Modern Day Tactics

[Sir Chauncy]

Well this has got me really thinking and I have to say that I don't know the answers to some of these questions.

Modern day warfare is very, very different from how it used to be: people lining up nicely, nobody firing before they were supposed to, and not killing officers because it was bad form etc etc. But things really are different now. We, and by we I mean the western industrialised world, mainly Europe and America, think that we have the best armed forces in the world, talk to anyone and they will tell you that, instantly, and without any hesitation. Now it got me thinking about certain things:

The most recent conflict that we have been involved in has been Iraq. Now politics aside whenever 'our' troops get involved in a fight, they seem to cause more casualties than the enemy cause to us. (bare with me on this) Unless an ambush happens or a plane is brought down: that is our infantry is 'better' for some reason that theirs is. Why is this? Is it down to better training? Weapons? Body armour? Tactics? I mean I really am stuck on this one, a bullet kills you if you are Western or Eastern just the same.

The other thing is the emergance of Guerilla style tactics to beat or at least counter this modern army, by blending in and mingling with the population, you can effectively hide and escape when things turn bad. Now Guerilla tactics have been countered sucessfully in the past by surrounding the area that they are in and flushing them out, and then to stop it happening again, by killing the village or town that these people came from (World War 2 Nazis in France and Chinese civil war) These tactics work wonders but are utterly ruthless, usually involving the deaths of many people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the war in question, so what is the modern day equivalent? If there is one of course. No snide jokes here by the way.

Finally, what are modern day defensive positions? In this age of airstrikes and cruise missiles, no matter what defensive positions you have, surely they can be take out without to much stress? What sort of buildings or fortification designs are there that are classed as a 'strong point'?

I said finally but there is one other thing: when assulting a building that has people garisoned in it, there are certain tactics to use: namely, putting a grande in through a window or blasting a hole trough a wall. The counter to this is to fortify the walls and reinforce them, thereby making the attackers need higher explosives to get through the walls, is this right?

Anyway, writen responses are preferable but I'll read links too!!]

Thanks in advance.

Ben

[mercian billman]

I'm no expert on modern warfare but, I would say that warfare hasn't really changed. The weapons used to wage war have changed but, the principles of warfare still apply. Before you learn about modern warfare you should try to learn about ancient warfare, I suggest you read Sun Tzu's The Art of War also look for versions of the "chivalric codes" and the "code of bushido." Many of these principles are still used by modern western armies of today and, you'll find the men fighting on the front have hardly changed.

I'll try to give you more information later, this is a pretty heavy topic with no easy answers and, requires some thought and, I'll see if I could post a few links as well.

[Papewaio]

The West wins because of the standard C's.

Command
Control
Communicatons
Computers

Plus another C... concentration... utter, massive concentration of firepower. It seems to be that the main role often of our infantry in firefights is to call down firepower.

[mercian billman]

The West wins because of the standard C's.

Command
Control
Communicatons
Computers

Plus another C... concentration... utter, massive concentration of firepower. It seems to be that the main role often of our infantry in firefights is to call down firepower.

Firepower isn't winning the war in Iraq and, it didn't lead to the collapse of the regime. The whole "Shock and Awe" air campaign was a joke, Saddam was defeated by US (and British) ground forces not the Air Force. The reason the role of infantrymen is seen as just to call down firepower is because that's the image the media projects.

In MOUT conditions the ability to use overwelming firepower is restricted and, soldiers must rely on superior discipline and training. Even in hand to hand combat western forces have crushed the insurgents causing high casualties and suffering little casualties themselves.

I don't know why you added computers? Computers are also available to Al-Queda and, they've used email to communicate. Computers make it easier to command, control, and, communicate, but, they are simply tools of war.

[Ja'chyra]

There isn't one single thing that makes our forces better than everyone else's, it's a combination of better equipment, far better training and the fact that British soldiers are professionals.

Before anyone complains that I narrowed it down to British forces this is because there are two different types of army, conscript and professional. The conscript army being the type that uses less specialised equipment that is easier to use e.g AK47 examples of this are Russia and to a lesser extent USA. Professional armies rely on fewer more highly trained personnel using more complex equipment e.g Britain. The effects of this are seen by the equipment they use, USA uses the M16 and is expected to engage the enemy up to about 150m, armies that use the AK47 can engage at about 100m while Britain, using the much maligned SA80, can engage at ranges of 300m and up to 600m. This of course is just the general infantry and some units are more highly trained e.g Marines, Para's. The problem with professional armies are that they are expensive to train and maintain and in the present political climate armies are a bad thing.

