Just how far in Advancement and Capability is the U.S. Military?

You are Preaching to the Choir!

AboveAlpha

 

My point was about fortifications being built over time by troops stationed in an area likely to become an objective over a long time period. It was not about the the intent behind the fortifications, though your info is most useful.

AboveAlpha apparently believes a war can be won without defending an area. This is not in fact the case. In any war at least some areas need to be defended. Areas that are defended are fortified because this reduces the number of troops needed for that defense and increases security for that objective. Over time these fortifications become more elaborate. No commander is going to say 'Stop. We don't have to be any more secure.'

AboveAlpha's belief that wars are won by the weapons used to fight them is demonstrated by his OP. This also is a false idea. Employment of weapons is driven by tactics. Tactics in turn is driven by strategy. Strategy is determined by logistics. Logistics is what wins wars. Not sexy, but true.

 

Fixed Fortifications are testaments to the Stpidity of Man.

Take Iraq for Example.

Fallujah was swarming with Insurgents and when the U.S. Marines first went in the Insurgents were hiding in innocent peoples homes and within that massive complex Graveyard of Tunnels and Concrete.

U.S. Forces have the record for taking over an entire Nation with the most limited number of Civilian Casualties in the History of Warfare.

In Fallujah....the "FORTIFICATIONS"....were Iraqi Families and that Graveyard.

A full scale operation into Fallujah would have caused the deaths of Tens of Thousands of Innocent Families.

So what did we do.....WE WENT AROUND IT.....went on to capture Baghdad....and then came back after U.S. PSY-OP'S dropped Millions of Leaflets into Fallujah telling the people to GET OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!

Then the U.S. Marines came back when there were much fewer Families and as Marines are crack shots using the M-16 Varients such as the M4's and Barrett M82 Sniper Rifles took out the main body of Insurgents WITH HEAD SHOTS!!!

The U.S. Military is designed to work in an INTEGRATED SERVICE MANNER....which means the Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force and Spercial Forces and Special Teams use elements of each others services to defeat an enemy.

No one service is left alone to accomplish the goal.

When Invading Iraq we simply DESTROYED THE ENEMY....and left towns, villages and cities to the Iraqi Civilian's as THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT ANNEX TERRITORY ANYMORE!!!

I have been to Russia and the Soviet Union and all Former Soviet States.

I have trained with Spetsnaz and I am proficient in Systema and Sambo.

But Russia still fights wars in a very WWII Fashion....that being.....ARTILLERY.....ARTILLERY....ARTILLERY!!!

Whether by Canon or Rockets and then sends in Tanks and BMP's....and Troops still RIDING ATOP OF TANKS as I watched Soviet Forces travel to and over the boarder into the Ukraine along the Black Sea Shoreline as Putin has sent in more members of Spetsnaz...VERY capable men....to attempt to start an insurgency that would allow Russia to annex a swath of territory from Russia along the Black Sea all the way to the Crimea.

That is Putin's Plan!!

As the United States has no intentions of Starting WWIII....and since the Ukraine was once a Soviet Satellite State.....there is only so much we can do Militarily but ECONOMICALLY....that is another thing altogether.

I have many Russian Friends most of them were my one time Cold War Counterparts and when I was in Russia in the 1990's and in the 2000's as well....my once Cold War Counterparts became my FRIENDS.

Most of them live in and around Moscow and I have asked those that remain in Russia as I could easily help them move to the U.S. and in a few cases I have....I ask them WHY do they remain in Russia??

They told me that even though they know they could have much better lives for themselves and their families that THEY ARE RUSSIAN for bettor or for worse and that if everyone leaves who will be left to make things better?

I can respect this but they are going through very difficult times especially the Veterans.

Do you know WHY Oil Prices went up a bit?

BECAUSE WE ALLOWED THEM TO RISE!!!

It was Canada and the U.S. that ABSOLUTELY FLOODED THE WORLDS OIL MARKET.....as we figured this was the way to best Hurt Putin.

Then we came to realise that Putin does not care how much suffering he puts the Russian People though....so we lowered Oil Production.

But still....PUTIN BROKE A DEAL!!!

