Org Mobile Site
Thread: Modern Day Tactics
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Originally Posted by mercian billman:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Well the population in Iraq doesn't really LIKE America. Also, Urban combat is hell, usually the defenders are better entrenched at hard points than the attackers, and high explosives (used to extract the entrenched) can't be used very well in urban areas unless the attacking army wishes to kill the civilian population as well.
In open warfare, the American army is damn hard to beat, mainly because the abilty of the American army to advance and take ground is unparalled, unfortunately, the american government and american soldiers are too weak willed to gun down innocent civilians, which is really the only way to stop guerilla warfare.
In open warfare, the American army is damn hard to beat, mainly because the abilty of the American army to advance and take ground is unparalled, unfortunately, the american government and american soldiers are too weak willed to gun down innocent civilians, which is really the only way to stop guerilla warfare.
Mind you Guerilla warfare could be used to describe how the Romans eventually dealt with Hannibal after he invaded Italy.
DemonArchangel wrote:
"unfortunately, the american government and american soldiers are too weak willed to gun down innocent civilians"
I am quite frankly astonished that anyone in their right mind can think like this...
Are you serious?
"unfortunately, the american government and american soldiers are too weak willed to gun down innocent civilians"
I am quite frankly astonished that anyone in their right mind can think like this...
Are you serious?
Originally Posted by :
Mind you Guerilla warfare could be used to describe how the Romans eventually dealt with Hannibal after he invaded Italy.
Exactly. Fabius is a classic example of adopting new tactics because you can't face the opponent on a battlefield. How close we came to talking about parvumbellum warfare instead...Mind you Guerilla warfare could be used to describe how the Romans eventually dealt with Hannibal after he invaded Italy.
I think DA must have meant something like "risk civilian casualties". Even so civilian casualties are the best recruiter for guerillas. I mean, I like Americans, (but i couldn't eat a whole one ho ho) but if they dropped a bomb on my brother I'd change my mind even if it was a mistake.
There are alot of misconceptions about Iraq that I will not get into here but, Ja'chyra, the US military is an entirely profesional force. There are no draftees or conscripts and, the US military is probably the most profesional force on the planet. All recruits are required to at least be 18 (acceptions may be made for 17) years of age and in possesion of a High School diploma or GED, in fact the average member of the US military is better educated than the average civilian.
Pap, what engagements did you read of? Were they British or American troops? When did these engagements take place? Of course air and artillery support are important and have relevance in urban warfare but, in the end it's up to the infantry to close in and kill the enemy.
I believe the proper term for Iraq would be Counter Insurgency warfare.
Pap, what engagements did you read of? Were they British or American troops? When did these engagements take place? Of course air and artillery support are important and have relevance in urban warfare but, in the end it's up to the infantry to close in and kill the enemy.
I believe the proper term for Iraq would be Counter Insurgency warfare.
I strictly advice you not to discuss the current situation in Iraq. Even though what you have to say may be of tactical interest only, the whole topic is too close to politics. If political statements are made here in the Frontroom, this thread will be closed immediately and the person in question may be punished.
American infantryman are almost unstoppable at night fighting because the training with the NVGs and PAC4s makes their use second nature for the American infantryman which is a huge advantage over units that haven't been trained with their night fighting equipment or that just don't have any.
Another big thing I'd add is accuracy. The US from the most powerful to the smallest handgun trains for good accurate shots and thats one of the reasons for the lack of US casualties in "that part of the world". Simply because guys pop out of a corner with an AK 47 firing full auto and don't hit a damn thing. Shooting at a person isn't any good if you can't hit him, no matter how big your bullet is.
Then the body armor comes in. The new Interceptor Body Armor will stop several shots from an AK 47(7.62x39). THis makes really just the neck and face along with the limbs venerable. to direct fire. No armor is perfect though and there's always a chance that a bullet will go between the plates or hit a limb and travel through the flesh into the torso. There's a lot that can kill a man but body armor increases very much his chances of coming back.
And of course there's just regular training. When you train with people over a period of months you learn how they react to things. You communicate with each other easier, you are more likely to help each other if the shit hits the fans and can work together as a team without the team leader or squad leaders needing to constantly correct the team members. Movement together becomes second nature, everyone knows their job and when something happens they know what to do and do it. They cover their sectors of fire knowing their buddies are covering their sectors of fire which allows for accurate fire power going down range and constant 360 degree security (so MTW flank attacks don't work near as good.)
There's also an excellent working together of different forces. If it gets to tough for the infantry they can call in artillery or apache gunships or even have some tanks or more infantry brought up and all this can set in motion within minutes thanks to high standards for radio communication along with good modern radioes and encrypters so as to prevent the enemy from tapping in on your transmissions.
Another big thing I'd add is accuracy. The US from the most powerful to the smallest handgun trains for good accurate shots and thats one of the reasons for the lack of US casualties in "that part of the world". Simply because guys pop out of a corner with an AK 47 firing full auto and don't hit a damn thing. Shooting at a person isn't any good if you can't hit him, no matter how big your bullet is.
