a realization, or is it?

[CuongNhuka]

OK, I have to explain the back story behind this a little bit. The other day I was watching a tape of Band Of Brothers and started thinking about how the Military is led now a days. It seems like the basic tactics and stragities being used in Iraq (for battles) are essentailly the same as in WWII. Then I started thinking about it some more. In many ways, we're using the same basic tactics and stratigies from Wars we fought from as far back as the U.S. Civil War. Now, this doesn't mean that I beleive we are going to copy "Pickets Charge" from the "Battle at Round Top". But, the basic way the armies are led and manuevered is similar. During WWI we had a wake up call to not do Post-Feudal Era tactics. But, we are still using the same tactics as a few hundred years ago.
This got me thinking. I realised that with all things their are two revolutions. The first is technilogical. Look at guns. One day, we were fighting with swords and sheilds, the next with muskets. Later on, their is a tactical revolution. We realised that mass rank-and-file tactics are some what ineffective when the enemy has muskets/rifles. Now currently, we have experinced a massive technilogical revolution, as well as one in skill. However, we have yet to realise the tactical. Irony is, we were forced into it during Vietnam, but we have some what de-volved.
We are fighting an army using what could be considered the next generation of tactics, agianst an army using what could be considered outdated tactics. We are still relying on larger number of troops, where as our enemy is focusing on small teams, using hit and run tactics.
Now this is where the question really comes in. If the U.S. Military started to Phase Out (say) a quarter of the troops, their would be much less momey needed. The focus of the Military could be placed on improving each soldier. And later, the Military could increase entry requirements (like PT scores, and ASVAB standards) and give each Soldier a small number of extra skills. Like, make each infantry man also a medic, make it so their are more translaters, radio men, and so on.
So the question, would a smaller number of better trained, stronger, smarter, possibly better equiped troops be just as good as the Military as it is? Or, could it better? After all, the commanders would have more time to focus on each soldier, and make each one a better.
Feel free to tare me to peices.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I disagree. Let me clarify.

Military action up to the US Civil War was fought primarily by massed firepower at short range. As the weapons range and accuracy improved around that time, tactics began to slowly change, though it wasn't until WWI showed the full scope with it's pointless over the top slaughterfests.

Tactics in WWII involved smaller units, and combined forces, a concept imagined by Longstreet and Jackson, but perfected by the Wehrmacht during WWII.

Korea and Vietnam saw a transition to smaller unit tactics.

Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is using squad level tactics in the majority of their encounters.

Think of how the modern equipped professional soldier is.
- Body Armour
- GPS
- Various sensors and detectors, plus night vision.

The enemy in both regions is primarily the equivalent of a WWII infantry man. Unprotected, and often minimally trained. Yes, they do have some gear, and there are some who have real training, but the disparity in the casualty counts tell the tale on current US tactics, training and gear.

Currently, there is some incredible high tech gear in use in Iraq, including unmanned probes and weapons, that our enemies cannot hope to have anytime soon. More equipment is currently being developed so that the US Army can reach it's goal of having each soldier be a true "Army of One" as they say. I saw some of the stuff demonstrated on "Future Weapons", pretty cool stuff indeed.

The key here is, getting it perfected, and properly deployed so that it can be used to it's potential.

I think the days of the mass-charge, and pre-WWII tactics are gone forever.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I disagree. Let me clarify.

Military action up to the US Civil War was fought primarily by massed firepower at short range. As the weapons range and accuracy improved around that time, tactics began to slowly change, though it wasn't until WWI showed the full scope with it's pointless over the top slaughterfests.

Tactics in WWII involved smaller units, and combined forces, a concept imagined by Longstreet and Jackson, but perfected by the Wehrmacht during WWII.

Korea and Vietnam saw a transition to smaller unit tactics.

Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is using squad level tactics in the majority of their encounters.

Think of how the modern equipped professional soldier is.
- Body Armour
- GPS
- Various sensors and detectors, plus night vision.

