Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to make sure that it's not just me...

The typical assaulting tactics following suppression of the enemy works in WW2 titles it appears to be redundant in modern combat. Why would you risk boots on the ground when you can reveal every enemy position one by one using scouts and then proceed to destroy them with Artillery, Mortars, Fast Air, Helicopters etc, and simply walk your boys in after the destruction is complete?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are correct as long as those things are available. And yes, if you study recent conflicts against inferior forces that is a common way things are handled in present combat.

But there will always be situations where the fighting will come down to infantry doing what infantry needs to do. So do not think  those basic infantry tactics are a thing of the past, they are not. 

If any major conflict was to happen again, I always wonder how fast would the forces run out of a lot of high tech options and even just munitions. 

The stock piling and inventories of these type of things might not be as vast as one might think. The cost of doing war has changed that as to the numbers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That pretty much sums it up. He did forget to point out how many of the new High tech equipment is not even made within the borders of ones country.

I am amazed of how much in our planes and ships we have other country's providing the materials that are being used and installed. Not a system that would hold up in a real conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slysniper said:

If any major conflict was to happen again, I always wonder how fast would the forces run out of a lot of high tech options and even just munitions. 

The stock piling and inventories of these type of things might not be as vast as one might think.

Quite so.  Nations have enormous stocks of obsolete gear as high-tech stuff gets obsolete relatively quickly.  Can't afford to buy too much of an item that may be useless in 5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the USA, My neighbor works  building some of our top level weaponry. He informs me all the time as to what is going on. 

He has to fly all over the world to oversee some of the component that are being built.

Its really scary to think this is smart 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when bean counters take over the world and everything is monetized for max "efficiency" and "max profitability".  

Wonder if all China's stuff is made in China or also diversified around the globe?

My only hope is that China's military hardware is as brilliantly built as the consumer goods they ship to the west.  It looks pretty in the pics, but it all falls apart on use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since china owns so much of the US, they don't want to hurt us too much, it would be bad for the economics of their own country.

We really are getting to a place in this world as to how we are all linked together in many ways that we should be striving to become one in purpose  instead of continuing to try to see each other as a enemy that we think we need to fight and kill.

The only ones we need to worry about are those in charge,  pretty much in every nation, its those in power that are the real enemy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slysniper said:

Well, since china owns so much of the US, they don't want to hurt us too much, it would be bad for the economics of their own country.

We really are getting to a place in this world as to how we are all linked together in many ways that we should be striving to become one in purpose  instead of continuing to try to see each other as a enemy that we think we need to fight and kill.

The only ones we need to worry about are those in charge,  pretty much in every nation, its those in power that are the real enemy.

Fully Agreed!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, slysniper said:

This is the USA, My neighbor works  building some of our top level weaponry. He informs me all the time as to what is going on. 

He has to fly all over the world to oversee some of the component that are being built.

Its really scary to think this is smart 

 

One place this is not true is submarines in the US. Which is probably a really good thing.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

One place this is not true is submarines in the US. Which is probably a really good thing.

Dave

Actually, my neighbor I was telling you about, that is what he presently works on. So I am afraid to inform you that is not true, he spends a lot of time with the British working on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slysniper said:

Actually, my neighbor I was telling you about, that is what he presently works on. So I am afraid to inform you that is not true, he spends a lot of time with the British working on them.

I'd say that for submarines or airframes, if you have the capability to at least maintain/service them independently there's not that big of an issue. It's not like those could be replaced on short notice during a war anyway. It's basically 'come as you are', unless there will be a long protracted conflict but for reasons you have stated above that is unlikely to happen in a full spectrum (near) peer shooting war.

Although I too think that the 'efficiency' hype is bad for a lot of stuff. For example healthcare where I live. They got so efficient at stuff that new pandemics which require emergency scaling up are much more difficult. They simply don't have the margin or manpower to scale up quickly.

