Ways to Counter Malaysia's MLRS??
-
anybody gave any thought to the possibility of the application of the Apache in this respect?
a combination of humint, UAVs, rapid ground maneuvres and the Longbow radar can be a very deadly combi...
also, the Astros are maneuvrable, true, but their core strength lies not in working alone. they need to be co-ordinated to get the saturation effect...
one or two rockets per km square is not good enough... several rockets raining down at sporadic intervals is also not good enough... there must be sustained fire and concentration.
the jackpot will be if the fire control vehicles are taken out first... that will effectively cut off the Astros' eyes and ears.
even if u don't find them, they might be constrained by communications range. i really dunno the state of the MAF's signal equipments (don't think they'll tell us anyway
) but hiding under a lotta trees is always not a good idea if u need to communicate with your units... even GPS signals can get screwed by canopy or cloud cover, let alone radio equipment...
and its always not difficult to find an antenna farm... (been there... u try to keep moving so the enemy can't track u, but ultimately, u can't cos once u set up, there are tons of factors that prevents u from moving as much as u'll like to... logistics is one of them) -
actually... in view of the high cost of the Astro2 ... it would be a severe strain on MAF finances to keep a large stockpile of such rockets... they will probably run out of rockets first before we get to kill off their launchers...Originally posted by CX:nay... that point of the arty blanket was made to supplement my previous point that even if they had superior range, it was STILL limited and the furthest they could probably fire from with SS80 rockets is a line drawn across from east to west from keluang...
mersing is further north from keluang and if the old doctrine is still valid (aka "mersing line" as suggested by tim huxley), then it effectively gives Sg a very comfortable buffer zone to work from. if they decide to stay in the southern area of the peninsula, they would be cut off and overrun, or they'll run out of rockets in no time...
if they withdraw further north, they be shooting their own cities.
i did mention this in the previous post... u might've missed it.
the few rockets that do get off is just unfortunate... collateral damage works both ways... people die in war, soldiers or otherwise.
basically, the whole idea that an S-S rocket system is Sg's achilles heels is just full of holes if people just bother to think about it...
unless.. we use our fighters to hit all their ammo dumps first.... -
If war starts, no one will be sending weapons to either side unless one side is clearly in the wrong and condemned by the rest of the world. . .Originally posted by tripwire:frankly... they cant afford to loose much of anything.. since they arent able to produce most if any of their weapons themselves...
their heavy dependency on foreign support for their local defense weapons platforms could only imply that any war that malaysia wanna start must first gained the blessing of foreigners....
If countries continue sending weapons to Malaysia after war starts, it probably means Sg is already clearly wrong in the first place. . .
And hehheh, yah, Singapore produces 155mm arty shells, M'sia doesn't produce MLRS rockets, so that an advantage. . . erm
but people, kindly keep this thread technical. . . dun go overly patriotic. . . resist that urge. .. . -
and why's that? tons of stuff that weren't supposed to be there were found in iraq soon after the war started... courtesy of western arms dealers... DESPITE comprehensive sanctions (but not very comprehensive enforcements lah
If war starts, no one will be sending weapons to either side unless one side is clearly in the wrong and condemned by the rest of the world. . .
If countries continue sending weapons to Malaysia after war starts, it probably means Sg is already clearly wrong in the first place. . .
And hehheh, yah, Singapore produces 155mm arty shells, M'sia doesn't produce MLRS rockets, so that an advantage. . . erm
but people, kindly keep this thread technical. . . dun go overly patriotic. . . resist that urge. .. . )
and lets not have the "Americans were aggressors" argument... its not that... the "merchants of death" label didn't come about for no reason... they care more about their bottom line then the politics of their governments.
even if they DO decide to sanction either parties, i find it inconceivable that any government on the planet who takes its defence seriously will find itself without arms stock-piles when war breaks out. Iraq did... despite overhelming odds!
another thing is, whats the use of a million tanks, destroyers, missiles and aircraft if u don't have the crew for them?