The enemy in both regions is primarily the equivalent of a WWII infantry man. Unprotected, and often minimally trained. Yes, they do have some gear, and there are some who have real training, but the disparity in the casualty counts tell the tale on current US tactics, training and gear.

Currently, there is some incredible high tech gear in use in Iraq, including unmanned probes and weapons, that our enemies cannot hope to have anytime soon. More equipment is currently being developed so that the US Army can reach it's goal of having each soldier be a true "Army of One" as they say. I saw some of the stuff demonstrated on "Future Weapons", pretty cool stuff indeed.

The key here is, getting it perfected, and properly deployed so that it can be used to it's potential.

I think the days of the mass-charge, and pre-WWII tactics are gone forever.

In general I agree with you Bob.

For an "Army of One" to work the equipment is going to have to get smaller and lighter or the soldier a lot stronger.

The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan is using a very old set of tactics. It was given a name during the Peninsula Campaign in Naploeonic times, Guerilla fighting (from the Spanish Guerra "war"), so there are some surviving pre-WWII tactics.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I'll try to adress the both of you at once.

Bob, in some ways you have proved me right. We have snipers who can hit a target a mile away. We have the ablity to do things like blow up building A, with out even touching building B, a few feet away. With a missile. This is just what we have NOW. Imagine what we can have in a few years? Wars are no longer being waged in feilds and forests. Now, they are fought in citys. Moving in much more then a squad level, is dangerous.
Men like Jackson and Longstreet came up with manuever warfare when they realised they could make surgical strikes. This is more true now then ever. And yet, we are still using squad - platoon level tactics. Soon Firing Teams will be the base of Military Action. The Firing Team, Snipers, advanced Missiles, and small Elite Surgical Squads will be the basis of military action. That's what I'm talking about. That is the tactics of the future (and possibly the current).

I'm not saying we are still using the same tactics. More like the base, and weight. The base being squad - platoon level tactics. The weight being the numbers. When the focus becomes small, more elite teams it becomes harder to have a lage force. Even impractical.

The key here is, getting it perfected, and properly deployed so that it can be used to it's potential.

This is line I what to point out. Getting it perfected. Again, if commanders have smaller units, then their focus is easier put on each individual. Many people when looking for a martial arts school will look for one that is on the smaller side, since they get more indiviual attention. Being properly deployed becomes easier if you have a smaller amount of soldiers. Being used to their potential becomes harder when the focus is placed on smaller units, and you have a large unit. Everyone starts stepping on everyone elses toes, so to speak.

Steel Tiger also makes good points. As equipment gets smaller, it's probably going to get more expensive. So, maintaining a large force of "million dollar men" will get really expensive really fast. It would also allow for each soldier to become an "army of one". Do we need 7-12 whole armies to do one little action? Not really.

However, no one really answered my question. Would a smaller, better equiped, stronger, smarter force be just as effective as the Military as it is now?

 

[Blindside]

However, no one really answered my question. Would a smaller, better equiped, stronger, smarter force be just as effective as the Military as it is now?

It depends.

It may be possible to win a military victory against a standing army with smaller army assuming more technically advanced and better trained soldiers, but good luck occupying territory. Nor do I see where such a military is necessarily better at defeating the guerrilla warfare situations that we will see in fourth generation warfare.

Also, with good data sharing/intelligence being the prime driver of modern warfare, you will continue to see increases in non-frontline roles, and these positions are unlikely to be rectified by increasing technology, you will always need people to analyze that data. So whatever theoretical money savings you see on the frontline you may just make up for it behind the scenes.

Do we need 7-12 whole armies to do one little action? Not really.

Assuming "one little action" is all you are involved in. The US military has been variously set up for a two-front war, a one and a half war, etc. I'm not sure what the current target strength is, or if they even are defining it the same way, but aiming your targeting your military strength to deal with an "Iraq" situation is fine until you run into a future "China."

Lamont

 

[Steel Tiger]

I think there are two aspects that need to be addressed with regard to the size of the military.