Then the body armor comes in. The new Interceptor Body Armor will stop several shots from an AK 47(7.62x39). THis makes really just the neck and face along with the limbs venerable. to direct fire. No armor is perfect though and there's always a chance that a bullet will go between the plates or hit a limb and travel through the flesh into the torso. There's a lot that can kill a man but body armor increases very much his chances of coming back.
And of course there's just regular training. When you train with people over a period of months you learn how they react to things. You communicate with each other easier, you are more likely to help each other if the shit hits the fans and can work together as a team without the team leader or squad leaders needing to constantly correct the team members. Movement together becomes second nature, everyone knows their job and when something happens they know what to do and do it. They cover their sectors of fire knowing their buddies are covering their sectors of fire which allows for accurate fire power going down range and constant 360 degree security (so MTW flank attacks don't work near as good.)
There's also an excellent working together of different forces. If it gets to tough for the infantry they can call in artillery or apache gunships or even have some tanks or more infantry brought up and all this can set in motion within minutes thanks to high standards for radio communication along with good modern radioes and encrypters so as to prevent the enemy from tapping in on your transmissions.
A. Saturnus: I can promise you now that politics will not be discussed here, I made a point of saying that politics were not an issue, but I understand the sentiment, things like this can be a little close to the mark whether they are meant to be or not.
Edit: ever noticed that when you write something feelings are just not easy to portray? What I am trying to say is that I will not make any political statements, I am aware of the Orgs policy and I will not purposefully violate these rules.
Edit: ever noticed that when you write something feelings are just not easy to portray? What I am trying to say is that I will not make any political statements, I am aware of the Orgs policy and I will not purposefully violate these rules.
Most proffesional armies are centred on the ethos that a small number of well equiped and well trained troops will triumph over large numbers of ill equped and trained troops. This is largely true especially so in open warfare where use of Tanks and Air support can destroy vitually any strong point in an enemies line within minutes of it being identified. Leaving infantry to clear and then occupy and defend strategic positions leaving attacking to the tanks and motorised units to carry out "blitzkrieg" which is the foundation of modern open war.
However things get really complicated now as the enemy troops will try to draw the superior force into urban warfare to drain him of his strength and stretch his forces thin. To counter this the modern force deploys infantry specialy trained to flush out troops from buildings and a lot of many soldiers training consists of urban warfare training and house clearing as this seems to be the only real field in which the infantry man really excels. One of the things all commanders should know is never to commit tanks to urban warfare as there are plenty of places where people can hide so as to disable said tank. The ideal solution to urban warfare is to level the city but now that a military has the combined weight of the nations media and public concious on it's back it has to avoid "unnesercary civilian casualties".
However the bottom line is no matter how well trianed or numerous you're armies if the local populace does not support you, or at the least not interfere, you are doomed to failure unless you have several million bullets to spare in quelling the population or are willing to drop a nuke. Thesame happened to the French in Spain who had so many troops tied up trying to stop the guerillas that they couldn't stop wellington.
And of course remember the greatest saying of all, "An army marches on it's stomach and it's purse." Meaning if you can't keep the supplies and pay rolling in you're doomed.
However things get really complicated now as the enemy troops will try to draw the superior force into urban warfare to drain him of his strength and stretch his forces thin. To counter this the modern force deploys infantry specialy trained to flush out troops from buildings and a lot of many soldiers training consists of urban warfare training and house clearing as this seems to be the only real field in which the infantry man really excels. One of the things all commanders should know is never to commit tanks to urban warfare as there are plenty of places where people can hide so as to disable said tank. The ideal solution to urban warfare is to level the city but now that a military has the combined weight of the nations media and public concious on it's back it has to avoid "unnesercary civilian casualties".
However the bottom line is no matter how well trianed or numerous you're armies if the local populace does not support you, or at the least not interfere, you are doomed to failure unless you have several million bullets to spare in quelling the population or are willing to drop a nuke. Thesame happened to the French in Spain who had so many troops tied up trying to stop the guerillas that they couldn't stop wellington.
And of course remember the greatest saying of all, "An army marches on it's stomach and it's purse." Meaning if you can't keep the supplies and pay rolling in you're doomed.
Originally Posted by :
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 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 biggest reason is because you have professional troops facing off against unprofessional insurgents. The insurgents lack the firepower, equipment & resources of the various coalition contigents. Additionally, while there are some ex-soldiers among the insurgency, the majority of the insurgents have little or no military training. This is the biggest area where coalition troops have an advantage. Even the ex-Republican guard members among the insurgency is going to be less well trained than British or American soldiers or Marines.
Originally Posted by :
USA uses the M16 and is expected to engage the enemy up to about 150m
The M-16 has a maximum effective range of 550 meters at a point target. While I'm not really familiar with US Army marskmanship standards, US Marines train to use their weapons to its maximum effective range. When you qualify on the rifle range, the course goes up to 500 meters. USA uses the M16 and is expected to engage the enemy up to about 150m
The AK-47 has a maximum effective range of 300 meters, while the SA80 has a maximum effective range of 500 meters.