of course, Sg aims for just that... not before the war, but probably after it... its called UN Peace-Keeping... -
Ok Mersing line is 80km from Singapore their Astros have a range of 90km meaning they can shoot 10km into Singapore should their Astros be on the frontlines....but that would be very very very dumb of them.So say they take a risk and place it 20km behind the lines....still within the range of our art blanket but 10km too far away from singapore.Originally posted by tripwire:thats ... not entirely true...
its highly probable that the MAF could shoot the astros within SAF arty range and then make a quick scoot before the SAF counter battery reaches them...
technically... in view of the fact that it will take SAF some time to detect... plot... order.. load... fire and additional time for the rounds to travel the distance to the enemy...
i sincerely believe that it is possible for the astros to fire within SAF arty blanket... furthermore... its also possible to scatter the astros 2 all over malaysia which will limit its lost in the event of a successful SAF counter move... either by HUMINT, SOF, CAS or even counter arty.....
thus.... personally... i wont even bother to delegate or even tied down any SAF resources to hunt down the MAF astros2...
In fact... i will concentrate on using all available military power to taking out MAF's pillars... CCCCI.... and key MAF units... like signals and supply depots
SAF would then muscle in and seek to occupy all key cities to be used as fortress and see if MAF would wanna fire its Astros at its own cities with thoudsands of malaysian citizen... -
i sincerely feels we should concentrate on hitting their energy, water and communication facilities and send watever remaining forces to crush their economy... for example... i believe most of their oil are offshore... good prime target i would say....Originally posted by |-|05|:Ok Mersing line is 80km from Singapore their Astros have a range of 90km meaning they can shoot 10km into Singapore should their Astros be on the frontlines....but that would be very very very dumb of them.So say they take a risk and place it 20km behind the lines....still within the range of our art blanket but 10km too far away from singapore.
incinerator bombs would make good bonfires out of their palm plantations while water color bomb drop into their reservoir would sure scare the hell out of them....
i wonder .... wat if we set the entire malaysian forest on fire?? by using gasoline bomb from their oil plants.....
-
wah piang, haze lehOriginally posted by tripwire:i wonder .... wat if we set the entire malaysian forest on fire?? by using gasoline bomb from their oil plants..... 
wait we kena whack by green peace ah -
No we need political leverage and not bombing them to hell.We need to knock them out of the war not kill them!Originally posted by tripwire:i sincerely feels we should concentrate on hitting their energy, water and communication facilities and send watever remaining forces to crush their economy... for example... i believe most of their oil are offshore... good prime target i would say....
incinerator bombs would make good bonfires out of their palm plantations while water color bomb drop into their reservoir would sure scare the hell out of them....
i wonder .... wat if we set the entire malaysian forest on fire?? by using gasoline bomb from their oil plants..... -
thats not a good idea... u're leaving the decision to end the war to he enemy.Originally posted by |-|05|:No we need political leverage and not bombing them to hell.We need to knock them out of the war not kill them!
sucessful wars are fought on clear, attainable objectives with decisive means to achieve absolute ends.
u can't say "we'll hit u until it hurts but no more cos we don't wanna look like war criminals..." thats bull... war is war and in war, people die. a war can be fought on amazingly little... as long as they refuse to surrender, u will still find yourself fighting remnants and rag-tag insurgents. that type of war is near impossible to win with limited means.
i say if it comes to that, we hit them with everything we've got and not stop till they, or we are completely defeated.
a war is fought not to safeguard the present, but guarantee the future. -
When it has already come to war, it inherently means politics had failed. The course left is to overwhelm the enemy totally and completely. Then we knock them some more until they come to the table on our terms.Originally posted by |-|05|:No we need political leverage and not bombing them to hell.We need to knock them out of the war not kill them! -
Another way we have of defeating MLRS is the Longshot LOCAAS system developed by ST Dynamics:
http://aa.janes.com/docs/aa/show_daily/news1Mar2002_101609.shtml
It will glide a dumb bomb to a GPS location up to 110km from the launching platform. No word about the accuracy or the maximum weight of the bomb, but I would think a couple of F-16s each armed with 2-4 Longshot cluster bombs should be able to decimate any MLRS launch site within range of Singapore, without even leaving Singapore's airspace.