You DO NOT break DEALS with the United States.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually, they bombed the crap out of Normandy. The problem was that they only did it for one night, hours before the landings. And the low cloud cover (which delayed the attack from 5 June) made actual bombing of the shoreline almost impossible. However, heavy naval bombardment was grount onto the targets.

But the bunkers were so thick and well built that this was also ineffective. The only way they were taken out was by forcing a breech in the line then taking them from the sides-rear.



Even to this day the area around the bunkers is full of craters from the bombs and shells.

Fixed fortifications like at Normandy are not made by the troops themselves, but rather by engineers at the direction of the top levels of leadership.

Then what do you think a Firebase or FOB is?

A fixed defensive fortification, stationed at an area likely to be an objectibe over a long time period.

Look at Khe Sanh. A 7 month long siege of a fixed position by over 4 Infantry Divisions. And it is estimated that half of the attacking force were killed or wounded, all 4 divisions were decimated, and the positions were held.

You have to be careful making such blanket statements, because individuals like me will pick them apart.

 

I talking about Fixed Fortifications in this day and age of Heavy Bombers and Fighter/Attack Aircraft.

The Iraqi's burried their tanks in sand for Months as they though the T-72's would be able to swing and raise their turrets to shoot at incoming U.S. Tanks and that the sand would protect them.

In reality the sand made them immobile.

They were destroyed quickly and easily.

AboveAlpha

 

That was not as much a case of fixed positions, as it was effective use of combined arms.

In the Gulf War, the US had complete air domination, and could take out many positions with pinpint accuracy before the ground troops had to actually engage them. Iraq was following the Warsaw Pact doctrine. This actually would have been rather effective if the coalition forces did not have such air dominance.

And they did not "bury them in the sane" as much as create burms in front of them, protecting the hulls from a direct attack and leaving only the turret above ground (the same tactic the US uses). But the ability of US PGM made this largely ineffective.



The US uses the same tactic, especially in the planned offensive if it had happened by the Warsaw Pact through the Fulda Gap. Previously prepared positions, with the tanks in what is known as a "hull down" configuration. The back side sometimes deeper (to present a "turret down" position where the tank is completely hidden from view), then allowing egress from the rear to take up another prepared position further back. But the emplacement is open from the rear, so that the enemy tanks can not then use the positions against the forces in retrograde movement.

And it was not so much that the sand made them immobile, that it was that without GPS they were unable to accurately navigate across the open desert, forcing them to have to stick to roads. The US had GPS, so was able to accurately navigate across the open desert without having to follow roads.

You do have the general concept right, but your details are not quite in line with what happened. Replace the Gulf War with a WWIII Fulda Gap Warsaw Offensive (where there was no coalition air dominance) and the results would have been quite different. Complete air dominance in many ways is what made the Gulf War as lopsided as it was.

 

General Rommel was placed in charge of building the Coastal Fortifications and Rommel Himself stated that all that time, manpower and slave power as well as all that Metal would have been better used to build more TANKS!!

In the end....those Fixed Fortifications lasted a day.

AboveAlpha

 

But back then they had battleships and heavy gun cruisers to take out those fortifications. No battleships today. Thanks Clinton.

When you look at the satellite imaging of the islands that the chi-coms are fortifying in the South China Sea and you notice the concrete factories that have been built, I bet the chi-coms did their home work.

Just not an excellent read but extremely informative. It's not as easy as it seems to destroy fortifications.

One excerpt: Some good photos.
FYI: OBB = Old Battleship that had the 14" guns that fired a 1,500 lb. AP round not the 2,750 AP round of the 16" guns found on the Iowa class BB's.

 

But this also begs the question:

Would Operation Overlord have worked as well if Operation Fortitude and Operation Bodyguard not have worked as well as they did?

Hitler and many of the German High Command were convinced that the landings at Normandy was a feint, and that the real landings were going to be at Calais. This held back the Tactical Reserve for almost 48 hours, the critical time where they could have conducted an assault upon the landing forces.

In specifics, the Tactical Reserve of the German Order of Battle was the Wehrmacht 15th Army. This was a force of roughly 12-15,000 men, and might have made all of the difference between Operation Overlord succeeding or failing. Throwing that many forces into the battle in the first 24-36 hours would likely have meant the difference between success and failure.

