PDA

View Full Version : Whats Your Favourite Strategy?



stratadmir
28 Feb 05,, 01:56
What kind of strategies would you use against your enemy. You only have the airforce and army at your dispense no navy!!!! ;) Decide your own terrain though!! :biggrin:

Praxus
28 Feb 05,, 03:03
5000 nuclear weapons air bursting over every major enemy base.

TopHatter
28 Feb 05,, 05:16
5000 nuclear weapons air bursting over every major enemy base.

LOL, good answer, but it hardly excercises your strategic planning skills :)

Let's say that the final objective is possession of the enemy territory (especially his bases!).....then what? :redface:

MIKEMUN
28 Feb 05,, 09:36
LOL, good answer, but it hardly excercises your strategic planning skills :)

Let's say that the final objective is possession of the enemy territory (especially his bases!).....then what? :redface:

Surrender??? ;) :biggrin:

tu160mblackjack
28 Feb 05,, 14:35
Guerilla warfare around the bases, cutting-off supplies to the base. Portable SAMs such as Stingers to shoot down any airlifts.

Officer of Engineers
28 Feb 05,, 15:20
Guerilla warfare around the bases, cutting-off supplies to the base. Portable SAMs such as Stingers to shoot down any airlifts.

Patrols.

stratadmir
28 Feb 05,, 16:31
K ill get in to detail. Your objective is to conquer a country hold it for a thousand years, no nukes. What kind of battle plans. WWII technology only. What would you do after the the territory has been conquered? What would you do to the ppl?
Provide more strategic planning than just a barrage of missles. Get in depth. Remember WWII technology only. the only technology is no nukes.

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 05,, 03:57
US Army Field Manual 3.0 - Operations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-0/index.html)

TopHatter
01 Mar 05,, 06:20
US Army Field Manual 3.0 - Operations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-0/index.html)

Ah! A bit of light reading before bedtime. Thanks Colonel :)

lemontree
01 Mar 05,, 06:21
"Shock and Awe"...then hearts and minds.

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 05,, 06:51
Ah! A bit of light reading before bedtime. Thanks Colonel :)It took me a year to read that. The Brigadier did it in 3 weeks. But at least it will shut strat up.
"Shock and Awe"...then hearts and minds.Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.

TopHatter
01 Mar 05,, 06:54
It took me a year to read that. The Brigadier did it in 3 weeks. But at least it will shut strat up.Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.

Actually, I took one look at it and fell back in confusion like the civilian puke that I am. :redface:

I prefer your simpler way of doing things...when you've got someone by their spheres, they tend to forget about the little things....such as resistance, armed or otherwise

lemontree
01 Mar 05,, 10:53
Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.
Sir, that is what the "shock and awe" will do. But I would prefer if the enemy country was not oriental/asian, we (oriental/asian) can be very stubborn people.

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 05,, 15:22
Sir, that is what the "shock and awe" will do. But I would prefer if the enemy country was not oriental/asian, we (oriental/asian) can be very stubborn people.
Hmmm, yeah, right, sure ... you're married, aren't you?

metalbeast
01 Mar 05,, 22:25
The Blitzkrieg of course. The most successful strategy that combines airpower, artillery, and armor to move in coordination together. Mass artillery barrage on defenses, or planned barrages including airpower. Of course you must gain air superiority first.

stratadmir
02 Mar 05,, 02:49
am i talkin to much colonel? hmm typical

lemontree
02 Mar 05,, 05:40
Hmmm, yeah, right, sure ... you're married, aren't you?
:biggrin: :biggrin: Good one sir, this really sent me in splits.

Nestor
05 Mar 05,, 02:42
I'd probably send troops in preemptively, by landing on coastlines or borderlines, to live off the land and use guerillla warfare tactics. I'd use this to draw troops off a main chokepoint or border, then launch the main offensive. The guerilla troops would secure enemy airfields and drop bombs on the enemy with their own airforce. Anything beyond that would have to be improvisation.

Officer of Engineers
05 Mar 05,, 04:46
:biggrin: :biggrin: Good one sir, this really sent me in splits.
Universal male sufferage, Captain, universal male sufferage.

RepublicanGuard
05 Mar 05,, 05:08
If i had to occupy a country id send in former Iraq's finest Republican Guard Armored division ( the Medina Divison ) into the middle of Kuwait, occupy Kuwait, and cover all of our artillery and armor with sand since we have no air cover from our aging Mirage F1s and Mig-19s and an anti-aircraft defense system consisting of 12.7 mm Machine guns, infantry light MGs, our own AKs, and terribly scarce obsolete SA-7 Grail shoulder fired SAMS.

In short, we will wait for our immenent distruction

I cannot help but make fun of Iraq's Army :)

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:35
If i had to occupy a country id send in former Iraq's finest Republican Guard Armored division ( the Medina Divison ) into the middle of Kuwait, occupy Kuwait, and cover all of our artillery and armor with sand since we have no air cover from our aging Mirage F1s and Mig-19s and an anti-aircraft defense system consisting of 12.7 mm Machine guns, infantry light MGs, our own AKs, and terribly scarce obsolete SA-7 Grail shoulder fired SAMS.

In short, we will wait for our immenent distruction

I cannot help but make fun of Iraq's Army :)


Lol. I'd divide my forces, send the heavier force to the secondary objective, forcing the enemy to move theirs to counter mine. Attack the main objective with the weaker, faster force. If they don't fall for the bait and counter the weaker force, attack with the heavier force.

-Tink

lemontree
07 Mar 05,, 06:40
Lol. I'd divide my forces, send the heavier force to the secondary objective, forcing the enemy to move theirs to counter mine. Attack the main objective with the weaker, faster force. If they don't fall for the bait and counter the weaker force, attack with the heavier force.

-Tink
How would you counter the enemy's reserves?

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 21:59
How would you counter the enemy's reserves?


A-10's and F-117s.

-Tink

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 01:37
Heh, what's an A-10? ;)

Tinkertoys
08 Mar 05,, 03:28
Heh, what's an A-10? ;)

An A-10 is an anti-tank aircraft deployed by the Air Force. But if only the Army could use fixed wings. However, you already knew that, qualifying this as a pointless post.

-Tink

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 04:01
LOL, i run the biggest(oh, and best) A-10 site on the web. ;)

www.a-10.org

PS: The US Army came really close to getting the USAF A-10 fleet in the late 80s.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 04:48
How would you counter the enemy's reserves?A-10's and F-117s.

-Tink

If you could do that, then why the fancy footwork?

Tinkertoys
08 Mar 05,, 04:57
If you could do that, then why the fancy footwork?


Name in history books. Besides, it was the tactic used by the Confederate cavalry, always works. :biggrin:

-Tink

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 04:58
Name in history books. Besides, it was the tactic used by the Confederate cavalry, always works. :biggrin:

-Tink
In other words, you don't know a thing.

Tinkertoys
08 Mar 05,, 05:10
In other words, you don't know a thing.


What the hell? How does that make me not know a thing?

-Tink

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 05:28
Once you've killed the reserves, you've rendered the remaining force irrevelent. So, why the hell are you doing the fancy footwork when you don't have to.

You don't know a thing.

lwarmonger
08 Mar 05,, 06:12
Once you've killed the reserves, you've rendered the remaining force irrevelent.

How is that sir? Once you've killed the enemy reserves, the main force is still capable of manuever. And in modern mechanized warfare, aggressive movement by independant battlegroups would make a defending force still capable of turning to meet envelopments (thus making the main element act as the reserve would have had it not been destroyed). Not to mention the relatively unknown effect that anti-tank missiles in quantity can have on manuever warfare (a missile behind every window and embankment can take the steam out of an armoured charge, and slow down any aggressive movement).

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 06:26
How is that sir? Once you've killed the enemy reserves, the main force is still capable of manuever.

No, the main force is not capable of manouver. Your backdoor has been cut off. Which only leaves 3 movements - flanking and straight forward. That leaves a problem. The enemy knows where you are but you don't know where the enemy is. Which leaves you recee by death - advance until contact before you can contact to manouver, meaning that you're now walking into a trap. The enemy knows when and where you're coming.

Better to let the enemy find you in strength which means a prepared defence.


And in modern mechanized warfare, aggressive movement by independant battlegroups would make a defending force still capable of turning to meet envelopments (thus making the main element act as the reserve would have had it not been destroyed).

But the envelopment has already been completed. The reserves are destroyed and you are now fixed in place - irrevelent. And if you do advance forward, you're now moving forward as a single independent echelon (battalion or company) and with no support from brigade or division.


Not to mention the relatively unknown effect that anti-tank missiles in quantity can have on manuever warfare (a missile behind every window and embankment can take the steam out of an armoured charge, and slow down any aggressive movement).