Of course, the glide bombs themselves may be shot down, but depending on their speed they may be very hard for Malaysian air defense to intercept. Then again, we can probably saturate the MLRS firing site with enough incoming bombs to overwhelm any air defense. This is expensive, but MLRS launchers are just as costly.
In fact, Longshot is even more dangerous than MLRS since it has a longer range, is harder to counter, may be more accurate, and can be launched from anywhere, not just a small number of ground-based launch sites. Our larger airforce means that we can use LOCAAS technology better than the Malaysians. In essence, every plane that we have becomes a small MLRS launcher with this technology (though with more expensive ammo and more difficult logistics). -
did u read it right???
the Longshot is not a weapons system... it is a weapons guidance system...
u launch it up to 110km away so your jets don't have to fly through flak, u drop your bombs and the Longshot guides your munitions to the target using GPS... -
Yes I read that right.
Unfortunately, you need one Longshot for each bomb you fire. It is basically a set of strap-on glider wings for each bomb, with GPS guidance systems. It is a way of converting existing dumb bombs into smart standoff bombs, like JDAM except with much longer range. Very nice if ST manages to pull it off. -
No you have to leave them with a will for peace and not a will for death.A cornered enemy fights harder then an enemy who can run away.Look if we bomb them to hell it will only serve to stiffen their resistance and thus making the war longer and harder to win.Also it destroys the civilian infrastructure which is not something we want.We need to get a political victory not a total military victory.We need to make them surrender not take over them;else we end up like isreal fighting a costant war.Originally posted by CX:thats not a good idea... u're leaving the decision to end the war to he enemy.
sucessful wars are fought on clear, attainable objectives with decisive means to achieve absolute ends.
u can't say "we'll hit u until it hurts but no more cos we don't wanna look like war criminals..." thats bull... war is war and in war, people die. a war can be fought on amazingly little... as long as they refuse to surrender, u will still find yourself fighting remnants and rag-tag insurgents. that type of war is near impossible to win with limited means.
i say if it comes to that, we hit them with everything we've got and not stop till they, or we are completely defeated.
a war is fought not to safeguard the present, but guarantee the future. -
wha, what if israel occupy the surrounding arab states? got enough troops or not....
-
way too expensiveOriginally posted by SingaporeMacross:wha, what if israel occupy the surrounding arab states? got enough troops or not.... -
Impossible. I dun think Isreal can even effectively occupy one city of any arab state. Arabs would redefine the word matyr afgainst the jewish 'infidels'.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:wha, what if israel occupy the surrounding arab states? got enough troops or not.... -
OH! well, i was under the impression that u thought the Longshot was the projectile itself... nvm... my mistake...Originally posted by dkhoo:Yes I read that right. Unfortunately, you need one Longshot for each bomb you fire. It is basically a set of strap-on glider wings for each bomb, with GPS guidance systems. It is a way of converting existing dumb bombs into smart standoff bombs, like JDAM except with much longer range. Very nice if ST manages to pull it off.
actually, it would bring us BACK to square one of the discussion: how to find those goddamn launchers!
i'm tempted to think that maybe we're barking up the wrong tree... maybe don't need to find them at all since they'll be effectively neutralised if (a) they can't re-supply and (b) we get our buffer zone.
why waste resources hunting something that might not cause all that much damage? yeah sure... demolish a few army camps and pot-hole a few airfields... thats essentially what bomblets do...
contingencies ARE in place to attend to those scenarios... u'll be surprised how fast a pot-holed air field can be patched up and cleaned up... i mean... nothing classified in this... commercial solutions have been on the market for years...
they wanna take out a HDB flat? FOR WHAT??? thats just plain dumb considering that they don't have time and rockets to spare for such frivolous terror tactics. -
Originally posted by CX:
ya the little number they currently have are not really that much of a problem..if they get say 3-4 times more then there will be a problem
OH! well, i was under the impression that u thought the Longshot was the projectile itself... nvm... my mistake...
actually, it would bring us BACK to square one of the discussion: [b]how to find those goddamn launchers!
i'm tempted to think that maybe we're barking up the wrong tree... maybe don't need to find them at all since they'll be effectively neutralised if (a) they can't re-supply and (b) we get our buffer zone.
why waste resources hunting something that might not cause all that much damage? yeah sure... demolish a few army camps and pot-hole a few airfields... thats essentially what bomblets do...
contingencies ARE in place to attend to those scenarios... u'll be surprised how fast a pot-holed air field can be patched up and cleaned up... i mean... nothing classified in this... commercial solutions have been on the market for years...
they wanna take out a HDB flat? FOR WHAT??? thats just plain dumb considering that they don't have time and rockets to spare for such frivolous terror tactics.
