Proposed doctrine

[We7det_el_qetal]

The battlefield is composed of open desert mainly ( like most of the middle east ), the proposed doctrine is:

1- Using a layered air-defense, S-400 and S-300 for long range coverage, BUK-M2 for middle range engagements and TOR-M1 for point defense.

2- Instead of using the brigade as the lowest manouver component which is self supporting ( like BCT proposed by the pentagon ), i propose to use the reinforced company as the basic fighting unit, the ground forces role would change from that of engagement of enemy ground forces to ambushing his logistic convoies and acting as forward observers for guided artillery like the Krasnopol-M and SMERCH MLRS employing MOTIV-3M top attack munitions, and for ranges beyond 70 Km and up to 280 Km Iskander-E TBM could be used tipped with cluster heads containing MOTIV-3M munitions in the same fashion that was employed in 1969 by the USSR in the 9M21-OF missiles, thus the friendly ground forces would never actualy engage the enemy but attack his logistics and his ground combat elements would be engaged by artillery using UAV for observation and correction.

3- each company would deploy 1 PL-9D SAM system for protection supported with 6 IGLA systems for very SHORAD.

4- SOF would be used to penetrate deep behind enemy lines to provide intelligence on the where abouts of the enemies stageing areas, his supply depots, and his nodes of command, to be targeted by MRBM in the area of 1500 Km.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The term "doctrine" is perhaps not appropriate here. Perhaps you should consider the term "force structure" for this post. You have listed (again) a series of individual platforms, that you seem to like. Doctrine is a series of documents on how you plan to fight and contains strategic and tactical assessments, Legislative and regulatory authority for your defence forces and can be summed up like this:

"Military 'doctrine' is based on a comprehensive assessment of the status of the military-political situation; on a strategic forecast of its development; on a scientifically substantiated determination of current and future missions, objective requirements and real capabilities; and on conclusions from a systemic analysis of the content and nature of modern wars and armed conflicts and of the domestic and foreign experience of military organizational development and military art."

Force structure is designed from your doctrine, your economic realities (ie: funding levels) and the capabilities required to defend yourself and, yes, political realities.

Your force structure is decidely unbalanced. IMHO. 6 Igla SAM's and 1 PL-9D SAM to provide air defence for EACH company? That is simply ludicrous. no Country on Earth could afford that even if they bought nothing else!!! You view these weapon systems as omipotent and I can't understand why. Do you forget or were you ever aware of the expense of modern military hardware? Even Russian and Chinese equipment? The initial acquisition costs are enormous. The logistical support costs and acquiring sufficient warstock to make a weapon system (particularly the extremely advanced weapon systems you want for your force) useful is much much greater. You should spend some time at http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4568405.1092028767.QRcJX8Oa9dUAABm2XOM&modele=jdc_34 some time and you'll see for yourself just how much military capability costs...

If your ground forces don't fight against your enemies ground forces what's going to protect your artillery assets? For one thing your total reliance on artillery to attack enemy forces will achieve only 2 things. 1, you WILL be subjected to massive counter battery fire, as the enemy will not have to use HIS artillery on YOUR ground forces. 2. your artillery will be destroyed or captured by enemy troops as artillery on it's own can never win a battle. It is a fire support capability. Not a predominant fighting capability. Infantry is the primary fighting element on ANY battlefield.

You don't seem to get that no, single land force capability is sufficient to win a batttle. Combined arms teams are the way to win in battle, not a massive preponderance of one particular capability. If you are obviously strong in any one area, any potential enemy will develop the capability to nullify or destroy that capability. Military commanders are not stupid, despite what you may think of them, and will certainly find a way around your "invincible" SAM shield and artillery strength...

Why do you think that no military has adopted such a structure. It is not because until now, everyone's intelligence has been lacking, it's because it wouldn't work!!!

