How sustainable is High Intensity Warfare betweem top tier peer competitors?

Sampanviking

Banned Member
The Title really says it all but just to elucidate.

Modern systems are no doubt impressive and able to subjugate less well equipped nations in a very short period of high intensity combat. These systems are however increasingly expensive and the lead time required to build and deliver them getting ever longer.

This may not be too much of a problem for very one sided conflicts where the main problems beyond the short term are going to be maintenance and munition supply.

What would happen though if two top tier peer competitors found themselves engaged in high intensity combat against each other, with both sides having to expend huge quantities of smart munitions in a very short period of time and suffering severe attrition to their forces.
How long under those circumstances could even the most powerful top military manage to sustain its effort and what would happen to an unresolved conflict beyond the point of sustainability?

Thanks
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There are far too many variables to have one answer. It will all depend on who, what, where, when and why. Those questions must be answered before a stratgegic objective can be developed. The strategic objective drives everything else and would be required to discuss COA's and outcomes.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
OK

Two modern, developed continental sized nations of about equal size, population, technological ability, economy and military force face each other over an isthmus of about 500 miles of length and which averages about 50 miles in width.

TO either side, extending out another 500 miles each side is a shallow sea, dotted with numerable small Islands. The Isthmus is largely undeveloped, but both it and the surrounding sea basins are rich in energy and mineral deposits.

The nation that takes control of all these assets is assured of their military, economic and energy security. The one that fails is seriously disadvantaged.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
OK

Two modern, developed continental sized nations of about equal size, population, technological ability, economy and military force face each other over an isthmus of about 500 miles of length and which averages about 50 miles in width.

TO either side, extending out another 500 miles each side is a shallow sea, dotted with numerable small Islands. The Isthmus is largely undeveloped, but both it and the surrounding sea basins are rich in energy and mineral deposits.

The nation that takes control of all these assets is assured of their military, economic and energy security. The one that fails is seriously disadvantaged.
Lol i was thinking this topic is about high intensity combat but what you describe here is a copy of hell at least from a General or Commanders pov.
Welcome in hell.

Lol:rolleyes:
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
This topic can be discussed seriously with some intellectual vigour by the thread starter (via making some effort to draw the senario with much improved or proper perimeters) or NOT AT ALL. Given that the level of discussion is currently meaningless, there is a strong likelihood that this thread will be closed (in due course). If any trolling or further off-topic replies occurs, the Mod Team will not hesitate to close this less than useful thread.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Of course it will be hellish, what else could two heavyweights throwing everything including the kitchen sink at each other possibly be?

That however is not the point. The scenario provided in response to Gremlin is simply to make all services equally involved. This is not about who is better and who is going to win. It is about asking what the likely profile of any major confrontation between well matched protagonists will be.

If you want to look at it another way, how has the ability of advanced nations to produce cutting edge equipment in a timely fashion changed since the last all out conflict in WW2? In the 1940's all the major combatants were able to sustain industrial military production for 5 years and throughout that time, production times became faster and the spec of the platforms became higher.
Even then however, there were significant lulls on individual fronts, often lasting over a year while inventory and capability were being built.

Under similar conditions today, would such a production effort still be possible?
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The answer to the question as to whether or not WW2 production metrics could be achieved today is a simple no. Material combat losses of major systems in a contemporary HIC will be permanent.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Of course it will be hellish, what else could two heavyweights throwing everything including the kitchen sink at each other possibly be?

That however is not the point. The scenario provided in response to Gremlin is simply to make all services equally involved. This is not about who is better and who is going to win. It is about asking what the likely profile of any major confrontation between well matched protagonists will be.

If you want to look at it another way, how has the ability of advanced nations to produce cutting edge equipment in a timely fashion changed since the last all out conflict in WW2? In the 1940's all the major combatants were able to sustain industrial military production for 5 years and throughout that time, production times became faster and the spec of the platforms became higher.
Even then however, there were significant lulls on individual fronts, often lasting over a year while inventory and capability were being built.

Under similar conditions today, would such a production effort still be possible?
What about logistics and allies? in this scenario? Obviously such a intensity war logistics is going be a nightmare so is this provided by airlift and transport capability? or will this be taken care off by sea? and are there any allies involved that might make their resources available to the fighting sides?

So far given the size of the region and the many smaller islands it would require significant up to large air support and monitoring and a serious naval force to secure and deny access, to those places that are considered key while having serious flexibility and mobility to concentrate their power and war fighting / control abilities at any given time backed by their main army.

But would it be possible to give this scenario more details, such as a front line or rough edges where both sides have some sort of basis to work from?