MOUT is another kettle of worms but a city again can be isolated and hence made irrevelent.

lwarmonger
08 Mar 05,, 06:57
No, the main force is not capable of manouver. Your backdoor has been cut off. Which only leaves 3 movements - flanking and straight forward. That leaves a problem. The enemy knows where you are but you don't know where the enemy is. Which leaves you recee by death - advance until contact before you can contact to manouver, meaning that you're now walking into a trap. The enemy knows when and where you're coming.


Only if your reserves have been destroyed by an enemy armoured force. If it is by airpower, as we are saying here, than the commander of the main element still has options. Decentralized decision making at the battlefield level is what made the Wehrmacht so effective during WWII, and while set piece battles have their appeal, I've always been a big believer in manuever warfare.



Better to let the enemy find you in strength which means a prepared defence.


An engineers answer! :)



But the envelopment has already been completed. The reserves are destroyed and you are now fixed in place - irrevelent. And if you do advance forward, you're now moving forward as a single independent echelon (battalion or company) and with no support from brigade or division.


You are only fixed in place if you choose to be. Fighting for fixed objectives is often the recipe for defeat, as it makes a commanders decisions predictable, and is, in my opinion, best avoided if their is another alternative. An attacker can plan to take a fixed objective much easier than he can plan to try and destroy an enemy division that is manuevering properly. I understand that this is not a concept for defense that everyone will agree with, and there are strong points to either, but it is the one that I believe would produce the best results in todays world.

I agree with you that an independant echelon has limited combat power, and is much weaker than a brigade operating in concert, however it is still quite capable of doing damage, especially to an enemy strung out in an enveloping manuever. Also, if a unit is designed to operate as a battlegroup (thus much of the necessary elements are integral to the manuever units, and not centralized), then the disadvantage associated with the destruction of the reserves backing it up is minimal, and only the loss of control from higher is truly inhibiting (assuming that happens).

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 07:08
Only if your reserves have been destroyed by an enemy armoured force. If it is by airpower, as we are saying here, than the commander of the main element still has options. Decentralized decision making at the battlefield level is what made the Wehrmacht so effective during WWII, and while set piece battles have their appeal, I've always been a big believer in manuever warfare.

You're mixing up alot of concepts here. Decentralization requires a strong Chain-of-Command (contrary to popular belief but the fact is that the General has enough faith in his Colonels to let them go on their own and be appraised of any situation where they cannot handle their situation).

In manouver warfare, you need excellent communications, in particular with the reserves because they're the only real help you've got in case you over-extended yourself, left a hole, or require support on a breach. Your flank echelons are way too busy on their own frontage and cannot possibly collapse their frontage to come to support you. However, your reserves are destroyed which leaves you with very limited possibility of support.

Also, since the General is killed (as he is being protected by the reserves), you have no Chain-of-Command to co-ordinate your actions with your flanking echelons. If you move forward (or backwards), you will expose their flanks.


You are only fixed in place if you choose to be. Fighting for fixed objectives is often the recipe for defeat, as it makes a commanders decisions predictable, and is, in my opinion, best avoided if their is another alternative. An attacker can plan to take a fixed objective much easier than he can plan to try and destroy an enemy division that is manuevering properly. I understand that this is not a concept for defense that everyone will agree with, and there are strong points to either, but it is the one that I believe would produce the best results in todays world.

Three words - Defence In Depth


I agree with you that an independant echelon has limited combat power, and is much weaker than a brigade operating in concert, however it is still quite capable of doing damage, especially to an enemy strung out in an enveloping manuever. Also, if a unit is designed to operate as a battlegroup (thus much of the necessary elements are integral to the manuever units, and not centralized), then the disadvantage associated with the destruction of the reserves backing it up is minimal, and only the loss of control from higher is truly inhibiting (assuming that happens).

If the enemy can find your reserves, then they have already found you. You're operating in the blind without the benefit of the reserves to dig you out. Attacking blindly in such situtions against an unknown enemy who can see and hear you is a bigger recipie for disaster.

lemontree
08 Mar 05,, 07:32
Better to let the enemy find you in strength which means a prepared defence.


An engineers answer! :)

Colonel sir, is an engr, but the concept is about desert warfare. Its called nodal point defence. In deserts, clear fields of fire are available enabling a commander to fight set piece defensive battles from well prepared and stocked defenses.

lemontree
08 Mar 05,, 07:37
A-10's and F-117s.

-Tink
Will the enemy airforce allow you?
You have not mentioned CAPs for the A-10s and F-117s.
What is the spread of an a reserve formations deployment?
The number of sorties and ac required for destroying them will be not be simple. Enemy air force will have a field day with the A-10s and F-117s.

lwarmonger
08 Mar 05,, 08:56
You're mixing up alot of concepts here. Decentralization requires a strong Chain-of-Command (contrary to popular belief but the fact is that the General has enough faith in his Colonels to let them go on their own and be appraised of any situation where they cannot handle their situation).


That also gets the Colonels used to using their initiative, which is a huge advantage when operating independantly of the parent unit. I'm not saying it's better than acting without direction, but it is a good habit to get into, and if your units are fairly self-contained, it is viable.



In manouver warfare, you need excellent communications, in particular with the reserves because they're the only real help you've got in case you over-extended yourself, left a hole, or require support on a breach. Your flank echelons are way too busy on their own frontage and cannot possibly collapse their frontage to come to support you. However, your reserves are destroyed which leaves you with very limited possibility of support.


Frontage generally isn't too much of an issue in desert warfare, operations tend to be more centered around battlegroups, are they not?



Also, since the General is killed (as he is being protected by the reserves), you have no Chain-of-Command to co-ordinate your actions with your flanking echelons. If you move forward (or backwards), you will expose their flanks.


True, but that is a negative thing no matter what happens. What I am trying to say is that as long as the commanders on the ground are aware of their missions, and they are organized in the manner I've suggested, it shouldn't be over.



Three words - Defence In Depth


Manpower intensive, especially if there is a large front.



If the enemy can find your reserves, then they have already found you. You're operating in the blind without the benefit of the reserves to dig you out. Attacking blindly in such situtions against an unknown enemy who can see and hear you is a bigger recipie for disaster.

No disagreement there, but those circumstances are dependent upon the situation (you may know where the enemy is located, ect), and subject to change.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 13:48
That also gets the Colonels used to using their initiative, which is a huge advantage when operating independantly of the parent unit. I'm not saying it's better than acting without direction, but it is a good habit to get into, and if your units are fairly self-contained, it is viable.

Doesn't work that way. All battle groups would have to fit within an overall plan and a specific AO. Deviating from that would either expose other battle groups or worst, interfere with other battle groups and their operations.


Frontage generally isn't too much of an issue in desert warfare, operations tend to be more centered around battlegroups, are they not?

You're still talking about a line of march and its frontage which is even more exposed than a prepared defence.


True, but that is a negative thing no matter what happens. What I am trying to say is that as long as the commanders on the ground are aware of their missions, and they are organized in the manner I've suggested, it shouldn't be over.

But they don't know their mission. You're saying that they go ad-hoc once their reserves are destroyed and fly by the seat of their pants.


Manpower intensive, especially if there is a large front.

On the contrary, it is extremely manpower efficient. It is extremely both fire and manouver intensive, especially when you collapse from the current line of defence to the next line of defence. The point remains that once you lose your reserves, you've lost your flexibility and intently, most of your capability. You might reduce your operations from brigade group to battle group but that is not an acceptable, not even a tolerable exchange. A brigade group is much more than mere 3 battle groups. By extension, brigade level operations is much more than 3 independent battle group operations.


No disagreement there, but those circumstances are dependent upon the situation (you may know where the enemy is located, ect), and subject to change.

You will know where the enemy is once he starts shooting. The question is are you going to find him on your terms or on his?

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 14:37
A single unit cut off from it's LOCs or deprived of it's reserve force is totally naked to flanking and envelopment attacks.

The Colonel has this one right(as usual).

"On the contrary, it is extremely manpower efficient. It is extremely both fire and manouver intensive, especially when you collapse from the current line of defence to the next line of defence."

He's right about that part too.

Officer of Engineers
08 Mar 05,, 15:57
The Colonel has this one right(as usual).

The inevitable result of being wrong all the time up until I made Captain (then, you learned to shut up until you're absolutely right).

Blademaster
08 Mar 05,, 17:29
How would you counter the enemy's reserves?

You can counter the enemy's reserves by putting a roadblock, a metaphor to use, in their way if you can't destroy them.

lwarmonger
09 Mar 05,, 04:10
Doesn't work that way. All battle groups would have to fit within an overall plan and a specific AO. Deviating from that would either expose other battle groups or worst, interfere with other battle groups and their operations.


If your reserves are gone, then odds are your other battlegroups are already exposed. However, your ability to influence the situation is not at an end, because odds are the enemy is strung out and vulnerable. Such is the case in most battles of encirclement.