[/b] -
if u make half-hearted gestures designed to leave their capabilities intact so they'll be in a mood to compromise, u'll also leave your backside exposed for the enemy to back-stab u at a time of their choosing.Originally posted by |-|05|:No you have to leave them with a will for peace and not a will for death.A cornered enemy fights harder then an enemy who can run away.Look if we bomb them to hell it will only serve to stiffen their resistance and thus making the war longer and harder to win.Also it destroys the civilian infrastructure which is not something we want.We need to get a political victory not a total military victory.We need to make them surrender not take over them;else we end up like isreal fighting a costant war.
Israel would never have won the six-day war if they had taken half-hearted measures intended to bring about a political compromise. they took out every Arab plane on the ground and moved rapidly to beat them to a pulp so they have no choice but to sign.
AND even then, the Arabs still felt itchy enough to try again at the Yom Kippur war...
i can't conceive a situation where 2 countries can emerge from a war on opposite sites and become best friends once they sign a peace treaty. it simply doesn't happen.
wars ALWAYS start tragically and end badly. why else would 2 resposible states come to blows if they both feel that a political compromise is a possible outcome to their dispute?
states do not fight wars frivolously anymore in this day and age (unless u happen to be the head of a superpower )... otherwise, war as a tool to achive limited political ends died with bismarck.
i respect your views but i find them overly idealistic and inapplicable in this context. whether u fight and win a "just" war or otherwise, u will leave everybody else but yourself simmering with resentment and wanting to get back at u...
conclusion? make love, not war if u must fight, make sure u win decisively and eliminate all doubts that the outcome could have been different. send a clear message that NO ONE messes with u and gets away with it. THAT is a victory worthy of lasting peace. anything short of that is an accident waiting to happen. -
When the fight starts, what matters is winning, not gaining the moral high ground and all that nonsense... you have to fight to win, and not pressing the enemy too hard so that he will not fight like a cornered animal is not a recipe for peace, if you notice, it's actually a old chinese tatic of allowing a cornered enemy some way out so he wun fight so hard, and when he takes it, blam, you grab him when he's on the run or thinks that he's safe... like that his morale will not be as high as when he's expecting a final fight.
Your view of cornered enemy is too simplistic, it is easy to see how we can still completely defeat malaysia in a conflict without forcing them to come out with all their desperate means, it's all pysco-logy siak... -
No it is not and i believe you guys read wrongly i was responding to some guy saying we should just bomb everything civilians included.The thing is there are 2 kinds of victory 1st is the kind where the enemy is totally and utter destroyed and has zero chances of fighting back politically,physically and mentallyThis kind of war is 1 where you attack anything and indeed every single target including military,industrial and goverment infrastructure.In a war like this the losing country is left usually in shambles and the victor can either annex land,get a DMZ or totally occupy the land.This is the situation Isreal was in during the 60's and maybe to some extent now.Her economy almost collasped and if it were not for US aid/funding Isreal would be a 3rd world country now.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:When the fight starts, what matters is winning, not gaining the moral high ground and all that nonsense... you have to fight to win, and not pressing the enemy too hard so that he will not fight like a cornered animal is not a recipe for peace, if you notice, it's actually a old chinese tatic of allowing a cornered enemy some way out so he wun fight so hard, and when he takes it, blam, you grab him when he's on the run or thinks that he's safe... like that his morale will not be as high as when he's expecting a final fight.
Your view of cornered enemy is too simplistic, it is easy to see how we can still completely defeat malaysia in a conflict without forcing them to come out with all their desperate means, it's all pysco-logy siak...
