The Future of Military Tactics/Strategic Doctrines

How do you think current events and military situations have evolved modern military tactics? Or do you think we have reached the peak of military strategy and tactics?

I Personally believe that the world is about to have a change in Military Tactics, with the advent of more modern technology, tactics employeed by modern nations are relatively inferior. The United States of America currently employees the Superior Firepower Doctrine, developed by the Japanese and British in WW2, and refined in various cold war and post cold war campaigns.
Superior Firepower is defined as the usage of heavily armed soldiers securing a frontline of combat, with Armored Spearheads in the flanks, and massive aerial and naval bombardment, with nimble airborne infantry attacking from the rear.
Sounds like a solid strategic doctrine doesn't it? It is a solid plan of engagement against 2nd World and 3rd World Standing Militaries, used with success in the 1st Gulf War, also with success in the inital stages of the 2nd Gulf War. It was used with relative success in WW2 against the Germans, specifically with Operation Overlord, although casualties were quite high, the US and most countries with that amount of capable resources adopted it as their own since then. During the Cold War years it was used with mixed success, the conditions in Korea hampered it's usage quite a bit, and the Human Wave Doctrine employeed by the Chinese and North Koreans at the time had given the doctrine it's match. The War ultimately ended in a stalemate, but was still seen as a victory for the superior firepower doctrine.
Newer Technology, lead to a more mobile force used in Vietnam, and it deftly beat every NVA and VC opponent it encountered in force. However, the Doctrine lost out to Guerilla's and support from the US. The Doctrine was changed to allow a more nimble and coerced force, and was still seen as the best doctrine employeed by major nations going against an ill equipped force in open combat.
During the Gulf War, the rise of modern technology had it's edge over the standing Iraqi Military, the doctrine was used with almost perfect success, and showed the world that it still relevent and very capable.
The War in Kosovo was also seen as a great success, and same with the initial stages of the 2nd Gulf War. However, something is missing. All of the countries, aside from a weakened Germany, were 2nd and 3rd World Countries, and were either ill equipped against the US or had a serious lack in manpower. How would America's current doctrine hold up against a similar 1st World Country? Well if WW2 and the Korean taught us anything, it would probably end in high casualties. But we still employee it.
Another Problem is that although it is useful against a standing military its major weakness is against Guerillas, as the doctrine has almost no relevency, and the military runs around with it's head cut off, or is barricaded inside a fort being mortared 24 hours a day. In any modern situation involving Guerillas, the US militaries strategic doctrine is irrelevent, and our soldiers run around like Chickens with their heads cut off.

Finally...

America and most Nations in NATO need a serious strategic overhaul, and its 15 year old project to change it, is finally it's last leg of it's journey. The New Doctrine will probably involve an increase in special operations soldiers, with newer technology allowing it to be far more nimble and coordinated. Destroying valuable strategic targets of the enemy, in relative quiet and quickly escaping, essentially a very refined Guerilla warfare doctrine. If the US has learned anything it is that Guerilla's are hard opponent to defeat, if you take human rights into account. The new doctrine would probably be more useful against powerful 1st world countries, who could match the US in terms of air power, manpower, and technology. the risk factor however is much higher, as it is difficult to replace a highly trained soldier quickly. Thankfully, newer technologies, will make even basic trained soldiers much more potent than before. However, all this aside, will it solve America's inheirant occupation difficulties? Will modern countries in the future employee similar doctrines, where special forces become the vanguard of militaries? I think such a doctrine would make Urban Warfare a bit less hazardous. But if the US is in a war against a nation with a similar strategic doctrine, how successful will it be? I guess 5 star Generals and the JCS probably have the better answers as these guys are the developers, I am sure it will be solid.

Quote:

---

Responding to President Kennedy’s desire for the Services to develop an Unconventional Warfare (UW) capability, the U.S. Navy established SEAL Teams ONE and TWO in January of 1962

---

Unconventional warfare existed before then, even the Spartans were know for it.

As for modern UW it can be traced back to WWII.

It'll have to change to fit the weapons available. A cornerstone of the Western militaries are powerful vehicles. Oil will only become more expensive. Someday, it's going to be too expensive or scarce to operate our tanks and humvees in combat situations.

How can alternate energy sources like nuclear power be applied to a war machine? Could a nuclear reactor be miniaturized to power a tank?

I have to go. Maybe I'll write some more later.

Quote:

---

The M1A2 Abrams, despite being the best damned tank in the world

---

Nah, Challenger 2 is better :bow:

I see your point though. There is little point in spending so much money on tanks and bombers designed for the all out offensive that will never come. I expect far more money will be spent in future on tactical weapons deployment and the increased use of IT in the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wazikashi

The War in Kosovo was also seen as a great success

---

Actually it was a failure. I believe that the Yugoslav forces lost a total of 13 armoured vehicles during the entire bombing campign in 1999. It was only political pressure from inside Belgrade that forced Milosovic to give up.