Cheers
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
The answer to the question as to whether or not WW2 production metrics could be achieved today is a simple no. Material combat losses of major systems in a contemporary HIC will be permanent.
Clearly - so how long would it take to reach this point, days, weeks, months?

Then of course what happens beyond this point? Does everybody drop down the tech ladder to produce platforms at a sustainable rates? Does everybody pause and start racing to see who can get ready for round two first, or does everybody just walk away and leave the matter unresolved? Which of these is the most likely, or are there other options?

Beatmaster
You are concentrating on the wrong angle I think. If it helps try and picture two military forces equivalent to those currently possessed by the US It simply a question of how long current Inventories and likely attrition would enable an all out effort and what by necessity would follow next.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Clearly - so how long would it take to reach this point, days, weeks, months?

Then of course what happens beyond this point? Does everybody drop down the tech ladder to produce platforms at a sustainable rates? Does everybody pause and start racing to see who can get ready for round two first, or does everybody just walk away and leave the matter unresolved? Which of these is the most likely, or are there other options?

Beatmaster
You are concentrating on the wrong angle I think. If it helps try and picture two military forces equivalent to those currently possessed by the US It simply a question of how long current Inventories and likely attrition would enable an all out effort and what by necessity would follow next.
thx yes that helps, one other question are nukes or tactical nukes going to be a part of this scenario or is this going to be purely conventional?
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
thx yes that helps, one other question are nukes or tactical nukes going to be a part of this scenario or is this going to be purely conventional?
Keep it conventional, we all know the inevitable result of nukes so what's the point of discussing being dead?
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Iraq/Iran war is probably a good case study for the type of conflict you are describing.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Thanks Gremlin

Having given it quite a lot of thought, I think I can see exactly what you mean.
I read you as saying "its not so much where you start from, but where you will end up after the initial storm.

This suggests a very ugly affair while both sides struggle to rebuild their top tier networks and systems. If the Gulf war model is anything to go by, it seems likely that the void would be filled by low cost/fast build missiles and drones.

It also raises the question of tactical chemical weapons.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
high intensity conflict does not necessarily extend to a materiele based state on state scenario.

from a different perspective I'd argue that HIC is already the province of SOF and C5ISR

the end state determines contact and conflict closure. ie, seize ground, regime change, material benefit change, geopolitical enablers, dislocation of the enemies long term planning vision etc....

the old paradigm of state on state juggernauts belting each other with kinetic verve and vigour until one withdraws or submits has changed and started changing 13 years ago.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Two modern, developed continental sized nations of about equal size, population, technological ability, economy and military force face each other over an isthmus of about 500 miles of length and which averages about 50 miles in width.

TO either side, extending out another 500 miles each side is a shallow sea, dotted with numerable small Islands. The Isthmus is largely undeveloped, but both it and the surrounding sea basins are rich in energy and mineral deposits.

The nation that takes control of all these assets is assured of their military, economic and energy security. The one that fails is seriously disadvantaged.
Sounds like a strategic stalemate.

With a front that narrow (50 miles) an artillery battery can conceivably support nearly the entire front, even easier for AAMs. The resulting defensive networks would eat aircraft and armies Add the length permitting multiple defensive lines and the only possibility of significant breakthrough is probably through treachery.

The offshore islands, depending on their size, resources (water, geography, food production), may offer the possibility of a campaign resembling ‘Go’. However with all of them apparently in range of aircraft and cruise missiles based on the mainland any forced entry operation may be impractical, Undefended islands could allow the attacker to get in and if they can dig in and set up anti-air defensive batteries to supplement naval AAA and aircraft operating from land before the enemy can respond could be impractical to retake. Still, this is unlikely to be strategically significant.

So, stalemate.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
high intensity conflict does not necessarily extend to a materiele based state on state scenario.

from a different perspective I'd argue that HIC is already the province of SOF and C5ISR

the end state determines contact and conflict closure. ie, seize ground, regime change, material benefit change, geopolitical enablers, dislocation of the enemies long term planning vision etc....

the old paradigm of state on state juggernauts belting each other with kinetic verve and vigour until one withdraws or submits has changed and started changing 13 years ago.
Now that is something to think on. I cannot pretend to be in any way familiar with the reality of these areas and so do not automatically understand the ramifications of what you say.
My interpretation is that you think it is a feature of modern conflict planning to be able to attack the most advanced defence network and so degrade or otherwise damage it in a lightening strike, that the attacker will be able to defeat isolated hardware platforms within and around a defined objective areas, then seize and secure the territory, before the other side is able to recover its balance, let alone project a counter posture.
Would that be correct?
 
Top