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

I assure u buddy that i've created all the documents that could be called doctrine, but they're in hard copy format besides they're too long to present here on one go,

what i presented here is somewhat a very brief summary of what i have in mind

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Actually i offered a combined force, but rather different than the common concept of such a force,
1- u have to know where my artillery is to engage it, obviously modern artillery systems offer very very little time for counter-battery work, my uncle is an officer in the rocket artillery corps of the egyptian armed forces , and has first hand knowledge on both the M270 and SMERCH systems.

2- artillery will have escorts ofcourse, with the primary task of fighting a rear guard action in order to give the MLRS time to escape.

I opened that thread so people could offer suggestions for me on how to crack that defense so that i could learn from everybody's experience.

I'm looking for brain storming.

If i have time i'll offer a software copy of my detailed study of the fund requirements for such a force.

 

[ajay_ijn]

2- Instead of using the brigade as the lowest manouver component which is self supporting ( like BCT proposed by the pentagon ), i propose to use the reinforced company as the basic fighting unit, the ground forces role would change from that of engagement of enemy ground forces to ambushing his logistic convoies and acting as forward observers for guided artillery like the Krasnopol-M and SMERCH MLRS employing MOTIV-3M top attack munitions, and for ranges beyond 70 Km and up to 280 Km Iskander-E TBM could be used tipped with cluster heads containing MOTIV-3M munitions in the same fashion that was employed in 1969 by the USSR in the 9M21-OF missiles, thus the friendly ground forces would never actualy engage the enemy but attack his logistics and his ground combat elements would be engaged by artillery using UAV for observation and correction.

What about Main Battle Tanks,APC's,IFV,Mortars,HMG,Helicopters,ATGM.

As I said TBM's are not as cheap to be used for low-value targets.

Combined arms teams are the way to win in battle, not a massive preponderance of one particular capability

Exactly,
Infantry and other weapons systems like artillery,Tank,APC,IFV,Helicopter etc must support each other for victory on the battlefield.
Germans During ww2 used Tank-Soldier-Bomber Combination for the Sucess in the battlefield.
Just Imagine the Close Combinationn of Tank-Infantry,tanks will help when Infantry and Infantry will protect tanks against Enemy hand launched ATGM's.
In the Similar Way other Weapon Systems must also Support each other.

1- Using a layered air-defense, S-400 and S-300 for long range coverage, BUK-M2 for middle range engagements and TOR-M1 for point defense.

Again,your concept of single weapon System(SAM) for layered air-defence is not effective.
U need to also include air-defence Fighters,Early Warning Sensors,AWACS etc.

SOF would be used to penetrate deep behind enemy lines to provide intelligence on the where abouts of the enemies stageing areas, his supply depots, and his nodes of command, to be targeted by MRBM in the area of 1500 Km.

There are some Radar's which can even detect crawling men at range of 500m.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Is an armoured division considered low value target?

Is SMERCH a TBM?

there are two systems used in ground warfare, artillery and targets.

Please don't tell me that my air-defense is no good, give proposals to attack such a system.

There are means to do some very good reconaisance from 5-10 Km away such as small size UAV which could be expendable and deployed from jeeps.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Is an armoured division considered low value target?

For Ballistic Missiles,its a Low Value Target.
Even for Cruise Missiles,its a low Value Target.
Have u ever heard a tomahawk Hitting a tank or a tank division,its absolutely foolish.
Armored Division won't be packed into a single place as Such which can be targetted by TBM and to attack Tanks TBM's must have armor-penetrable Warheads which is completely a weird idea.

Is SMERCH a TBM?

No Smerch is MBRL(Multiple Barrel Rocket Launcher),replacement for traditional Artillery.It provides accurate heavy firepower at long ranges(90km).
MBRL's can also be used for Anti-Tank pruposes.

Please don't tell me that my air-defense is no good, give proposals to attack such a system.

Enemy can easily have Strategy to counter such Single weapon System.
B-2's armed with longrange Air-Launched Missiles will prove effective.

There are means to do some very good reconaisance from 5-10 Km away such as small size UAV which could be expendable and deployed from jeeps.