A note about the AK versus the M-16:
I find the M-16 to be a superior weapon, and I've fired both. The M-16 has much greater range and accuracy. A lighter round (5.56mm as opposed to 7.62mm) also means you can hump more rounds into the fight than with the AK-47. The advantages of the Kalashnikovs are its reliability, and its greater stopping power. Reliability however shouldn't really be an issue with the M-16 so long as the troops using it are properly trained. So long as you take care of the M-16, it'll take care of you.
There was a program on discovery channel a few months ago called "Greatest Military Clashes" (I think).
One episode they compared the AK47 to the M16. And they found that that they are meant for different purposes. The AK47 is an Assult rifle that allows you to make your own cover when attacking. Whereas the M16 is a Rifle, It is used for accuracy at long-Medium ranges. It suffered in the Jungle because of reliability issues but also because the Vietnamese allowed the soldiers in close to "grab their belt buckle".
This could happen i the urban environment but superior tactcs and trainning can over come this slight advantage the AK47 has in CQB.
One episode they compared the AK47 to the M16. And they found that that they are meant for different purposes. The AK47 is an Assult rifle that allows you to make your own cover when attacking. Whereas the M16 is a Rifle, It is used for accuracy at long-Medium ranges. It suffered in the Jungle because of reliability issues but also because the Vietnamese allowed the soldiers in close to "grab their belt buckle".
This could happen i the urban environment but superior tactcs and trainning can over come this slight advantage the AK47 has in CQB.
For the most part, little has changed.
In the end, it's all about logistics and morale.
In the end, it's all about logistics and morale.
Usually, at stationary (point) targets, 300 to 500m for the m16
meaning that the useful range of the M16 is max 200 yards. (unless you're firing at an unaware target like the D.C snipers, but most enemy troops will be covered)
Useful range of the AK is around max 100 yards.
meaning that the useful range of the M16 is max 200 yards. (unless you're firing at an unaware target like the D.C snipers, but most enemy troops will be covered)
Useful range of the AK is around max 100 yards.
Originally Posted by Beirut:
For the most part, little has changed.
In the end, it's all about logistics and morale.
Absolutely Right.For the most part, little has changed.
In the end, it's all about logistics and morale.
Originally Posted by zelda12:
One of the things all commanders should know is never to commit tanks to urban warfare as there are plenty of places where people can hide so as to disable said tank.
Perhaps you should tell that to Task Force Ranger? Tanks are imperfect but, that doesn't mean their comepletely useless in urban combat.One of the things all commanders should know is never to commit tanks to urban warfare as there are plenty of places where people can hide so as to disable said tank.
tanks aren't as strong in urban warfare but with supporting infantry who sweep buildings and aleys they can do fine.
Battles themselves have changed a lot I think - but occupying and defeating an enemy is still pretty similar (ie make the locals terrified of you or make them richer).
Originally Posted by mercian billman:
Perhaps you should tell that to Task Force Ranger? Tanks are imperfect but, that doesn't mean their comepletely useless in urban combat.
I was talking in the sense that in urban warfare tanks really become glorifeid pill boxes and lose much of their true potential. Unless they have several squads of infantry to sweep the houses around them they become very vunerable as they cannot see all the threats around them and act accordingly.Perhaps you should tell that to Task Force Ranger? Tanks are imperfect but, that doesn't mean their comepletely useless in urban combat.
Originally Posted by zelda12:
I was talking in the sense that in urban warfare tanks really become glorifeid pill boxes and lose much of their true potential. Unless they have several squads of infantry to sweep the houses around them they become very vunerable as they cannot see all the threats around them and act accordingly.
That makes more sense, I thought you meant to say tanks were comepletely useless. Whenever tanks are involved combined arms tactics are needed, infantry, armor, artillery, and, air support must all work as one.I was talking in the sense that in urban warfare tanks really become glorifeid pill boxes and lose much of their true potential. Unless they have several squads of infantry to sweep the houses around them they become very vunerable as they cannot see all the threats around them and act accordingly.
Well thanks for all of the replies chaps, but on question that remains largely undebated is the issue of strongpoints and defences: What are classed as defenses nowadays? Is it still the same sort of things like concrete and high ground? Or have things changed to Plascrete and Thermotanium?
I am utterly blank on the subject of medern day defenses...
I am utterly blank on the subject of medern day defenses...
Strong Points are largely irrelavant in modern warfare in open battle as your average infantry platoon can call down enough firepower to destroy a small country. However in urban warfare strongpoints become critical with fortified houses on street corners being fought over for months at a time, that is thier importance. However I'm not well versed on the subject, I do know however that most commanders disdain strongpoints in open warfare because with the fluidity now common in wrfare most strongpoints can be bypassed and strved into submission.
I didn't explain properly, I'm not saying that the US uses conscripts but they aim they're choice of basic weapons to the less training intensive side as can be seen by the engagement distances.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO