[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FOB question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/29/2010 5:49:33 PM EDT
|
why not use caves? it seems like it has worked well? why not use it instead of the exposed operating base in the mountains? |
|
Quoted: weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait...  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.
cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. |
|
Quoted: the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too. Quoted: Quoted: weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too.
Quoted:
Quoted:
weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.
cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. Oh, gosh, you're right, you know, we've been doing this all wrong all these years. well, let me just rip out most of the pages in my 7-8 and scribble "Hide in a cave cuz some guy thinks it might work better" on the inside cover. |
|
I rost |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too.
Quoted:
Quoted:
weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.
cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. We are not in a "defensive" posture. We are trying to pull them out of the caves and fight. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too. Quoted: Quoted: weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. Oh, gosh, you're right, you know, we've been doing this all wrong all these years. well, let me just rip out most of the pages in my 7-8 and scribble "Hide in a cave cuz some guy thinks it might work better" on the inside cover. its a simple think outside the box conversation... . fucking christ some people take shit way too personally. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too.
Quoted:
Quoted:
weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.
cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. Oh, gosh, you're right, you know, we've been doing this all wrong all these years. well, let me just rip out most of the pages in my 7-8 and scribble "Hide in a cave cuz some guy thinks it might work better" on the inside cover. its a simple think outside the box conversation... . fucking christ some people take shit way too personally.
Thinking outside the box is good if you think of things that arent bad ideas. The question you asked is pretty much as good a question as "you know, wooden ships are a lot cheaper to repair, dont need as much machinery to work on, and we can afford a lot more of them, why dont we use sailpower anymore???" |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too. Quoted: Quoted: weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. We are not in a "defensive" posture. We are trying to pull them out of the caves and fight. the vietnamese used tunnels and caves offensively, the japanese really didnt but did use them to execute counterattacks. thats what im getting at , you can create a highly defensable position to run ops out of where the enemy simply cant set up shop on ridges and mountainsides and fire down on you like weve seen. unless the FOBs are supposed to be soft to seem weak but that just makes even less sense given what losses are considered "acceptable". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you thinking of Forward Operating Bases, Combat Outposts, Joint Security Stations, or Patrol Bases? the remote bases with at most 2-3 platoons worth with a ~company being the most. any more would be too concentrated for the environment. What you describe is more like a COP. |
|
Quoted: talk about a bad analogy. first, using a mountain to keep mortars off ur head and to keep rpgs at bay seems a bit safer than dirt filled boxes and sand bags. a wooden ship would be more dangerous than a steel ship at sea. second, tunnels and caves arent exactly outmatched against rpgs and pkms like sails are against mechanically driven ships. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways, the vietnamese used them as hideaways and jumping off points. pretty damn effectively too. Quoted: Quoted: weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... because the enemy is hiding from us, thats why they use caves. we're not hiding, and in fact, most of the time we're inviting the enemy to attack us because then its easier for us to kill them. Oh, gosh, you're right, you know, we've been doing this all wrong all these years. well, let me just rip out most of the pages in my 7-8 and scribble "Hide in a cave cuz some guy thinks it might work better" on the inside cover. its a simple think outside the box conversation... . fucking christ some people take shit way too personally. Thinking outside the box is good if you think of things that arent bad ideas. The question you asked is pretty much as good a question as "you know, wooden ships are a lot cheaper to repair, dont need as much machinery to work on, and we can afford a lot more of them, why dont we use sailpower anymore???" caves/tunnels do have draw backs but not in an "antiquated technology" sort of way. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The motorpool and helipad are going to be a tight fit. whoa whoa whoa, no interjecting reality into an outside the box conversation! or u could ask the quetion, how would u be able to make one blend in enough when not in use? those places dont really keep the choppers there, they deliver or take on their cargo and leave. the mp would be tougher but still doable. u sure as shit will find tunnels and caves that had been big enough for everything from airplanes like the japanese used to subs like the germans used to the artillery and the entire hospitals the vietnamese used. of which, many of those positions still being around because we couldnt take them out. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you thinking of Forward Operating Bases, Combat Outposts, Joint Security Stations, or Patrol Bases? the remote bases with at most 2-3 platoons worth with a ~company being the most. any more would be too concentrated for the environment. Okay, so you are referring to either a combat outpost or a patrol base, not a FOB. There is a lot of mission planning that goes in to setting up a COP/PB. All defensive positions start off with the fundamentals. Prep time, concentration of firepower, flexibility to react to the enemies attack, active patrolling, proper use of terrain, mutually supporting weapons systems, defend in depth, mislead the enemy to the locations of key systems, and finally knowledge of the enemy. Cave defensive complexes take a long time to create, disperses your firepower, and limits your offensive/defensive options. These are permanent fortifications. We set up temporary COP/PB based up the missions at hand and once that mission is complete we move on. The risk is that you are not 100% under cover 100% of the time, but you get to select the best available ground available, if it is available. The thing about caves is that you are fixed in that position with no options available to you. We will bring our firepower to bear and destroy you. |
|
Quoted: with no nukes (which dont matter in todays fight): given the numbers advantage, weapons advantage we had and the number of casualties inflicted on us for having to go through each one to clear them out, pretty good really. by the time we went to iwo jima/okinawa, they wanted to bleed us to the negotiating table. they were doing damn well at that unfortunately. with the bonzai charge strategy and the bushido code suicide thing, it made their efforts useless. with modern tactics and weapons.. it becomes more usable advantage.Quoted: the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways How'd that work out for them? do you see the taliban being anywhere near as succesful with the tech advantage still being ours? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The motorpool and helipad are going to be a tight fit. whoa whoa whoa, no interjecting reality into an outside the box conversation! or u could ask the quetion, how would u be able to make one blend in enough when not in use? those places dont really keep the choppers there, they deliver or take on their cargo and leave. the mp would be tougher but still doable. u sure as shit will find tunnels and caves that had been big enough for everything from airplanes like the japanese used to subs like the germans used to the artillery and the entire hospitals the vietnamese used. of which, many of those positions still being around because we couldnt take them out. FOBs are Forward Operating Bases. We conduct ops from them. We don't use them to hide from Haji. Your idea is completely impractical and offers zero benefits. You can't see out, or shoot out, so you've effectively neutralized our greatest security assets which are firepower and 24 hour observation capability. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the japanese used them as well thought out defensive positions/hideaways How'd that work out for them? http://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/okinawa_flamethrower.jpg and that is exactly what we should still be doing to them! |
|
Quoted: considering the time weve been there and the certain passes that are used. those complexes wouldve been long since completed. those types of positions have been made up in 1-2 years. Quoted: Quoted: Are you thinking of Forward Operating Bases, Combat Outposts, Joint Security Stations, or Patrol Bases? the remote bases with at most 2-3 platoons worth with a ~company being the most. any more would be too concentrated for the environment. Okay, so you are referring to either a combat outpost or a patrol base, not a FOB. There is a lot of mission planning that goes in to setting up a COP/PB. All defensive positions start off with the fundamentals. Prep time, concentration of firepower, flexibility to react to the enemies attack, active patrolling, proper use of terrain, mutually supporting weapons systems, defend in depth, mislead the enemy to the locations of key systems, and finally knowledge of the enemy. Cave defensive complexes take a long time to create, disperses your firepower, and limits your offensive/defensive options. These are permanent fortifications. We set up temporary COP/PB based up the missions at hand and once that mission is complete we move on. The risk is that you are not 100% under cover 100% of the time, but you get to select the best available ground available, if it is available. The thing about caves is that you are fixed in that position with no options available to you. We will bring our firepower to bear and destroy you. the strategic requirements could be met with the right layout. im not talking make a hole and use it. im talking making a place to fight from. the biggest reason i posed the question is recent events where a base will be in a valley or where they would just be on the top or side of a hill basically open. it begged the question, especially when thinking it would be there for a longer length of time. |
|
Quoted: "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." ––General George S. Patton Haha, the first thing I thought when I read this was Patton too. Just watched it this week again. "I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!" OP, I see your point - leverage what nature's given you, and maybe it provides added benefits of reduced exposure to indirect fire or sniper harassment - but the reasons for not doing it are spelled out here pretty clearly. If it ain't broke... |
|
Quoted: Because its really hard to land a C17 in a cave. http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg186/warthog144/c-17.jpg yes, because i was suggesting putting bagrams airfield underground |
|
Quoted:
I did some checking, it seems that the DOD has considered Cypher's idea for operations in one theater. I even found an unclassified map. http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b250/fightinghellfish/cypherFOB.jpg That is fucking beautiful!! LMFAO!! |
|
There are so many problems with a cave it's not even funny. What you are suggesting may work for an ambush of sorts, which is how they have been used in the past (for the most part) when used in an offensive manner. You can't see shit from a cave. You can't get a helicopter in there. There's no room for vehicles. We don't want to hide from the enemy. We WANT the enemy to know where we are. We WANT the civilians to know we're not scared of the Taliban. We want to lure out the bad guys so we can kill them. It's just not practical, man. It's a little hard to explain unless you've been deployed I guess... but it just wouldn't work out very well. For a FB or a Patrol Base, MAYBE. But even then... not practical, and dangerous to boot.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
considering the time weve been there and the certain passes that are used. those complexes wouldve been long since completed. those types of positions have been made up in 1-2 years.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you thinking of Forward Operating Bases, Combat Outposts, Joint Security Stations, or Patrol Bases? the remote bases with at most 2-3 platoons worth with a ~company being the most. any more would be too concentrated for the environment. Okay, so you are referring to either a combat outpost or a patrol base, not a FOB. There is a lot of mission planning that goes in to setting up a COP/PB. All defensive positions start off with the fundamentals. Prep time, concentration of firepower, flexibility to react to the enemies attack, active patrolling, proper use of terrain, mutually supporting weapons systems, defend in depth, mislead the enemy to the locations of key systems, and finally knowledge of the enemy. Cave defensive complexes take a long time to create, disperses your firepower, and limits your offensive/defensive options. These are permanent fortifications. We set up temporary COP/PB based up the missions at hand and once that mission is complete we move on. The risk is that you are not 100% under cover 100% of the time, but you get to select the best available ground available, if it is available. The thing about caves is that you are fixed in that position with no options available to you. We will bring our firepower to bear and destroy you. the strategic requirements could be met with the right layout. im not talking make a hole and use it. im talking making a place to fight from. the biggest reason i posed the question is recent events where a base will be in a valley or where they would just be on the top or side of a hill basically open. it begged the question, especially when thinking it would be there for a longer length of time. you're wrong, just stop. |
|
Because we're not on the defensive, we're on the offensive. We hole up, Taliban/Al-queerda come back out and terrorize. We sit in the open inviting attack, and the jihadis decide to try their luck in meeting their virgins after going toe to toe against the best and most advanced military force on the planet. Plus, with caves, you just bring down the front door, and everyone's fooked. |
|
The stupid.... it hurts.
The side that is winning does not hide in holes. On a small scale, I assure you our forces know how to hide. On a large scale, hiding is the last resort of a losing force, or a force being overwhelmed with firepower (i.e. western front, WWI). Your simplistic concept of military history is a modern myth akin to those here still clinging to the mythology of grandpa the woodsman sniping the redcoats from the treeline and winning the revolution. Shit man, the Northern Vietnamese has log bases across the border that put places like Balad and Bagram to shame. |
|
Quoted:
why not use caves? it seems like it has worked well? why not use it instead of the exposed operating base in the mountains? How are you going to win over the populace by hiding from them and the enemy? What is the objective in a COIN fight?––hint, it's not the enemy.... |
|
Caves are good for throwing out empty beer cans so you parents don't find them. You say they are safer from morter attack? I agree, but the size of force that can fit in a cave would be far safer being mobile anyway. The VC built tunnels. Ok. And they expereinced terrible losses. The Japs hid in caves and had terrible losses. They ALL died and we didn't. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: weve only been fighting caves and tunnels for 70 years and still wont use it to our own advantage. instead of the base being easily assaulted like weve seen. a cave/tunnel complex is naturally fortified, which is basically my point. WW2, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the enemy is/has used the most primitive setups. the Vietnamese being the best. youd think we would go and use the ideas that have worked very well in the past and put them to use for our advantage.cuz they've really worked well for the taliban whove been trapped and killed in them... oh wait... Our advantages are in weapons systems that are useless in a close-in cave fight... You can't, for example, bring an Apache to a fight 3 chambers deep in a cave... It's also kind of hard to shoot field artillery or mortars at the enemy, from inside a cave... |