Land Based Strategies

[Ender89]

What do you consider the most effective style of land warfare.
:bazooka

[WebMaster]

Ender,

When asking such questions, it is better to provide YOUR OWN input on the subject matter before others would want to share their thoughts.

Answer questions your self, such as:

What land based strategy would you prefer?

Why?

How is it better than other land based strategies?

It should be good two three paragraphs with details and facts to support your argument.

Since, you are new that is why I just wrote this speech otherwise one line threads and posts get deleted automatically without a warning.

Enjoy

[Ender89]

Thanks for the warning.:)

I believe that guerila warfare is the best land based strategie because guerila forces move around constantly and are very precise when it comes to attacking a target. They gain as much information as possible before the window of oppotunity is gone. another reason I chose this style of warfare is because it is demoralizing to the enemy. Example the revolutionary war, colonial soldiers did thier best to stay alive and wither away the british from thier cover and quick strikes. This style of fighting mad the british army furious and could not fight back effectively with trained soldiers that stood in rows with no cover.:smash

[turin]

Sorry, but this question serves little purpose, since there is no definite answer to it due to being unspecific.

First off, armor, artillery and infantry are supposed to work together. Thats what their very design and structure nowadays is thought for. You need ALL of these elements for any decent general land-based warfare scenario.
Should there be a prioritisation for a specific part of these, eg. infantry etc., then this has to be based on an equally specific scenario (what are my objectives, what are the enemies forces, what kind of environment, political against military priorities etc..).

Also your preference of guerilla warfare in answer to such a general question is just making no sense. Guerilla warfare has advantages only under special conditions. For example, guerilla warfare is certainly no choice, should you plan to invade another country. However if you are defending your own soil, i.e. are familiar with the territory and the people living there, can draw upon the ressources of these two and have geographical advantages (jungle, mountains, extensive urban environments), that ease the movement of guerillas, i.e. mostly infantry/foot soldiers, then guerilla warfare serves a purpose and can be conducted in an effective way.

There are enough examples as to demonstrate where guerilla warfare has failed. This was mostly the case where invading (i.e. aggressive) forces used this without some of the requirements mentioned, and faced an opponent who employed SOF tactics combined with more regular military forces. Take for example the engagements of Executive Outcomes against guerilla forces of UNITA in Angola and RUF in Sierra Leone.

[driftder]

I don't think modern warfare will present the guerilla with tidy, packed rows of tin soldiers for them to pot. That phase was ended with the American Civil War, Boer War and the Franco-German War of the 19th century.

Guerilla warfare, for all its media hype, only takes place as a result of conventional forces being defeated, routed or totally disabled to such an extent that conventional warfare is no longer possible. For reference, we can look at Iraq after the battle of 73 Easting. And it - guerilla warfare, that is - can be defeated by thwarting the guerillas' claims and objectives, with visible economic and government stability. Once guerilla warfare is reduced and degenerated to a police action, that's the end for the guerillas. And there are dangers inherent to guerilla warfare in that it might degenerate into a mob action, with acts of cruelty and barbarism which in turn will hurt their political image. There are more to this of course and there are many good political science study material that cover these areas. Just my two pennies...

[Maverickjag]

I don't really think there is any specific strategy that is best as far as what you listed. It will take a combination of armor, artillery, infantry, special forces, helicopters, bombers, and jets. Basically, there is a reason why we have so many different types of troops employed in the US military. The US understands that to win a war EFFECTIVELY all branches of the military must be used to the benefit of the whole. Any one type of unit may be able to take and hold a position but would the friendly casualties have been less if a more versatile force was used to attack? The answer is usually yes, there are rare exceptions where, to bring tanks in, it would only put them in danger, whereas infantry would pull through unharmed and vice-versa.

Guerilla warfare is all well and nice, but do we ever see someone using purely guerilla tactics take and hold a critical, city, ridge, road, or bridge? No, because they know that doing so would only alert the enemy army of there presence and they would be quickly decimated.

[driftder]

Sorry, but this question serves little purpose, since there is no definite answer to it due to being unspecific.

you, sir, are a spoilsport :p:. I was hoping to get further mileage out of his presumption that guerilla warfare is bes.

