Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/30/2005 3:38:47 PM EDT
No FUD spreading here.

Something I was thinking about today. Our military has come to rely heavily on 'persistant battlefield surveillance' from multiple sensor platforms like UAVs, AWACs and individual aircraft, ship, and SAM radars.

How would that change the ground war? Would we still be able to dominate the battlefield without our information grid? How well would we fare if we didn't have BVR sensors, and no radar, UAV or other surveillance methods besides the MkI Eyeball?
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:42:52 PM EDT
Look at the wars we've fought without the toys and that'll answer your question.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:45:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2005 3:56:42 PM EDT by Da_Bunny]
With a little luck, the combined armies of the world could hope for a little temporary local control in isolated areas before we brought our full force against them. Then it would be speed bump time. Our only problems would be keeping our magazines and canteens full. Our onboard technology is designed to carry the day for individual crews and fighters.

If you eliminate the equipment's onboard technology, none of it even works, and we'd be mush.

It would be like Vietnam. Modern Firepower, without all the bells and whistles. Daylight warfare. B-52's, napalm, artillery, rockets....

Unless of course, our political commanders were able to stay in touch with the battlefield commanders, in which case they would fuck it up beyond redemption.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:51:53 PM EDT
You would be surprised how much ass gets kicked with no technology at all.

Simply look at the sheer number of hostiles killed by mortar, artillary, and small arms fire in the recent wars. The quality of American troops has not gone down. The American military still does it's share of man-to-man fighting.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:55:46 PM EDT
Not to belittle your question, but why should we worry about a level playing field?

Fuck the enemy. If you're fighting fair, you're losing.

Oh, and we'd kick the shit out of them anyway.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:56:34 PM EDT
Only the guy getting his ass kicked complains about a fair fight.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:59:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By joker581:
The quality of American troops has not gone down. The American military still does it's share of man-to-man fighting.



Absolutely no implication intended that our military is not well trained.

I'm just curious of a scenario where we didn't have BVR sensors, and no UNMANNED sensors. A couple guys in a Kiowa with a radio is fine, but no GPS, UAVs or similar.

Would our tactics change? Would we still attempt things such as vertical envolopment? Would arty play a bigger role, or be relegated farther away from the main front, etc?
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:36:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Not to belittle your question, but why should we worry about a level playing field?

Fuck the enemy. If you're fighting fair, you're losing.





If you're in a fair fight your tactics suck.



I agree with Da_Bunny that Vietnam was the closest real-world scenario to what the original poster was talking about. However, it seems to me that we did our fair share of ass-whipping in that dust-up thanks to dudes like EdSr and Da_Bunny.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:38:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Not to belittle your question, but why should we worry about a level playing field?

Fuck the enemy. If you're fighting fair, you're losing.

Oh, and we'd kick the shit out of them anyway.



+1
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:40:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2005 4:41:44 PM EDT by RustedAce]

Originally Posted By RyanAR15:
No FUD spreading here.

Something I was thinking about today. Our military has come to rely heavily on 'persistant battlefield surveillance' from multiple sensor platforms like UAVs, AWACs and individual aircraft, ship, and SAM radars.

How would that change the ground war? Would we still be able to dominate the battlefield without our information grid? How well would we fare if we didn't have BVR sensors, and no radar, UAV or other surveillance methods besides the MkI Eyeball?




Dude, none of that shit works anyway, I was an RTO for awhile and you cannot get com with ANYONE, they never tell us poor guys on the ground whats up. Maybe they are telling planes whats up but not us poor grunts.

We would have drones buzzing all around, but they are telling the col stuff. not our platoon.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:42:50 PM EDT
I understand the question. Lately we've been fighing poorly trained, poorly equipped troops. I also wonder about the outcome of fighting an enemy with potent aircraft, much much more technology as far as missiles (antiaircraft & more), good aim, good tanks, good tactics, etc. We definitely wouldn't see as many lopsided battles as we do now.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:45:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RyanAR15:

Originally Posted By joker581:
The quality of American troops has not gone down. The American military still does it's share of man-to-man fighting.



Absolutely no implication intended that our military is not well trained.

I'm just curious of a scenario where we didn't have BVR sensors, and no UNMANNED sensors. A couple guys in a Kiowa with a radio is fine, but no GPS, UAVs or similar.

