Warfare in World War Two and Today

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

I've been involved in large scale computer exercises of both US and UK forces. These exercises have ranged from a MEF and airborne brigade right up to a 4 star exercise based somewhere 'in the middle east'. I was able to observe , at first hand, the thought processes of senior commanders.

Two overriding notions stick with me. The first is the absolute importance of int gathering and the problem of reconciling multiple data sources that almost always conflict with each other. The collection, collation and subsequent processing of int is a masssive manpower intensive problem. It requires bright articulate and experienced junior officers and other ranks to run the J2(G2 if you are American) cell during an exercise or operation. There are massive ammounts of data coming into J2 and it needs to be handled. Technology does not have all the answers, human judgement is whats needed in this processing.

The second aspect I vividly recall is the complete, the utter and absolute confusion in J3 (G3) ops. I've seen SO1's and SO2's around the 'bird table' of a mech brigade have absolutely no idea where their recce assets and lead elements are. These are there own guys! The whereabouts of opfor is just....

And if the operation is a combined one , ie two or more friendly countries 'co-operating' then the lack of clarity is immense.

This confusion isn't because the people involved are stupid it's that the problems of fighting at this level of command (and indeed at all levels) are immense and very very complex and few indeed are the men who have the ability to extract the relevant, to extract the pertinent information from all the noise.

This isnt tactics, sorry ramble over.

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

Only the enemy in front, every other bugger behind.

- unofficial motto of the British Infantry Reconnaissance Corps, W.W.II

[frederick]

Pillar,

try a web search using www.google.com

its pretty good.

[IntelWeenie]

IMHO, the biggest tactical differences from WWII to today are all related to the greatly increased lethality of weapons (ATGMs, TI sights, etc.). "If you could see it you could shoot at it" has become "If you can see it you can kill it".

Operationally, the big differences are 24hr ops instead of a slowdown at night and the increased depth of operations. That really had it's start in WWII with the para- and glidertroops, but has become more feasible since the advent of helos. The best recent example would be the insert the 101st AAslt did in Iraq. Nothing freaks commanders worse than enemy troops in the rear (areas)!

[Guest Seimerst]

Good book but I feel that it should be pointed out that the situation faced by the Rangers was not that they were trying to capture buildings, blocks, sectors or anything like that. The force had already accomplished it's mission of capturing some of the principle lieutenants of Adid and they were trying their darndest to get out of Dodge-- and then later to get to the crew of the Blackhawk. All this is not to say that most of what happened is exactly the kind of things you are faced with when operating in a built-up area-- but merely that the actions planned and taken would be different. I've been in both and I prefer the serenity of the rural European countryside as the "safest" place to wage war.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Soliloquy]

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

Good book but I feel that it should be pointed out that the situation faced by the Rangers was not that they were trying to capture buildings, blocks, sectors or anything like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But they did need to sequentially secure sector after sector of the city as they travelled, and the tactics they employed while doing so were similar if not identical to those that would be used in a capture and hold mission. But you are correct, the Rangers were not trying to hold any of the territory they passed through on their return.

[John Rainey]

The Somalia episode (sp) set off a firestorm in the Combat Engineer world. The difficulty the Rangers had in moving and the problems the ground relief forces faced trying to get to them were quite challenging. No one had played around with how simple it is to make a street barricades with old cars and a few land mines in a third world city. The barriers went from building to building right across the street. Add a dozen AP land mines and you have an obstacle that 3 or 4 men can defend for a long time. Plus the Light Infantry had almost no breaching systems with them.

For the next 2 or 3 years the Engineer School at Ft. Lenard Wood had a group of people working on Remote Vehicle control packages that would help breach obstacles in such situations. My Guard CbtEng company would put in obstacles for them on the weekend so they could test them. Fun work. Project never went anywhere, Combat engineering is not high on the funding list to say the least.

John

ESSAYON'S

[Soliloquy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Rainey:

For the next 2 or 3 years the Engineer School at Ft. Lenard Wood had a group of people working on Remote Vehicle control packages that would help breach obstacles in such situations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From an old thread on the Goliath:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazooka10165:

I remember as a kid buying a model kit of a German weapon which I think was called Goliath. It looked like a miniature wire controlled tank packed with explosives. Supposedly, engineers would use it to destroy bunkers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm.

[Mannheim Tanker]

I might be biased since I currently work in this field, but I think that communications/GIS are a major difference between the 21st century and WWII. When I say communications, I'm referring as much to data transfer as to voice. Most of this stuff is still in the late prototype stage, but it will be in the field in <5-10 years. A GIS (Geographic Information System) coupled to a GPS, allows tactical commanders to nearly instantly plot the locations of the friendlies AND the hostiles. This is an incredible force multiplier. Combined with a little smart and stealth technology, this means that a substantially numerically inferior force can whup up SERIOUSLY on a much larger low-tech force. It's not the overall numbers that really matter, but the force ratio at the point of contact.

NATO used this strategy in their defense plans in the late 70's and 80's when they planned to simulateously hit the Soviets in depth. That is, to hit the follow-up waves even as they were engaging the first wave, in an effort to break up their momentum (which was the primary goal of a Soviet-style attack, according to their doctrine). In the 80's, this NATO doctrine was geared towards using the best intel available, which meant using info that was several hours or days old. Now imagine having data that is only minutes old! THAT's the big difference.

[Wesy]

One of things that occurred at the end of WW2 which proved to be a precursor to modern naval tactics/strategies...The Kamikaze. Although piloted, it was in essence a method to overwhelm defenses. Modern naval engagements with s to s or air dropped s to s missiles requires that the enemy ship is overwhelmed. WWII US Fleet Tactics (towards the tail end of the war) reflected the battle group and perimeter defense

[Steve Clark]

Mannheim: You work in GIS too? I've been in GIS since the dark ages (1980-81). What do you do?

[Guest Mirage2k]

In keeping with Wesy's naval missile theme, it's important to remember that the U.S. Navy underwent a MAJOR change in tactical doctrine following the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially in the way it defends its carrier battle groups. With the threat from Soviet long range bomber divisions gone, the aging fleet of F-14 Tomcats is being slowly replaced by the multirole F/A-18 (to the dismay of some). Force composition for a carrier air wing in the future is supposed to be something like 2/3 F/A-18E,F Super Hornets and 1/3 Joint Strike Fighters (if they ever get that program back on track).

This means that the function of the air wing as the main air defense of the battle group is gone. In fact (and someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong), but I'm fairly sure that carriers don't even run constant BARCAPs anymore. Small flights of two F-14s are kept on the deck in a "Ready CAP" mode, but the days of constant airborne CAPs are over.

No CAPs means that much of the air defense of the battle group is delegated to the SAM capabilities of AEGIS-equipped surface escorts, usually three or four per battle group.

Ramble over. In a nutshell: after the Gulf War carriers are primarily offensive, not defensive (as in the Cold War, for protection of convoys going to Europe) assets.

-Andrew

[Mannheim Tanker]

Steve: Yep. My background is in natural resources management, but I now do work for the military/industrial and law enforcement applications of GIS. My experience is much less than yours, however!

[Guest Pillar]

Now that the US pretty much is unstopable in a conventional sense, do you think her enemies will resort to chemical, biological and nuclear methods?

Canada AND the United States are extrememly unprepared for either of these attacks. Particularly chemical and biological, since our hospitals can barely handle things when it's a NORMAL DAY!

(Think of the emergency room waiting lists!)

It's also VERY easy to sneak into the US with a device. I'm a pilot and I know that with a small plane there are routes you can take that will get you around customs. You're just one VFR aircraft in thousands.

PS. Anyone in the Hamilton area should head on over the Marsh Brothers and check out MY F/A-18 parked on the ramp there. (Yeah, I wish I owned it. More like the taxpayers hehe).

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now that the US pretty much is unstopable in a conventional sense, do you think her enemies will resort to chemical, biological and nuclear methods? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a growing possibility. The U.S. isn't exactly loved by lots of 3rd world countries with access to chemical and biological weapons, and the nuclear security of Russia is still a hot topic. Then there's North Korea, the growing military of the PRC, and I'd have to say that the N-B-C threat is probably one of our most dangeorus. And we don't have a lot of options to respond to any attack. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I don't know, but certainly are strategic forces are at their lowest force levels in decades.

The PRC's arsenal looks a lot like the U.S. nuclear forces in the 1960s (ie a nuclear version of EVERYTHING), and recent decisions to eliminate a substantial portion of our tactical arsenal (TLAM-Ns, Harpoon variants, other cruise missiles) leaves us at a tactical disadvantage there, if a war ever went nuclear.

Terrorism, of course, is another matter entirely, and is far more dangerous. I fully expect some sort of major terrorist attack on a metropolitan area in the next ten to fifteen years. We can only hope that the CIA, FBI and foreign governments stay sharp and keep an eye out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's also VERY easy to sneak into the US with a device. I'm a pilot and I know that with a small plane there are routes you can take that will get you around customs. You're just one VFR aircraft in thousands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn't even need to be an aircraft. If you're a terrorist who really wants to simplify things, I'd cart it across in a truck. If you've got the equipment, you wouldn't even necessarily have to go through customs. Just come in through a deserted stretch on the Montana/North Dakota border.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS. Anyone in the Hamilton area should head on over the Marsh Brothers and check out MY F/A-18 parked on the ramp there. (Yeah, I wish I owned it. More like the taxpayers hehe).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You fly the Hornet? What service? Canadian? U.S. Navy, Marines? From what I hear that's one of those planes that McDonnell Douglas/Boeing should've done differently.

-Andrew