I don’t think there will ever again be a war where two 1st world countries fight. It would be too strenuous on the economy and no one has a military large enough to go to war at that degree. And because the countries that are not 1st world cant fight the way the 1st worlders can, war will be more gorilla in style, that is what works against the 1st world countries. How can a war like that (gorilla) be won is my question?

A geurilla war can be won through soe ways. No. 1 is to nuke the entire nation. No.2 is to kill a hundred civilians for every man of yours that is killed. No. 3 is to win the hearts and minds of the people, thus turning them against the guerilla fighters.

Guerilla wars depend upon a large popularity amongst the civilians in the invaded nation/region. If they are against the guerilla fighters, they will not be able to hide amongst them nor get supplies off them. If the invaders happened to cause many civilian casualties (whether they are intentional or unintentional does not matter) then it will be very hard, if not impossible to win such a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

A geurilla war can be won through soe ways. No. 1 is to nuke the entire nation. No.2 is to kill a hundred civilians for every man of yours that is killed. No. 3 is to win the hearts and minds of the people, thus turning them against the guerilla fighters.

Guerilla wars depend upon a large popularity amongst the civilians in the invaded nation/region. If they are against the guerilla fighters, they will not be able to hide amongst them nor get supplies off them. If the invaders happened to cause many civilian casualties (whether they are intentional or unintentional does not matter) then it will be very hard, if not impossible to win such a war.

---

I like your post :beam: but your 1 and 2 are not realistic :no: . And 3 is way difficult and I would think that once the general population turns against them because of “you” that they would be even more mad and resort to terrorist tactics. That’s no way to win.

I could see how a double agent :disguise: might be handy vs. gorillas. Would that be the way to win a gorilla war, by infiltrating them and exposing their weaknesses, locations, supporters, etc.?

Quote:

---

Actually it was a failure. I believe that the Yugoslav forces lost a total of 13 armoured vehicles during the entire bombing campign in 1999. It was only political pressure from inside Belgrade that forced Milosovic to give up.

---

That political pressure was strangely absent before the NATO attack. NATO may not have been destroying APC's, but it was certainty causing a substantial amount of damage to Serbia's infrastructure economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I like your post :beam: but your 1 and 2 are not realistic

---

Not true. It has worked extremely well throughout history. When the Mongols faced resistance in a city, they burned it to the ground and killed all but one person to tell the tale of the destruction. They had very few rebellions after that. It may be distasteful, but it has worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

...and resort to terrorist tactics

---

Attacking military targets is not terrorism, it is insurgency. Terrorists attack civilian targets on purpose. Insurgents and guerilla fighters attack military targets. It is a very important distinction, and one that American media mainly fails to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Not true. It has worked extremely well throughout history. When the Mongols faced resistance in a city, they burned it to the ground and killed all but one person to tell the tale of the destruction. They had very few rebellions after that.

---

Ok, it would work but it would get darn near the entire world PO'ed at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Attacking military targets is not terrorism, it is insurgency. Terrorists attack civilian targets on purpose. Insurgents and guerilla fighters attack military targets. It is a very important distinction, and one that American media mainly fails to make.

---

I know the dif. (insurgency is actually more of a rebellion but i understand your point) despite the media's attempts to mind wash me :dizzy2: . but i think that when guerilla fighting fails and the population turns on them that they would resort to terrorism.

Note: I am not really referring to rebellions but in the general way I think 2nd and 3rd world countries will fight against the 1st world countries. A guerilla fight is their best chance because it is the most difficult for the big army’s to counter. right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

That political pressure was strangely absent before the NATO attack. NATO may not have been destroying APC's, but it was certainty causing a substantial amount of damage to Serbia's infrastructure economy.

---

Nope, the damage to the Serbian's infrastructure and economy was done by the blocade.

Lets take North Korea. What would that be classified/
How about the Red Army of China?

The US and Allies going up against North Korea would be an interesting scenario. I think one of two things would happen

A. Mass Disband by North Korean Troops, like in the 1st Gulf War
B. Very Difficult to completely destroy.

The NKA and NKAF would probably be tough opponents in a dog fight probably, but I think Air Superiority would be a number one priority and it would eventually be achieved by the US, then destroying SAMs and such, basically blasting the living hell out of their infrastructure and defensive measurers. In this age, no formal military can stand without air support, they will be picked into bloody pieces. The Land War would probably be the largest concern (as it always is), the NKA know how to fight I think, and they have strategic strongholds built into mountains that can withstand serious punishment by Artillery, and Air Strikes, the only other option would be to assault them or lay siege to them, and because they have an intricate tunnel network, I think it would be a looonng time to siege them, this only leaves assaulting it, which wouldn't be easy. The best way to destroy the NKA is probably starve them into submission, but these guy are known to resort to cannabalism so that might not be a very viable option either. I think such a war would make the Air Strikes in WW2 look tiny, it would be a complete mess. and then you have to worry about Geurillas, if these guys are fanatics, and given their past reputation, they are... it would be struggle.