Ways to Counter Malaysia's MLRS??
-
Yes like you said let's not get into too much detail it'd bored everyone else in here
But the bliz is limited warfare.In terms of destorying the military and thats the only objective to destroy the enemy's military.Attrition is unlimited warfare with no limited objective. -
i am somewat in between....
i prefer a quick end to a war by targetting all military targets while avoiding civilian targets...in the initial phase of the war... as said by someone... no point wasting ammo... especially when in war... war materials are not unlimited and would be best used wisely... we are not america afterall...
However.. as also noted.... if a civilian target has dual function or has been commandeered for military purpose... then bombs aways.....
However... winning the war is probably much easier when compared to winning the hearts and minds of your enemy...if ever that is possible to begin with..
humans are a fickle hearted lot... many arent very bright... and even fewer are honest... so lets not lie to ourself that we could actually bring our enemy into our folds through force of arms... or persuasions...
there are only 2 possible ways to deal with the enemy....in my view...
one... kill them... civilian or not...
two... divide them....
alternative to the above 2... is to absorb them... it wont be easy... but not entirely impossible... there would always be some groups in a populations that could be persuaded to see the light... especially if they have deemed themselves to have been discriminated and oppressed by their original govt... -
i grow sick of repeating myself... how can u possibly limit your options when u need to end it in the fastest possible way?Originally posted by |-|05|:Yes like you said let's not get into too much detail it'd bored everyone else in here But the bliz is limited warfare.In terms of destorying the military and thats the only objective to destroy the enemy's military.Attrition is unlimited warfare with no limited objective.
and i keep telling u... there are no innocents in war and it is technically imposible to limit targets to strictly military targets. it is also sometimes impossible and meaningless to define targets as strictly civillian or military. the enemy might not let u do that.
as we were talking about the Astros earlier, lets relate it back...
u have a battery of those vehicles hiding in a town, say... in the parking lot next to a hospital. u can't be certain that your bombs will not stray... are u gonna let it get away? its no big secret that the USA does not keep track of casualties on the other side.
are u gonna trouble yourself with that? and for what end? moral highground?? is it worth it if u end up getting your own soldiers killed to safeguard the civillians of the enemy population?
and if the rockets are on its way to the launchers via a convoy of trucks... and they happen to stop in a town to refuel, rest, toilet break, etc, etc... its within range of artillery fire. do u hit it while its stationary, or do u let it go cos its in a town and u don't wanna accidentally kill civillians?
sometimes, for every civillian killed, the decisiveness of that decision might have saved the lives of 20 combatants. THAT's what counts. -
Originally posted by CX:
argh my response was to the guy who said we should just bomb EVERYTHING reguardless of it's importance.
i grow sick of repeating myself... how can u possibly limit your options when u need to end it in the fastest possible way?
and i keep telling u... there are no innocents in war and it is technically imposible to limit targets to strictly military targets. it is also sometimes impossible and meaningless to define targets as strictly civillian or military. the enemy might not let u do that.
as we were talking about the Astros earlier, lets relate it back...
u have a battery of those vehicles hiding in a town, say... in the parking lot next to a hospital. u can't be certain that your bombs will not stray... are u gonna let it get away? its no big secret that the USA does not keep track of casualties on the other side.
are u gonna trouble yourself with that? and for what end? moral highground?? is it worth it if u end up getting your own soldiers killed to safeguard the civillians of the enemy population?
and if the rockets are on its way to the launchers via a convoy of trucks... and they happen to stop in a town to refuel, rest, toilet break, etc, etc... its within range of artillery fire. do u hit it while its stationary, or do u let it go cos its in a town and u don't wanna accidentally kill civillians?
sometimes, for every civillian killed, the decisiveness of that decision might have saved the lives of 20 combatants. [b]THAT's what counts.
[/b] -
sigh sigh...
then i guess we both agree...
interesting discussion though... -
For those interested, theres an interesting article in the May issue of Air Forces Monthly about the experiences of the US in hunting and destroying mobile TCTs (time critical targets). The article name is aptly titled "Hide and Seek". One of the more interesting points is that American Air Power failed to destroy even a SINGLE Iraqi mobile Scud(and its derivatives) TEL(transporter erector launcher) in 1991
Might shake confidence of some posters here who think hunting even a small number of ASTROS II with the RSAF can be done even with our eyes closed
As an aside, some nice pictures of RSAF jets that took part in Cope Tiger 2003 are also in the magazine -
Errr i believe most of the Scuds were taken out by ground troops like the SAS and stuff right?Originally posted by Viper52:For those interested, theres an interesting article in the May issue of Air Forces Monthly about the experiences of the US in hunting and destroying mobile TCTs (time critical targets). The article name is aptly titled "Hide and Seek". One of the more interesting points is that American Air Power failed to destroy even a SINGLE Iraqi mobile Scud(and its derivatives) TEL(transporter erector launcher) in 1991
Might shake confidence of some posters here who think hunting even a small number of ASTROS II with the RSAF can be done even with our eyes closed
As an aside, some nice pictures of RSAF jets that took part in Cope Tiger 2003 are also in the magazine
Anyway Iraq is different due to the fact that the terrian is very open and the Scuds can be launched from anywhere while in Malaysia they'd need a clearing or a field big enough.Also the Astros will be used as a punch onto the frontlines before the main attack meaning it'd be grouped with their troops and not scattered around for 1 shot attacks which would be dumb just my thoughts -
Blitz is limited warfare? If you mean blitzkrieg, then it is not limited at all. The aim of blitzkrieg is to destroy entire enemy formation, it is total war.Originally posted by |-|05|:Yes like you said let's not get into too much detail it'd bored everyone else in here But the bliz is limited warfare.In terms of destorying the military and thats the only objective to destroy the enemy's military.Attrition is unlimited warfare with no limited objective.
