Warfare in World War Two and Today

[Guest Pillar]

Can anyone explain, or point me to a resource that would, what has changed strategically when it comes to warfare today?

I have a good knowledge of how technology has changed, especially to do with Air and Sea power. I lack a good understanding of how tactics have adapted.

I hope this thread starts a really interesting discussion.

[Guest Pillar]

Somebody must have a source! I know you're out there! Spill it...

[pathfinder1]

you may want to check out any of the Jane's reference materials...

biggest things IMHO is the advent of AT missiles, Chobham-type armor, helicopters, better trained service people to include reservists/National Guard..

there are other reasons...multi-pliers lile Electronic warfare...better commo equipment...

Dangit, ah wishes there were a spill chinker..er spell checker besides me.

------------------

this is pathfinder's evil twin

[This message has been edited by pathfinder1 (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

I will look at the Janes manuals again, though IIRC they are more geared towards the technology aspect (as your post was).

I appreciate the feedback, but do you have any references where I might find how the tactical and strategic elements have changed?

Thanks Pathfinder

[pathfinder1]

hehe, oopsie ah gots losted...

Strategic: rise of USA from mainly agrarian society to industrial and not much to do internationaly, to the Cold War and US being the de facto (IMHO) world leader, then the fall of the USSR and Warsaw Pact..

tactically...I guess in gross detail, not much difference has changed except ranges of weapons are much greater than WWII and the use of IR, thermal sights, etc allow night time operations to a greater degree. The basic principles haven't changed much..

------------------

this is pathfinder's evil twin

[This message has been edited by pathfinder1 (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Guest Mirage2k]

I'm not quite sure what you mean specifically, but I'll do my best...

Tactics and strategy chance to accomodate and counter technological advances. The development of aircraft and stand-off missiles are obvious examples.

For an example of how this relates to tactics, think of an aircraft carrier battle group (CVBG). Before the development of long range anti-ship missiles, carriers used their escorts and pure speed to protect themselves. When Soviet SSNs began to feature improved reactors that could keep up with the CVNs (I believe there was something in the late 1960s or early '70s called the "Enterprise Incident," when a Soviet November SSN chased down the carrier USS Enterprise, scaring a LOT of people in the U.S. Navy. In actuality, the sub almost wrecked its reactor trying to keep up, but nobody in the U.S. knew it at the time), carriers began to rely more on their escorts and onboard helicopters as a long range ASW screen. With the integration of long range SSMs and the submarine (the Soviet Oscar-class SSGN and the "Shipwreck" SSM, with a 300-mile attack range), U.S. battle groups were forced to rely more and more on an outside perimeter defense that included two attack submarines. Anti-missile technology and jamming also developed, and were incorporated into the AEGIS system.

Air-launched missiles, and the Soviet Backfire strategic bomber, in part forced American carriers into adopting the BARCAP (barrier combat air patrol) system in conjunction with the E-3 Hawkeye AWACS. They also pressured the development of the F-14 Tomcat (one of the fastest (if not THE fastest) aircaft of the time) and the AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missile (70 - 100 miles max range, depending on who you listen to). The tactic was to detect early, and then hit incoming flights with missiles all the way to their firing points.

Hope this gives you some ideas...what were you looking for in particular?

-Andrew

**Changed "November Incident" to "Enterprise Incident"

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 06-27-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Pathfinder - I'm surprised when you say that not much has changed tactically. I thought with all the new tech and increased ranges of combat things would be very different?

Mirage - Great post. Pathfinder mentioned some things about IR and night time operations as well as increaes in the range and accuracy of guns etc. How have these advancements affected the ground forces?

Some more specific questions for anyone:

How would the US take a major city these days? (Conventional weapons only)

With increased mobility and range, has the battle become less localized to important areas (like defending factories etc) and more complacent with terrain?

Could you give some examples of tactics the US army used in Iraq on the ground?

Book recommends are always welcome too.

Thanks guys.

[Fionn]

About the only thing that has changed since then is that all the weapons systems initiated and designed or tested during World War 2 ( mostly by the Germans) have been perfected.

B2 = flying wing a la Gotha 229,

ATGMs = Milan via X9

ICBMs = designed by Germans who used to work at Peenemunde etc etc

[pathfinder1]

yikes..MOUT..Military Operations in Urban Terrain...grunt infantry work with some possible support from either Bradley or M1...or national equivalent...though it is a tanker's nightmare as always....dirty, grinding stuff...

anyone a recent vet of infantry?? been too long since my bldg 4 days at Benning...

but in essence...nope not much is changed there...except I personally would rather bypass and starve the illegitemate progeny out

basically (operation NOT tactical view??) by-pass the hard spots like big cities but gain transport nexus, but really depends. What are the National or strategic goals??