Even they can be detected and shoot down by SAM's.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Well actually one TBM could engage 54 ground targets which is way more expensive than one missile, and if the target formations are numerically less then they would be engaged by SMERCH

The US military is actually questioning the whole value of the B-2 program especially with the introduction of new radar systems such as Tamara and Kolchuga.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Target Counting and Classification
Algorithms for Unnattended
Ground Sensors

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/hohil.pdf

if the mentioned techniques could be combined with on the alert units of MLRS armed with top attack munitions they would pose a serious threat to any armour on the battlefields of tomorrow.

 

[Gremlin29]

there are two systems used in ground warfare, artillery and targets.

This pearl of wisdom was somehow missed at war college. What size force would you require, and how many tons of munitions would your artillery expend neutraliziing two advancing reinforced armored division? Assume these divisions have organic aviation, artillery (MLRS and SP types).

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Organic aviation will have to deal with integrated air defense systems, SMERCH MLRS while saturate the advancing columns with smart top attack munitions while they try to evade hundreds of ATGMs ( HJ-9 ) employed by SWARMING the advance columns with highly manouvrable jeeps engaging the tanks out of a range of 6 Km ,while foroward artillery observer drones are directing laser guided artillery shells from G6 SPA systems employing Krasnopol-M shells while TBM such as Iskander-E are engaging second echlons using cluster heads of 54 top attack munitions each.

 

[Gremlin29]

Okay, but the important question as I previously posted is:

What size force would you require, and how many tons of munitions would your artillery expend neutralizing two advancing reinforced armored divisions? Assume these divisions have organic aviation, artillery (MLRS and SP types).

Next question is, how many Jeeps with ATGM's do you think you will need to destroy an armored division?

My rotorcraft don't have a viable ADA threat from your proposed system if they are operating at terrain flight altitudes so your Jeeps will be toast before they fire a shot in anger.

What stops my aviation brigades from performing 1 gun raids on your MLRS? The 1 gun raid is immune to counter battery fire.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I also think your history may be a little lacking. Mass ATGW attacks on armour has already been tried by Egypt against Israeli armour in the Sinai. Whilst they were initially effective and scored some success in destroying the Israeli advance, the Israeli's soon adapted, formed combined arms teams and simpyl steam rolled the Egyptian forces.

Don't try and argue that todays ATGW's will be much more effective, either. Cause you''ll be conviently forgetting that modern armour is equally greater in capability.

Plus, why would you choose the HJ-9 ATGW, when Egypt already operates the effective and battle proven TOW missile systems? In addition why would you want to operate this system from "jeeps"? Such vehicles possess basically no capability to withstand substantial fire of any sort (unless you start armouring them, and then you suffer other problems). In addition, despite your hypothetical country being desert and totally flat, "jeeps" possess far less tactical maneuverability than a tracked vehicle. Their off-road performance is greatly inferior. Why not then at least mount them on IFV's? Which will give your crews at least some protection, should your "impenetrable" SAM's and artillery forces be caught a bit short...

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Actually the only time massed artillery was used against armour was in 2nd world war by the russians and it wasn't broken since .

jeeps are cheap IFVs aren't.

and 40 TELs for Iskander-E, 600 G6 systems and 90 SMERCH vheicles should be just fine.

ATGMs are used to stop the armour from steam rolling through open terrain , they are not used to destroy tanks, and any army that thinks otherwise is GRAVELY mistaken .

As for ATGM platforms, 2400 jeeps, 600 9P157-2 should do nicely.

I chose HJ-9 coz of range and power.

TOW was proven against T-72s

and as for off-road performance I intend to field some squadrons of armoured desert buggies employing similar technology to the monster trucks but adapted to big APC 6x6 chasis, they would employ erectable elevating towers like the swedes devised for their TOW vehicles and would use the mokopa or hermis systems.

 

[Aussie Digger]

"Jeeps" might be relatively cheap. Men's lives, particularly trained soldiers AREN'T... So you think the threat of ATGW's is sufficient to stop armour do you? Given that ATGM are "not used to destroy tanks? Maybe the US/UK/French etc armoured forces didn't think the Iraqi's had ATGW's in GW1 eh? Cause the "threat" of ATGW's certainly didn't stop the US/UK armoured forces advance in GW 1&2, neither did the use of such weapons. The threat AND use of ATGW's couldn't stop the Israeli's in the Sinai either...