You're still talking about a line of march and its frontage which is even more exposed than a prepared defence.


True, but since the enemy is most likely using the same methods (battlegroups, instead of closely connected frontage), that disadvantage is mutual.



But they don't know their mission. You're saying that they go ad-hoc once their reserves are destroyed and fly by the seat of their pants.


Their mission can still continue, can it not? Their job is to defend against an enemy attack, and while they may not have much of a shot of defeating the enemy offensive without any instructions from higher, they are far from through. They know that the enemy is in their rear, but that means that their supply lines become vulnerable, and that they are somewhat stretched out from the envelopment. If the reserves have been destroyed by airpower, then it is a matter of surviving until effective command can be reestablished over the main elements.



On the contrary, it is extremely manpower efficient. It is extremely both fire and manouver intensive, especially when you collapse from the current line of defence to the next line of defence. The point remains that once you lose your reserves, you've lost your flexibility and intently, most of your capability.

If you are fighting from fixed positions. If you are fighting for fixed objectives. Out in the desert, the goal isn't to seize locations, it is to destroy the enemy forces opposing you. There is a lot of room to manuever around fixed positions, as the British found out during WWII, and it is only when one's opponent makes a mistake that a good commander can gain that advantage (the "Cauldron", where Rommel suckered the British armour right into his 88s, is a perfect, but relatively rare, example). When your main element(s) are your flexibility, and you aren't fighting for fixed positions, then losing your reserves doesn't hurt as much as it would in a place like West Germany. The biggest mistake the British (and eventually Rommel as well) made in North Africa, was fighting from fixed positions to begin with. Once the British were outflanked, they were forced into a battle of manuever that they hadn't prepared for, and they lost. It wasn't until El Alamein, where manuever was limited due to impassible terrain in the south, that fighting from fixed positions was actually a good option for the British.



You might reduce your operations from brigade group to battle group but that is not an acceptable, not even a tolerable exchange. A brigade group is much more than mere 3 battle groups. By extension, brigade level operations is much more than 3 independent battle group operations.


I agree, and am not debating that with you, because it is entirely correct. Where I am disagreeing with you is on whether, once a forces HQ and reserves are destroyed, that force becomes worthless or not. It may be severely damaged, however it can still serve a purpose (Soviet defense strategy during Barbarossa), and assuming it survives long enough, a chain of command can be reestablished.



You will know where the enemy is once he starts shooting. The question is are you going to find him on your terms or on his?

And in order to find him on your terms, it is best to know, or at least have a good idea, of where he's at before your forward element runs into him. Much easier to do when he's fighting for fixed objectives.

lwarmonger
09 Mar 05,, 04:14
I'm not saying that a force that has just lost it's headquarters and reserves is going to win. That is highly unlikely. However, it can still serve a purpose, and help make sure the next battle turns out differently.

lemontree
09 Mar 05,, 06:28
You can counter the enemy's reserves by putting a roadblock, a metaphor to use, in their way if you can't destroy them.
If the reserves are a division. Then how do you road block a division?
....by deploying your division/bde. But then you have denuded your own strike potential.
You never deploy your units in a piecemeal manner, they need to be kept as a potent force.

Officer of Engineers
09 Mar 05,, 07:42
If your reserves are gone, then odds are your other battlegroups are already exposed. However, your ability to influence the situation is not at an end,

Yes, it is. The battle has moved on. You are at best a pocket of resistence to be mopped up later. You can no longer affect the outcome of the battle to which you no longer would have any effect. You are irrevelent.


because odds are the enemy is strung out and vulnerable. Such is the case in most battles of encirclement.

You have a strong misconception here. The enemy is not strung out. He's actually very concentrated with at least 3 to 1 numeric superiority to begin with (attacker to defender ratio). He knows where you are, wheras you don't know where he is (ie, he found your reserves and to know that they are your reserves, they would have to know who and where you are) and hence, they can concentrate even more at the local superiority level. You would be facing both the fixing force and the decisive force that destroyed your reserves and the very fact that you don't have a reserve means that you're outgunned at least 9 to 1.


True, but since the enemy is most likely using the same methods (battlegroups, instead of closely connected frontage), that disadvantage is mutual.

No, he knows where you are. You don't know where he is. The advantage is his.


Their mission can still continue, can it not? Their job is to defend against an enemy attack, and while they may not have much of a shot of defeating the enemy offensive without any instructions from higher, they are far from through. They know that the enemy is in their rear, but that means that their supply lines become vulnerable, and that they are somewhat stretched out from the envelopment. If the reserves have been destroyed by airpower, then it is a matter of surviving until effective command can be reestablished over the main elements.

To which you can do absolutely nothing to influence re-establishing C4ISR, hence, you're irrevelent.


If you are fighting from fixed positions. If you are fighting for fixed objectives. Out in the desert, the goal isn't to seize locations, it is to destroy the enemy forces opposing you. There is a lot of room to manuever around fixed positions, as the British found out during WWII, and it is only when one's opponent makes a mistake that a good commander can gain that advantage (the "Cauldron", where Rommel suckered the British armour right into his 88s, is a perfect, but relatively rare, example). When your main element(s) are your flexibility, and you aren't fighting for fixed positions, then losing your reserves doesn't hurt as much as it would in a place like West Germany. The biggest mistake the British (and eventually Rommel as well) made in North Africa, was fighting from fixed positions to begin with. Once the British were outflanked, they were forced into a battle of manuever that they hadn't prepared for, and they lost. It wasn't until El Alamein, where manuever was limited due to impassible terrain in the south, that fighting from fixed positions was actually a good option for the British.

You're mixing strategic and operational definitions here, neither of which can support your point that you're now isolated. In any case, I was referring to the tactical, the only definition that can apply to your battle group scenarios.

Combat Team - Combat In the Woods (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1065&stc=1)


I agree, and am not debating that with you, because it is entirely correct. Where I am disagreeing with you is on whether, once a forces HQ and reserves are destroyed, that force becomes worthless or not. It may be severely damaged, however it can still serve a purpose (Soviet defense strategy during Barbarossa), and assuming it survives long enough, a chain of command can be reestablished.

Soviet reserves were not destroyed. There were some 40 divisions still sitting in Siberia.


And in order to find him on your terms, it is best to know, or at least have a good idea, of where he's at before your forward element runs into him. Much easier to do when he's fighting for fixed objectives.

How? You at the Battle Group level. You only have one recee pltn. The other side got at least a recee company. And they've already know where and who you are. They killed your reserves, remember?


I'm not saying that a force that has just lost it's headquarters and reserves is going to win. That is highly unlikely. However, it can still serve a purpose, and help make sure the next battle turns out differently.

Check out the Iraqi 51st Mechanized Division, supported by the Fedayeen Saddam during the Battle for Basra. They could not stop the march to Baghdad.

Bill
09 Mar 05,, 13:45
"Out in the desert, the goal isn't to seize locations, it is to destroy the enemy forces opposing you."

That entirely depends on your units orders.

When the 101st Siezed FOB Cobra it was clearly a terrain oriented mission. And a unit always has to stay in it's lane of advance if there are friendly units on it's flanks, for obvious reasons, even if it has a force oriented objective.

The single biggest lesson of NTC is that the side that wins the recon battle almost invariably wins the engagement. Just one of those truisms of war.

Blademaster
09 Mar 05,, 22:44
If the reserves are a division. Then how do you road block a division?
....by deploying your division/bde. But then you have denuded your own strike potential.
You never deploy your units in a piecemeal manner, they need to be kept as a potent force.

Sorry I was not clear. I meant using A-10s and B-52s for USA to put up roadblocks. For other forces, you mine the area, a hasty built minefield which the reserves can overcome easily but loses hours or a day or two in the process.

It would give your forces some valuable time to finish off the front force or flank the front force and rush into the tactical area you need to secure.

lwarmonger
10 Mar 05,, 01:35
Yes, it is. The battle has moved on. You are at best a pocket of resistence to be mopped up later. You can no longer affect the outcome of the battle to which you no longer would have any effect. You are irrevelent.


I disagree. One of the main reasons that Germany failed in the Soviet Union during WWII was because during their initial offensive, the Soviet units that they encircled refused to stay there. While the Germans did manage to surround Soviet armies in considerably large pockets, it still took time to complete the pocket (by letting follow on troops set up a line around them). It also took a long time to reduce the Soviet troops inside as well, because they refused to surrender immediately. And then there was the disruption caused by large numbers of (albiet very disorganized) Soviet infantry escaping the pockets. While tactically, the destruction of the Soviet reserves meant that they had lost, their conduct after their reserves were destroyed was such that the Operational Element was capable of engaging an enemy far less organized and more strung out than would have been the case otherwise. And the way in which the parts of operational element that were encircled fought on and tried to break out, meant that when the strategic reserve was thrown into the fray Army Group Center was in much worse shape than it would have been otherwise. They lost the individual battles, but strategically, they were able to make a difference even once encircled. Same thing can happen out in the desert, and is probably the only way to fight the United States in open terrain nowadays. Assume that all of your forces are expendable, and try and get as much mileage from their destruction as you can.