First off, armor, artillery and infantry are supposed to work together. Thats what their very design and structure nowadays is thought for. You need ALL of these elements for any decent general land-based warfare scenario.
Should there be a prioritisation for a specific part of these, eg. infantry etc., then this has to be based on an equally specific scenario (what are my objectives, what are the enemies forces, what kind of environment, political against military priorities etc..).

yes indeed, I believe they now call it combined-arms warfare, a very well-tested strategem. it's modern 20th century predecessor is called "Blitzkrieg!", IIRC. If turin's statement is not clear or understood, try to imagine a strong point bristling with infantry arnd a triple battery of long range artillery, with armour stationed at the wings. Then further imagine you were given orders to "take that obstacle at all costs, in the shortest time period", preferably yesterday :D.... of course, they never ever mentioned outright "preferably yesterday", but it's implied most of the times...

Also your preference of guerilla warfare in answer to such a general question is just making no sense. Guerilla warfare has advantages only under special conditions. For example, guerilla warfare is certainly no choice, should you plan to invade another country. However if you are defending your own soil, i.e. are familiar with the territory and the people living there, can draw upon the ressources of these two and have geographical advantages (jungle, mountains, extensive urban environments), that ease the movement of guerillas, i.e. mostly infantry/foot soldiers, then guerilla warfare serves a purpose and can be conducted in an effective way.

not only that, guerilla war is good if you are cut off within enemy lines, don't intend to surrender and obviously want to be a major pain in the bum to the OPFOR without being caught. done successfully, a large amount of their forces can be spent on hunting you down without it being use elsewhere.

There are enough examples as to demonstrate where guerilla warfare has failed. This was mostly the case where invading (i.e. aggressive) forces used this without some of the requirements mentioned, and faced an opponent who employed SOF tactics combined with more regular military forces. Take for example the engagements of Executive Outcomes against guerilla forces of UNITA in Angola and RUF in Sierra Leone.

erm...not sporting to compare Executive Outcomes with some ragtag guerillas, turin. Those chaps are ex-LRRP commandoes. It's like facing a werewolf with a melting popsicle:D.

[turin]

erm...not sporting to compare Executive Outcomes with some ragtag guerillas, turin. Those chaps are ex-LRRP commandoes. It's like facing a werewolf with a melting popsicle

Ah yes, my way of writing (in english at least) is misleading at times. Of course with the guerillas I was referring to RUF and UNITA, the example of an opposing organized "army" (of sorts) being EO in this case. Of course in Angola it helped that EO had some deep insight in the organization and tactics of UNITA due to former cooperation during the time of 32nd Btl.

you, sir, are a spoilsport

And I like to! :D

[ThunderBolt]

One great example of guerrilla warfare maybe the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War guerrilla warfare suited the best because of extremely thick jungles where the enemy had dug out tunnels as their escape routes and then they could come out anywhere anytime that they had wanted, ambushed the allied patrol and went back in the tunnels to pop out again somewhere else. But guerrilla warfare could never work out like in Iraq, it is just plain desert, with maybe good urban warfare there is no other place for the guerrilla’s to fight. So then with only urban areas to worry about the allied forces could now focus on one spot instead of being ambushed by the enemy anywhere (like in Vietnam). I am not trying to say that you are wrong because it’s your own opinion and I respect that, actually that used to be my favorite as well but now days I really think joint forces work the best in almost all situations. Because it has already proven in self during very recent wars. A soldier is covered by another soldier, these soldiers are covered by other soldiers, and all of these soldiers are covered by some sort of armored column. The armored column which provides effective support to the soldiers, is covered by antitank helicopters which protect them against other tanks and ground hazards. Then come in the air force jets which protect the helicopters against other air hazards. And I would say finally an airborne radar system which could warn the jets in the air in advance about possible sources of hazards. So technically it’s best to be covered by someone, just to be confident and feel safe. And of coarse the stuff in the middle like close air support to anti aircraft weapons to safe transportation. (just my 2 cents!) :)

[ThunderBolt]

Oh yes i forgot to add this:
I think that another great part of anywar has to have some sort of operations including the special forces, like Delta Force (US), JTF 2 (CAN), PARA COMMANDOS (INDIA), SPETSNAZ (RUSSIA), SSG (PAKISTAN), and many other great forces like SAS. These guys help alot in sabotage and blowing up stuff, like radio post, command post and so these forces can turn the tide of war on one factions side by doing some serious damage.

[turin]

But guerrilla warfare could never work out like in Iraq, it is just plain desert, with maybe good urban warfare there is no other place for the guerrilla’s to fight. So then with only urban areas to worry about the allied forces could now focus on one spot instead of being ambushed by the enemy anywhere (like in Vietnam).

Are you kidding? There is an active guerilla campaign going on for two years now. The allied forces suffered much more casualties during the occupation than during the campaign itself. Add to that the numbers of wounded soldiers and destroyed vehicles and you get a clear picture.
Iraq is not just plain desert and a high number of attacks is directed against convoys outside of urban territories. Also an urban territory IS NOT just one spot. On the contrary. Why do you think small combat units worry so much about IED's and being ambushed?! These are extensive territories where an attack could occur nearly everywhere and everytime. In Vietnam the US tried to defoliate the jungle and used napalm to overcome such difficulties, yet in Iraq you cannot go that far, otherwise you would have to carpet bomb whole cities. Obviously that is no option.
So Iraq is even more problematic from a geographical point of view.
What Iraq lacks, is an organized guerilla movement, instead there seems to be a high number of more or less independet cells. However that only adds to the difficulties instead of making things easier.

[ThunderBolt]

Are you kidding? There is an active guerilla campaign going on for two years now. The allied forces suffered much more casualties during the occupation than during the campaign itself. Add to that the numbers of wounded soldiers and destroyed vehicles and you get a clear picture.
Iraq is not just plain desert and a high number of attacks is directed against convoys outside of urban territories. Also an urban territory IS NOT just one spot. On the contrary. Why do you think small combat units worry so much about IED's and being ambushed?! These are extensive territories where an attack could occur nearly everywhere and everytime. In Vietnam the US tried to defoliate the jungle and used napalm to overcome such difficulties, yet in Iraq you cannot go that far, otherwise you would have to carpet bomb whole cities. Obviously that is no option.
So Iraq is even more problematic from a geographical point of view.
What Iraq lacks, is an organized guerilla movement, instead there seems to be a high number of more or less independet cells. However that only adds to the difficulties instead of making things easier.

No i am not kidding. Okay well maybe some roadside bombs to a couple of suicide bombers how can you say that this is an act of guerilla warfare? Where do you think they can hide, cause there is NO JUNGLES!!! in Iraq to burn out with napalm, and ofcoarse they can't carpet bomb becasue of high civilian casulties. I say that the fire teams had to worry about being ambused in Vietnam was because you couldn't see your buddy past 5 meters and the AK's the enemy used could easily rip through thick bushes, and the M-16 on the other hand had to be cleaned atleast daily, so how can you say that they didn't had to worry about being ambushed??????:o .

On the other hand yes the war in Iraq is only "sort of guirilla warfare" because in 2 years allied forces had way more casulties than they have now. Most of the terrorists blow up stuff and cause more civillian casulties than they cause the army, doesn't this give you an idea that these explosions occur in "URBAN" areas where people live not by the road side!!!...

[KGB]

There were no jungles in Afghanhistan, where the USSR was dealt a major blow by guerillas. No jungles in arabia where TE Lawrence performed his exploits against the Turks. No jungles in Spain where Napoleon was dealth a major headache by guerillas.

Guerillas don't need jungles, they ultimately need people to hide behind. The civilian population is as much their cover as the jungles and mountains. That's why guerilla wars are dirty affairs.

BTW, roadside bombs and potshots do constitute a guerilla war. Those insurgents are tying down 160,000 US troops and contesting for control of the population. They hit soft targets because they can. Now it would seem that the distinction between a guerilla and a terrorist is being blurred, but guerilla wars nearly eliminate the line between civillian and combatant. This is speculation on my part, but I feel that the reason why guerilla wars figure more prominently now is because of human rights concerns. The ancients quite pragmatically massacred/enslaved the civillian population of the losers, thus eliminating the necessary base for guerillas.

Despite the reports of abuses, the restraint used by the US forces seems remarkable. This is how the Romans would have handled Fallujah. Surround it,build a wall around it, starve it, crucify all the fleeing civilians in a ring around the city. Eventually enter the city and level it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier operating in an environment where anyone you meet could be an enemy, where the guy who smiles at you by day could be plotting against you at night. Where people who want to kill you are hiding among civilians. Wouldn't you come to the conclusion that there really are no innocent civillians?

[driftder]

No i am not kidding. Okay well maybe some roadside bombs to a couple of suicide bombers how can you say that this is an act of guerilla warfare?

all I can say is: you definitely are NOT a soldier and you definitely must be kidding cos from what you posted so far, you sure as hell don't even have an idea of what you are talking about. first, I believe you have not define what is guerilla warfare. another is you are going to enrage a lot of soldiers here, serving or otherwise with your callous statement that some roadside bombs and suicide bombers doesn't qualify as guerilla war. Esp the Brits and your country's VA. I say you definitely must be kidding as you won't know guerilla war if it come's knocking on yr door.