So ATGW's are not actually used to destroy tanks eh? That's a novel idea. What are they used for parades? If you think that ATGW's AREN'T used for destroying tanks, than YOU are gravely mistaken my friend and further discussion of military topics is pointless...

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

The iraqi's used Malutkas an antique from the 60s, I would welcome ANY MBT u have in mind any day of the week against HJ-9, Khrizantema and Mokopa.

And I wouldn't be risking my men's lives, as they would fire an initial concentrated salvo to stop the armour then run as the artiillery would unleash hell on the advancing columns.

ATGMs aren't the main tank killer as any body could tell u, they are basically used to limit the manuvrability of the opponnent so that smart munitions could engage and destroy the targets successfully, they sure as hell could kill but their tactical employment isn't that, the egyptians tried using mass curtains of ATGMs but it failed coz they didn't have the deep strike capability to use the advantages offered by stopping the enemy's advancing armour, so they learned a good lesson.

systems as SMERCH and Iskander-E offer deep strike capability at a very cheap price compared to developing that ability using air assets.

 

[Gremlin29]

I could counter your entire force with 2 tactical nukes.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Or using conventional means, I'd use a combine arms force consisting of modern MBTs, IFVs and a few SP howitzers. Also new active defence systems mounted on MBTs such as Arena 2 and CRAD will greatly diminsh the effectiveness of ATGMs.

From my experience as a grunt, spotting a target using the optics on a TOW missile beyond 2000 meters is extremely difficult, not to mention guiding the missile to it. Main battle tanks, however, could easily wipe out your ATGM's using HEAT-FRAG rounds at that range. Any commander with half a brain wouldn't use infantry equipped with ATGM to counter frontal enemy armour assault.

And since your "combine" force does not contain any sort of air support, your enemy could fire long range anti-radiation missiles to render your SAM's radar useless. Once most of your SAMs are rendered inoperational, CAS aircraft would be called in to finish off the rest of remaining force.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Or using conventional means, I'd use a combine arms force consisting of modern MBTs, IFVs and a few SP howitzers. Also new active defence systems mounted on MBTs such as Arena 2 and CRAD will greatly diminsh the effectiveness of ATGMs.

In addition to that MBRL,Attack Helicopters,APC,Helicopter Transportable IFV etc.
Espscially I like Infantry-MBT-Attack helicopter combined force.
Mobility and speed must also be given importance.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We7, the Iraqi's also had RPG and Milan ATGW's in GW 1 and Kornet E ATGW missiles in GW 2. None of these advanced weapons had much effect on US, UK, or French armour for that matter. 1 or 2 tanks here and there were destroyed or damaged, but overall the presence of anti-armour missiles in these battles achieved very little. Iraq ALSO had G6 SPG's and Russian artillery rocket systems. None of these achieved much...

Gremlin, if I were a tactical commander facing We7's force, I wouldn't worry about the tactical nukes, you wouldn't need them!!! His planned force structure possesses almost no tactical maneuverability whatsoever, his light, predominantly "jeep" mounted forces will possess practically no offensive capability (even in a tactical sense) whatsoever given their inability to withstand fire and thus will be limited to low intensity "peace keeping" missions.

He does not take into consideration, in any fashion the fact that his enemies will ALSO possess weapons with the type of capabilities he talks about. He is convinced that S-300/S-400 SAM's and MLRS type artillery are "invincible" and cannot be eliminated, out- manuevered or out-matched. He is also overly convinced of the usefulness of Tactical ballistic missiles.

He considers also considers them to be invincible and is convinced that an army that soley concentrates it's capability on such a weapon will also be invincible. If you point out that if this is true, then why hasn't some Country already done this, his reply will be that (unlike him) "no-one else is capable of thinking outside the square"... This is exactly what he said to me a bit earlier in his discussions and the reason I'm starting to think he might be a bit of a troll...