Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Military Strategy and Tactics

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


One shot one kill

This is a discussion on One shot one kill within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; With the creation of guided bullets and "automated" turret, how would this revolutionise battlefield tactics if fully implemented and an ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 1st, 2016   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
One shot one kill

With the creation of guided bullets and "automated" turret, how would this revolutionise battlefield tactics if fully implemented and an asymmetric situation- enemy has traditional guns.

Automated turret- more likely the soldier still rotates the gun to desired direction that was calculated and it locks- using a lot less power in the mechanism and simplifying the mechanism, such that with support nearly every soldier in battlefield becomes an elite sniper at a long distances- guided bullets work the further you are from the enemy.

I'd say cover fire, flanking and supporting fire would become a thing of the past. Rather it would need decoys- which might be local militia or elite soldiers- and high camouflaged spotters to precisely target the enemies. You'd need a lot less soldiers and support and veteran's medical.
Heavy calibres would be more viable.

"ww.rt.com/usa/253993-darpa-guided-bullets-moving-target"

Equivalent concept to automated turret
"arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/"

I'd combine both into one gun for maximum effectiveness.


I'd say this amongst all future tech has most chance of actually being significantly implemented since the others take too much power so you need a big power source, are sensitive to survive a battlefield and don't have enough effect on war.

Last edited by cloa513; January 3rd, 2016 at 05:30 AM.
cloa513 is offline  
Old February 6th, 2016   #2
New Member
Private
Blue Jay's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 48
Threads:
When predicting how future warfare will work, you gotta look at how new technologies are changing things. The Precision Guided Munition is one such technology that has, is, and will continue to change warfare. That said, there are also constants in warfare that haven't changed, and it's important to keep those in mind. I disagree that cover fire, flanking, and supporting fire would become a thing of the past. Just because guided bullets exist doesn't mean they'll completely replace dumb bullets. Volume of fire is still something you need to accomplish fire superiority in a fire fight. Flanking is a tactic that has worked since the beginning of history. It is simple geometry, and it won't ever become obsolete. Supporting fire is one of the primary means of gaining local superiority in the attack. That probably won't change either. Look at smart bombs and cannon-launched guided munitions. Both have existed and are used extensively nowadays, but neither have changed the basics of how warfare works, but rather have made it easier.
Blue Jay is offline  
Old February 8th, 2016
AmberServiss
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: Off topic spam
Old February 8th, 2016   #3
New Member
Private
Blue Jay's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 48
Threads:
I feel like you didn't fully understand my post.

Firefight Dynamics – Military Science Fiction

The Rifle Squad

Here are some links to websites that explain in easily understood terms how small unit combat works in the present day and worked in the past as it developed, as well as some other subjects. It might help to read on the subject to be more knowledgeable before you speculate on the future of small arms and small unit tactics. The best resources, however, are the U.S. Military Field Manuals on the subject. Cheers!
Blue Jay is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016   #4
New Member
Private
Blue Jay's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 48
Threads:
Those links cover the basics. Current new technology merely augments these tactics described here. The whole point of fire and movement is to close with and destroy an enemy while maintaining fire superiority. Enemies may be difficult to find and engage even with aerial surveillance and precision guided bullets, as technology also improves in camouflague and defense. Your whole theory on how smart bullets and automated turrets will change warfare completely assumes optimal conditions for those weapons to work, and doesn't consider the possibility that the enemy may not be so cooperative. An enemy that is difficult to find and kill, these are what led to the deveopment of modern small unit tactics that are used to this day. New technology doesn't revolutionize this like the invention of gunpowder or the machine gun did, it merely augments current methods. The subject matter covered in the links is by no means comparable to ancient tactics such as the phalanx and testudo. And yes the links also covers snipers and what they do – there's nothing flawed with that. There is nothing in here, however, that talks about the use of massed infantry assaults. Clearly, you have not done any extensive research on the subject. Please come back when you are able to make more educated statements, and are able to make relevant and sound arguments. Good day
Blue Jay is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016   #5
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
Your links do not allow for revolutionary technology such that has happened before and totally changed tactics. Some tactics are totally redundant like a mass charge- some times individuals charge but mass charges (only when really desperate or think the enemy have run of ammo) make it easy for an enemy with automatic weapons to kill many. At a time in the past that was mainstay of battle. Close formations like phalanx and testudo are a thing of the past- make you an easy target with gunfire scatter. I had to remove your links. The link milsf doesn't include drone- even though current tech and major surveillance assets- hiding is incredibly difficult now.

