Modern Day Tactics

[Papewaio]

For the most part, little has changed.

In the end, it's all about logistics and morale.

So Haliburton and FOX are actually running the vital parts of the war?

[Redleg]

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.

This is either an unclear statement - or from what I just read from the beginning to now - and most likely I am correct. You have very little real knowledge of how the United States Army Trains.

During Peacetime - the Average american soldier in the United States will have completed at least one rotation to the National Training Centers. NTC for Mech units - and the Light Training Center at Fort Polk for light units.

When conducting basic marksman training - you fire at targets up to 400 meters. The minimum score to qualify is I believe 27 hits out of 40.

I can speak from first hand that the training of soldiers in the units is intensive - just go to a NTC rotation and you will see.

You can find it on the web by searching for the United States Army National Training Center.

[Redleg]

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.

This is also both correct and not complete at the same time, but is a good summation from what I know.

Strong points are relavant in certain types of terrian - the defending force to be successful with the strong point must place it at a point in which to bypass the strong point the enemy force will be exposing itself to a flank or rear attack, or it must be placed in a critical area that the enemy force can not bypass. An examable would be a mountain pass - that secures the only major mechanized avenue of approach to a key objective of the enemy force.

As for defensive positions - most successful defensive battles at the NTC has the defending force using the rear slope of the terrain to maximize their direct fire engagement - but limits the enemy forces - because they have to advance in attack formation onto the defense.

On the open desert floor or plains - the best defense is the movement to contact to try to catch the enemy in movement columns - this is a tactic that the United States now excels at because of the training of the National Training Centers.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, airpower always adds another dimension to things.

[zelda12]

Strangely enough this is one of the major factors that make strong points virtually irrelavent. Air reconicance can find most strongpoints because let's face it you don't heat proof a bunker. Targeting satelites can then be given the co-ordinates and then can monitor all the hits and misses on the target. Computers can now accurately hit virtually hit everything and most gunnery tables are run up on computers or the heavy guns have computers. So a strongpoint can be obliterated once it is found.

[Longshanks]

(unless you're firing at an unaware target like the D.C snipers, but most enemy troops will be covered)

Actually the DC "snipers" engaged all of their targets at close range. Most were less than 100 m away, and even at that...there were a few misses. The label 'sniper' was really a bit of sensationalism on the media's part.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

As an ex Marine marksmanship instructor maybe I can clear this up for you a bit. Since the revolutionary war US soldiers have been trained to be marksman. One shot one kill. This continued through WW2 wiith the M-1. It was foud however in the Korean war that it was inadequate to stop the human wave attacks of the N Koreans. We then came up with the M-14. It was basicaly an M-1 with a 20 round clip and a selector switch to choose semi or fully automatic. Problem was it had so much kick that you couldnt fire it on full automatic. A study was done to determine at what range most infantry men would engage the enemy . Now I know i could reguarly put 10 shots out of 10 in the bulls eye at 500 yards but they found that by far most people started shooting at 150 to 100 yards.This is why we train to fight at this distance. It is no longer the accuracey so much of your fire as the volume. It is standard practice for say 2 platoons to lay down covering fire whle a third advances using the fire to keep the enemies heads down.

[Sir Chauncy]

That's pretty interesting actually, so it is perfectly possible to engage the enemy far further away than the standard confrontation distance of 500 yards but people tend not to fight at this distance? How odd, I would have thought that keeping the enemy as far away as possible would not only have been safer but also made you feel more confortable as well.

Stange how despite the fact that you are trying to kill someone and they are trying to kill you, people still crave one anothers company...

[DemonArchangel]

Because Sir Chauncy, when you're getting shot at, then you can't aim too well.