Bomb first, talk later
-
Have you seen how america is fighting wars nowadays?
To take over a tiny little town. They call in artillery, air strike, armour THEN the infantry goes in.
I was having a talk with one of the warrant officer in my unit and he was saying this is a very expensive procedure. He stated that though it's cruel to send men in to try and clear the area and when they really can't go through then call in air strike / artillery, it is cheaper in the long run. Singapore don't have enough bombs / cash to carry out that abovementioned procedure.
And he was saying U.S. is terrible in FIBUA, always lose to the enemy. He's not saying that we're good or anything but i think what he was trying to say is that the U.S. over reliance on support fire has resulted them in not being proficient in infantry warfare. But come to think of it, they are constantly the offensive force so to me they are always on the backfoot coz the enemy is the one hiding.
What do u all think regarding war tactics? Chiong till cannot chiong then bomb? or bomb until shiok then chiong?
I know you guys like to take men into consideration and say you'll pick the second option coz it saves lives. Okay think of it this way, if there is a war similar to WWII, where you really don't expect the war to end quickly and costs come into the picture, which tactic will you choose?
I just think that if this iraqi war is going to last longer than expected, U.S. is going in incurr a huge loss.
Oh, and i'm not speaking about Singapore, just general perspective
Don't quote this message, just post new reply. -
hmm...personal opinon can bomb then bomb as much as u can lah...
human infrantry costs lives, bombs cost $$$
btw, must say that bombing can only do that much...in the end u still need infrantry to flush out the elements
-
i like to say the the americans have nth just bombs
,planes and of coz their highly sophiscated tanks -
Its not that they have lousy infantry skills, or they are bad in FIBUA. Its just that the very nature of FIBUA negates their advantage in technology, (like restricted communications due to LOS restrictions, many places where enemy can hide in etc) and one MUST always remember that the US always fights with the foremost consideration of sustaing low casualty counts. That is their true weakness. Its because of this consideration such that they have evolved their warfighting techniques, which is to have overall situational awareness which allows them to pulverise the enemy (using air support or arty) from where the enemy is still too far away to retaliate. Not until the enemy force is degraded till they are rendered pretty ineffective do the US ground forces, at the place and time of their choosing, close in to wipe off the enemy. Its really logical to do it this way.
-
okay, so let's use vietnam as an example.
pick the most logical tactic to operate there, with the current technology the world has. -
MOAB
The US army actually had the means to win the war desively, but the politicans in DC. hamstrung them. They were not fighting to win. -
And to say the US not proficent in urban warfare is a sweeping as well, if anything the kill ratios always seem in their favour whenever they get stuck in there, just check out Mog. 18:1000 for every guy they lost they killed 50 Somalians.
If anything, I looked at their infantry training, and their infantry is not any less proficent then modern world armies. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that they have the best equipment and the best training. Their greatest weakness however, is obvious their aversion to taking losses. Their reaction whenever they lose one guy is "OH NO HE'S DEAD!" meanwhile they slay many times more that number of the enemy.
I dun think they are slouches in FIBUA, as a matter of fact, they are probably well trained. -
That's why most countries with human power armies like arab nations really annoyed with America, always complaining why the Americans can kill, but dun dare to be killed at the same time. And for that reason they always play up singular losses of American units. One Apache or M1A1? Big deal...
-
its a victory for them because they dun have the firepower like the americans do. In a sense the americans are not playing fair and every small victory for the iraqis is a significant one against an enemy who is superior to you in every sense. Iraqis basically has 60s technology and equipment while the US are 90s technology and with the arrival of the 4th division they will be bringing in Force XXI concepts and technology.
-
Mogadishu was a mission failure, simple as that, every life that was lost was needless. It was remarkable that threough the lenses of james cameron, a disaster was turned into something heroic and the stars and stripes is yet again glorified.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:And to say the US not proficent in urban warfare is a sweeping as well, if anything the kill ratios always seem in their favour whenever they get stuck in there, just check out Mog. 18:1000 for every guy they lost they killed 50 Somalians.
If anything, I looked at their infantry training, and their infantry is not any less proficent then modern world armies. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that they have the best equipment and the best training. Their greatest weakness however, is obvious their aversion to taking losses. Their reaction whenever they lose one guy is "OH NO HE'S DEAD!" meanwhile they slay many times more that number of the enemy.
I dun think they are slouches in FIBUA, as a matter of fact, they are probably well trained.
you might say 18:1000 casualty ratios, but you must admit this statistic is wildly misleading. -
you know how keep talking about vietnam like somehow America's generals and even French lost it or never had a chance.......but if you guys see it carefully America was prevented from bombing,attacking or even raiding into North vietnam! meaning they were on the defensive.The enemy thus had a place to draw back and reorganize without the Americans being able to attack them!As for France they were winning....and should have won.....bah dumb frenchies cant win anyhow
-
If they used the MOAB in bagdad the reality is that they might lose the war real quick. Just imagine the backlash from the arab muslim world. already the british parliment was divided on this war issue although they showed solidarity when it counted but such indiscrimite damge cause by such a weapon it would only mean the british parlimment would be in an uproar, robin cook would again be calling for the return of british soldiers and this time he would have plenty of supporters.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:MOAB
The US army actually had the means to win the war desively, but the politicans in DC. hamstrung them. They were not fighting to win. -
It's Ridney Scott mister, and I'm simply stating this incident to exemptify that US troops can fight in urban situtations and are hardly sitting ducks, irregardless of how the mission turns out.Originally posted by redrooster79:Mogadishu was a mission failure, simple as that, every life that was lost was needless. It was remarkable that threough the lenses of james cameron, a disaster was turned into something heroic and the stars and stripes is yet again glorified.
you might say 18:1000 casualty ratios, but you must admit this statistic is wildly misleading. -
In war you don't play fair. But anyone can tell that Iraqi celebration over bringing down a single allied unit is overdone, I mean sure they can be proud of it, but they're better off focusing on getting their act together and actually doing something to fight back then the disorganized rabble they are now.Originally posted by redrooster79:its a victory for them because they dun have the firepower like the americans do. In a sense the americans are not playing fair and every small victory for the iraqis is a significant one against an enemy who is superior to you in every sense. Iraqis basically has 60s technology and equipment while the US are 90s technology and with the arrival of the 4th division they will be bringing in Force XXI concepts and technology.
Any clear-headed military person knows full well that it is utterly unrealisitc for the americans not to take losses, even with high technology. If anything, it's those people who seem to think it not that way and make big hoo hars everytime something happens that are the ignoramuses... -
Hardly overdone, every iraqi press release is carefully calculated, they have a pretty good grasp over the methods of propagand in this war. Not only did they not overstate their civilian loses they have also not overstated american losses(by much) caused by their forces, but doing this they added credibility to their own news media. And how do you suppose that the information minister and al jazeera can help in getting the iraqi army's act together???Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:In war you don't play fair. But anyone can tell that Iraqi celebration over bringing down a single allied unit is overdone, I mean sure they can be proud of it, but they're better off focusing on getting their act together and actually doing something to fight back then the disorganized rabble they are now.
Any clear-headed military person knows full well that it is utterly unrealisitc for the americans not to take losses, even with high technology. If anything, it's those people who seem to think it not that way and make big hoo hars everytime something happens that are the ignoramuses...
Anyway, the iraqis are doing much better on the propagand front then the war front whether you like it or not and it is part of their strategy.
You said war isn't fair and you cannot ask the americans to play fair, then how can you ask the news media and the people in charge of iraqi propaganda to play fair. A few farmers with AKs standing over a multi-million dollar attack helo might not reflect what truly happened, but it gets the msg across to their target audience. -
Exactly, war is not fair.
