Technology VS Tactics

[JGA]

My question is whether you all think Technology or Tactics is the more important factor in live Army warfare (No Air, Navy or other Assistance). [Technology obviously includes the range of weapons.] The reason I am curious is its usually the highly trained armies that get the good stuff but what if for example: Somalian pirates with the latest technological weapons were pitched vs the SAS with WW2 rifles?

Obviously circumstance will often change the answer but if you were only allowed to focus on one which would it be? which one rains supreme?

 

[PCShogun]

My question is whether you all think Technology or Tactics is the more important factor in live Army warfare (No Air, Navy or other Assistance). [Technology obviously includes the range of weapons.] The reason I am curious is its usually the highly trained armies that get the good stuff but what if for example: Somalian pirates with the latest technological weapons were pitched vs the SAS with WW2 rifles?

Obviously circumstance will often change the answer but if you were only allowed to focus on one which would it be? which one rains supreme?

This is going to be an opinion piece: I would choose TACTICS.

A prime example would be Afghanistan, where a bunch of natives armed in many cases with 100 year old rifles and improvised explosives, is causing damage to the American military, a much more technically advanced force. Technology can give you advantages, but if the tactics are flawed in the use of the technology, it doesn't matter.

 

[Armoured Recce]

This is going to be an opinion piece: I would choose TACTICS.

A prime example would be Afghanistan, where a bunch of natives armed in many cases with 100 year old rifles and improvised explosives, is causing damage to the American military, a much more technically advanced force. Technology can give you advantages, but if the tactics are flawed in the use of the technology, it doesn't matter.

I have to agree 100%...........tactics and above all TRAINING...over reliance on failable technology is actually causing a substantial reduction in "skills" in many armed forces.

Over reliance on GPS systems has had a huge effect on the ability of combat troops, company level Officers included, in simple basic skills such as compass and map orientering, which one would consider an invaluable skill for infantry and armour branches. The ability of combat troops to effectively shoot WITHOUT having the miriad of sight systems on the weapons has been greatly reduced, and as any electronic powered or enhanced optics can and will fail...again presents a substantial detriment.....

Could a typical "Somali" pirate as you used in your question even be capable of using the "latest" technology with any effect...highly doubtful...simply due to an entire lack of understanding and familiarity with the technology....

Could the SAS or for that matter any other trained military force effectively use WW2 weapons to great effect...absolutely.....it strikes me as funny that you would use an example of WW2 weaponry as being ineffective...perhaps some familiarity with the variety and capabilities of those weapons would be of benifit here...the Brit/Ausie/Canadian/S.African/Indian etc Lee Enfields may be older...but they are highly accurate and can with familiarity and training put substantial number of aimed and effective rnds. down range ( example "the Mad Minute" that was part of Commonwealth training). The American M1 Garand was and is still a devistating battle rifle, the German Mauser K98 was very acqurate and effective...and certainly the BREN, MG42, STG, MP40 and a huge variety of others could still in the hands of a trained soldier be more than a force to be reconned with...

In short, it comes down to the inherent ability and training found in modern military troops, with their ability to integrate technology that will always stand head and shoulders above mearly having the technology in the hands of untrained and non capable fighters.

I guess the old adage of "anyone can use a weapon, what makes a warrior is the ability to use their mind as well"

Cheers,

 

[Gremlin29]

A first rate trained infantry squad with no military gear, armed with cheap semi-auto AK's purchased at the sporting goods store will stomp the hell out of Somali pirates dressed up like soldiers. Standing in a garage will not make me an automobile any more than wearing a uniform and carrying an M4 will make a civilian an effective soldier.

 

[PCShogun]

Delete this entry.

 

[PCShogun]

Could the SAS or for that matter any other trained military force effectively use WW2 weapons to great effect...absolutely.....it strikes me as funny that you would use an example of WW2 weaponry as being ineffective...perhaps some familiarity with the variety and capabilities of those weapons would be of benifit here...the Brit/Ausie/Canadian/S.African/Indian etc Lee Enfields may be older...but they are highly accurate and can with familiarity and training put substantial number of aimed and effective rnds. down range ( example "the Mad Minute" that was part of Commonwealth training).

Good comments. In Afghanistan, troops are collecting some extremely old weapons that are still being used by the Taliban. I remember the article of the Martini Henry rifles being recovered by British troopers that were originally taken from units in the long ago British invasion of Afghanistan in the time of Lawrence of Arabia. Why are they still being used in battle? Because they kill.

I am a licensed collector of WW1 and WW2 weaponry. Specifically, Soviet and Soviet influenced weapons. Why? Cause they work; they shoot straight, and they are extremely easy to maintain. My favorite is a 1927 Mosin Nagant bolt action that can pop 4" clay targets at 200 yards with ease using iron sights. I've shot through cast iron skillets at that same range and it punches through it like butter. It can effectively engage at 600 yards or more and still penetrate through soft skinned vehicles, clay walls, and dry wall. My 1917 Austrian M95/34 can do the same thing although its not as accurate, being a carbine.

Point is, they are old school weapons, but it will still drop you dead in old school style. The MG42 is still used by the Italians as the MG42/59, and the "Ma Deuce" .50 Heavy Machine gun , designed in 1918 is still the standard heavy MG of most NATO countries.

You can see part of my collection at www.pcshogun.blogspot.com although I need to have better pictures taken, this is a bit of a rough draft.

 

[rip]

My question is whether you all think Technology or Tactics is the more important factor in live Army warfare (No Air, Navy or other Assistance). [Technology obviously includes the range of weapons.] The reason I am curious is its usually the highly trained armies that get the good stuff but what if for example: Somalian pirates with the latest technological weapons were pitched vs the SAS with WW2 rifles?

Obviously circumstance will often change the answer but if you were only allowed to focus on one which would it be? which one rains supreme?

If politics is included as part of tactics then tactics always wins. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote “war is just politics by other means”. Assuming that war is started to achieve a political goal and it is not savagery for savagery owns sake.

 

[ASSAIL]

The elephant in the closet

This is going to be an opinion piece: I would choose TACTICS.

A prime example would be Afghanistan, where a bunch of natives armed in many cases with 100 year old rifles and improvised explosives, is causing damage to the American military, a much more technically advanced force. Technology can give you advantages, but if the tactics are flawed in the use of the technology, it doesn't matter.

If you're talking about tactics V unrestrained technology, there is no contest.
In all post WWII conflicts, fought by technologically advanced nations, politics decides the outcome in every case.
Technology has always been confined by them.
As Clausewitz tends to get a thrashing in these fora we should turn to one of his basic principles- gain morale ascendancy, or words to that effect.
Cheers

 

[JGA]

I have to agree 100%...........tactics and above all TRAINING...over reliance on failable technology is actually causing a substantial reduction in "skills" in many armed forces.

Over reliance on GPS systems has had a huge effect on the ability of combat troops, company level Officers included, in simple basic skills such as compass and map orientering, which one would consider an invaluable skill for infantry and armour branches. The ability of combat troops to effectively shoot WITHOUT having the miriad of sight systems on the weapons has been greatly reduced, and as any electronic powered or enhanced optics can and will fail...again presents a substantial detriment.....

Could a typical "Somali" pirate as you used in your question even be capable of using the "latest" technology with any effect...highly doubtful...simply due to an entire lack of understanding and familiarity with the technology....

Could the SAS or for that matter any other trained military force effectively use WW2 weapons to great effect...absolutely.....it strikes me as funny that you would use an example of WW2 weaponry as being ineffective...perhaps some familiarity with the variety and capabilities of those weapons would be of benifit here...the Brit/Ausie/Canadian/S.African/Indian etc Lee Enfields may be older...but they are highly accurate and can with familiarity and training put substantial number of aimed and effective rnds. down range ( example "the Mad Minute" that was part of Commonwealth training). The American M1 Garand was and is still a devistating battle rifle, the German Mauser K98 was very acqurate and effective...and certainly the BREN, MG42, STG, MP40 and a huge variety of others could still in the hands of a trained soldier be more than a force to be reconned with...

In short, it comes down to the inherent ability and training found in modern military troops, with their ability to integrate technology that will always stand head and shoulders above mearly having the technology in the hands of untrained and non capable fighters.

I guess the old adage of "anyone can use a weapon, what makes a warrior is the ability to use their mind as well"

Cheers,

I agree with what you are saying, I did not want a stupid scenario as I wrote as the subject discussed, it was merely a lame-mans example of differentiating the two subjects

 

[JGA]

If politics is included as part of tactics then tactics always wins. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote “war is just politics by other means”. Assuming that war is started to achieve a political goal and it is not savagery for savagery owns sake.

Politics are out, they are obviously a very major part of a broader war machine, but are not relevant in a live battle of tactics vs technology

 

[JGA]

I

Could a typical "Somali" pirate as you used in your question even be capable of using the "latest" technology with any effect...highly doubtful...simply due to an entire lack of understanding and familiarity with the technology....

Cheers,

I apologize if I was not as articulate as I would have liked to have been. It is my fault for not being clear enough. I did not want this question to be against the context of the current world . It was more to do with a military only context. As in two new countries, country one that has the latest tech and are able to use it, the other that has the best Military Tactics. Both have equal training.

 

[Gremlin29]

Tactics are constrained by strategy which is defined by the body that controls the military.

This totally depends on the high tech, and the strategic limitations.

 

[PCShogun]

Tactics are constrained by strategy which is defined by the body that controls the military.

This totally depends on the high tech, and the strategic limitations.

True, how you deploy the weapon determines the strategy in which it will be used. However, if the strategy (tactics) is flawed, the weapon is ineffective or negated. Also, the enemy can devise a tactic that negates the use of the high tech weapon.

You lay a field of super sensitive, sophisticated land mines capable of stopping any vehicle or group of infantry and cannot be destroyed by artillery, and you lay these mines in a 700 yard wide strip deep. Now, I simply dig a 800 Yard tunnel under your mines and simply attack from underneath. Your tactics were negated by my tactics. Pretty much what North Korea has been doing at the DMZ.

 

[guicho80]

You lay a field of super sensitive, sophisticated land mines capable of stopping any vehicle or group of infantry and cannot be destroyed by artillery, and you lay these mines in a 700 yard wide strip deep. Now, I simply dig a 800 Yard tunnel under your mines and simply attack from underneath. Your tactics were negated by my tactics.

Are you sure that is really what happened? Or did that hi-tech minefield just channel your entire advance into a narrow 800 yard death trap?

 

[Gremlin29]

Are you sure that is really what happened? Or did that hi-tech minefield just channel your entire advance into a narrow 800 yard death trap?

It's always nice when the enemy does what you want him to do.

Technically tactics are driven by strategy, because strategy is developed by the political entity that is directing it's armed forces to fight and constrains tactics. An easy to see example of this is rules of engagement, which are a strategic product that constrains tactics all the way down to the individual soldier.

I don't think the OP's question can be given a definitive answer because you can't define just how high tech this imaginary army is, or how tactically advanced the other army would be. The high tech army should be able to develop superior tactics simply because they are probably going to be fighting as a combined arms team and can do a better job of employing the minimum amount of force with the maximum effect.

 

[Glimmerman]

If i may...

A properly motivated force using correct and or creative tactics, applied consistantly in line with the meeting of your own objectives is, for me, always the clear choice and the winner most of the time. You always want the enemy to play by your rules and not the other way around. So Tactics is the clear winner for me.

South-Africa and Israel are obvious examples, both out gunned and out numbered, yet they won most engagements against a numerically and technologically superior foe, yes yes i know we can get into a long discussion on technical grounds but this is my five cents worth

 

[Aussie optimist]

My question is whether you all think Technology or Tactics is the more important factor in live Army warfare (No Air, Navy or other Assistance). [Technology obviously includes the range of weapons.] The reason I am curious is its usually the highly trained armies that get the good stuff but what if for example: Somalian pirates with the latest technological weapons were pitched vs the SAS with WW2 rifles?

Obviously circumstance will often change the answer but if you were only allowed to focus on one which would it be? which one rains supreme?

On the question of tactics vs technology I would have to say tactics as you can have the best technology in the world and still be bled dry on the battle field if your enemy is motivated and employ better tactics. To give one excellent example of this it would be the vietnam war, where the US with all its technology and fire power had there rear end kicked by an enemy that was motivated on there own ground using tactics which made the us technology for all intensive purposes useless. Having said that if you can have the best technology and best tactics to bring the vast firepower to bear correctly then look out. :sniper

 

[Gremlin29]

On the question of tactics vs technology I would have to say tactics as you can have the best technology in the world and still be bled dry on the battle field if your enemy is motivated and employ better tactics. To give one excellent example of this it would be the vietnam war, where the US with all its technology and fire power had there rear end kicked by an enemy that was motivated on there own ground using tactics which made the us technology for all intensive purposes useless. Having said that if you can have the best technology and best tactics to bring the vast firepower to bear correctly then look out. :sniper

The US had about 58k KIA while the North (and Viet Cong) lost over 1 Million. I wouldn't call that a butt kicking in any respect. The US never really even fought a war there, the strategy (seriously flawed) was to bolster the south to prevent communist NV from taking over the country. In truth Vietnam shows that despite poor tactics (which are driven by strategy) a technology disparity can favor the technological leader.

 

[rip]

The US had about 58k KIA while the North (and Viet Cong) lost over 1 Million. I wouldn't call that a butt kicking in any respect. The US never really even fought a war there, the strategy (seriously flawed) was to bolster the south to prevent communist NV from taking over the country. In truth Vietnam shows that despite poor tactics (which are driven by strategy) a technology disparity can favor the technological leader.

I do not know if the US could have won the Vietnam War or not. What I do know is that the US leadership at the time (Linden Bans Jonson may he burn in hell forever) never tried to win it. Whenever the US was ahead in the war and had the upper hand, it backed off and waited for the other side to recuperate. They never did. The US leadership’s goal at the time was to force the other side to negotiate while the other side wanted to win and would settle for nothing less.

True the leadership was far more worried about expanding the war because it could of potentially (in their opinion) have led to eventual nuclear war. It is no surprise that you cannot win a war you do not try to win.

If the strategy was to avoid nuclear war then they succeeded. But I think that would be too kind of a judgment for what they did and didn't do.