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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
but your 1 and 2 are not realistic 
. 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. 
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.?
. but i think that when guerilla fighting fails and the population turns on them that they would resort to terrorism.
Bookmarks