Attrition on the other hand often is a precursor to a real objective and is limited warfare where you try to minimise caualties and try to wear the enemy down while preparing for the next stage.
Blitzkrieg was not a tactical weapon, it was a strategic plan meant for encircling whole enemy formations and at the same time terrorize the urban centers. The speed of the charge would dislocate the front from its rear and also poise the blitz element to take strategic targets like cities. Both civilian and military infrastructure was bombed to hell to limit response from the defenders. -
It is limited in the sense that it's aim is to destory the enemy's military and not the entire country.Attrition wears the enemy down by out producing it to the point where the enemy can no longer fight your overwhileming numbers in material and manpower.This includes targetting his economy,industry and civilian population.Look at the Germans in ww2 for example in 1943 they had a lost kill ratio of 1:4 yet they lost.Why is this so?they minimsed their loses and yet they still lost!They were out produced and could not effectively target the soviet factories while the allies were bombing theirs.Originally posted by redrooster79:Blitz is limited warfare? If you mean blitzkrieg, then it is not limited at all. The aim of blitzkrieg is to destroy entire enemy formation, it is total war.
Attrition on the other hand often is a precursor to a real objective and is limited warfare where you try to minimise caualties and try to wear the enemy down while preparing for the next stage.
Notes:I said military and not armed forces due to the Germans consistantly by passing enemy strong points and going for encirclement or taking out leadership. -
Lets not go into discussing the finer points of attrition, more often then not it is use to discribe the process then to discribe a general tactic.Originally posted by |-|05|:It is limited in the sense that it's aim is to destory the enemy's military and not the entire country.Attrition wears the enemy down by out producing it to the point where the enemy can no longer fight your overwhileming numbers in material and manpower.This includes targetting his economy,industry and civilian population.Look at the Germans in ww2 for example in 1943 they had a lost kill ratio of 1:4 yet they lost.Why is this so?they minimsed their loses and yet they still lost!They were out produced and could not effectively target the soviet factories while the allies were bombing theirs.
I understand what you mean by 'limited' and it is the wrong word to use in association with blitzkrieg. Then according to your definition the last time we saw an unlimited war was with the mongols. Blitzkrieg limits destruction to civilian building and structures by virtue of its speed, i assue you it was a formulae to win wars not to 'limit' the scope of warfare. -
true but sometimes wars are not all military especially with a citizen armyOriginally posted by redrooster79:Lets not go into discussing the finer points of attrition, more often then not it is use to discribe the process then to discribe a general tactic.
I understand what you mean by 'limited' and it is the wrong word to use in association with blitzkrieg. Then according to your definition the last time we saw an unlimited war was with the mongols. Blitzkrieg limits destruction to civilian building and structures by virtue of its speed, i assue you it was a formulae to win wars not to 'limit' the scope of warfare.
And we shall not go into the difference between tactics and strategry
Also we do not have to go back to the time of the mongols.In vietnam it was not limited and neither was ww2 after fall 1942. -
well, with regards to the failure of scud "plinking", its been talked to death...
people in this forum have argued about terrain difference and stuff like that but seriously, i'm really beginning to think that its not worth the trouble to devote disproportionate resources to find them and take them out...
didn't we consider the possibilities of cutting them off or pushing them back beyond their effective range instead of taking them out in the previous page? -
Well , the Astros2 is a threat to us in Singapore and in the buffer line ( Mersing Line , Sepang Line , Penang LineOriginally posted by CX:didn't we consider the possibilities of cutting them off or pushing them back beyond their effective range instead of taking them out in the previous page?
..) , so its one of the piority of the SAF to take out the Astros2 in the first few hr of the war , best its to take them all out suprisingly first and that will be 0 hr of the war.
Talking about piority , with the resources and the technology of the SAF , i dun see y will we fail in plinking out those Astros , as failure to do so , we invite trouble. I believe Air Stand-off strikes or stabotages will be the best in taking those Astros out , i dun think its wise to carry out MLRS vs MLRS in Singapore. It will onli give them more reasons to fire the rockets into our mainland.