Failure of US technology - Lessons for Cold Start

daulat
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 09 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby daulat » 03 Nov 2004 21:39

enquoob - i think that whilst most of the horse back stuff was for pre-battle mobility, particularly for the strike controllers, there was atleast one engagement where the NA actually charged taliban t55's on horseback. the logic would be that in narrow valleys, tanks have limited movement and gun traverse (subject to position) and horses offer speed and agility to close the gap so that hand to hand combat can take place. grenades down the turret were always bad news for tank crews

wyu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 11:31

Postby wyu » 03 Nov 2004 23:37

Pmangalik wrote:a) how effectively can it be employed? Deploying systems is one thing but having the force structure be able to employ these systems in an adaptive manner requires a great deal of time for training & experience gained. But, even that is possible but it leaves open the following question,


It is available now as shown by the pasting of the Medina Division but it's not available everywhere as shown by Ops PEACH and THUNDER RUN. The R&D answer is supposed to be prioritized in order of the most need. However, given my experience, it's whoever is screaming the loudest at that moment.

Pmangalik wrote:b) how effectively will the enemy be able to counter it? C4I, and all of its subsets, are highly dependent upon comm networks that are not only available but reliable and that implies survivability and adaptibility. THat is a demanding requirement especially given the fact that missile technology is only going to improve - smaller, faster, and more accurate. This means that comm nodes are going to have to heavily defended for NCW-dependent force and nothing is impregnable. And that raises the question,


You have two questions here.

1) How the enemy would be able to counter?

and

2) What are the counter-technologies?

For 1), The answer is simple, the genius of pre-planning. If you can foresee most circumstances, you can plan contingencies, by passing the need for real time information. The front line echelons already got their orders and don't have to wait for you to receive and eval new intel and then issue new orders. However, this requires a genius in the order Zhukov, one of the most brilliant pre-planners on earth.

For 2) The problem is not one or two counter-technologies. Those are simple to develop. The problem is a counter-system (ie a whole sleuth of technologies) which would be just as expensive and just as difficult to employ. All you have to do is look at the Cold War and the arms race (both in technology and in technique) that spiralled.

Pmangalik wrote:c)if a NCW-dependent force loses key elements of its network will it then be able to maintain its lethality, especially in the context of the US Army's proposed FCS - lighter & faster. Note that speed is a great strategy but one needs to know the lay of the land for it work. Remember even Alexander's army's mastery of speed ran into the problem of lfacing arge number of slow Indian elephants after the initial victory at the Indus; and no certainty of the lay of the land, i.e, enemy.


But NCW would give you "complete situational awareness!" If you buy into that promise, then, this situation will never occur. If you don't, I want as much protection as I can take with me.

I have never believe in complete situational awareness and always believe that you have to deal with the fog-of-war. Nice to have the intel but give me my armour just in case.

Pmangalik wrote:d) But, more importantly, given that we are speaking of Infotech, how quickly will smaller powers be able to deploy similiar capabilities, at least from a defensive role? if both parties are sitting on top of their respective hills then the advantage is neutralized to a great extent,


Answered above

Pmangalik wrote:It seems that the Soviet thought may end up proving itself as we enter the next phase of WW4. That is, mean battles between sophisticated platforms during the early phase quickly leading to use of T-34s as other, more powerful, systems get used up..


You cannot go back in time. This has happenned before at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries. The last major war of that era in which the full might of armies were pitted against each other in a slug fest was the American Civil War (and all the developments that war spawned).

However, all those lessons seemed to be forgotten or ignored in favour of manouver as seen by the Boer War. Two different philosophies. One by US Grant and the other by Lord Kitchener. What happenned? WWI proving Grant was the right thinker. However, who in their right mind would pit Grant's army against Kitchener's?

Pmangalik wrote:I view the whole NCW/FCS thingy to be a great idea but one that is analogous to SDI - extremely expensive to deploy but requires minimal investment on the part of the enemy to counter or overwhelm it..It seems that for it to work effectively the enemy would have to be in a state similiar to the Iraqis of 1991..