Only considers sniper as strategic and intelligence gathering. What if nearly all infantry is a sniper and its tactical and intelligence gathering is not part of his role. Other distance intelligence gatherers. The spotter is separate and distant.
Real simple. A sniper team are specialists and a lot of money, time and resources are invested in training and equipping them. They perform a different task to the average infantry soldier. You also have to realise that there are different types of infantry, such as light infantry or mechanised infantry. Each have different capabilities that they give an army. Yes tactics do change over time as new technologies are introduced, but you never forget the basics. Strategy is similar and the Sun Tzu ping fa is just as relevant today as it was over 2000 years ago when he formulated his strategies and teachings. Some of the military methodologies used today would be familiar to a Roman Centurion from the time of Ceaser. Of course the majority would be alien to them.

I feel that you actually need to start with the real basics so I would suggest looking at the US Marine Corp publications site as one source. The USMC and US Army have the most material available online that is easily accessible.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016   #6
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 801
Threads:
People have said it many times before that a certain type of new tech will make them invincible and own the battlefield, To this day that has not been the case and I dont see it being the case anytime soon.

That aside this all requires the target to be standing out in the open outside of cover, If they dont fight that way to day with dumb bullets what makes you think that they would fight that way with smart bullets?

While this is a good accomplishment it still has quite a ways to go before it becomes the battlefield norm, You must remember this tech is all fitted into a round more then double the length/diameter of current standard rounds, They need to shrink this tech a good 75% (very simplistic math) before your average joe on the battlefield could use it and even then it is only useful in certain situations, ie: Jungle warfare, Urban warfare it would be all but useless .
vonnoobie is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Sometimes the objective isn't to kill the "enemy" but to drive them off, deny them an objective, hold them in position or simply deter them. Killing each and every enemy combatant with a precision guided projectile may sound good in a Tom Clancy sort of way but I imagine, even if it could be perfected, it would face the same sort of backlash poison gas, nuclear weapons and more recently drone strikes have faced.

Simply why kill when you can drive off or capture.
Volkodav is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016   #8
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
No more backlash than the concept of snipers has at the moment. No way it can ever the opposition that chemical weapon and nuclear weapon have as they are indiscriminate and "messy". Just tell the enemy that you have guns that can pick out and they can do nothing in response and then kill a few of them- even ISIS fighter would move off their objective under those conditions- can't even hurt the infidel and just die or be injured. If that's not discouraging then nothing would drive them off, you'd have spray bullets all day at them.
That's quite simplistic. Each type of enemy has a different mindset, different longterm strategy and aim , different political philosophy and outlook, different culture to name just a few. What you suggest as deterring Daesh hasn't. Just asksthe Syrians and Iraqis. You have to look at each conflict at multiple levels simultaneously in order to gain an understanding.

Regarding your comment claimingVonoobie said that snipers in an urban environment would be useless. He didn't say that at all; he was speaking in the context that the technology of the guided bullet may be problematic in an urban environment. One other point about that technology, it will be expensive so what will the ratio of cost be with that to the cost if a dumb bullet?
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016   #9
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
No more backlash than the concept of snipers has at the moment. No way it can ever the opposition that chemical weapon and nuclear weapon have as they are indiscriminate and "messy". Just tell the enemy that you have guns that can pick out and they can do nothing in response and then kill a few of them- even ISIS fighter would move off their objective under those conditions- can't even hurt the infidel and just die or be injured. If that's not discouraging then nothing would drive them off, you'd have spray bullets all day at them.
I think you are confusing a concept that aims to increase the and effectiveness anti material and extreme range sniper rifles with infantry weapons. I have long believed that armies will progressively move more to equipping soldiers with PDWs complementing specialised man portable systems such as grenade launchers with programmable rounds, shotguns, DMR/sniper rifles, AMRs, ATGWs, RCLs, light mortars with guided as well as dumb bombs, and never forgetting ARs, SAWs, LMGs, GPMGs, or SFMGs. What you seem to be suggesting is once guided rifle calibre projectiles are developed everything else will pretty much become obsolete, where the majority here would be more inclined to see it at a technology that will be countered before it becomes much more than a niche capability.

Have you considered jamming, active and passive, perhaps tactics that include counter sniper fire by overwatch elements, direct and indirect direct fire support, improvements in body armour, greater use of armoured vehicles, UCAVs, CAS, etc. What you propose could have a place in over watch and support missions but how would it work clearing houses in search of insurgents? How does it help you against what looks like a civilian who is actually wearing a bomb vest or carrying a concealed weapon. How is it any better against an enemy squad than a programmable grenade, guided mortar bomb, mini UCAV or supporting AFV?
Volkodav is offline  
Old February 10th, 2016   #10
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
These will infantry weapons- nearly every soldier a sniper. Someone- an elite professional - has to spot and they just as easily spot inside as outside. The power of guns could penetrate into buildings.
Antisniper techniques is designed to stop one sniper not ten who can multiple shots each and hit. Sure your enemy might boost personal protection- but that would stop normal infantry with their smallish power weapons- an enemy of that sophistication would probably their own automated sniper guns and then the whole situation would become an arms race.
Warfare technology is a symbiotic relationship between offensive capabilities and defensive capabilities. For example the battleship conundrum of armour vs firepower. However from what you have been posting I get the impression that you have not yet grasped the basic principles or warfare and unless you have an understanding of them, you run into problems with the more complex areas of military endeavour.

People on here have taken time to try and help you understand what is actually required and why some things work and others don't. This knowledge has been gained from having served in a defence force, worked in the field, worked in the defence industry, studied related fields, or a combination thereof. In the case of Volkadov he has both served in a defence force and he has worked in a defence industry. He is what we call a defence professional so does know what he is talking about. I would advise taking note of what others have said on this thread and also have a read of the forum rules.

NM.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline  
Old February 11th, 2016   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 801
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
What you have got here is understanding that some technologies can be totally transformative of overall tactics. Militaries have been extremely slow and incompetent in considering and applying appropriate new technologies to warfare. Once tanks became advanced enough to be useful, they didn't understand that you need a combined attack for them to become useful on the battlefield. The Allies would have "lost" the first world war (not that the Kaiser would have guaranteed to totally routed but he would have been a strong position to keep a lot of gains and the second world war (without understanding how to use radios and aircraft). Before they got it, those technologies were used individually and a waste and resources. Now tanks can in certain circumstances act by them selves but infantry is still interdependant and stuck by in 1970s.

Offence is defence- practically the paradigm of the 20th century.
So now you are saying as a 'fact' what would have happened in WWI and start of WWII? ngatimozart responded politely trying to nudge you gently into listening to those who know better but by this reply a gentle nudge just wont cut it, Have yopu served in any armed forces? studied military warfare (Wiki does not count)? or even work in the defence industry? I highly delt it so if I can be ever so blunt give up trying to tell the experienced members on here what would have been, what is and what will be. They are a wealth of knowledge and experience that you should take advantage of as they will help to improve your understanding and knowledge as they have helped me (Thanks guys).

As for your WWI view, Tanks where not the be all or end all nor did they become as useful as they were because they used them in numbers. The Tanks were part of a system that would become combined arms warfare (I'd suggest researching the Battle of Hamel) and while valuable they were only one part of the system, along with the fact the tanks only became more useful as they improved upon the tech making them more reliable. It was the improvement in the tech rather then larger numbers that truly made them formidable.

As for infantry being stuck in the 1970's, How so? As far as I can tell tactics that started to appear in WWI are still being used to this day (adjusted as needed to account for more capable weapons and communications) quite successfully.

