PDA

View Full Version : tPF Ground combat



Peter1469
12-24-2015, 09:42 AM
Here is a very short, interesting article (https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/ground-combat)on ground combat and what the Army should be planning for.


In the future, the United States may face three types of adversaries—irregular, state-sponsored hybrid, and state adversaries. Non-state irregular forces typically are not well trained, have little formal discipline, and operate in small formations about the size of squads.

Middle adversaries are essentially state-sponsored hybrid forces characterized by capabilities on both ends of the spectrum. Thus, they have the same sorts of weapons that irregular forces have, but they have additional capabilities, such as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and man-portable air defense weapons (MANPADs), and longer-range, larger-caliber rockets.


High-end adversaries are the forces of a nation state. They are hierarchically organized, ranging from battalion to brigade and larger formations. Their weapons span the spectrum of sophisticated weaponry, including air defenses, ballistic missiles, conventional ground and special operations forces, air and naval forces and, in some cases, nuclear weapons.

Read the article for more, and its conclusion as to what the Army needs to focus on.

Crepitus
12-24-2015, 11:21 AM
Looks like a decent analysis to me.

As I'm sure you know dealing with "irregulars" is a rubber bitch, and it only gets worse when they're decently equipped and have even a little real training and command structure.

Tahuyaman
12-30-2015, 08:11 PM
Here is a very short, interesting article (https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/ground-combat)on ground combat and what the Army should be planning for.



Read the article for more, and its conclusion as to what the Army needs to focus on.

so what they are saying is that the Army needs to be trained and ready to face all types of modern warfare.

AeonPax
01-01-2016, 06:44 AM
`
The US started dealing with "irregulars" and the "fifth column" threat as far back as Vietnam. Is the author suggesting that training for such warfare has not been done since then?

Peter1469
01-01-2016, 08:16 AM
Looks like a decent analysis to me.

As I'm sure you know dealing with "irregulars" is a rubber bitch, and it only gets worse when they're decently equipped and have even a little real training and command structure.

Very true. I would add discipline to your list.

Crepitus
01-01-2016, 08:20 AM
Very true. I would add discipline to your list.
Comes with the training and structure, or at least it's supposed to, lol.

Peter1469
01-01-2016, 08:20 AM
so what they are saying is that the Army needs to be trained and ready to face all types of modern warfare.

If money grew on trees the Army would fully focus on all types of modern warfare. The Army has a limited budget. The author says there are three types of adversaries: irregular, state-sponsored hybrids, and state actors.

Based on trends, the limited money should be focused on the middle group.

Peter1469
01-01-2016, 08:20 AM
Comes with the training and structure, or at least it's supposed to, lol.

Supposed to. :wink:

Peter1469
01-01-2016, 08:23 AM
`
The US started dealing with "irregulars" and the "fifth column" threat as far back as Vietnam. Is the author suggesting that training for such warfare has not been done since then?

The article acknowledges that in the first sentence.


After the United States emerged from the Vietnam War, it witnessed the events of the 1973 Yom Kippur War—a state-level conflict fought against Israel by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

But the third generation war that was the Yom Kippur war changed US focus from irregulars to state actors.

Irregular warfare is also called fourth generation warfare.