But as we know now, they were held in reserve until it was to late to affect the outcome of the battle, and the Allies won. If the deception operations had not worked, D-day would likely be remembered for the speech that the Supreme Commander had drafted, but never delivered:

They only lasted a day because the Germans were so convinced it was a feint that they held their strategic reserve back to long.

And before you say that the Wehrmacht 15th Army may not have been enough, think about this. The Wehrmacht 15th Army was the same force that outtnumbered and being surprised during Operation Market Garden forced the Allies to retreat and delivered a crushing defeat. That assault was a complete and utter Allied failure, and extended the war by another 6 months at a minimum.

 

The reply clearly answers the question because it shows that far money has been spent and wasted on military corporate welfare than right wingers want people to believe. The military is the most advanced in the world. No question there. Therefore, all the extraneous wastage is counter productive and needs to be stopped so that society can use the excess for its real needs rather than to advance corporate welfarism.

 

Actually, that addressed none of it, and this thread is about "Just how far in Advancement and Capability is the U.S. Military?".

Why not take your petty hijack attempts elsewhere?

 

Mushroom is correct. A-10 and F-16 aircraft used IIR guided Maverick missiles to pick apart Iraqi armor often times before ground forces engaged. These aircraft could operate with impunity over the battlefield, for the most part. There was no air-to-air threat to speak of at least.

The actual ground war only lasted 72 hours, and routed the Iraqis in America's largest tank battle in our nation's history, the Battle of 73 Easting. The Abrams had better optics and could get the first accurate shot off, and in modern tank battles there's not much opportunity for second chances.

 

It's known as Air Interdiction Over the Battlefield aka Deep Air Support not to be confused with Close Air Support. In today's military there are even professionals who confuse Air Interdiction over the battlefield with CAS, two different things.

The Maverick, nothing new just a Vietnam War era weapon, a replacement for the Bullpup.

 

And not only the Abrams, but the Bradley as well. In particular, a scout element of 2 Bradley IFVs went in search of the unit that was supposed to be on their flank, and instead ran into a position consisting of 13 T-72s. The Bradleys successfully engaged, and destroyed all 13 T-72s with TOW missiles.

A lot of people tend to concentrate on the Abrams, and forget the outstanding work that the Bradley did in that war as well. In fact, more Iraqi tanks were destroyed by the Bradley then by the Abrams, but they are not as sexy, so most tend to ignore this fact.

 

Yes they also used tungsten rounds in the 25mm gun which were very effective at knocking out some types of armor. The IFV is noted for a couple fratricide incidents, one invovling an Abrams and the other an Apache.

They aren't as imposing as the Abrams 120mm cannon, the M2 has this big carriage and a stubby gun..but you're right, the Bradley was very capable of taking on Iraqi armor and defeating it.

 

The even had to get out of their bradley to reload the Tow launchers mid battle... The Iraqi really got shaft by the russian when they bought their T72 with manual turrets...

 

My unit, in part, disseminated the daily ATO ( air tasking order) in Desert Storm,
It was roughly based on a 48-hour target nomination and planning cycle with a 24-hour execution period. Yes, killing tanks was part of an interdiction role, (BAI)

 

I know this.

I am just saying that Heavy Fortifications...and let's look at what happened to those Hardened Aircraft Bunkers that were supposedly Bomb Proof that Iraq send Billions upon which just the drop of a Bunker Buster and....GONE!!

Fixed Fortifications are not the way to go.

High Mobility and Air Power are the ways to go.

AboveAlpha

 

And once again, if the Coalition forces had not had complete and utter air dominance in the skies over Kuwait and Iraq, it would not have been so easy to destroy them.

Say if this was an early 1990's scenario with NATO and Warsaw Pact going toe to toe prior to a massive land battle, those bunkers would have been nowhere near as easy to destroy. We might have gotten a small handfull of them, with weapons fired at a much greater distance, with the enemy having a much more sophisticated capability to destroy said weapons before they struck (not to mention the aircraft flying them).

What you keep doing is insisting they are obsolete, based upon a single scenario which is rather unusual. And that is a land battle where one side has such complete control of the skies. That would not be the condition if we ever have to invade say Russia, China, France, or even Germany. Each of those countries has a much more capable and sophisticated Air Force and ground based Anti-Air capability then Iraq did, and destroying them would have been nowhere near as easy.