Perhaps the armies of the world have been slow to change since the 1970's but there has been no need considering there current weapons systems, missiles, artillary, bullets, snipers etc are all pretty much the same today as back then (if a little bit faster and more accurate) so there is zero need to change tactics that have been established, proved and improved over the last 100 years until the future weapons start to be employed in the field, guided bullets, lasers etc.
vonnoobie is offline  
Old February 11th, 2016   #12
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
Once tanks became advanced enough to be useful, they didn't understand that you need a combined attack for them to become useful on the battlefield.
?? British Tanks were first deployed as a battlefield weapon in Sept of 1916

Just over 14 months later in late 1917 the first demonstrated application of modern combined arms was conducted at Cambrai - and the lessons learnt were realised in under 11 months at Amiens.

So in under 2 years those tanks were being used at a modern combined arms application - and were responsible for contributing to Ludendorffs "Black Day"

In under 11 months they not only broke trench warfare paradigms but had evolved into the beginnings of what is todays modern warfare in the application of combined arms on the land battlefield - ie soldiers and armour working together, discretionary air to spot, support or attack in their own right and co-ordinated with land forces rather than as a separate fighting bubble

So, airpower evolved at a similar rate - it went from observation to discretionary application of force - and assisting at the combined arms level half way through the life of the war

Its just not correct to make the claims you do as they are countered by the reality of actual battles, Cambrai, Hamel, Le Soissonnais, Amiens etc...

if you want a further model of the pace of adoption and refinement of new weapons technologies, then you can go straight to the US Civil War. The pace and acceleration of land and maritime weaponry was extraordinary - far greater on ratio than probably any other major conflict in the last 150 years. The sheer volume of new weapons developments and their evolution is borderline breathtaking.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old February 11th, 2016   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 801
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
Explain why you think there is zero need given that the US has already lost predominance on the military field and when some other military power- Russia or China gets the drop on the US like Germany did in World War II on all the allies and develops their own advanced systems. Politically the US can't just blow up everything. The current form of macrotactics haven't been around for 100 years- talking maybe 30 years.
The US was never going to be the continuous 'dominant' power, People thought the same about the British and the French and look how that turned out. That said why do you assume the US has lost predominance on the military field? Russia is heavily loaded with so much Cold war era 'garbage', a declining industrial base (compared to the SU) and so much corruption it will be decades before they start to field there new impressive weapons in numbers to be of any use all the while the US would still be upgrading theres while China still can't build all the stuff them selves (reliant on imports for some key systems) and is considered will still them selves be decades before they have a proper blue water navy that could face up against the USN outside of there sphere of influence.

Germany also is a poor choice for your argument as they didnt develop advance tech to get the drop on the allies, Yes they developed advanced tech during the war but in the initial years the German military equipment including the tanks and fighters were considered inferior to the of the Allies so perhaps you should read up on your history before sprouting your mouth off.

So you think the US can kill every enemy with there guided bullets but they cant go and blow them up? I dont see how that is any different. Yes one has less collateral damage however it is also less effective in urban and jungle environments and both have the same issue as not wining the hearts and minds of the enemy because at the end of the day that is what truly stops the fighting, You give them something to live for rather then something to die for.

As to your view on macro tactics, How so? What is the difference in macro tactics of WWI and macro tactics of today.
vonnoobie is offline  
Old February 11th, 2016   #14
Super Moderator
General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
Threads:
Thread closed, due to member complaints about the thread starter behaviour. DT welcomes participation by old or new members, regardless of their age or level of knowledge in defence matters.

However, it is evident that the thread starter in this case, is illogical, misguided, rude, and not capable of being educated. That being the case, we have little patience misguided and nonsensical threads like this with no redeeming features.

Please do some basic reading and apply some reasoning and logic please, before wasting other people's time with verbal diarrhoea. Long posts masquerading as considered replies, while ignoring evidence presented demonstrate an inability to listen.

No further threads on similar topics, based on the same premise, will be allowed in this month. Heed this warning before the ban hammer is used.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens

Last edited by OPSSG; February 13th, 2016 at 09:15 PM.
OPSSG is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 PM.