The 2nd way to victory is 1 where only the military infrastructure is targeted and destroyed.After this the goverment is forced to the table as the army is gone.With this the goverment will try to negotiate as much terms has it can from the table by going to it early.Resulting mostly in a status quo and paying of war reparations bye the losing country.This usually does not affect the people's view on the victor but on how lousy their goverment conducted this whole affair thus making the losing goverment the scrape goat.Something like the Franco-Prussian war
You either win and make every1 in that country hate you or win and make every1 hate their own goverment.Remember we are not trying to rule them but defeat them.
Notes:Well as you might see i'm alittle bias towards the streatgy of a lighting war and not 1 of attrition which i believe we can ill afford.I am open to enlightenment though
Edit to add this:Remember most of our army is conscripted meaning even short term occupation is not recommanded -
dude! u're not listening...
Originally posted by |-|05|:
now, bombing civillian targets indiscriminately is a waste of ammo... but if a civillian target has dual applications, i say BOMBS AWAY! like... an AA gun is on the roof of a hospital, i bomb the hospital. u put ammo in a civillian shelter, i bomb the shelter.
No it is not and i believe you guys read wrongly i was responding to some guy saying we should just bomb everything civilians included.
its not my fault that people got hurt. its THEIR fault for putting civillians in harm's way.
besides, i believe that in war, there are no innocents...The thing is there are 2 kinds of victory 1st is the kind where the enemy is totally and utter destroyed and has zero chances of fighting back politically,physically and mentallyThis kind of war is 1 where you attack anything and indeed every single target including military,industrial and goverment infrastructure.
there is only one kind... either u win or u lose... lets not split hair. the ends justifies the means.In a war like this the losing country is left usually in shambles and the victor can either annex land,get a DMZ or totally occupy the land.This is the situation Isreal was in during the 60's and maybe to some extent now.Her economy almost collasped and if it were not for US aid/funding Isreal would be a 3rd world country now.
as if the Arabs would EVER have left Israel alone... u got the same chance as that of a snowball in hell man... if the Israelis managed to get US aid and survive despite overwhelming odds, its to their credit.The 2nd way to victory is 1 where only the military infrastructure is targeted and destroyed.After this the goverment is forced to the table as the army is gone.With this the goverment will try to negotiate as much terms has it can from the table by going to it early.Resulting mostly in a status quo and paying of war reparations bye the losing country.
the only time where only strictly military targets were hit was when armies squared off in the fields eyeball to eyeball with swords, horses and muskets. and even then, they still got to pillage the surrounding countryside in their spare time.This usually does not affect the people's view on the victor but on how lousy their goverment conducted this whole affair thus making the losing goverment the scrape goat.Something like the Franco-Prussian war
conclusion: u dunno your history. i told u: limited wars fought for limited political ends DIED WITH BISMARCK...
and the French never forgave the Germans for taking Alsace-Lorraine... it led to WW 1 eventually... oh by the way, Alsace-Lorraine was originally a German state... Louis XIV took it from them.
WW 1 shattered the illusion that war could EVER be "limited" ... thats why WW 2 was SO extreme. the only reason why we haven't been incinerated in a mushroom cloud yet is due to M.A.D... and now, with rogue states, terrorists and US unilateralism, it just might happen.You either win and make every1 in that country hate you or win and make every1 hate their own goverment.Remember we are not trying to rule them but defeat them.
its NOT an EITHER OR scenario. they can both hate U AND their government... the French hated Napoleon III AND the Prussians after 1871... the Iraqis hate Saddam AND the Americans now...Notes:Well as you might see i'm alittle bias towards the streatgy of a lighting war and not 1 of attrition which i believe we can ill afford.I am open to enlightenment though
i agree with the concept of the blitzkrieg. but it only works if its ruthlessly applied. u can't have "limited" blitzkrieg to bring about political settlement. DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! in blitzkrieg, u take them out EVERYWHERE... social, economic, military, political. u lay them prostrate or cringing in fear in a fetal position and then u present them your terms. Edit to add this:Remember most of our army is conscripted meaning even short term occupation is not recommanded
i agree too, but u forgot one thing: u do not just fight they way u want or planned... it depends how the enemy lets u fight as well. if u wanna decisively defeat him, but he plays hide and seek, u're in trouble. so ultimately, u need flexibility on the battlefield.
long or short war is not always your choice to make.
p/s. my position is a little right of Attila the Hun... i recognise that its not a perfect world we live in. -
there is only one kind... either u win or u lose... lets not split hair. the ends justifies the means.
