades tied to her hands (vietnam as well ran into the co camp) or a pregnent suicide woman (palistiene) We dnt know when they come as much as 20 ied a point a day- So if you think its not a war!!!!!! BUGGER YA! (not an insult just day-to-day aussie language)

We troops are trying to stabalize a civil government not for them... Its so that THEY can fish out the buggers in their own ranks (dealing with em civilly) So the'll be no more planes over our heads! I served cause i would not allow another to take my place and die ea day and risk the pain of HIS family losing a father/husband JUST SO IIIIIII can choose to be islamic, chistian or aethiest. Remember for them, AND some of us its also a religious rights war for freedom.

Be assured WE ARE WINNING! The leaders are dying more and more ea day and we are not allowing them their victories no matter how small. And we dnt want to be there as much as they do, but we cannot go just yet. And its the same as for the solomons and timor.

And remember good on the Iraq defence, they are goin at it better than we are! their earning the bread and buttuer and lunch! Cause its their urban homes and its also their families that are getting it in these ieds.

So theres my 2cents (or like i said 3k)
 
Last edited:

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Lujan AusMUR said:
And that is how it is being fought! any discension is a bad one. And we must be political! So we also allow them the frredom to earn their freedom. Big point!!!!

We learnt from Vietnam. "We cannot give something of value cause as soon as you give it it has no value and they will not think it has ever again. There is no free democracy, we use political force, And force is violence, the most highest of wich all other authorities are dirived!"

What would hiroshamas founding fathers say??? NOTHING! because they were destroyed with the city... Our democracy was hard earned through the civil war, independence, eureka, against hitler, the jap, stalin, osama. We must fight for every step of land. Nothing is just free...

the coilition knows the iriaqies must form their own police and army, and bleed a hell of alot more to earn and build their version of government because we cant impose our governments, cannot occupy or split all their people throuhout the roman empire or just annilate them as the crusades. We cannot afford that for any of our nations, shouldnt have to afford a war that is not ours and making the weakest part of the world finally stronger and civilised. in their own right way and with their own government.

Now i feel damn right sorry for the bloody poms and good on them all the way! Cheero lads and 'ET 'EM HAVE A G'EO AT YA!

Now with the occupation the seccond time, the insurgents just let them in and then started the real confict on a day to day hitting every soldier home that may have to shoot a girl with grenades tied to her hands (vietnam as well ran into the co camp) or a pregnent suicide woman (palistiene) We dnt know when they come as much as 20 ied a point a day- So if you think its not a war!!!!!! BUGGER YA! (not an insult just day-to-day aussie language)

We troops are trying to stabalize a civil government not for them... Its so that THEY can fish out the buggers in their own ranks (dealing with em civilly) So the'll be no more planes over our heads! I served cause i would not allow another to take my place and die ea day and risk the pain of HIS family losing a father/husband JUST SO IIIIIII can choose to be islamic, chistian or aethiest. Remember for them, AND some of us its also a religious rights war for freedom.

Be assured WE ARE WINNING! The leaders are dying more and more ea day and we are not allowing them their victories no matter how small. And we dnt want to be there as much as they do, but we cannot go just yet. And its the same as for the solomons and timor.

And remember good on the Iraq defence, they are goin at it better than we are! their earning the bread and buttuer and lunch! Cause its their urban homes and its also their families that are getting it in these ieds.

So theres my 2cents (or like i said 3k)
mate i'll have to dissagree with you here. On the tactical level, we may be winning in some ways in Iraq. Even though their leaders are dieing or being captured, violance has increased heaps and now we've allmost got a civil war on our hands. Personally i see things geting worse not better. Sure there are some good signs but it looks like turning into a god damned blood bath. The main problem with the U.S's stratagy in Iraq, much like it's problem in Vietnam is that however brilliant they may be tactically, they seem to miss the point strategically. The larger the Iraqi body count, the more greiving sons and brothers that are going to pick up an Ak 47. So the U.S.'s lethality is one big recruting drive for the bad guys. it seems to me that counter insurgency warfare needs a serious rethink when you have a largely hostile local population. Simply killing as many of the bad guys as you can and giving them something called democracy that average joe isn't going to be able to apreciate for 5 to 10 years, if we win, isn't a soloution.

And thats just in Iraq. look at what its done to the WOT (i know Iraq wasn't part of the WOT originally but you'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that the two arn't connected now). IMHO the way to be sucsessfull in the WOT is to make the muslim centre simpathetic to the west, and take support away from religious extreemists and terrorists. An agressive stratagy in Iraq has done the exact oppisite. As in Vietnam the U.S. military is kicking ass on the tactical level, but the brass and polititions have made some serious strategic mistakes. Any tacticall sucsess is useless without strategic victory.

P.S. i counld't agree with you more about Timor and the Solomons. We're the big dick in this neck of the woods and its our responsibility.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
THE most effective land warfare

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


Ok Ok, but the question is so general!
Guerilla warfare is far from the most effective. Consider that it involves terrorising civilian population, which tends to effectively undermine normal function of the economy such that it is during war.
By the way, not all guerilla warfare campaigns had been successfull.

What is a style when applied to warfare? If you say writing style, then I can answer the question, but warfare style?
Ending the conflict FAST is a good style. Keeping it bloodless is also a popular style. Come to think of it, keeping a land campaign limited to land operations is also a good idea! It seems to me a great many land campaigns have depended in no small measure of the sea and air fleets.

Cheers
greg
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Silly vote

Its funny that so many people voted for artillery and armour given that goal of ANY military strategy on land is to occupy the objective (if only temporarily), and only the infantry can do that. Not the sexiest or sophisticated Arm, but the oldest, and decisive.

Cheers

Greg:ar15
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Well, I'm old fashioned. If they walk they are infantry. If they ride to dismount, they are dragoons. If they have haemorrhoids, then its cavalry :eek:nfloorl:
Cheers
Greg
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Depends on the terrain and opposition:

Terrain: rolling flat tundra, primary jungle, arctic-circle or desert – horses for courses pick and mix all arms to suit, plus

Enemy: Warsaw Pact full-on, asymmetrical, urban based mixed with civvies, or dug-in out in open?

I wouldn’t want to throw a heavy armour and artillery battlegroup into a dense jungle environment, likewise I wouldn’t throw a light infantry brigade against a Soviet mechanized brigade in the Fulda Gap.

There's no single winner, depends on the scenario.
 

f-22fan12

New Member
In my opinion the best land based strategy is a combo of artillery/infantry/armor. That can change if you are talking about urban combat. In that case, Infantry and high presicion artillery would be the best.
 

Cooch

Active Member
One great example of guerrilla warfare maybe the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War guerrilla warfare suited the best because of extremely thick jungles.....
At risk of giving overly much attention to a single post......

It is simplistic to refer even to the Vietnam conflict as a purely Guerilla war. Without commenting on the experience of other nations involved, that of Australians deployed over there includes a number of actions in which they came into heavy contact with company and battalion level formations of North Vietnamese Army and Main-Force Viet-Cong. These units were uniformed, organised and disciplined full-time soldiers who built fortified defensive positions and conducted determined assaults against our own positions.

Hardly guerilla tactics.

They were countered by classic jungle-warfare tactics. Offensive patrolling by platoon and company-level units that had the ability to either "shoot and scoot", or to call down rapid firepower from supporting air and artillery should the enemy(as often happened) outnumbered our own patrols.

Vietnam certainly had elements of guerilla warfare, but to argue that that was all there was is to unerestimate the capacity of the North Vietnamese forces, and to misunderstand the nature of the conflict.

.................

To return to the topic, I agree that without defining a huge number of variables, it is not possible to define a singe "best" strategy.

Regards......... Peter
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The best strategy is the one that defeats the enemy at minimal cost. :) If it means swamping the enemy with hordes of tanks and ground-shaking artillery barrages, then that's it. If it means using advanced networking to negate hostile number advantage through manouever then that's it. If it means using guerilla tactics, and tactical number advantage while having a strategic numerical disadvantage, then that's it. Every war has it's own winning move.
 
Top