Would our tactics change? Would we still attempt things such as vertical envolopment? Would arty play a bigger role, or be relegated farther away from the main front, etc?



That is why map reading and land navigation are required skill level 1 task. Most countries we are likely to face on the field of battle don't teach their enlisted and NCOs how to read a map and navigate from one point to another. In the former Soviet Army only officers were taught this skill.

That is why every Infantry Battalion has a scout platoon and every Infantry Division has a Long Range Surviellance Detachment (LRS-D)

We still do train and rely on the basics.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:50:45 PM EDT
You'd have to state exactly what era of technology you're talking about as it's all inter-related. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GW1.



Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:58:02 PM EDT
I always liked the idea of bringing overwhelming firepower to bear on an unsuspecting enemy. It gives me the jollies.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 5:56:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
You'd have to state exactly what era of technology you're talking about as it's all inter-related. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, GW1.




This era. But all the advanced surveillance equipment is occupied doing something else, or just unavilable...lets say do to EMCON. Maybe it's monitoring a more critical part of the battlefield, maybe a nuke plant or tracking truck and rail mounted tac missiles with possible WMD warheads--or maybe trying to find them with the helps of some spec ops teams on the ground trying to find and lase them. If it's manned with a radio sure it can communicate, but no data links. Radio traffic only.

How about a satellite broke, so no long range comms either. If it's over the horizon, it's out of range (in terms of comms and sensors--weaponry retains whatever effective range it has).

And maybe this is all nothing but a silly exercise in speculation, but I'm still curious about such a scenario.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 6:08:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RyanAR15:

How about a satellite broke, so no long range comms either. If it's over the horizon, it's out of range (in terms of comms and sensors--weaponry retains whatever effective range it has).

And maybe this is all nothing but a silly exercise in speculation, but I'm still curious about such a scenario.





As every Marine is a basic rifleman, there's no problem that I could see against any other army in the world.

I would admit China may be a problem in having enough ammo on hand. Korea proved there's shitloads of chinamen willing to attack Marines head-on.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 6:14:50 PM EDT

Given a completely equal playing field (i.e. same numbers of troops, same type of equipment, same "types" of units), I believe only the British are truly as "good" as U.S. troops.

There are lots of well-trained armies out there, but few that are as good as the Brits and Americans. Canadians probably come close, and of course there are lots of units from countries like Italy, Spain, Turkey, Scandinavia, Israel, etc - that are pretty okay too.



But as others have pointed out - who cares? The best "fight" is the one where you are shooting the guy who is on the ground. Preferably in the back. While he is sleeping.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 6:16:05 PM EDT
We would still win. The only difference is our casualty rates and collateral damage will be MUCH higher.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 6:19:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2005 6:25:58 PM EDT by KlubMarcus]

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Dude, none of that shit works anyway, I was an RTO for awhile and you cannot get com with ANYONE, they never tell us poor guys on the ground whats up. Maybe they are telling planes whats up but not us poor grunts.

We would have drones buzzing all around, but they are telling the col stuff. not our platoon.

That kind of tech is too expensive right now so they use them to find targets beyond platoon range so that they can whittle them down for you guys. By the time you guys see the BG's, they should be scattered leftovers about to be crushed by overwhelming force.

If you need a drone, dress up a captured enemy soldier in US gear and force him to run ahead of you! He'll find the enemy positions. If you get prosecuted by some leftist group, tell them you got the idea from arfcom.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 6:23:13 PM EDT

You never try to fight a "level' battle. That is rarely, if ever, plan A (or even B)

That said, assuming you mean infantry company vs company or even army vs army, with equal #'s, the US would win. The Brits would be a tough fight and that one might go either way. Otherwise, no other military in the world trains to the level and depth of the US and UK.

Link Posted: 9/30/2005 8:06:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2005 8:07:35 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Not to belittle your question, but why should we worry about a level playing field?

Fuck the enemy. If you're fighting fair, you're losing.

Oh, and we'd kick the shit out of them anyway.



Yea…

Level playing fields are for games… war is not a game.

The idea of considering a level playing field and war in the same thought is silly at best. The whole damn idea is to maximize your advantage.
Top Top