Your point about strongholds and explosives is true, technological advances come quicker in wartime when keeping up with the Jonses doesn't just give you bragging rights, it ensures survival.

[ShadesPanther]

Ja'chyra : I think that in the 70's USA relised that a professional Army is more effective than a conscript..I mean Draftee army. The Aerican Army is actually professional now I think.

Question: 62 British soldiers have died in Iraq (don't know American figure) But could anyone tell me how many of the soldiers died in the war and not during occupation?

[Papewaio]

Firepower isn't winning the war in Iraq and, it didn't lead to the collapse of the regime. The whole "Shock and Awe" air campaign was a joke, Saddam was defeated by US (and British) ground forces not the Air Force. The reason the role of infantrymen is seen as just to call down firepower is because that's the image the media projects.

In MOUT conditions the ability to use overwelming firepower is restricted and, soldiers must rely on superior discipline and training. Even in hand to hand combat western forces have crushed the insurgents causing high casualties and suffering little casualties themselves.

I don't know why you added computers? Computers are also available to Al-Queda and, they've used email to communicate. Computers make it easier to command, control, and, communicate, but, they are simply tools of war.

I'm trying to remember the 5Cs that I heard before... computers was added to the basic set... why because they crunch data and a lot of modern warfare is how fast the correct information is handed out.

Of the engagements that I have read a lot of them corner the enemy then call in artillary and air support and pound the position into dust whenever possible. Use gunships to shoot enemy foot troops (depeleted uranium anti-tank weapon). etc

When it comes down to actual shooting guns we don't have such a clear advantage in technology. I remember reading how quite a few troops where taking captured AK-47s and using them for urban combat. However special forces are better trained units like the marines have snipers and better training, cohesion and tactics for small conflicts.

As for hand to hand combat, with training, unit cohesion and generally larger size we should have the advantages.

Ultimately it is the combined arms that the west can mount and tailor for a specific situation that means we win open battles.

Urban warfare is always more dicey and will naturally lead to more ambushes... even here technology gives an edge... armoured vehicles, vests, night vision googles, scopes, satellites, communication, SAWS etc.

[English assassin]

To pick up the question about guerilla warfare. The term was first used of the Spnaish resisting the Napoleonic occupation of Spain. The idea was that where the enemy has overwhelming battlefield forces, it is madness to fight him on a battlefield. The idea is to fight in a way that maximises your strength and his weakness. So, an exactly similar example would be Germany's use of U-Boats in the first and second world wars. It would be crazy to have tried to match the Royal Navy battleship for battleship (though in fact Tirpitz did try this). The classic battle line action between capital ships was EXACTLY what the navy was best at. So it was very smart to try some completely different tactic that negated the conventional strength of the enemy.

So, for true guerilla warfare, the important thing is to analyse what weakness of yours the enemy is exploiting and be as creative as him in devising a countermeasure. Carrying on as you were before is a receipe for defeat

What we are seeing in Iraq is not really true guerilla warfare, which to my mind is fought largely by and between regular armed forces. The Iraqi insurgency has many elements of terrorism, eg the enemy are not part of any very organised command and control structure, and they seek to hide in the civilian population. The ONLY way to counter terrorism is a hearts and minds campaign to deny the terrorists the cover of the civil population who they use as camoflage. The British showed this against the communist insurgents in Malaysia in the 1950's, who were defeated by a two pronged strategy of ensuring the civil population understood they were safer and better off with the British, combined with some extremely nifty special forces work in the jungles.

[Sir Chauncy]

Thanks everyone,

Mercian Billman: I do think that I know "quite a bit" about military tactics of the ancient and medieval world, I just love the stuff but I get hazey when Gunpower starts coming into it I just don't feel the excitement for that kind of warfare when people line up and just get shot: it just makes me irritated, things change at around about the 2nd World War though, when commanders realised that they needed a total change to adapt to Blitzkreig and a far more mobile form of warfare with far more potent weapons.

The thing is that phrases like: "take defensive positions" and "high ground is good ground" are bandied around without much thought these days. What actually are defensive positions? Lie flat on the floor or behind some cover (sufficient to stop a bullet maybe or at least line of sight)?
With a missile or at the very least a rocket propelled grenade you can liquify anyone in a building, so why are buildings so hard to take? Any sort of explosive inside an enclosed space is more than lethal.

I do know that what is drummed in to soldiers during their training is that individually, they cannot acheive very much, that is why there is more than one of them, you fight as a unit and as an Army. Relying on your buddies almost as much as you rely on your gun.

Could this be the decider? Individual skill is less important and the entity being more powerful than the sum of it's parts?