You're mixing strategic and operational definitions here, neither of which can support your point that you're now isolated. In any case, I was referring to the tactical, the only definition that can apply to your battle group scenarios....

Soviet reserves were not destroyed. There were some 40 divisions still sitting in Siberia.


Their tactical reserves were. And they lost the battle, tactically. But they won the war because of the manner in which they lost initially. Tactical and strategic levels combine, and it's not whether one wins the battle, but whether one wins the war that matters.

Officer of Engineers
10 Mar 05,, 02:24
I disagree. One of the main reasons that Germany failed in the Soviet Union during WWII was because during their initial offensive, the Soviet units that they encircled refused to stay there.

You're really mixing up concepts here.

1) Blitzkreig was not Deep Battle and was not aimed at the reserves. It's aim was the breach and tactical manouver to bring fire to bear on the main force.

2) There was no practical concept of the reserves for the Red Army during the initial stages of Barbarosa. It was every army for itself.

3) The lack of effective C4ISR on the part of the Red Army left no manouver room and hence no effective usage of the reserves.


Their tactical reserves were. And they lost the battle, tactically. But they won the war because of the manner in which they lost initially. Tactical and strategic levels combine, and it's not whether one wins the battle, but whether one wins the war that matters.

You are really mixing up alot of concepts. You have a problem which only time can solve in that you will have to unlearn of alot of your thinking. I can lead you through a scenario step by step but you're bring up alot of misconception that I do not how you acquire and thus, cannot explain it away adequately for you. I strongly suggest that you start reading FM 3.0 first to establish a baseline to which I can further explain things to you.

lwarmonger
10 Mar 05,, 05:46
You're really mixing up concepts here.

1) Blitzkreig was not Deep Battle and was not aimed at the reserves. It's aim was the breach and tactical manouver to bring fire to bear on the main force.

2) There was no practical concept of the reserves for the Red Army during the initial stages of Barbarosa. It was every army for itself.

3) The lack of effective C4ISR on the part of the Red Army left no manouver room and hence no effective usage of the reserves.


1) Whether Blitzkreig was aimed at the reserves or not, once they were neutralized (either through encirclement or destruction), the effect was the same (although a big part of Blitzkreig was aimed at eliminating the command structure, through movement that was too fast to counter and air strikes).

2) Untrue. Pavlov possessed three mechanized corp located behind the line, which he had planned to hit the flanks of Army Group Center's encirclement with. It failed, because command and control was disrupted long before they became engaged, but they were still standing by, and could serve no other purpose than that of the reserve.

3) True and false. While the lack of effective command and control limited the ability of the immediate Soviet reserves to effectively defeat the enemy, they served two very important purposes by fighting and losing. First of all, they slowed down the German army, and bought time for the Soviet Rifle divisions along the border to manuever a little bit (and forced the German Panzer Groups to concentrate against the armoured formations, thus reducing their ability to contain the Soviet infantry they were encircling), as well as furthering the ability of Soviet infantry to disrupt German organization as it fell back. Second, they convinced Halder (the head of OKH) that the Soviets were indeed putting the majority of their forces into the defense of the frontier, and led to the delusional belief that they had destroyed the bulk of the Soviet Army along the border.



You are really mixing up alot of concepts. You have a problem which only time can solve in that you will have to unlearn of alot of your thinking. I can lead you through a scenario step by step but you're bring up alot of misconception that I do not how you acquire and thus, cannot explain it away adequately for you. I strongly suggest that you start reading FM 3.0 first to establish a baseline to which I can further explain things to you.

I will do so, however historically I know I am on firm ground in this particular instance. I understand that situations change with technology, but my interpretation of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet use of reserves and their main force, is quite well supported.

troung
10 Mar 05,, 06:14
"If i had to occupy a country id send in former Iraq's finest Republican Guard Armored division ( the Medina Divison ) into the middle of Kuwait, occupy Kuwait, and cover all of our artillery and armor with sand since we have no air cover from our aging Mirage F1s and Mig-19s and an anti-aircraft defense system consisting of 12.7 mm Machine guns, infantry light MGs, our own AKs, and terribly scarce obsolete SA-7 Grail shoulder fired SAMS. In short, we will wait for our immenent distruction. I cannot help but make fun of Iraq's Army"

Umm where to start...

Iraq did not employ the MiG-19 for some time. They picked up the J-6 during the war with Iran but by Kuwait those were more or less gone. Iraq had scores of SA-14 MANPADs. The Mirage F-1EQ-6 was well armed with the Super 530D which offered an excellent snap up/down ability. The Mirage F-1EQ was not aging in 1990.

The main MiGs in IraF service were the MiG-29A/UB, MiG-25PD/RB, MiG-23ML/BN and MiG-21MF/J-7B. They also had Tu-22B bombers and Tu-16Ks/H-6D bombers. Mind you Iraq had 3 AEW planes. Iraq had varied types of air defense systems not just rifles pointed in the air and elderly SA-7s.

So to a little book work before talking...

lwarmonger
10 Mar 05,, 06:38
Iraq actually had the ability to put up a greater fight in both Gulf Wars. The way in which each was fought strikes me as negligence and stupidity bordering on criminal. From concentrating most of his army out on the desert sands of Kuwait (no cover or safety from airpower) and then digging in in the first Gulf War, to making an idiotic armoured charge across the desert only to be decimated by American airpower in the second Gulf War, strikes me as stupidity at it's greatest. Is digging into cities that hard? Seriously. Using their regular formations, supported by what few running tanks they had fighting street to street, using the Iraqi people as cover would not be a difficult choice to make when faced with overwhelming American airpower. The Iraqi Army would lose, but they would do a lot more than they actually did before they died or surrendered.

Officer of Engineers
10 Mar 05,, 06:43
lwarmonger, again, you are mixing terms that do not and did not fit into the criteria that you're trying to portray. All I can say right now is that you have alot of things to unlearn before you can appreciate modern doctrine. Please, do start reading FM 3.0.

Why is it that every corporal has a field marshall baton in his kit?

lwarmonger
10 Mar 05,, 06:46
Why is it that every corporal has a field marshall baton in his kit?

Because at 20, I know everything.

:biggrin:

Blademaster
10 Mar 05,, 07:50
Because at 20, I know everything.

:biggrin:

A fatalistic attitude, which is to be expected. :rolleyes:

lemontree
10 Mar 05,, 07:53
BM

I meant using A-10s and B-52s for USA to put up roadblocks.
Lets get some thing clear. The topic does'nt say that air superiority exists (so lets not assume). Hence for the A-10s and B-52s to operate air cover is needed. A-10s are tactical and B-52s strategic weapon platforms.

For other forces, you mine the area, a hasty built minefield which the reserves can overcome easily but loses hours or a day or two in the process.
Now if you are mining an area to block the reserves, that means that you have reached the rear of the enemy's frontline units. It is simple to mine a road by not and the whole area. A mine field has to be marked by a wirefence as per GC, it is never left unmarked. A tank with anti-mine rollers can easily breach your hasty minefield, the engrs will do the rest.
In desert warfare defence is in nodal points, this does not mean that there are no mobile elements are absent with the defender. What is done is envelopment of the enemy and carry out investment.
Envelopment simply means to surround in lay terms, and investment means to utilise own resourses in reinforcing your forces to exploit the weaknesses in the defences.
To cater to the reserves one can use a pincer movement in conjunction with the envelopment of the defenders postions. To inderstand this, look at your hand and touch the thumb to the index finger, this forms the pincer which will tackle the reserves. The length of the thumb and the undex finger threaten the flanks of the defender, and the front of the enemy is tackled by the region that forms the base of the 'U' between the thumb and the index finger.
The moment you hit the forward positions or screens of the defender, the air activity will increase, the CAPs have to be relentless, or Longewalas will happen, and SEAD should be carried out before any CAS is carried out. As the defences are enveloped the reserves will start moving, but they will get hit by your pincer. So instead of reinforcing the defence, they are fighting for there own survival (as they are in the open and not in defences). These can they be harrased by A-10s, the B-52s should pulverise the enemy air bases and neutralise them during the ongoing operation.

Bill
11 Mar 05,, 00:43
"Why is it that every corporal has a field marshall baton in his kit?"

Hmmm, someone neglected to include that in my TA-50 gear...

I got jipped. ;)

Officer of Engineers
11 Mar 05,, 01:20
"Why is it that every corporal has a field marshall baton in his kit?"

Hmmm, someone neglected to include that in my TA-50 gear...