The first is the concept of the peacetime army. This is an interesting phenomena in which defence of the nation actually becomes secondary to employment and career-building. Without the imminent threat of conflict a person can go into the military, serve the country, and develop a lifelong career at the same time. A lot of older recruitment advertising emphasised this aspect.

Yes, there were career soldier before the advent of the peacetime army concept, but generally they were constantly in combat or on guard against imminent threat without that much scope for advancement.

The second aspect of military size is that of simple geography. In order to defend a broad front has in the past required a huge number of soldiers. Even now, with rapid deployment techniques, it still requires a large number of men. I can envision a future where small forces can defend large territories through the use of extremely fast deployment techniques allowing them to quickly manoeuvre throughout the designated territory.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Nor do I see where such a military is necessarily better at defeating the guerrilla warfare situations that we will see in fourth generation warfare.

Assuming "one little action" is all you are involved in. The US military has been variously set up for a two-front war, a one and a half war, etc. I'm not sure what the current target strength is, or if they even are defining it the same way, but aiming your targeting your military strength to deal with an "Iraq" situation is fine until you run into a future "China."

Lamont

I wasn't nessicarly talking about dealing with fourth generation warfare by downsizing the army, so much as using it. It is easier to use geurrilla tactics with a smaller force.

I was refuring to the "army of one" slogan that Steel Tiger brought up. If each soldier is an "army of one" then why operate in a squad of 7 - 12? is each indiviual not enough?

Just to clarify, by "one little action" I was refurring to the actions taken on the most basic level. Like clearing one building, destroying one piece of artillery, so forth (ok, those are firing team level actions, but you get my point). I don't think you made any comment about that, I just wanted to make sure I had put that out there.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I can envision a future where small forces can defend large territories through the use of extremely fast deployment techniques allowing them to quickly manoeuvre throughout the designated territory.

My point is, aren't we getting there? And since we are, shouldn't we be adapting ourselves to that? Since we are entering the world of 4th generation tactics (which are easier if done with smaller number of troops, generally), then shouldn't we also be adapting ourselves to that?
In many ways the military has been having to deal with 4th generation tactics since WWII (Japanese), or even the US Civil War (the South had the origin of land mines). The writing has been on the wall, why are we not adapting?

 

[Steel Tiger]

My point is, aren't we getting there? And since we are, shouldn't we be adapting ourselves to that? Since we are entering the world of 4th generation tactics (which are easier if done with smaller number of troops, generally), then shouldn't we also be adapting ourselves to that?
In many ways the military has been having to deal with 4th generation tactics since WWII (Japanese), or even the US Civil War (the South had the origin of land mines). The writing has been on the wall, why are we not adapting?

I think we are adapting to different conditions. Command, in a tactical sense, often operates on a fire team level (usually four men). Military thinking has always lagged behind technology though which isn't really that surprising, and now that technology advances so fast it will take a while to completely catch up.


The position is illustrated by two quotes from the nineteenth century: (I cannot remember them exactly, bear with me)

We are always ready to fight the war before the last one. (British officer)

The British Army in perfectly designed to fight savages just as ours is perfect for fighting the French. (German officer, possibly Bismarck himself, can't remember).

 

[Blindside]

I wasn't nessicarly talking about dealing with fourth generation warfare by downsizing the army, so much as using it. It is easier to use geurrilla tactics with a smaller force.

Could you give an example of how you are envisioning this? Guerrilla warfare is usually done because you cannot meet your opponent in a heads up battle. The current US military can match exceed meet any other military in the modern world.

I'd like to see an example of how you would envision your proposal on an attack on 1991 Iraq, what we did versus what you are proposing, with presumably the 1991 campaign being "old school."

Lamont

 

[CuongNhuka]

I think we are adapting to different conditions. Command, in a tactical sense, often operates on a fire team level (usually four men). Military thinking has always lagged behind technology though which isn't really that surprising, and now that technology advances so fast it will take a while to completely catch up.

So, you're agreeing with me?