Hopefully not one of thses &*(^%$# peacekeeping things

ick...rather not discuss recent/current US NCA "adventurism"

------------------

this is pathfinder's evil twin

[This message has been edited by pathfinder1 (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Marty]

You can pretty much sum up the change in three little letters... GPS

All of the fancy weapons and other techno gadgets are neat - combined with a much increased kill capability and highly adapted military doctrines. It is however, the access to this data which may be the big determinant in future engagements.

The ability to identify locations to a degree that was undreamed of previously, and in real time to all of your troops on the ground acts as a force multiplier in a category by itself. Whether you are launching smart weapons or just trying to figure out where everyone is and what's going on to be "the fustest with the mostest." That's assuming you even have to deploy forces - might not be necessary with smart weapons and the right location.

At the rate this technology is developing, combined with other similar items you might well be able to locate anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Does this remind you guys of any old movies?

and

[pathfinder1]

how do those advances affect tactics?? welp, as always ya goes kinda "touchy, feely"....the overwatch maneuvers are an example when contact is highly expected...

means lots more could potentially "brew up" due to better bad weather/night acquition and longer ranger (better optics and munitions)...

the soldiers (and Marines) HAVE to be better trained in both gunnery/marksmanship but more importantly leaders MUST be better trained in employment of weapons and their use (tactics)in order to win.

all of this is based on my 24 years of military experience (US Army)

sheesh, I guess (and ah ain't bein' a smartbutt either)go read the Army Field Manuals or FM's..latest versions...my stuff is pulled outta mah fat butt er haid... er...

*grumble, where's the beer*

pathy shuttin' up before he sticks his WHOLE foot in

------------------

this is pathfinder's evil twin

[Guest Pillar]

Speaking of field manuals, are those manuals available through BTS modern?

Going to look right now

[Talon]

Speaking of urban warfare, anyone here done any recent urban warfare training? I was wondering how they are teaching soldiers now days to take out defenders and move around in an urban environment. I've read that it was typical for a 3:1 loss ratio when taking defended positions. It was learned the hard way to stay out of the streets and use explosives to knock out the wall of the building across the street and then make a dash. I've been to a couple of QCB schools (geared to LE) and I watch on on TV soldiers being taught the same type of tactics. Fine for law enfocement where you (hopefully) won't be going against a prepared defense and don't want to involve civilians or but in an all-out fire fight it could be suicide.

[Guest Rommel22]

Urban fighting hasn't changed much either. If it there was a real war:

First blast the crap out of the town with arty, than bombers and go in. Airdrops are more likely today. It's easier faster and can suprise the enemy to a great extant. Airborne ops. using choppers into urban areas is a better choice. But you still have to send in tanks and regulars. Most likely big cties would be avoided these days. Tactics haven't changed all that much. Just look at a 1991 desert strom. Same tactics, exept longer ranges in weapond more accurate weapons and so on. The 91 conflict was just like a blitzkrieg. An air attack to destroye the iraqi air force and radar net and airfield. Arty bombardment, suprise and finaly ground attack. By suprise I mean convincing everyone there would be amphibious landing which never happened. All the same principles of the blitzkrieg. Even Swartzkopf said that it was the blitzkrieg, exept the U.N (U.S) wasn't the egressor, just liberators.

Well I thats what I know.

------------------

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[PawBroon]

Hi Mirage,

You sure sound like an Harpoon buff to me.

With CM it's my main source of pleasure (NO COMMENT PLEASE ).

Hold on till Harpoon4 and let's PBEM.

BTW Pillar, if you want to historically pinpoint the where and when it began check ISRAEL.

The MAIN difference is stand off weapons.

Isreal had its Eilat destroyer ****ed by a mere row boat but sporting a Styx.

That baby could wreck much of what was floating by then.

And as far as ground forces are concerned, Israel was QUITE surprised by all those nice Sagger screaming from far away positions and ripping through AFVs.

Most historians seemed to agree with that.

What with the Korean and Indochina wars being mostly WWII re enacted for materials and tactical purposes.

Every other subsequent development had been a reaction to that as it had been said before.

Reactive armor to stand off weapon etc...

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[Bertram]

As regarding Mout tactics, there is a site dedicated to this kind of fighting, called 'The MOUT homepage': http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/

Another site with recent 'Real Live' articles is the US Military History Institute: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/

Both have links to other sites with interesting (tactical and less tactical) reads.