I got jipped. ;)
Really, what have you been using to club the newbies here?

Bill
11 Mar 05,, 04:00
"Really, what have you been using to club the newbies here?"

LOL!

I borrowed mongers. ;)

lwarmonger
11 Mar 05,, 04:11
"Really, what have you been using to club the newbies here?"

LOL!

I borrowed mongers. ;)

Bah!!!! It's mine dangnabbit!

:biggrin:

Bill
11 Mar 05,, 04:15
You can have it back, i'm done with it for the moment anyway.

But i might need it again. ;)

stratadmir
23 Mar 05,, 20:05
Are all of you in the military? I never knew that strategy is that complex. Im only 17 and I wanted to join up in the army, but I wanted to learn more about history and strategy first. Whats all of your ranks?

lwarmonger
23 Mar 05,, 23:18
Are all of you in the military? I never knew that strategy is that complex. Im only 17 and I wanted to join up in the army, but I wanted to learn more about history and strategy first. Whats all of your ranks?

I'm a corporal in the United States Army Reserves right now (infantry MOS), M21Sniper finished his time in service as a corporal (correct me if I'm wrong), and OoE retired as a Lt Col in the Canadian Army's Corp of Engineers.

Trust me, small unit tactics are not this complex, at least none of the ones I've been taught by the military. If you join, once you get through basic and AIT you will understand what I'm talking about (don't join the Marines... their tactics consist of a frontal assault on machine gun nests :biggrin:, just joking, marines are great!).

antelope
24 Mar 05,, 00:17
Best Strategy: I was always partial to the concepts of Air-Land Battle Doctrine or whatever they have renamed it to today. Agility, Initiative, Depth, and Syncronization.

At the small level good old fire and manuveur.

Despite all the technology everything is still really based on a bunch of guys in a line holding spears or swords with a line of archers behind them and some guys on horses who's main job is to scatter the archers of the other side and once scatterred help kill the line of sword and spear men. Technology has changed and expanded the battlefield but the basic concepts haven't changed dramatically since the time of Alexander. During phases of technological change the swordsmen may be the strongest element, later the archer, maybe the horseman and then change again. Today the archer is king as the biggest arrow in his quiver is the nuclear missile. In modern times its not as easy to distinguish where the archer ends and the swordsman begins. A tank can be seen as a swordsman but a plane depending on circumstance can be all three.

If you want to conqueor and hold a country long term history shows us the best way to accomplish this is once the enemy's army is destroyed you need to kill or drive out the local population and replace them with people of your own nationality. If you do not drive out and replace the locals, in time the conqueored will assimilate the conquerors. Modern America is the best example of the former and modern China the best example of the later.

Bill
24 Mar 05,, 02:11
The new army doctrine is called FORCE XXI.

I was also a huge fan of the Air Land Battle doctrine.

stratadmir
28 Mar 05,, 08:26
Cool cool. Well these one thread has actually given me alot of insight into strategy and some of the ways that actual historical battles can still apply to today. About the land air battle doctrine, well yea I do favour that alot too.

FlyingCaddy
04 Apr 05,, 22:30
MOUT is another kettle of worms but a city again can be isolated and hence made irrevelent.
I guess someone forgot to tell The 101st in Bastigone that lil factoid. You are overlooking what is the value of the city. A main road junction for a region or a harbor city is not something you merely cut off and deem irrelevant, to do so strains supply lines.

FlyingCaddy
04 Apr 05,, 22:38
If you want to conqueor and hold a country long term history shows us the best way to accomplish this is once the enemy's army is destroyed you need to kill or drive out the local population and replace them with people of your own nationality. If you do not drive out and replace the locals, in time the conqueored will assimilate the conquerors. Modern America is the best example of the former and modern China the best example of the later.
I totally disagree with your plans of breaking a people, there are two ways of value, I believe, first make the poeople in power of the conquered nation have a vested interest in the continuation fo your rule. Second, when cities are restless, remove families/clans/city blocks, from the city and move them to another region fo the empire, in essence you divide the people and place them in an environment they do not know and have no time to complain. Third, if these fail, raise the rebellious city to the ground and make everyone well aware you will not brook revolt.

AutopilotOFF
04 Apr 05,, 23:05
If i had to occupy a country id send in former Iraq's finest Republican Guard Armored division ( the Medina Divison ) into the middle of Kuwait, occupy Kuwait, and cover all of our artillery and armor with sand since we have no air cover from our aging Mirage F1s and Mig-19s and an anti-aircraft defense system consisting of 12.7 mm Machine guns, infantry light MGs, our own AKs, and terribly scarce obsolete SA-7 Grail shoulder fired SAMS.

In short, we will wait for our immenent distruction

I cannot help but make fun of Iraq's Army :)


Seeing that my only real experiences come from paintball and computer games...

-Open, grenade and clear (rainbow six)

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 23:59
"I guess someone forgot to tell The 101st in Bastigone that lil factoid. You are overlooking what is the value of the city. A main road junction for a region or a harbor city is not something you merely cut off and deem irrelevant, to do so strains supply lines."

Not all cities sit on major transportation hubs. Bastogne did.

Officer of Engineers
05 Apr 05,, 01:12
I guess someone forgot to tell The 101st in Bastigone that lil factoid. You are overlooking what is the value of the city. A main road junction for a region or a harbor city is not something you merely cut off and deem irrelevant, to do so strains supply lines.

That's more the fault of the operational plan than the doctrine of avoiding cities itself. Isolation is not a do nothing strategy. It is extremely resource intensive and at times, just as combat intensive (the Black Watch at Basra). However, the enemy is coming to you on your terms instead of you losing your inherant advantages in mass and manouver that disappears once inside a city.

As for Bastogone itself, given Hitler's over-ambitious plan and lack of sufficent combat assets, I really don't see how Hitler could have possibly hope to isolate Bastogone. His best hope was to kill the 101st ASAP. Of course, the 101st refused to cooperate.

lwarmonger
05 Apr 05,, 04:38
As for Bastogone itself, given Hitler's over-ambitious plan and lack of sufficent combat assets, I really don't see how Hitler could have possibly hope to isolate Bastogone. His best hope was to kill the 101st ASAP. Of course, the 101st refused to cooperate.

Even if he had isolated the 101st it wouldn't have done any good. There was insuffient supplies and armour for Germany to hold off the American armies from breaking in to relieve the encircled units once they were redeployed to the Ardennes. It might have simply delayed the final allied offensive for a few months, and increased the chances that German units would be cut off trying to maintain the encirclement.

lemontree
05 Apr 05,, 18:15
There was insuffient supplies and armour for Germany to hold off the American armies from breaking in to relieve the encircled units once they were redeployed to the Ardennes. It might have simply delayed the final allied offensive for a few months, and increased the chances that German units would be cut off trying to maintain the encirclement.
They had the armour..but they were bingo fuel.

FlyingCaddy
05 Apr 05,, 23:35
Snper, granted not every city is a major hub, but my comment was made in response to what appeared an unqualified statemnt that cities can be cut off and deemed irrelevant, forgive me if I sounded unqualified, but I think I made my statement qualified when I said the value of the city needs determination.
OoE, Im sorry, but the Germans had Bastigone cut off for a week from any land resupply and when the weather was bad enough air supply was impossible, if not for the mad dash Patton made to attack the German lines and relieve the 101st, it would have feel, barring a break in the weather and the subsequent air sorties.
Nonetheless, I agree with your opinions on seige warfare, and I do see what you mean by they come to fight you on your terms, but a well supplied enemy can make you take it to them if you are working on a time table or if you, the beseiger, is short of supplies. Canstantinople did not stand 1100 years by dumb luck.
I can see an aviod cities doctrine but sometimes cities are a necessary evil you need to eat. Harbors are necessary if you are resuppling primiarily from the sea, and in rough terrain some cities are the linchpin to a region.

lwarmonger
05 Apr 05,, 23:39
They had the armour..but they were bingo fuel.

They had armour, but not enough, even if they had sufficient supplies. German losses on the Eastern Front had been so heavy by that point in the war that they were going to be swarmed over by American tanks. Even with enough fuel, they couldn't have stopped Patton's counter-offensive.

Officer of Engineers
06 Apr 05,, 01:35
Snper, granted not every city is a major hub, but my comment was made in response to what appeared an unqualified statemnt that cities can be cut off and deemed irrelevant, forgive me if I sounded unqualified, but I think I made my statement qualified when I said the value of the city needs determination.

I think you're still misunderstanding the doctrine. Making a city irrelvent is resource intensive. You need that road? Build another safer road. That bridge is hard to take? Bring your own. You need the area the city now occupies? Burn the city to the ground (how much more irrevelent can you get) and rebuild it to your needs.