 

[CuongNhuka]

Could you give an example of how you are envisioning this? Guerrilla warfare is usually done because you cannot meet your opponent in a heads up battle. The current US military can match exceed meet any other military in the modern world.

I'd like to see an example of how you would envision your proposal on an attack on 1991 Iraq, what we did versus what you are proposing, with presumably the 1991 campaign being "old school."

Lamont

You're right, we can take out basicly anyone in a stand up fight. Agianst guerillas, well... do I need to say it? And besides (now that I have done some research) many modern generals are saying we need to adopt 4th generation tactics, which are characterized by guerilla style warfare.

Now then. I am not too familiar with the 1991 campaign (I was 1 at the time, and there aren't too many books in print to refrence). However, I could use the 2nd Gulf War if that would be accpetable? Or I could use a scenario example, on a purely hypothetical basis. I think I'll check with you before I bother.

 

[Blindside]

You're right, we can take out basicly anyone in a stand up fight. Agianst guerillas, well... do I need to say it? And besides (now that I have done some research) many modern generals are saying we need to adopt 4th generation tactics, which are characterized by guerilla style warfare.

Now then. I am not too familiar with the 1991 campaign (I was 1 at the time, and there aren't too many books in print to refrence). However, I could use the 2nd Gulf War if that would be accpetable? Or I could use a scenario example, on a purely hypothetical basis. I think I'll check with you before I bother.

You can use a hypothetical, but in the case of the 1991 campaign the opponent has a relatively advanced modern military, still heavy on the mechanization and infantry forces. Its pretty different than what happened in 03. A hypothetical will be fine.

 

[CuongNhuka]

You can use a hypothetical, but in the case of the 1991 campaign the opponent has a relatively advanced modern military, still heavy on the mechanization and infantry forces. Its pretty different than what happened in 03. A hypothetical will be fine.

Of course. My major of my understanding of guerrila tactics comes from WWII (Germany for Stand up v Stand up, Japan for the same, and latter Stand up v Geurrilla). I have also begun to invest more research into Vietnam. I have also been paying attention to whats going on now.

Since you are letting me do a hypothetical, may I first ask two questions:
1 Do you have a country of prefernce? Meaning, what country do you think we are most likely to go to war with, at this moment.
2 Time and technology. Meaning, now with modern capablities, or a few years into the future with advanced capabilities.

If you have neither, I will pick one myself.

 

[Steel Tiger]

So, you're agreeing with me?

Sure, why not?

But whether or not we get to the point of the one man platoon or company, I don't know. There are many instances where simple numbers have won battles. The Eastern Front in WWII is a very good example.

You can batter your enemy with all the high tech weaponry you like but to win you need grunts on the ground. It is simply impossible to capture and hold tactical and strategic positions with air or sea power. So I think we will always see large military forces in the hands of the greater powers.


Just recently I have been comparing the action in WWII to that in the current Gulf War. In WWII the entire population of the enemy country was designated hostile. The end result massive bombing that annihilated resources and sapped morale. The modern situation is to consider the general population, neutral if not friendly, and seek to excise the enemy with precision attacks. That's a tough ask. It works in the favour of the guerrilla fighter.

I am interested to see your hypothetical enemy and situation.

 

[Blindside]

Of course. My major of my understanding of guerrila tactics comes from WWII (Germany for Stand up v Stand up, Japan for the same, and latter Stand up v Geurrilla). I have also begun to invest more research into Vietnam. I have also been paying attention to whats going on now.

Since you are letting me do a hypothetical, may I first ask two questions:
1 Do you have a country of prefernce? Meaning, what country do you think we are most likely to go to war with, at this moment.
2 Time and technology. Meaning, now with modern capablities, or a few years into the future with advanced capabilities.

If you have neither, I will pick one myself.

Well, how about Iran. Seems like a likely future target, we can wonder why Northup-Grumman is fitting the B2s with the Massive Ordinance Penetrator.... Lets say 4-5 years, how would you envision the military given the time to tranform it into what you want. You'll want to look at the early trials of the Land Warrior system.