Nobody is asking Saddam to stop his desperate propangada ploys, not that they are very effective anyway, because they're pretty easy to see through for people with basic intelligence. If anything, it seems to be hurting their own troops as they think they can apparently take on Allied units with nothing but rifles and prevail, spurred on by their propangada. Many cases of untrained conscripts rushing tanks with nothing but AK-47s, and fighting Bradley's with nothing but their rifle thinking they can apparently penetrate the armor. They were mown down. Propandaga can inspire pple to fight, but also make them do stupid things if not put across properly. -
In war there is not fair fight. As long as ur tactic can gain victory then it a good one, of course if possible with min death and $$ spend. I think the reason the US are winning slow is bcos there is too many restriction holding them back. Unlike the Iraqi's army which is give free will to use any tactic..
-
Too bad the Iraqis still coming in dumb...
-
Maybe they should use blitzkrieg strategy, whack them so hard and fast that dont know what's happening. They'll be too confused and whacked to fight back...
-
The Iraqis never bothered to put up an organized defence in the first place. They are relying too much on their "unconventional" warfare to do the job, which has not been working to stop the allies so far.
-
The mission was a success. The goals of capturing a couple of Mohamed Farrah Aidid's lieutenants and other members of his clan was accomplished. The only thing was the cost of accomplishing it. Read the book on which the movie was based on. The thing that went wrong was the lack of contingency-planning that led to disastrous outcomes.Originally posted by redrooster79:Mogadishu was a mission failure, simple as that, every life that was lost was needless. It was remarkable that threough the lenses of james cameron, a disaster was turned into something heroic and the stars and stripes is yet again glorified.
you might say 18:1000 casualty ratios, but you must admit this statistic is wildly misleading.
Good strategy. One slight problem though...the German blitzkrieg strategy in Soviet Union worked so well that they didn't secure their supply lines proper; and that led to partisan attacks in the rear, therefore having to divert troops from the main war effort to guard supply lines...that's the same thing happening now, with Iraqi soldiers dressing up as civilians and conducting sabotage/ ambush/ skirmishes.Originally posted by Singapore Macross:Maybe they should use blitzkrieg strategy, whack them so hard and fast that dont know what's happening. They'll be too confused and whacked to fight back.... -
its called asymmetric warfare.
No country can fight with the only existing superpower ie. USA in the traditional conventional warfare and hope to win.
So they just have to think out of the box. -
the best way is to take dice and decide like in the game RISK.
-
Originally posted by Tango1:
No, the mission was a total failure. Task Force Ranger was setup to apprehend Aideed. In this they failed. The incident at Mog finally lead to the withdrawal of the US forces from Somalia.
The mission was a success. The goals of capturing a couple of Mohamed Farrah Aidid's lieutenants and other members of his clan was accomplished. The only thing was the cost of accomplishing it. Read the book on which the movie was based on. The thing that went wrong was the lack of contingency-planning that led to disastrous outcomes.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/us_military/165502.html
So, final victory went to Aideed.
Incidently, after the withdrawal of the US forces, the task of providing Quick Reaction Force went to the Malaysian Battalion eventhough the Italian and Pakistani had better armour.
http://maf.mod.gov.my/english/atm/pbbdarat/unisom.html -
The American aversion to taking casuties was what saved Aideed (ironically if the americans had apprehended him, he would probably still be alive today). As a matter of fact, Aideed let the captured american pilot go after threats that the americans would let go of all restraint and come in with real firepower in a terrible mission to bring a quick and bloody end to their regime. He didn't even get anything in return. The situtation at Mog. woke the americans from their post-gulf war innocence and they packed not because they could not beat the Somalis and win the situtation, but because they saw that they had no interest in there, why trade your life for a bunch of ungrateful skinnies?
The greatest losers were probably the Somalians, who missed out on a chance to break their cycle of poverty because of their warlords.