OoE, Im sorry, but the Germans had Bastigone cut off for a week from any land resupply and when the weather was bad enough air supply was impossible, if not for the mad dash Patton made to attack the German lines and relieve the 101st, it would have feel, barring a break in the weather and the subsequent air sorties.

Except that the Germans were also in a much more precarious situation. They cannot allow a force that can still manouver in its rear and they did not have the forces to contain the 101st and continue their advance. They could do one but not both.


Nonetheless, I agree with your opinions on seige warfare, and I do see what you mean by they come to fight you on your terms, but a well supplied enemy can make you take it to them if you are working on a time table or if you, the beseiger, is short of supplies. Canstantinople did not stand 1100 years by dumb luck.

Constantinople had a sea lane and was damned hard to cut off.

Bill
06 Apr 05,, 03:23
"They had armour, but not enough, even if they had sufficient supplies. German losses on the Eastern Front had been so heavy by that point in the war that they were going to be swarmed over by American tanks. Even with enough fuel, they couldn't have stopped Patton's counter-offensive."

The force the Nazis assembled for the Battle of the Bulge was larger than the one they sent into france in 1940, and was largely equipped with brand new Panthers, Tigers, and Tiger IIs.

It was probably the most powerful force the Nazis assembled at any point of WWII with the exception of Zitadelle.

lwarmonger
06 Apr 05,, 04:38
The force the Nazis assembled for the Battle of the Bulge was larger than the one they sent into france in 1940, and was largely equipped with brand new Panthers, Tigers, and Tiger IIs.

It was probably the most powerful force the Nazis assembled at any point of WWII with the exception of Zitadelle.

I know (although I think the force that Hitler assembled in Romania prior to Operation Bagration was stronger as well... I'll have to look that up). However there was simply too much American armour and infantry for them to deal with, and they had suffered severe losses on the Eastern Front to the Soviet summer offensives (which is why there were extremely limited follow on forces to exploit a breakthrough). Most of the supporting formations were Volksgrenadier divisions, which are definitely not first line units. Germany was at the end of it's tether by this point, and the German military was a shadow of it's former self (something not helped by funneling all the best into the Waffen SS units, and setting up independant Luftwaffe field divisions... full of excellent men without experience in ground operations, and subsequently suffered far heavier casualties than if they had merely been used as replacements for existing formations).

Also, to be fair, the French had more (and better) tanks when Germany hit them in 1940 (Americans had far better morale than the French army of course). The early German successes were because of good planning, superior doctrine, and better leadership... not numbers or technology.

stratadmir
13 May 05,, 18:57
Hey, I haven't been on in a while, but yea I'm in the Canadian army too, so maybe I will be able to meet the Col sometime, but I doubt it cause your retired. But newho with Bastogne part of this post, another thing that I have read was that anytime Hitler got some reinforcement divisions to send to the eastern front he would always send them into Hungry to try and grab back the oil fields or something and then he just let the Russins come faster, do you think that if he would have withdrew his divisions in the southern part of europe he could have set up a geurilla style warfare/defense in the alps in the south?

UKRNSAILOR
12 Aug 07,, 16:03
'shock and awe'

Stan187
12 Aug 07,, 21:02
'shock and awe'

Yup, you pretty much shocked and awe'd a two year old thread back to life from the dead. Good work, trooper.

BD1
12 Aug 07,, 22:30
Yup, you pretty much shocked and awe'd a two year old thread back to life from the dead. Good work, trooper.
:biggrin: Maybe you should get ´WAB bouncer´ for title

Stan187
13 Aug 07,, 08:22
:biggrin: Maybe you should get ´WAB bouncer´ for title

Vot eto kak raz horoshiya idea!

gunnut
13 Aug 07,, 08:53
You people are killing me!!! :biggrin:

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 14:58
i would send in agents to poison national drinking water supply. Plus air dispersal of chemicals from civil aircraft for weeks proceeding would be quite easy. emp bombs before entry of ground forces, and that would leave only small forces to deal with. We all need water and you only need to poison the water for a short time to have disastrous results.

Officer of Engineers
13 Aug 07,, 15:20
So, what are your people going to drink when you get there?

astralis
13 Aug 07,, 15:24
well, my favorite strategy is to say, "why yes, yes of course i'll still respect you in the morning, my dear..." :biggrin:

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 15:44
So, what are your people going to drink when you get there?

Poisons in water supplies soon wash through when the contaminants stop. Plus supplying your troops with water for a few weeks, is simpler than supplying a whole country, Plus if you have designed the poison then you can develop the antidote. There making it possible for your troops to drink the poisoned water.

Officer of Engineers
13 Aug 07,, 16:10
Poisons in water supplies soon wash through when the contaminants stop.

So, let me get this straight. If I just stock up my water away from any new source of contamination, my water would become safe.


Plus supplying your troops with water for a few weeks, is simpler than supplying a whole country,

A soldier under combat conditions need 2 litres of water a day. Do the math.


Plus if you have designed the poison then you can develop the antidote. There making it possible for your troops to drink the poisoned water.

So what's stopping me from boiling and/or filtering it?

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 16:15
I was already working on a plan to poison the water supply of a city with big quantities of LSD. Purely hypothetical of course, I am law abiding as hell:biggrin:

But I was told that LSD is unstable and breaks down quickly.


And why not go the good old-fashioned way and airdrop dead cows and horses in a town? :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
13 Aug 07,, 16:17
Alot easier to bomb the pumps.

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 16:21
Alot easier to bomb the pumps.

The water towers?

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 16:30
So, let me get this straight. If I just stock up my water away from any new source of contamination, my water would become safe.
There is no safe water for your troops to stock up on.


A soldier under combat conditions need 2 litres of water a day. Do the math.

Supply of 2ltrs of water per soldier per day is standard practise. look at Iraq all bottled water or tankard in.


So what's stopping me from boiling and/or filtering it?

Yes this is your best possible chance, but that's assuming it can be boiled to a safe level. there are many forms of bacteria that cant die from boiling. There is also nerve and biological agents that will go through all standard filters. And what about the civilian population, who's going to work the pumping house for your water and sewerage, what about the electric the food supply. Millions of the population will be either dieing or dead or trying to find food and safe water.

Officer of Engineers
13 Aug 07,, 16:34
The more complicated you make your poison, the less chance you have for your own people to make the water safe, especially an infantryman who's got enough to worry about dodging bullets. If it is not a one step process, forget it. But if it is a one step process, then it's damned ineffective against boiling and filtering.

And this is the US you're talking about shipping in water. All other armies filter their water.

Officer of Engineers
13 Aug 07,, 16:35
The water towers?
Anything to deny fresh flowing water and let the population's own urine and fecal matter (and decaying corpses) do the poisoning.

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 16:37
Yes this is your best possible chance, but that's assuming it can be boiled to a safe level. there are many forms of bacteria that cant die from boiling. There is also nerve and biological agents that will go through all standard filters. And what about the civilian population, who's going to work the pumping house for your water and sewerage, what about the electric the food supply. Millions of the population will be either dieing or dead or trying to find food and safe water.

Bacteriae die from boiling. Some viruses don't, but viruses are nanorobots so they don't count.

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 16:38
The more complicated you make your poison, the less chance you have for your own people to make the water safe, especially an infantryman who's got enough to worry about dodging bullets. If it is not a one step process, forget it. But if it is a one step process, then it's damned ineffective against boiling and filtering.

what if your soldiers are immune before they even go into battle. this way you can make the strain more lethal.

And what about the civil population

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 16:40
Anything to deny fresh flowing water and let the population's own urine and fecal matter (and decaying corpses) do the poisoning.

Ah yes.

Reminds me of the book "Bayazet" by Valentin Pikul. The Russians held a castle during the Krimean war, and there was a water pool nearby. The Turks had sharpshooters who assured that those who tried to get water died and decayed in the water. Afterwards the marksmen were removed, and you can calculate the effects.

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 16:42
what if your soldiers are immune before they even go into battle. this way you can make the strain more lethal.

How much gazillion $ are you planning to spend on genetics?

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 16:50
How much gazillion $ are you planning to spend on genetics?

to produce a nerve agent, a deadly bacteria or virus that you have the antivirus or antidote for, must be common practise.

And what about the population

astralis
13 Aug 07,, 16:54
gsg9,

did you really serve in the Royal Scots 2nd battalion? :confused:

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 17:02
gsg9,

did you really serve in the Royal Scots 2nd battalion? :confused:

Royal Scots 2nd battalion Lowland volunteers. stationed at East Claremont st Edinburgh.

Officer of Engineers
13 Aug 07,, 17:05
to produce a nerve agent, a deadly bacteria or virus that you have the antivirus or antidote for, must be common practise.And are you expecting the infantryman to be a biowarfare specialist?


And what about the populationThere will be survivors, especially those shooting back. Your question is "can they be reduced to a manageable level through reducing the water supply?"

My question is "how?"

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 17:05
Royal Scots 2nd battalion Lowland volunteers. stationed at East Claremont st Edinburgh.

Your "strategies" sound even unrealistic for an unarmed civilian.

Oh yes, as soon as you use your special nerve gas you will see a bright light at the horizon.
And it won't be the Sun.

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 17:13
Biological warfare is very hard to use properly. Antidote just isn't.

gsg9
13 Aug 07,, 17:41
Your "strategies" sound even unrealistic for an unarmed civilian.

Oh yes, as soon as you use your special nerve gas you will see a bright light at the horizon.
And it won't be the Sun.

The aim of my suggested strategy is to destroy as much as possible the fighting ability and cohesion of the enemy, by destroying the civil population, and its ability to function normally. What gave me this idea, was the recent flooding in England. The power supply to one water filtration plant went down. And the resulting lack of water to industry and homes wasn't sorted for a few days, The resources that had to be brought to bare on this incident. clearly showed how dependant we are on a clean and constant supply of water.

Stan187
13 Aug 07,, 20:03
The aim of my suggested strategy is to destroy as much as possible the fighting ability and cohesion of the enemy, by destroying the civil population, and its ability to function normally.

Then your best bet is a thermonuclear device.

Feanor
13 Aug 07,, 20:43
A lot of them lol. But if your objective is to conquer and hold territory then that wouldn't really work well, especially given WWII technology. In terms of teh assault a heavily mechanized army consisting of powerful strike groups to break through at critical locations forcing the enemy to either be surrounded and fall bakc, coupled with complete air superiority due to a surprise attack that was prepared ahead of time and no declaration of war, also pushing up all resources and war materials to the front line ahead of time, would probably knock out a WWII age opponent (assuming he doesn't notice what you're doing).


Realistically the one way to permanently secure territory would be attacking a country notably smaller then you so that after some thorough genocide the remains of the local population would assimilate smoothly. The, after 5-6 generations, the territory will be populated by people ethnically no different from the rest of your country, thus allowing you to permanently hold it. However this kind of approach requires hundreds of years to majorly enlarge your country, and since that happens to be beyond the scope of any single leader it has not been done. (arguably one could say the U.S. dealing with Native Americans was just that, although I would disagree, because it was circumstantial rather then planned out)

Stan187
13 Aug 07,, 21:47
Realistically the one way to permanently secure territory would be attacking a country notably smaller then you so that after some thorough genocide the remains of the local population would assimilate smoothly. The, after 5-6 generations, the territory will be populated by people ethnically no different from the rest of your country, thus allowing you to permanently hold it. However this kind of approach requires hundreds of years to majorly enlarge your country, and since that happens to be beyond the scope of any single leader it has not been done. (arguably one could say the U.S. dealing with Native Americans was just that, although I would disagree, because it was circumstantial rather then planned out)

Not to mention that the US dealt with Indians more so through separation than assimilation.

gunnut
13 Aug 07,, 23:12
The aim of my suggested strategy is to destroy as much as possible the fighting ability and cohesion of the enemy, by destroying the civil population, and its ability to function normally. What gave me this idea, was the recent flooding in England. The power supply to one water filtration plant went down. And the resulting lack of water to industry and homes wasn't sorted for a few days, The resources that had to be brought to bare on this incident. clearly showed how dependant we are on a clean and constant supply of water.

Then bombing water treatment plants, powerplants, bridges, refineries, and other critical infrastructure will be far more effective than to use poison or biological warfare.

The first step is to short out the power grid. USAF did that in Yugoslavia in the late 90s. Cruise missiles carried not bombs, but aluminum strips to short out the exposed transformer stations. It will deny power to the population for a good few days. Plus it's cheap to repair, just in case you take control of it soon.

Then you bomb bridges. It's easier to get a replacement up than destroyed water treatment plants or oil refineries.

Modern population centers can't function without a huge amount of logistics. Destroy the logistics to reduce the resistance.

entropy
13 Aug 07,, 23:15
Then bombing water treatment plants, powerplants, bridges, refineries, and other critical infrastructure will be far more effective than to use poison or biological warfare.

The first step is to short out the power grid. USAF did that in Yugoslavia in the late 90s. Cruise missiles carried not bombs, but aluminum strips to short out the exposed transformer stations. It will deny power to the population for a good few days. Plus it's cheap to repair, just in case you take control of it soon.

Then you bomb bridges. It's easier to get a replacement up than destroyed water treatment plants or oil refineries.

Modern population centers can't function without a huge amount of logistics. Destroy the logistics to reduce the resistance.

Bombing highways with anti-runway missiles?

gunnut
14 Aug 07,, 00:59
Bombing highways with anti-runway missiles?

That'll work. But you want to bomb the bottlenecks like bridges and hubs like railroad yard. However, which is easier to repair, or at least patch up? A rail yard is hard to get it back to working condition, I would assume. A bridge can be patched up with a pontoon bridge to at least get some traffic going.

Highways can be bypassed, unlike a bridge. A downed bridge means you either find another bridge or swim. :biggrin:

zraver
14 Aug 07,, 01:35
wow, I am a big fan of bigger is better and stomping the ever loving sh*t out of the enemy but you make me seem like a girl scout.

Sure lets engage in a level of WMD not even imagined at the height of the Cold war.

I'll even give you the force nessary to do it and all the other major military operations like gaining air superiority and protecting your own assets. You attack went off 100% effective just as you imagined.

The animals are dead, the birds are dead, the fish are dead. All these dead carcasses are going to rot and provide ideal homes to disease vectors and pollute the water past the point of simple antidote. Plus I am not certain the pollinators would survive. Welcome to a total ecological collapse.

Since you advocated a blatantly offensive policy, what exactly could you hope to gain for your pseudo fascist nation by causing that level of destruction?

Personally, I prefer hold em by the nose and then kick them in the ass. Using misdirection and feint to force the enemy to commit to a course of action and then unleashing the main effort where he is unprepared. But then as a tanker this is natural for me.

Feanor
14 Aug 07,, 03:50
That would form a perfect natural barrier in the path of potential aggressors for centuries to come. Also as the ecocide scars slowly heal his nation (in a notably distant future) has land for its growing population. If you managed to do this to all of your neighbors then you would have a powerful defense line against potential opponents, and living space for centuries to come.

starwarsgeek12
15 Aug 07,, 22:28
Nice, finally someone i can talk about all my strategies that i thought up in my free time (i guess everyone has a right to think im crazy ;) )

okay here is my master plan on how to conquer a country w/ only WW2 tech: (it's kinda long, hope that's not a problem :biggrin: )

P.S. I'm assaulting Egypt (yeah, pretty random, but

1. well, since there is no navy to perform a softening-upp barrage, i'd start out with a 2-day B-17/25/29 bombing raid, to shake them up a bit and maybe do a bit of preliminary damage (phycho-warfare, ya know? :biggrin: )
2. Then, since Egypt is conviniently located by a large body of water, i'd probably repeat D-Day, but with some changes:
A. instead of an amphibious invasion (b/c i have no navy!), i'd proceed to enter the country 2 ways, one is to fly over th 101st and 82nd Airborne from Greece (This operation takes place towards the end of WW2), and then i'd send the 1st and 2nd Armored Divisions back from Italy (or wherever their last deployment location, i used the 1st and 2nd b/c of their previous experience in North Africa), along with the 3rd Infantry Division (also b/c of it's experience earlier in the war in North Africa) plus a couple squadrons of P-38's, P-51's, and A-20's (for ground support, air superiority and air support, respectively) along with their respective support units
B. Once the paratroops have secured Alexandria, i would ship over the above stated armor and infantry divisions, and have the planes fly over.
3. then i would proceed to wipe those Nazi pricks off the face of the earth! (quickly and cleanly, with smallest allied casualties)

This sound like a solid plan of attack?

Starwarsgeek12

Stan187
15 Aug 07,, 22:50
This sound like a solid plan of attack?

Starwarsgeek12

How large are the enemy forces? What about their equipment? Supplies?

Feanor
16 Aug 07,, 00:49
And why are you using the resources of the U.S. military to attack Egypt of all places? Also why did you call Egypt Nazi pricks again?

Fyi using the U.S. military you can probably annihilate almost any country in the world without much difficulty. Try doing the same using the Ethiopian army to finally conquer Eretria.

entropy
16 Aug 07,, 01:45
And why are you using the resources of the U.S. military to attack Egypt of all places? Also why did you call Egypt Nazi pricks again?

Fyi using the U.S. military you can probably annihilate almost any country in the world without much difficulty. Try doing the same using the Ethiopian army to finally conquer Eretria.

Or try commanding Somali technicals to recapture Somaliland.

gunnut
16 Aug 07,, 03:57
Here's a good strategy:

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"

:biggrin:

The Chap
16 Aug 07,, 06:05
Conan the Californian:eek:

Ray
16 Aug 07,, 07:16
The best strategy is to just stop going wild!

Feanor
16 Aug 07,, 09:00
Wow this is degenerating into spam fast.

gunnut
16 Aug 07,, 09:16
Conan the Californian:eek:

You got that right. It's the Governator!

entropy
16 Aug 07,, 10:52
Here's a good strategy:

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"

:biggrin:

Crush your enemies, eat their children, and feast on their graves.

lazybastard
16 Aug 07,, 22:54
um, zergling rush?

Feanor
17 Aug 07,, 00:16
Heres my strategy. http://www.starcraft.org/dl/29884

Stan187
17 Aug 07,, 11:35
Have you seen the new Starcraft 2 Protoss mothership? It could make a black hole right over that battlecrusier armada. How's that for your strategy>?

Big K
17 Aug 07,, 12:15
i play Zerg and Terran...

I've have seen Starcraft Protoss ship...

i think
SC is the best balanced game ever...it is not a "paper-scissors-stone" game.

you have multiple choice to go against a carrier attack...you can use your marines (best against carriers i think), your SAMs, Goliaths, Wraiths...etc...

on the other hand i can show an exemple of good strategy game ...
http://www.hcgamer.hu/gamer/images/cikkek/2006_01/bfme2_dragon.jpg

Feanor
17 Aug 07,, 13:47
Oh god I love spam. Heres a truly Zerg offensive.
http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/strategy_games/starcraft_2/mass_zergling_attacking_terran_base.jpg

entropy
17 Aug 07,, 13:54
Have you seen the new Starcraft 2 Protoss mothership? It could make a black hole right over that battlecrusier armada. How's that for your strategy>?

I really wonder how Starcraft II will be. I'm not much of a gamer, but not playing the sequel would be blasphemy.
I wonder if they get the atmosphere, story, balance, variety of units, excellent unit quotes, all those countless things that made Starcraft the best strategy game ever right.

And I wonder if they'll show if Kerrigan has claws down there as well...

gunnut
17 Aug 07,, 21:23
Zergling rush kicks ass.

I love playing zergs. In fact, when I play zergs, my primary objective is to see how many of my own guys I can kill. There was one game I finished with almost 900 dead on my side, and I still won. I have yet to come close to that number again.

lazybastard
17 Aug 07,, 23:00
And I wonder if they'll show if Kerrigan has claws down there as well...

And I thought I had a messed up mind.:tongue:

gunnut
18 Aug 07,, 00:01
And I thought I had a messed up mind.:tongue:

What's so messed up about toe claws?

Stan187
18 Aug 07,, 00:54
Sudden Strike series>all

Nuff said.

Feanor
18 Aug 07,, 04:24
Close Combat 3 pwns sudden strike. Though . . . .it might be a bit before your time.

Big K
18 Aug 07,, 10:22
Zergling rush kicks ass.

I love playing zergs. In fact, when I play zergs, my primary objective is to see how many of my own guys I can kill. There was one game I finished with almost 900 dead on my side, and I still won. I have yet to come close to that number again.

yess but if the rush fails.... hehehe

my record is 4000+ Goblin warriors dead on my side but we still won the battle...

we were at Mordor, 4 vs 4 Local Area Network Game...

i was Goblins, my mates were 1 Isengard 1 Mordor 1 Dwarf, the opposite was 1 Men 1 elf (directly in front of me) 1 Mordor, 1 elf too...

my nearly mate lost his stronghold, he escaped behind my main base in order to rebuild his armys...

for nearly 1 hour i managed to stand against a Men and an Elf at the same time...

i showed them the meaning of "swarming" hehehehehehe...after 1 hour my mate started to support me and we win...the other team mates were just holding the ground...it was a legendary game....

some 3 or 5 years ago we were at "big game hunters" map in Starcraft...we were playing 3vs3 at LAN server...i was Terran...my 2 teammates lost their grounds and immigrated to my place....imagine 1 zerg 1 protoss and 1 terran at the same place...and 2 protoss carrier armadas are preparing to attack (each have 8 carriers) and a zerg at the ground...

there was a breaking point in this game...just after protoss escaped at my place a hostile protoss fleet approached to my base defences...

after 2-3 SAM fire they were fleed...

if the player was a little bit courageous we lost the battle....

but after 30 mins. of holding the ground we won.... heheheheheheh

entropy
18 Aug 07,, 11:53
Close Combat 3 pwns sudden strike. Though . . . .it might be a bit before your time.

Played both the III and the IV. Great, great games.

zraver
18 Aug 07,, 17:30
Close Combat 3 pwns sudden strike. Though . . . .it might be a bit before your time.


Nahh the ultimate swarm for a game is really old. Axis and Allies with the Germans and Japanese both going after Russia right off the bat. The Axis has 3 turns to win the game by knocking Russia out and passing the US's industrial might.

tphuang
18 Aug 07,, 21:19
Nahh the ultimate swarm for a game is really old. Axis and Allies with the Germans and Japanese both going after Russia right off the bat. The Axis has 3 turns to win the game by knocking Russia out and passing the US's industrial might.

oh yeah, I totally loved playing that game when I was younger. Other than going after the Russians, the Germans needed to take as much of Africa as possible and Japan needs to take hold of China. But unfortunately, the favourite Japanese strategy always seems to be attacking hawaii.

zraver
18 Aug 07,, 22:52
Yup, when I played America I through all my cash into development. Once I have extra long ranged bombers and heavy bombers combined its all over for the axis.

smilingassassin
19 Aug 07,, 02:43
What's so messed up about toe claws?

Bwahahaha! Thats priceless....

smilingassassin
19 Aug 07,, 02:46
Zergling rush kicks ass.

I love playing zergs. In fact, when I play zergs, my primary objective is to see how many of my own guys I can kill. There was one game I finished with almost 900 dead on my side, and I still won. I have yet to come close to that number again.

The Zerg are like the badass big brother of the Bugs in Starship troopers, or some large asian country's army using many MANY troops in a death ride march on the enemy's possition. Damn the animation of the Zerg in Star Craft is good, they look so creapy when they swarm!

gunnut
19 Aug 07,, 09:50
yess but if the rush fails.... hehehe

my record is 4000+ Goblin warriors dead on my side but we still won the battle...

we were at Mordor, 4 vs 4 Local Area Network Game...

i was Goblins, my mates were 1 Isengard 1 Mordor 1 Dwarf, the opposite was 1 Men 1 elf (directly in front of me) 1 Mordor, 1 elf too...

my nearly mate lost his stronghold, he escaped behind my main base in order to rebuild his armys...

for nearly 1 hour i managed to stand against a Men and an Elf at the same time...

i showed them the meaning of "swarming" hehehehehehe...after 1 hour my mate started to support me and we win...the other team mates were just holding the ground...it was a legendary game....

some 3 or 5 years ago we were at "big game hunters" map in Starcraft...we were playing 3vs3 at LAN server...i was Terran...my 2 teammates lost their grounds and immigrated to my place....imagine 1 zerg 1 protoss and 1 terran at the same place...and 2 protoss carrier armadas are preparing to attack (each have 8 carriers) and a zerg at the ground...

there was a breaking point in this game...just after protoss escaped at my place a hostile protoss fleet approached to my base defences...

after 2-3 SAM fire they were fleed...

if the player was a little bit courageous we lost the battle....

but after 30 mins. of holding the ground we won.... heheheheheheh

I've never played that Middle Earth game. I just don't like the genre engouh.

I remember big game hunters. I had a siege tank with over 300 kills. :biggrin: I airlifted the veteran tanks out and rotated fresh tanks in to get their kill counts up.

gunnut
19 Aug 07,, 09:51
The Zerg are like the badass big brother of the Bugs in Starship troopers, or some large asian country's army using many MANY troops in a death ride march on the enemy's possition. Damn the animation of the Zerg in Star Craft is good, they look so creapy when they swarm!

I actually have a custom map called "starship troopers." The objective is to survive for 10 min against zerg rush. It's best when played with 4 of our friends yelling and screaming for help on their side.

Big K
19 Aug 07,, 14:21
I've never played that Middle Earth game. I just don't like the genre engouh.

ahhh sorry for you.. :)


I remember big game hunters. I had a siege tank with over 300 kills. :biggrin: I airlifted the veteran tanks out and rotated fresh tanks in to get their kill counts up.

yeaahh remember the right middle peninsula and top middle peninsula have great "siege tank" places...they can shoot without any counter attacks except by planes or airborne... ;)


I actually have a custom map called "starship troopers." The objective is to survive for 10 min against zerg rush. It's best when played with 4 of our friends yelling and screaming for help on their side.

the games are just cloak to have good time with friends...arent they?

game endure 1 hour but his critics 3 hours.. :)