Where do you think they can hide, cause there is NO JUNGLES!!!

which book or manual or institution told you that guerilla war needs jungles? By your definition, then a lot of guerilla wars did not happen as it did not take place in the jungles? The Irish conflict, Palestinian intifada, the deadly game of hide & seek in Khost, Aden, the SA Bush War etc - all are not guerilla wars.

in Iraq to burn out with napalm, and ofcoarse they can't carpet bomb becasue of high civilian casulties. I say that the fire teams had to worry about being ambused in Vietnam was because you couldn't see your buddy past 5 meters and the AK's the enemy used could easily rip through thick bushes, and the M-16 on the other hand had to be cleaned atleast daily, so how can you say that they didn't had to worry about being ambushed??????:o .

and this qualify as a criteria for defining guerialla war - that you must be ambushed in the jungles? FYI, that would be class as jungle warfare and no, you don't get ambushed daily in the jungles. something must be wrong with your organisation if that happens. bad intel, poor leadership, negligence or plain stupidity ie stepping where you should not - on landmines that is.

On the other hand yes the war in Iraq is only "sort of guirilla warfare" because in 2 years allied forces had way more casulties than they have now. Most of the terrorists blow up stuff and cause more civillian casulties than they cause the army, doesn't this give you an idea that these explosions occur in "URBAN" areas where people live not by the road side!!!...

in the soldiering business, there is no such thing as "sort of". if it carries a weapon, is identified as hostile and did not follow orders when clearly told ot do so ie "stop, put your hands up", "don't approach any closer" etc then SHOOT.

FYI the Allies in Iraq have more casualties then when facing the conventional Iraq army is mainly due to the guerillas, insurgents or terrs striking from the midst of the civilians. and that is a common theme in any war or campaign where the enemy is not clearly identified. And you really really should go talk to the soldiers who are coming back from Iraq. Your definitions are really really sadly warped.

[driftder]

Are you kidding? There is an active guerilla campaign going on for two years now. The allied forces suffered much more casualties during the occupation than during the campaign itself. Add to that the numbers of wounded soldiers and destroyed vehicles and you get a clear picture.
Iraq is not just plain desert and a high number of attacks is directed against convoys outside of urban territories. Also an urban territory IS NOT just one spot. On the contrary. Why do you think small combat units worry so much about IED's and being ambushed?! These are extensive territories where an attack could occur nearly everywhere and everytime. In Vietnam the US tried to defoliate the jungle and used napalm to overcome such difficulties, yet in Iraq you cannot go that far, otherwise you would have to carpet bomb whole cities. Obviously that is no option.
So Iraq is even more problematic from a geographical point of view.
What Iraq lacks, is an organized guerilla movement, instead there seems to be a high number of more or less independet cells. However that only adds to the difficulties instead of making things easier.

agreed with you - he gotta be kidding. but what works for the terrs might go against them. they like to hit the convoys when they about to enter the cities - their MO. now if they can be limited or penned in to the urban or sub-urban areas, the convoys for the most part will be safe as they can be monitored by UAV or some sort of "Eye in the Sky". if they try to hit a convoy outside of the cities, the Allies will have them. once those ambush points are pinpointed, its back to inserting a patrol near there and hitting back the terrs when another convoy passes.

as long as they are not organised or united and don't co-ordinate their attacks, the Allies should be able to handle them. but when the terrs do get organised, it mean a escalation up the next level.

[turin]

Despite the reports of abuses, the restraint used by the US forces seems remarkable. This is how the Romans would have handled Fallujah. Surround it,build a wall around it, starve it, crucify all the fleeing civilians in a ring around the city. Eventually enter the city and level it.

Interesting example.

Another one would be the german occupation of eastern europe in WWII. Here however the results were mixed. Although in some examples whole villages were destroyed, german forces were not successful in bringing down guerilla activity, on the contrary.
It depends much on which further measures the occupying force employs. The romans were very cruel in punishing occupied territories, where uprisings occurred. However they also offered some benefits in terms of administration, integration in roman culture and economy etc. These things certainly helped keeping down widespreading violence.
The german occupation on the other hand did not offer such benefits, the people were made to suffer much more and when you do not see any future for yourself, you still may choose joining guerilla forces regardless of the serious punishment you might face.
In Iraq the Coalition arguably tries to restore law and order and normal life to the country. However the cultural element of the conflict is considerable and therefore neither brute force nor any offer of improving living standards or political participation etc. may influence the outcome. Therefore the roman approach might be useless here as well.

now if they can be limited or penned in to the urban or sub-urban areas, the convoys for the most part will be safe as they can be monitored by UAV or some sort of "Eye in the Sky". if they try to hit a convoy outside of the cities, the Allies will have them. once those ambush points are pinpointed, its back to inserting a patrol near there and hitting back the terrs when another convoy passes.

That might improve the situation of convoys, but I am not sure wether the sheer number/length of such supply routes and possible location of ambushes might limit any effort of reacting to single attacks. I remember having seen a map of Iraq with markings showing insurgency attacks on convoys, patrols et. and the number of these markers was huge. Dont know where to search for this map though. It was somewhere on the net and the source was quite reliable.

[KGB]

Interesting example.

It depends much on which further measures the occupying force employs. The romans were very cruel in punishing occupied territories, where uprisings occurred. However they also offered some benefits in terms of administration, integration in roman culture and economy etc. These things certainly helped keeping down widespreading violence.
The german occupation on the other hand did not offer such benefits, the people were made to suffer much more and when you do not see any future for yourself, you still may choose joining guerilla forces regardless of the serious punishment you might face.


Well I have to say you're right. The proverbial stick must be matched by a carrot. A sociologist, Erick Hoffer in his book "The True Believer" wrote that one of the most powerfull social drives was a man's desire to improve his lot. He said that the US where the prospects of self advancement was virtually "limitless" enjoys a very stable society. Where this is not possible the drive is expressed in migration, then in wars and revolution.

Perhaps this explains why Israel continues to suffer from terrorist attacks despite their very capable, and arguably ruthless security forces- the palestinians do seem to have a hopeless position. In contrast the US conducted a very successful anti insurgency campaign in the Philippines in the early 20th century. Their "stick" was an utterly ruthless military campaign so brutal that the letters the soldiers sent home were censored to keep the atrocities under a lid. The "carrot" consisted of buying off the ruling elite with various incentives and business deals. Finally, this was matched by a MASSIVE investment in public education and public infrastructure. The result, by 1942 the population was so pro-US that the Japanese invasion was fiercly resisted, and the subsequent guerilla movement against it was widely supported.

By the way, this is my favorite land based strategy: Build a high tech army, publicize it, bluff about creating super high tech abilities like a Strategic Missile Defence, then watch your opponent go bankrupt trying to match you. Sun Tzu would approve!

[driftder]

By the way, this is my favorite land based strategy: Build a high tech army, publicize it, bluff about creating super high tech abilities like a Strategic Missile Defence, then watch your opponent go bankrupt trying to match you. Sun Tzu would approve!

Yes, but R. Reagan stole a march on you, so you will have to play catch up. Now if some one can shed some insight as to the inner workings and decisions during that period.....

What further endorsement that the fall and evolution of the former SU into a semi/pseudo democratic nation? Of course the resulting instability in the various regions - Aberzaijan, Chechnya, Georgia etc throws a ink blot. All other data considered, it can't be used all the time as the oppo nation might just not take part in the race and bankrupt itself. Imagine it being applied to the Taleban or Saddam. It will have to be by regional proxy.

[driftder]

Interesting example.
..........That might improve the situation of convoys, but I am not sure wether the sheer number/length of such supply routes and possible location of ambushes might limit any effort of reacting to single attacks. I remember having seen a map of Iraq with markings showing insurgency attacks on convoys, patrols et. and the number of these markers was huge. Dont know where to search for this map though. It was somewhere on the net and the source was quite reliable.

I saw that on CNN during a debriefing done by a Marine(?) officer. The map was highlighted with red areas and arrows showing where US casualties took place and where fighting is. Well I was thinking as a PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) in Iraq and that would be what I do - spot the pattern and turn the tables on the terrs. That is keep doing the supply run on the same stretch, monitor it for patterns and mark the spots where the attacks happen, then hotspot it ie put a patrol or hit team there to counter-ambush the terrs. In other words, contest the terrs, bleed them by enticing them to attack defended convoys with the risk of being ambushed from compromised sites. Better yet, do a trail and follow to the terrs hideouts and bases once the attack is sprung and foiled. Then break their logistics & sympathisers network, safe houses from there. The darn thing is taking the terrs alive for interrogation - which is not easy.

Study the south Iraq side - the Brits are teaching the terrs to mind their manners and doing quite well with the civil and admin side.

And my apologies to all for hijacking this thread and sidetracking into counter-guerilla warfare, which is a topic close to my heart :p:

[marxist_command]

well,there is no dominant power in land yknow. Sometimes wecan't rely only to heavy Arsenal. :roll2

Y' see when Indonesia fightback against holland we only used japanese standard weapon. And some of us has Machine guns. With no fighter planes.;)

Inland area, I suggest to use guerilla warfare against bigger army :jump :lol2

[Big-E]

well,there is no dominant power in land yknow. Sometimes wecan't rely only to heavy Arsenal. :roll2

Y' see when Indonesia fightback against holland we only used japanese standard weapon. And some of us has Machine guns. With no fighter planes.;)

Inland area, I suggest to use guerilla warfare against bigger army :jump :lol2

Thanks for bringing up this 6 month old train-wreck of a thread.:bum

I vote for FCS, total integration of all aspects of warfare with rapid mobility. That's how you win a land war.

[merocaine]

Study the south Iraq side - the Brits are teaching the terrs to mind their manners and doing quite well with the civil and admin side.

I have, proportantally the British have suffered the same level of causltiys as the americans in the center. Also the British have done a deal with the devil by letting the shia islamic party's run the show in Basra. The south is becoming more unstable as the months go by. The British have managed to keep a lid on things by turning a blind eye to the power of the militas, this policy is only sustainable if they know there not going to be there next year.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree with Big E in the right circumstances. The 21st century form of combined arms warfare. However this only works if you have seperate arms to combine (eg a large modernized army), and are facing an industrialized modern opponant with some sort of a standing army. On compleatly uneven terms i.e. Viet kong/NVA or the somalies in 96, Asemetric warfare or (gurilla warfare) is the only option and can be sucessful. Its really only common sence to attack the stronger enemy where he's weak and dissapear before he can concentrate. This question was kind of flaued. Certain sets of military tactics are only sucsessfull in certain tactical situations. But thats my 2 cents anyway.:roll

[old faithful]

we never never really learn do we? Once a war is won, (on foreign soil),you have to leave or lose. Occupieing forces will always be attacked by "terrorists,insurgents,resistence,partisans...whate ver. There are ways of countering these attacks, but history tells us that they will never stop untill the occupying force leaves, then often these attacks will be directed at the new govt appointed by the occupying force.

[Lujan AusMUR]

Well.... so much of stuff ro respond to... my 3k cents coming up,

Counter-Geurilla warfare is an adminstritive one... simply out suply, stabalise your logistics and support all available ambushed patrols along the way.

The common way that attacks are used are as such. Your one HIS land, amoungst HIS Homes that HE built and wich HE lived in for most of his life... he even knows wich bricks in which wall are movable fire holes.

The occupying army is trying to STABILIZE- Hence to always send terror and chaos- the new government in the most harsh area were the iraqies occupy, the iraqies dnt want them there, BUT are very content to choose the lesser of evils, being the massacre of all iraqies if the kurds and all the others are allowed to take revenge on the poor buggers for not uprising against thier mad country-man siddam.

So the army is moving basic administrational equipment through the streets of already upset populous that SOME commonly throw rocks and spit in their direction, after all its a moving convoy. So the children, having their toys broken by troops or just being obedient, tell their insurgents fathers-friends-brothers-cousin info of a convoy going dwn the wrong way from the rooftop while enjoying the rays.

Now he attacks a convoy at the most weakest time, during a corner or non-defensive position or non-monauver-able area with A single suicider, carbomber, ied or rpg... With around 4-9 other task forces!

option A) If it strikes up a fuss or more chaos and weakspots and the effort would serve a worth the would then strike again and again and again... ... and all in the matter of 5 secs, then they would have mad a hell of alot of damage. To occupants administration and ecconomy (shouting a highly trained horse is most costly than the rider), their army and moral, the moral and politics back home and again cause it was so organised and able to dissapear in the mist. And of course they are amoung the civies!!!!!

Option B) If the occupying army is well administed, supplied, drilled, and supported asap in comms. they would dissapear in the day without any worry of exposing further insurgants for a negitive cause... Giving them a victory! NO MATTER HOW BIG, A VICTORY IS A VICTORY! and a political one and one to tell ya mates, diggers and troops are the most damaging.

And that is how it is being fought! any discension is a bad one. And we must be political! So we also allow them the frredom to earn their freedom. Big point!!!!

We learnt from Vietnam. "We cannot give something of value cause as soon as you give it it has no value and they will not think it has ever again. There is no free democracy, we use political force, And force is violence, the most highest of wich all other authorities are dirived!"

What would hiroshamas founding fathers say??? NOTHING! because they were destroyed with the city... Our democracy was hard earned through the civil war, independence, eureka, against hitler, the jap, stalin, osama. We must fight for every step of land. Nothing is just free...

the coilition knows the iriaqies must form their own police and army, and bleed a hell of alot more to earn and build their version of government because we cant impose our governments, cannot occupy or split all their people throuhout the roman empire or just annilate them as the crusades. We cannot afford that for any of our nations, shouldnt have to afford a war that is not ours and making the weakest part of the world finally stronger and civilised. in their own right way and with their own government.

Now i feel damn right sorry for the bloody poms and good on them all the way! Cheero lads and 'ET 'EM HAVE A G'EO AT YA!

Now with the occupation the seccond time, the insurgents just let them in and then started the real confict on a day to day hitting every soldier home that may have to shoot a girl with grenades tied to her hands (vietnam as well ran into the co camp) or a pregnent suicide woman (palistiene) We dnt know when they come as much as 20 ied a point a day- So if you think its not a war!!!!!! BUGGER YA! (not an insult just day-to-day aussie language)

We troops are trying to stabalize a civil government not for them... Its so that THEY can fish out the buggers in their own ranks (dealing with em civilly) So the'll be no more planes over our heads! I served cause i would not allow another to take my place and die ea day and risk the pain of HIS family losing a father/husband JUST SO IIIIIII can choose to be islamic, chistian or aethiest. Remember for them, AND some of us its also a religious rights war for freedom.

Be assured WE ARE WINNING! The leaders are dying more and more ea day and we are not allowing them their victories no matter how small. And we dnt want to be there as much as they do, but we cannot go just yet. And its the same as for the solomons and timor.

And remember good on the Iraq defence, they are goin at it better than we are! their earning the bread and buttuer and lunch! Cause its their urban homes and its also their families that are getting it in these ieds.

So theres my 2cents (or like i said 3k)

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And that is how it is being fought! any discension is a bad one. And we must be political! So we also allow them the frredom to earn their freedom. Big point!!!!

We learnt from Vietnam. "We cannot give something of value cause as soon as you give it it has no value and they will not think it has ever again. There is no free democracy, we use political force, And force is violence, the most highest of wich all other authorities are dirived!"

What would hiroshamas founding fathers say??? NOTHING! because they were destroyed with the city... Our democracy was hard earned through the civil war, independence, eureka, against hitler, the jap, stalin, osama. We must fight for every step of land. Nothing is just free...

the coilition knows the iriaqies must form their own police and army, and bleed a hell of alot more to earn and build their version of government because we cant impose our governments, cannot occupy or split all their people throuhout the roman empire or just annilate them as the crusades. We cannot afford that for any of our nations, shouldnt have to afford a war that is not ours and making the weakest part of the world finally stronger and civilised. in their own right way and with their own government.

Now i feel damn right sorry for the bloody poms and good on them all the way! Cheero lads and 'ET 'EM HAVE A G'EO AT YA!

Now with the occupation the seccond time, the insurgents just let them in and then started the real confict on a day to day hitting every soldier home that may have to shoot a girl with grenades tied to her hands (vietnam as well ran into the co camp) or a pregnent suicide woman (palistiene) We dnt know when they come as much as 20 ied a point a day- So if you think its not a war!!!!!! BUGGER YA! (not an insult just day-to-day aussie language)

We troops are trying to stabalize a civil government not for them... Its so that THEY can fish out the buggers in their own ranks (dealing with em civilly) So the'll be no more planes over our heads! I served cause i would not allow another to take my place and die ea day and risk the pain of HIS family losing a father/husband JUST SO IIIIIII can choose to be islamic, chistian or aethiest. Remember for them, AND some of us its also a religious rights war for freedom.

Be assured WE ARE WINNING! The leaders are dying more and more ea day and we are not allowing them their victories no matter how small. And we dnt want to be there as much as they do, but we cannot go just yet. And its the same as for the solomons and timor.

And remember good on the Iraq defence, they are goin at it better than we are! their earning the bread and buttuer and lunch! Cause its their urban homes and its also their families that are getting it in these ieds.

So theres my 2cents (or like i said 3k)

mate i'll have to dissagree with you here. On the tactical level, we may be winning in some ways in Iraq. Even though their leaders are dieing or being captured, violance has increased heaps and now we've allmost got a civil war on our hands. Personally i see things geting worse not better. Sure there are some good signs but it looks like turning into a god damned blood bath. The main problem with the U.S's stratagy in Iraq, much like it's problem in Vietnam is that however brilliant they may be tactically, they seem to miss the point strategically. The larger the Iraqi body count, the more greiving sons and brothers that are going to pick up an Ak 47. So the U.S.'s lethality is one big recruting drive for the bad guys. it seems to me that counter insurgency warfare needs a serious rethink when you have a largely hostile local population. Simply killing as many of the bad guys as you can and giving them something called democracy that average joe isn't going to be able to apreciate for 5 to 10 years, if we win, isn't a soloution.

And thats just in Iraq. look at what its done to the WOT (i know Iraq wasn't part of the WOT originally but you'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that the two arn't connected now). IMHO the way to be sucsessfull in the WOT is to make the muslim centre simpathetic to the west, and take support away from religious extreemists and terrorists. An agressive stratagy in Iraq has done the exact oppisite. As in Vietnam the U.S. military is kicking ass on the tactical level, but the brass and polititions have made some serious strategic mistakes. Any tacticall sucsess is useless without strategic victory.

P.S. i counld't agree with you more about Timor and the Solomons. We're the big dick in this neck of the woods and its our responsibility.

[FutureTank]

What do you consider the most effective style of land warfare.
:bazooka

Destroy the enemy :-)


Ok Ok, but the question is so general!
Guerilla warfare is far from the most effective. Consider that it involves terrorising civilian population, which tends to effectively undermine normal function of the economy such that it is during war.
By the way, not all guerilla warfare campaigns had been successfull.

What is a style when applied to warfare? If you say writing style, then I can answer the question, but warfare style?
Ending the conflict FAST is a good style. Keeping it bloodless is also a popular style. Come to think of it, keeping a land campaign limited to land operations is also a good idea! It seems to me a great many land campaigns have depended in no small measure of the sea and air fleets.

Cheers
greg

[FutureTank]

Its funny that so many people voted for artillery and armour given that goal of ANY military strategy on land is to occupy the objective (if only temporarily), and only the infantry can do that. Not the sexiest or sophisticated Arm, but the oldest, and decisive.

Cheers

Greg:ar15

[Waylander]

Mech Inf. ;)

[FutureTank]

Well, I'm old fashioned. If they walk they are infantry. If they ride to dismount, they are dragoons. If they have haemorrhoids, then its cavalry :onfloorl:
Cheers
Greg

[Waylander]

Muhahahaha. Great. :onfloorl:

Tell this some US Armored Cavalry Men. ;) :D

[Big-E]

If they have haemorrhoids, then its cavalry :onfloorl:

The guys with the hemeroids are the ones who are constipated... definetly the Marines. Paris Island chow always makes me plugged up.

[FutureTank]

I'll bring a sandwich if I am ever invited :)

[Stuart King]

Spec Ops, Phsy Ops

[riksavage]

Depends on the terrain and opposition:

Terrain: rolling flat tundra, primary jungle, arctic-circle or desert – horses for courses pick and mix all arms to suit, plus

Enemy: Warsaw Pact full-on, asymmetrical, urban based mixed with civvies, or dug-in out in open?

I wouldn’t want to throw a heavy armour and artillery battlegroup into a dense jungle environment, likewise I wouldn’t throw a light infantry brigade against a Soviet mechanized brigade in the Fulda Gap.

There's no single winner, depends on the scenario.

[f-22fan12]

In my opinion the best land based strategy is a combo of artillery/infantry/armor. That can change if you are talking about urban combat. In that case, Infantry and high presicion artillery would be the best.

[Cooch]

One great example of guerrilla warfare maybe the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War guerrilla warfare suited the best because of extremely thick jungles.....

At risk of giving overly much attention to a single post......

It is simplistic to refer even to the Vietnam conflict as a purely Guerilla war. Without commenting on the experience of other nations involved, that of Australians deployed over there includes a number of actions in which they came into heavy contact with company and battalion level formations of North Vietnamese Army and Main-Force Viet-Cong. These units were uniformed, organised and disciplined full-time soldiers who built fortified defensive positions and conducted determined assaults against our own positions.

Hardly guerilla tactics.

They were countered by classic jungle-warfare tactics. Offensive patrolling by platoon and company-level units that had the ability to either "shoot and scoot", or to call down rapid firepower from supporting air and artillery should the enemy(as often happened) outnumbered our own patrols.

Vietnam certainly had elements of guerilla warfare, but to argue that that was all there was is to unerestimate the capacity of the North Vietnamese forces, and to misunderstand the nature of the conflict.

.................

To return to the topic, I agree that without defining a huge number of variables, it is not possible to define a singe "best" strategy.

Regards......... Peter

[Feanor]

The best strategy is the one that defeats the enemy at minimal cost. :) If it means swamping the enemy with hordes of tanks and ground-shaking artillery barrages, then that's it. If it means using advanced networking to negate hostile number advantage through manouever then that's it. If it means using guerilla tactics, and tactical number advantage while having a strategic numerical disadvantage, then that's it. Every war has it's own winning move.