The question is time and money. Airpower has matured and come into its own. However, during its dawn, its effects vis-a-vi machine guns and artillery was negligable and even during WWII, its effects when compared to artillery was small. Even today, artillery is far more cheaper than airpower which requires 24/7 air cover. Only the US is able to do this and only for a short period of time.

So, would NCW work? Only the US's belief in it and the willingness to committ both money and thought power would make it work to the extent of that promise ... but it would not be anytime soon.

Pmangalik wrote:Am I way off here?


No one is way off if they're asking questions, even if the answers are not what they expected. At least you know you were off (but you're not) and know where you have to go.

daulat
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 09 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby daulat » 03 Nov 2004 23:47

wyu - the franco-prussian war would have been a full on war after the american civil war where a lot of technology was deployed (big guns, some rail mounted) and the prussians almost took paris. the boer war was more akin to a guerilla conflict with a powerful well organised (but badly led) army against lightly armed militias (of high military skill). i don't think that technology played a major part in that conflict, except british use of the railways and artillery. the few set piece battles were perhaps different to what was going on in europe just before.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby Hitesh » 04 Nov 2004 09:08

Wyu,

How far was Lord Kitchner ahead of Grant's army? Why wouldn't you want to pit Grant's army against Kitchner's army?

Please tell me the advantages and disadvantages of both sides.

wyu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 11:31

Postby wyu » 04 Nov 2004 11:41

daulat wrote:wyu - the franco-prussian war would have been a full on war after the american civil war where a lot of technology was deployed (big guns, some rail mounted) and the prussians almost took paris. the boer war was more akin to a guerilla conflict with a powerful well organised (but badly led) army against lightly armed militias (of high military skill). i don't think that technology played a major part in that conflict, except british use of the railways and artillery. the few set piece battles were perhaps different to what was going on in europe just before.


I'm using these two wars to illustrate the extremely different theories preceeding WWI realities and which one was the one that became the norm. I'm also trying to illustrate that that situation is resemembles what is happenning today with the new theories.

Hitesh wrote:How far was Lord Kitchner ahead of Grant's army? Why wouldn't you want to pit Grant's army against Kitchner's army?


Kitchener's calvary would have routed the Army of the Potemic with ease, added with the bolt action rifles that delivers much superior fire faster. There was also no comparison between the two artillery.

What I was trying to illustrate with the US Grant example was that everyone ignored it - until the reality of WWI trenches set in. WWI resembled the American Civil War alot more than the Boer War.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby Hitesh » 04 Nov 2004 22:15

What year was Lord Kitchner's cavalry?

If the Army of Potomec were equipped with the same weapons that Lord Kitchener were, would have Grant won?

Who is better in manuever warfare, Jeb Stuart or Lord Kitchner?

wyu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 11:31

Postby wyu » 04 Nov 2004 22:51

The Boer War was 1899-1902.

Not sure how to answer you second question. Alot of the Boer War theories were borned out of the American Civil War. So, without Grant doing his work, I'm not sure how Kitchener would have done his fight.

The Confederate Generals were definetely superior than Kitchener in the application of theory but the technolgoy Kitchener had would have been over-whelming. Kitchener won the Boer War, not so much, as outmanouvering the enemy (which was done) but denying the guerrilla his base support. He put almost the entire Boer population into concentration camps ... in every sense of the word. Women and children died in those camps.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 183
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Postby Luxtor » 04 Nov 2004 23:33

Before India can embark on cold start or any other comprehensive plan against Pak or China, it needs to develop its satellite based surveillance system; i.e. better spy satellites as well as land and sea based surveillance system. We need to much improve our satellite-based communications also. This on top of developing weapons of our own, like we're doing right now so we're not dependent upon others. We need to spend money that we can afford and dare the Pakis to keep up with us and snooker them into bankrupting themselves like the Soviets when they tried to keep up with the Americans.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest