Fighting on the enemies terms

[Remington 1858]

An examination of America's recent wars shows a similar trend. In Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. found itself fighting an enemy that was technically inferior by any measure. None of the aforementioned adversaries possessed navies or significant air forces, however, in spite of this were able to inflict profound casualties on U.S land forces. Part of the reason for this is that these wars were often fought on the enemies terms. An enemy who only has a rifle wants to fight you with his rifle. The U.S. would prefer to drop a bomb or napalm ( my personal favorite), on said enemy. In Iraq, U.S. Army Special Forces suffered severe casualties because SF operators were trained in CQB, wanted to use CGB tactics, but overlooked the fact that they were fighting guys who wanted to die, to get their 40 virgins. Guys who would fight in a building for while and when they saw they were losing would blow up the building. So, in future wars in the ME, like the one ramping up right now, I hope our leaders will as much as possible forego the use of ground troops and use stand-off weapons as much as possible. There are more of them than there are of us so I hope we will use industrial grade pesticide on them and I personally don't care what it is, nuclear weapons, nerve gas; whatever it takes because we will have one chance and one chance only to finish the business. Say, you wouldn't call me an extremist would you?

 

[JOC]

This talk is esoteric. As I explained earlier we could reduce ISIS offensive capabilities with bombing. Heavy strategic bombing of military hardware using the guidance of AWAKs radar. B-52's for known ISIS bases basically blowing the bases sky high. This would effectively cripple ISIS. Unfortunately some civilians that are in the ISIS umbrella would get caught in the crosshairs but this would stop the ISIS military advancement cold.

This is not Vietnam where they would be randomly bombing jungles hoping to hit the target or Afghanistan where they are trying to bomb relatively small groups of terrorist hiding in remote mountainous crags.

 

[Remington 1858]

A characteristic of so-called "unconventional warfare" is getting someone else, a proxy, to do your fighting for you. It doesn't matter whether it is Syrian Arab Army, Kurds, Turks; anybody will do as long as it doesn't involve U.S. troops. This sounds cynical, but the parties mentioned have reasons of their own for wanting to fight. It requires care to make sure that you don't create a new, more dangerous enemy and none of the parties mentioned should be trusted, especially the Kurds. The U.S. has a lot of history with the Kurds. The U.S. has double-crossed them and been double-crossed by them at least a couple of times. In this war there are no good guys.

 

[JOC]

But my point is ISIS really can't hide so we could bomb the crap out of them. Thus diminishing their war making capabilities with little to no loss of American lives. With Awaks radar they can pinpoint any hardware and destroy it. Then bomb the whole camp to kingdom come with B-52's. Whoever wants to clean up what's left fine.
The key is to use the airbases bases next door in Turkey so they can really give it the bombing that's needed. Not just having a couple of planes fly in from way over in the Gulf

 

[crazytanker]

My thoughts on this are that we're trying to fight like a professional Army, whereas they are using guerilla tactics. It's funny that now that America has a sizable military to be reckoned with, we're stuck jumping from building to building to flush out hiders. Whereas two hundred years ago, when we were on the other side of this coin, we were the guerillas fighting the professional Army. Warfare, while it's tools may change, doesn't change all that much over the years. If we want to succeed against an enemy using guerilla tactics, we have to stop fighting like professionals.

 

[JOC]

But that's the thing. They are using conventional tactics in their desert war of conquer and occupation. Not so much guerilla tactics. They are attacking with tanks, artillery, etc. Also their bases are not easy to hide being in the open desert. These are the exact reasons that the US can minimize this treat with a heavy sustained bombing campaign from say nearby Turkey. People don't seem to understand the capabilities of the modern US air force.

 

[brinktk]

But that's the thing. They are using conventional tactics in their desert war of conquer and occupation. Not so much guerilla tactics. They are attacking with tanks, artillery, etc. Also their bases are not easy to hide being in the open desert. These are the exact reasons that the US can minimize this treat with a heavy sustained bombing campaign from say nearby Turkey. People don't seem to understand the capabilities of the modern US air force.

Their bases are either extremely well camouflaged or they are hidden in population centers. The fighting is also very much in the population centers which makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint who is who. Simply bombing them into oblivion isn't enough. Didn't work on the Germans or the Japanese... It isn't going to work on these guys either who have mastered the art of minimizing our ability to inflict massive damage to them. If there were tanks, armor, and infantry lined up in the desert, they would certainly be killed. It is more likely they are covered and then transported on a semi truck to the location where they are needed.

People also don't seem to understand the limitations of the Air Force also. They can certainly do damage...but they do much more damage in support of unified ground operation...something that isn't being conducted here.

 

[JOC]

Their bases are either extremely well camouflaged or they are hidden in population centers. The fighting is also very much in the population centers which makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint who is who. Simply bombing them into oblivion isn't enough. Didn't work on the Germans or the Japanese... It isn't going to work on these guys either who have mastered the art of minimizing our ability to inflict massive damage to them. If there were tanks, armor, and infantry lined up in the desert, they would certainly be killed. It is more likely they are covered and then transported on a semi truck to the location where they are needed.

People also don't seem to understand the limitations of the Air Force also. They can certainly do damage...but they do much more damage in support of unified ground operation...something that isn't being conducted here.

I didn't realize they were so well camouflaged. Of course you and I both know that we do have advanced systems for pinpointing enemy hardware. My thought was that being in the desert they would likely be more exposed, I guess I am wrong. However I still think the US can do more with bombing than they are doing presently.
We can't go back to WW2 where the USAAF or RAF would kill thousands of French or Italian civilians if the Germans were using the city or position as a strong point, i.e.: Caen, Monti Casino, etc.

 

[crazytanker]

The bad part about that is of course that sure we can pinpoint with incredible accuracy. However its a situation where your ordinary terrorist or what have you may live/work on activities in their home, where innocent civilians are. As a World power, we can't allow ourselves to disregard civilian lives.

 

[JOC]

The bad part about that is of course that sure we can pinpoint with incredible accuracy. However its a situation where your ordinary terrorist or what have you may live/work on activities in their home, where innocent civilians are. As a World power, we can't allow ourselves to disregard civilian lives.

Remember we virtually eliminated all the Serbs heavy hardware without sending in troops. I mean they can detect a tank underneath a tarp using todays radars. It's very hard to hide the profile of this kind of hardware. And do it from such a high altitude that the enemy doesn't even know they are being mapped out for a bombing or missile run. You can minimize civilian deaths but can you omit them completely when the enemy hides amongst the civilians? This is quite different form the allied attack on Caen in WW2 where 40,000 French people died.

 

[brinktk]

Infrared can be mitigated if the engine is turned off which makes the vehicle the exact same temperature as the ambient temperature. The same thing goes for thermal imaging. Radar signatures on the trucks transporting any heavy weapons would be larger than the weapons themselves. Signal triangulation can only be used if we know the frequency and if they use the radios on the vehicles.

There are many work arounds that mitigate a lot of the enablers we use, particularly against low tech opponents. Much of our hardware is so many generations ahead of these opponents that they can almost be camouflaged in plain sight because our systems are designed to locate, track, and fight opponents that are at least within one generation technologically to us.

Is the information out there...sure. I would imagine the sheer volume of data that would have to be sifted through to pin point a target from the air with no on ground confirmation makes anything but the most obvious of targets very hard to prosecute in a timely manner. Then you have to take in civil considerations, units available, time tables, flight time, fuel capacity, anti air defense capabilities, and an extremely cumbersome chain of command that gets yanked back on their already very short leash any time they even come close to moving too far from their left or right limits...you get the picture.

 

[JOC]

Infrared can be mitigated if the engine is turned off which makes the vehicle the exact same temperature as the ambient temperature. The same thing goes for thermal imaging. Radar signatures on the trucks transporting any heavy weapons would be larger than the weapons themselves. Signal triangulation can only be used if we know the frequency and if they use the radios on the vehicles.

There are many work arounds that mitigate a lot of the enablers we use, particularly against low tech opponents. Much of our hardware is so many generations ahead of these opponents that they can almost be camouflaged in plain sight because our systems are designed to locate, track, and fight opponents that are at least within one generation technologically to us.

Is the information out there...sure. I would imagine the sheer volume of data that would have to be sifted through to pin point a target from the air with no on ground confirmation makes anything but the most obvious of targets very hard to prosecute in a timely manner. Then you have to take in civil considerations, units available, time tables, flight time, fuel capacity, anti air defense capabilities, and an extremely cumbersome chain of command that gets yanked back on their already very short leash any time they even come close to moving too far from their left or right limits...you get the picture.

This is a good summary of the problems associated with radar and infrared hardware location technology. Particularly about the trucks caring the heavy hardware having a larger radar profile than that of the weapons that are on them. That would basically make the hardware look like a big truck to Awaks radar. Plus the reaction time must be almost instantaneous, this doesn't lend itself to a lengthy approval process. That is why I mentioned if Turkey is indeed an ally this would be a perfect base for our aircraft some items like flight time, fuel cost would be cut to compared to flying fro carriers in the Gulf. Points well taken.

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

Maybe I am a complete crazy arse, but I think that in given certain situations, civilian casualties CAN be made.
Yes, it's hard for them, but as ISIS goes, these might die anyway.
ISIS doesn't care about them, but they know WE do, which is a weakness.
Overcoming this weakness, will in the end save FAR MORE people.

To me it is mere numbers.
Then again, I could be entirely crazy....

 

[Remington 1858]

During WWIi the allies became less and less concerned with civilian casualties. In fact, it became a doctrine that civilians provided the labor force and support structure to the enemy armed forces and that made them a legitimate target. Part of this change of policy came about because it was finally realized that with the state of the art in bombing, a city was about the smallest target that could be expected to be hit. U.S. and British bombers were lucky if they could place their bombs within two miles of the target, so civilian workers became a target by default.
In the case of the Japanese, civilian population centers became targets in order to break the will of the Japanese government. It would take two atomic bombs for that to work.
In our current conflicts the adversary forces hug civilian populations, schools, mosques and other off -limits targets to gain safety.
This is a holy war, why?; because they say so. In that case the gloves should come off. If you want a population to stop fighting you, there is no better way to achieve that than killing them. War is about killing and it's not about much else.

 

[MontyB]

Maybe I am a complete crazy arse, but I think that in given certain situations, civilian casualties CAN be made.
Yes, it's hard for them, but as ISIS goes, these might die anyway.
ISIS doesn't care about them, but they know WE do, which is a weakness.
Overcoming this weakness, will in the end save FAR MORE people.

To me it is mere numbers.
Then again, I could be entirely crazy....

I would suggest that civilian casualties are expected, surely the only real requirement here is that genuine efforts are made to ensure civilian casualties are minimised.

Essentially there is a great difference between a bystander being killed during an operation and carpet bombing a city at rush hour and most people I believe are capable of making that distinction.

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

I would suggest that civilian casualties are expected, surely the only real requirement here is that genuine efforts are made to ensure civilian casualties are minimised.

I agree with what you say, however, like when some using civilians as a shield, we should not be forced weapons down.
On the contrary: we should act even more violent in that case, make them see it is of no use.
Or they will revert to that tactic every time, rendering us paralyzed.
Once they figure out that human shields no longer work, they will stop using this tactic, I think/hope.

 

[Kesse81]

I agree with what you say, however, like when some using civilians as a shield, we should not be forced weapons down.
On the contrary: we should act even more violent in that case, make them see it is of no use.
Or they will revert to that tactic every time, rendering us paralyzed.
Once they figure out that human shields no longer work, they will stop using this tactic, I think/hope.

In insurgency warfare, this tactic will backfire big time.
I see my job as the protector of the innocent even if they belong to the enemy. It´s a problem, but it should never be solved by "Kill them all"

 

[1st Lt. Kirzillian]

In insurgency warfare, this tactic will backfire big time.
I see my job as the protector of the innocent even if they belong to the enemy. It´s a problem, but it should never be solved by "Kill them all"

Fair enough, I am more than willing to hear a solution from your side.
How would you solve terrorism?

Now, I am an extremely forward person, near brutally honest and open, and I am the type of man that grabs the bull by the horns.
I am a man that acts extreme, both to make an example, as well as to make a point.
But if you, Sir, give me an alternative, I am more than willing to adjust my way.

 

[Kesse81]

The best way to combat terrorism is to ensure that people in general don´t evolves into terrorists. It´s a police and intelligence task. To find them before they strike. But you will never be able to eradicate all terrorists. There will always be some idiot who has a twisted idea he pursues.

One thing is terrorists, another insurgent.

The Taliban, for example, are not terrorists. They may be called partisans or whatever you want. Those you fight most effectively with hearts and minds. The strongest and most legitimate warrior is the one with popular support. Remove this support and you remove the foundation and deliberate killing of civilians is not a good way to make friends.

Situations will occur where my survival depends on killing civilians, but then I´ll have my back against the wall with no other options.

Oh, don´t call me Sir. I´m an NCO - I work for a living. :mrgreen:

 

[JOC]

During WWIi the allies became less and less concerned with civilian casualties. In fact, it became a doctrine that civilians provided the labor force and support structure to the enemy armed forces and that made them a legitimate target. Part of this change of policy came about because it was finally realized that with the state of the art in bombing, a city was about the smallest target that could be expected to be hit. U.S. and British bombers were lucky if they could place their bombs within two miles of the target, so civilian workers became a target by default.
In the case of the Japanese, civilian population centers became targets in order to break the will of the Japanese government. It would take two atomic bombs for that to work.
In our current conflicts the adversary forces hug civilian populations, schools, mosques and other off -limits targets to gain safety.
This is a holy war, why?; because they say so. In that case the gloves should come off. If you want a population to stop fighting you, there is no better way to achieve that than killing them. War is about killing and it's not about much else.

To this end the Nazi's imported > 10 million slaves to replace domestic laborers and Laborers abroad. The life expectancy of a Nazi slave was very low. They also spread their industry's out into the country side making the targets hard to find and hit. Germany production of war material continued to increase right up until 45. Although it would have increased at an even greater rate without the bombing. Between (500 - 1000) thousand Germans died as a result of the Allied bombing campaign. The majority were civilians living in major population centers. Although many key targets were hit: the Ruhr dams, the ball bearing plants, the Ploesti oil fields, Peenemude to name a few.