Lamont

 

[tahuti]

Regarding guerilla warfare check also SSSR vs Afganistan. USA can beat 90% armies of world in less than 30 days, except China and Russia. On the other hand, it doesn't have good record against guerilla warfare.

Some comments on current and past military strategy failures:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/jul-aug/rudd.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/macgregor05262006.html

Don't forget guerillas aren't only one that have weapons especially in urban areas, black market and organized crime have it also.Think it would be interesting to compare WWII occupation of Germany with Iraq, to note difference how it is done.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Sure, why not?

But whether or not we get to the point of the one man platoon or company, I don't know. There are many instances where simple numbers have won battles. The Eastern Front in WWII is a very good example.

You can batter your enemy with all the high tech weaponry you like but to win you need grunts on the ground. It is simply impossible to capture and hold tactical and strategic positions with air or sea power. So I think we will always see large military forces in the hands of the greater powers.


Just recently I have been comparing the action in WWII to that in the current Gulf War. In WWII the entire population of the enemy country was designated hostile. The end result massive bombing that annihilated resources and sapped morale. The modern situation is to consider the general population, neutral if not friendly, and seek to excise the enemy with precision attacks. That's a tough ask. It works in the favour of the guerrilla fighter.

I am interested to see your hypothetical enemy and situation.

I just had to check. I think the Eastern Front is a special situation. I discount the actions of the Russians during any battle they have ever been involved in. The reason is the battles they fight rarely are won based on numbers, skill, or technology. The Wars they fight are fought by Patritism first and formost. So, that is a discussion for anouther time.
The kid who is largely Russian has spoken.

There is a reason I didn't even think about dismantling the Ground forces. During any war fought in recent history is obvious that with out ground forces you cann't take/control teritory. With out air power, your ground forces are in serious risk of being obliterated. With out sea power you have no way to adaquatily supply and reinforce your ground forces. All in all, no branch is more importent then any other, and the easiest won war (if such a thing isn't an oxymoron) will be fought on all three fronts.

I don't suppose you know about Varous? The Roman General who lost Romes three best Legions to the Germans? It fits with what you mentioned about 'assume the population is largely neutral/freindly'. It shows why that is a bad idea!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Well, how about Iran. Seems like a likely future target, we can wonder why Northup-Grumman is fitting the B2s with the Massive Ordinance Penetrator.... Lets say 4-5 years, how would you envision the military given the time to tranform it into what you want. You'll want to look at the early trials of the Land Warrior system.

Lamont

I find Iran unlikely. From the way things are going in Iraq, I'm not sure if we will be back to the Middle East too soon. But, I Shall Obey! I'll do some research into Iran, and possible technology we will have by then and post latter. Probably on wednesday, about this time (I'll be busy tomorrow, otherwise I would post then).

 

[CuongNhuka]

Regarding guerilla warfare check also SSSR vs Afganistan. USA can beat 90% armies of world in less than 30 days, except China and Russia. On the other hand, it doesn't have good record against guerilla warfare.

Some comments on current and past military strategy failures:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/jul-aug/rudd.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/macgregor05262006.html

Don't forget guerillas aren't only one that have weapons especially in urban areas, black market and organized crime have it also.Think it would be interesting to compare WWII occupation of Germany with Iraq, to note difference how it is done.

So, then are you agreeing with me as well? By SSSR do you mean USSR?

I'll use those sights for my refernce works, as well as a few others.

It is easy to see how the tactics of the criminals could be called "guerilla". Especially the Mobs habbit of setting bombs rigged to off when someone starts a car.

In regard to Germany v Iraq, I think the major differnce has to do with time. The Allies spent how long fighting Nazi Germany? As compared to how long with Iraq? The differnce I think is that the Germans were tired of war, and tired of fighting. When the war was over, they just wanted their boys home, and to left alone. We haven't even begun to get to that point with Iraq. And considering the history of the Middle East, we will probably never get there.