But winning at what cost?would you rather win the battle and lose the war?take a look at the Germans in ww2 for example....eastern Europe WELCOMED them and infact wanted to fight on their side but what did they do?? kill them all thats what they did!!!Singapore is a small country we cannot win no matter what due to the fact that our country is TOTALLY dependent on the world unlike China or the USA.as if the Arabs would EVER have left Israel alone... u got the same chance as that of a snowball in hell man... if the Israelis managed to get US aid and survive despite overwhelming odds, its to their credit..
They would have if it wasnt for how they got their independence by terrorising the arabs.It was them who started it and it was their insistance on keeping the lands taken after the 60's that the arabs are pissed of that.the only time where only strictly military targets were hit was when armies squared off in the fields eyeball to eyeball with swords, horses and muskets. and even then, they still got to pillage the surrounding countryside in their spare time.
The US has done a pretty good job in Iraq....and Nato in Serbia.Sure they missed some but overall they did pretty good in aiming only military targets.conclusion: u dunno your history. i told u: limited wars fought for limited political ends DIED WITH BISMARCK...
Uh no the French had their pride hurt and were pissed off with the huge amounts of war reperations Prussia imposed on them.And limited wars fought for limted political ends did not die with Bismarck,the US is doing it to Iraq now....they did it in Panama....Almost all wars are fought FOR a political reason and ENDS with a political or military reason to achieve a political settlement!!!As the saying goes Politiians start wars not soldiers.
and the French never forgave the Germans for taking Alsace-Lorraine... it led to WW 1 eventually... oh by the way, Alsace-Lorraine was originally a German state... Louis XIV took it from them.
WW 1 shattered the illusion that war could EVER be "limited" ... thats why WW 2 was SO extreme. the only reason why we haven't been incinerated in a mushroom cloud yet is due to M.A.D... and now, with rogue states, terrorists and US unilateralism, it just might happen.
And yes I know Burgandy was part of the Holy Roman Empire/German Confederation.And ww1 was not caused by the French claim of Burgandy it was the Austria-Hungarian opperssion of the slavs that pissed of Russia.This lead to Germany being caught in between and having to support Austria-Hungary.France and England were dragged into it as both of them were rivals of Germany in Europe and wanted to mantain the balance of power.Germany's fleet was already threatening England's dorminace and France did not want to see a very powerful and united Germany.Once again political the war however was lost by the Kaiser who rubbed his cousins the King of Russia and the King of England the wrong way and also by waging an unlimited submarine warfare on shipping causing support in the pro German goverment of USA to throw their support with the Brits and French.its NOT an EITHER OR scenario. they can both hate U AND their government... the French hated Napoleon III AND the Prussians after 1871... the Iraqis hate Saddam AND the Americans now...
That is cause those guys are there for a guess what ??POLITICAL reason if war breaks out between us they will be the agressor.And yes they can hate both you and their goverment ill admit my mistake in that.i agree with the concept of the blitzkrieg. but it only works if its ruthlessly applied. u can't have "limited" blitzkrieg to bring about political settlement. DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! in blitzkrieg, u take them out EVERYWHERE... social, economic, military, political. u lay them prostrate or cringing in fear in a fetal position and then u present them your terms.
No the Germans did this to France in ww2 and tried in Russia but Russia was way to big.Blitzkrieg is about defeating the enemy before his industrial,economical and population might can interfere with the outcome.To smash their army and get them to surrender but if the surrender is conditional or unconditional is another matter all together.So blitzkrieg on it's own is LIMITED!Anything more is attrition
Ahh Attila....incidently my name is Aetius
p/s. my position is a little right of Attila the Hun... i recognise that its not a perfect world we live in. But honestly what is the position of Attila??I know little about him apart from the few battles he fought at Orleans and Paris and the Catalian fields and the myth of him visiting the pope. -
it was a different kind of war... the Germans perceived the Racial enemy to be as dangerous, if not more so than the military one... call it sick, call it weird, call it whatever u like, but put it in its correct context cos they really believed that...
But winning at what cost?would you rather win the battle and lose the war?take a look at the Germans in ww2 for example....eastern Europe WELCOMED them and infact wanted to fight on their side but what did they do?? kill them all thats what they did!!!Singapore is a small country we cannot win no matter what due to the fact that our country is TOTALLY dependent on the world unlike China or the USA.They would have if it wasnt for how they got their independence by terrorising the arabs.It was them who started it and it was their insistance on keeping the lands taken after the 60's that the arabs are pissed of that.
now this Israeli thing has been taken out of context and is meaningless... forget it.
we're not in THAT position yet and geopolitical machination might not develop in the same way as it did in the mid-east.
if we're ever threatened, its do or die, no what if, no maybe. because the SAF is built and trained in one way only: to fight when all else fails and to fight like there's no tomorrow cos if u don't, there probably won't be one.The US has done a pretty good job in Iraq....and Nato in Serbia.Sure they missed some but overall they did pretty good in aiming only military targets.
hee hee... depends which news network u've been watching... Al Jazeera paints a rather different picture. now, the Serbs, Croats and everyone else who lived in the vicinity of the NATO airstrikes were not amused i guarantee u... even the Chinese embassy got hit... u tell me.Uh no the French had their pride hurt and were pissed off with the huge amounts of war reperations Prussia imposed on them.And limited wars fought for limted political ends did not die with Bismarck,the US is doing it to Iraq now....they did it in Panama....Almost all wars are fought FOR a political reason and ENDS with a political or military reason to achieve a political settlement!!!As the saying goes Politiians start wars not soldiers.
bah... french pride... its so damn enormous u gotta dedicate a separate wing of the versailles to accomodate it.
true... wars are political. now, u might disagree, but the post-vietnam american wars are fought with overwhelming odds... they are certain that they'll win.
i call that total war for limited objectives, not limited war.And yes I know Burgandy was part of the Holy Roman Empire/German Confederation.And ww1 was not caused by the French claim of Burgandy it was the Austria-Hungarian opperssion of the slavs that pissed of Russia.This lead to Germany being caught in between and having to support Austria-Hungary.France and England were dragged into it as both of them were rivals of Germany in Europe and wanted to mantain the balance of power.Germany's fleet was already threatening England's dorminace and France did not want to see a very powerful and united Germany.Once again political the war however was lost by the Kaiser who rubbed his cousins the King of Russia and the King of England the wrong way and also by waging an unlimited submarine warfare on shipping causing support in the pro German goverment of USA to throw their support with the Brits and French.
bah... text-book answer... and Germany's fleet never reached England's level... it was overrated... not to mention that this all happened AFTER Bismarck was dismissed... his successors didn't know how to balance so many balls in the same court.
its more complex than that, but i don't care for a history lesson right now...
go read henry kissinger. he's got it all summed up in one book.That is cause those guys are there for a guess what ??POLITICAL reason if war breaks out between us they will be the agressor.And yes they can hate both you and their goverment ill admit my mistake in that.
hee... didn't u say that wars are political?No the Germans did this to France in ww2 and tried in Russia but Russia was way to big.Blitzkrieg is about defeating the enemy before his industrial,economical and population might can interfere with the outcome.To smash their army and get them to surrender but if the surrender is conditional or unconditional is another matter all together.So blitzkrieg on it's own is LIMITED!Anything more is attrition
blitzkrieg is not limited. it stresses overwhelming firepower and mobility. to do that, u have to be inherently ruthless. civillians do die in the process cos u really don't have the luxury of pondering over questions of morality and justice.
if there's a threat ahead, u take it out and move on. if there's a target u need to take out, u take it out whether its full of civillian workers or not. its nothing personal... there are no innocents in war.
THATs blitzkrieg. sitting around pondering whether to kill or not to kill is attrition.