However for the new concepts of warfighting, in which software in the broadest sense plays a large role, I guess there will be a trend to nations doing more stuff on their own, for their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the ability to take out military targets with precision weapons.

Its very true in that there will not be production of much of any type of high end weaponry from that point on. 

As had already been said, pretty much its come as you are and its not going to last long.

 

Makes one wonder if a side could strike first and could somehow catch the enemy by surprise. How huge of a advantage that might be.

Some type of new technology that works at overrides the enemies existing methods, A initial strike to throw the numbers in their favor.

There is not going to be a chance to build what you need after something big was to break out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In CMBS try playing a scenario with electronic counter-measures turned up to HIGH. No air support, no artillery support, no info sharing between units. You're basically back to fighting with sticks and clubs. Observing the Ukraine conflict, the Pentagon concluded they were woefully unprepared for operating in a high ECM environment against a peer force. Armed drones only work if their signal back to base stays intact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2021 at 7:04 PM, Flibby said:

you can reveal every enemy position one by one using scouts and then proceed to destroy them with Artillery, Mortars, Fast Air, Helicopters etc, and simply walk your boys in after the destruction is complete?

You're using them just right. The usual detect-destroy cycle. Yet if you want low casualty rate you'd be forced to use direct fire support.

On 3/4/2021 at 12:16 AM, Flibby said:

The idea of your military supply chain being dependent upon overseas countries is scary.

Well Armata's thermal imaging is sourced from China. Not to mentioned less (or even more :)) obvious things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many modern weapons systems are also over-complicated and over-advanced compared to what they would need to be for a real war. This follows decades of relative peace, with huge defense budgets and where weapons are increasingly being used to assassinate individuals in civilian settings, so pinpoint accuracy is essential. In the event of a real, major war, a lot of the "fluff" would quickly get cut.

Maybe the old 80/20 rule apples - you could get 80 pct of the capability for 20 pct of the cost?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think many modern weapons systems are also over-complicated and over-advanced compared to what they would need to be for a real war.

Russian MIC would love this statement. But not the Russian MoD :) How do you define the REAL war? To me - the real wars are the ones one has to fight now or in the near future. And those seems to be "to assassinate individuals in civilian settings" for the time being.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question, What is a real war anymore.

It has become such a detached thing for powerful nations.

For the poor people that are living in locations where the fighting is happening, its all very real presently.

But its only for one side that the effects are really felt.

 

But at some point in the future, the powerful nations will turn on each other as they seem to always do, and when that day happens, both sides will feel the affects and you might not be able to sit at home and feel safe by seeing some news clips  on that large TV while sipping a cold one.

When your own country becomes a target and the nations people suffer, then a war becomes real. 

How is that for a definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Against opponents of roughly equal strength and tech level.

  1. Than for the US only China will count as a real war in your definition. Russia is far from being equal to US's might.
  2. History shows nations now rather avoid having wars with near-peer opponents so should we prepare for wars that never be?
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IMHO said:

History shows nations now rather avoid having wars with near-peer opponents so should we prepare for wars that never be?

No, I support disarmament and international cooperation generally. But I think the US is forgetting what a real war actually looks like.

Many of the elaborate weapons developed by the world's strongest military power in order to punish cavemen during peacetime won't have the same impact in a protracted war, for the same reasons that surgical scalpels are generally not used in street fighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Many of the elaborate weapons developed by the world's strongest military power in order to punish cavemen during peacetime won't have the same impact in a protracted war

  1. IMO you mix up duration and how advanced an opponent might be. I.e. Afghanistan "caveman" War is the longest War in American history.
  2. Can you provide examples of such "cavemen only" systems? IMO almost all American systems would fit easily a near-peer war. Except may be for Super Tucanos but they are quite rare. IMO the state of things are quite the opposite and America's using very advanced and expensive systems designed for a near-peer conflict to fight "cavemen" whereas much cheaper systems will suffice.
Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...