Bertram

[howardb]

I didn't read all the posts here but personally I think the biggest step forward (if you can say that about killing people) is comunication.

It's not about better bullets, tanks, planes or rockets I think they were just as lethal in WW2 as today.

You got much better threat assesments and can direct forces with much greater effect than before and that's the greatest difference in modern warfare contra WW2 if you ask me.

[John Rainey]

I believe the biggest change that has happened is the "Op Tempo". Every thing happens at an accelerated pace. Unlike WWII the pace of combat picks up at night, at least on the US side. With thermal imaging on Attack Avaition assets, Armor vehicles and quite common among the Infantryman night combat is the PERFERED time of combat not the exception.

[Soliloquy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

Airborne ops. using choppers into urban areas is a better choice. But you still have to send in tanks and regulars.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would recommend "Blackhawk Down" by Mark Bowden. It describes the 1993 raid on Mogadishu by US Rangers. You may recall the video of angry Somalis dragging the bodies of helicopter pilots through the streets. The Rangers didn't have tanks in support, due to political considerations, and it cost them.

The book describes modern MOUT rather well, IMO. But then again, I haven't been there.

[Guest Pillar]

A quick thought I had on urban combat: What would it be like trying to take a city like New York or Chicago? With all the skyscrapers and all?

Assuming you wanted the thing in good condidtion, you wouldn't be so inclined just to level the city with artillery...

[Zamo]

I got to agree with Pathfinder1, starve the bastards out. If you're going to stay conventional, then taking a MAJOR metropolitan area would be a nightmare of the first order. Especially if you want the place "intact". It doesn't happen. Look at Beirut. Reduced to rubble.

If you must have the city more or less intact, use germs, gas or enhanced radiation weapons...or do it the old fashioned way: starve 'em. If those aren't viable options, grunts with tank support. The only way.

Urban warfare is the toughest cookie to crack. Especially if you add civilian pacification into the mix. It's tough enough when you know who the enemy is, add the guerilla element and it becomes hell with concrete and glass facades.

Zamo

[:USERNAME:]

The electronics and especially the computer revolution has had the greatest effect on modern combat.

While alot of military matters have stayed the same (hey marching is still marching), the advent of electronics and the effect that it has had on communications, sensing, nightfighting, weapons delivery, ground-air-ship coordination, etc is the biggest difference between modern war and WWII.

Being an EE, it amazes me that WWII was fought without any real computers and that everything was tube technology transistors.

Most people are unaware that the US spent insane money on electronics and the payoff it had after the war.

Lewis

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Mirage - Great post. Pathfinder mentioned some things about IR and night time operations as well as increaes in the range and accuracy of guns etc. How have these advancements affected the ground forces?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The biggest thing about the accuracy of guns that I can think of is the development of GPS and communications. Remember, this works both ways. It's great that you can now rain arty with precision down on your target, but that target can call for counterbattery fire fairly quickly, and that'll be just as accurate as what you're putting down. So artillery barrages tend to be quicker and deadlier.

In terms of IR developments, it depends on which side you look at! The Soviets were always pretty far behind in their IR systems, and most of what they got seems to have been copies from western designs. The Atoll air-to-air missile, for example, is almost a direct copy of an early-model AIM-9 Sidewinder (LOTS of stories about how they might've gotten it, including a theory that a dud Taiwanese AIM-9 got stuck in a PRC aircraft in the late 1950s). Basically, the U.S. and allies have had an advantage in nighttime/poor weather fighting capability for the last 50 years. So we step up operations at night and our opponents usually do their best to hunker down and not get noticed (which didn't exactly work for the Iraqis, but they couldn't really move anyway ). That sort of advantage means you can get closer and do all sorts of neat flanking and envelopment maneuvers without getting noticed.

-Andrew

[Guest Mirage2k]

One more thing on IR and communication. It has made a helicopter pilot's job a lot easier. In hilly terrain at night, for example, the Army likes to use teams of OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout choppers and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. The Kiowa Warriors have a sort of IR periscope/laser designator (I can't remember what it's called) that they use to peer over hills, rocks, and trees. The Apaches safely stay a couple of miles back. When the Kiowas detect enemy armor, they can actually designate targets for the Apaches loitering out of harm's way. The Apaches launch their Hellfire missiles, and the Kiowas dart around to another treeline or hill, and the scene repeats itself.

-Andrew

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Could you give some examples of tactics the US army used in Iraq on the ground?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really know any specific tactics other than just standard armor stuff. If you want a good book on the ground war, I'd suggest "Into The Storm" by retired general Fred Franks, who commanded VII Corps during the war.

-Andrew