Bunkers and fixed positions still have a role in modern warfare. Heck, the US still uses them to this day. I have seen the CENTCOM bunker in the Middle East, and have been inside of it. And it's main defensive systems are both maintaining complete air dominance, and 2 batteries of PATRIOT missiles to protect it if any aircraft or missiles do get through this defense.

 

LONDON: Recent events in Iraq, Libya, Russia, Syria and Yemen have sharpened the fundamental questions European nations face as they consider medium- and long-term force structure and equipment needs.

In the short term, the focus for much of Europe’s defense aerospace sector is on understanding fully the cause of the crash of an Airbus A400M, that lead to the death of four of the six crew. It served as a sad reminder that risk remains an inherent element of aerospace development.

Air campaigns of the last decade have shown the flexibility, responsiveness and breadth of roles of air power. These wars, however, have also sustained a debate as old as air power itself: can the air arm alone deliver strategic outcomes, or does it remain far more effective in concert with ground and, when needed, naval forces. The NATO operation in the Libyan Civil War in effect supported the anti-Gadaffi forces, appearing to provide a decisive advantage. This year’s Saudi-led coalition air strikes against Houthi insurrectionists in the Yemen has provide respite for government forces, but the air campaign has failed to force the Houthi to the negotiating table. It has resulted in civil deaths and injuries, which beyond being tragic for those affected, risks eroding the legitimacy of the coalition bombing missions.

In Iraq and Syria, meanwhile, US-led air strikes have continued against ISIL (aka Islamic State aka Da’esh) forces. The air campaign has forced ISIL to change its tactics, reducing its mobility and the ability to mass forces. It has also hit at key sources of ISIL revenue such as oil. So air power has provided Iraqi government forces with some respite, but, as the May debacle in Ramadi showed, these forces are not always led well and their willingness to fight is often overmatched by ISIL. The limited impact of the air effort has been criticised by some, but the air campaign in and off itself was unlikely to result in ISIL’s defeat.

Alongside air-to-surface operations in permissive air environments such as the campaign against ISIL where there is little or no counter-air threat, renewed thought is now being given to the demands of operations in contested air space. This would either be in the shape of war with a near-peer competitor or in operations where the opposition has acquired and is capable of operating high-end threat systems such as surface to air missiles and fourth-generation combat aircraft and associated weapons (in Pentagon speak, this is the anti-access/area denial — A2/AD environment). NATO nations are being asked also to focus again on the air defense role because of greater and more assertive Russian Air Force activity, though it remains far from the levels at the height of the Cold War. Meanwhile, Washington is having to review continental air defense against a possible conventional threat.

Take all that into account and key providers of European air power face challenging and fundamental choices as to the nature of the capabilities they will develop, buy and sustain beyond the present generation of combat and special missions aircraft. First, there the basic choice as to how long keep the present types of fighter aircraft in service, and the types of systems and weapons that would best serve to ensure there continuing suitability and survivability across the threat spectrum intended to be addressed. This will also determine the continent’s industrial longterm footprint in the defense aerospace arena.

For some, the 2015 Paris Air Show brings with it the security of a considerably healthier near-term order book, even if the ‘big prize’ eluded them 24 months ago. France’s Dassault had yet to conclude an export order for Rafale combat aircraft, though it had been chosen as the preferred bidder for India’s 126 aircraft Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft program. Since the beginning of this year it has booked orders for 24 aircraft for Egypt, 24 aircraft for Qatar, and moved a sale – if not the big sale – to India. After three years of negotiations intended to agree the overall military-industrial package providing for the license build in India of 108 of the planned 126 MMRCA order, Delhi and Paris instead suddenly announced in April that they would proceed with the purchase of 36 Rafales directly off the French production line...


Dassault’s success came at the expense of other European manufacturers. The four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon was proposed to meet the initial requirement in Qatar, and it remains in contention should a second batch of fighter aircraft be purchased. In the same region UK-led discussions with the United Arab Emirates over the purchase of Typhoon failed to secure a sale, after showing promise. France is again now proposing the Rafale to the UAE. In Kuwait The Typhoon and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet at least are being considered as a replacement for the air force’s F/A-18C/Ds, with contradictory signals as to which is preferred.

In the UK, the ongoing Strategic Defense and Security Review will consider what to do about the Royal Air Force Typhoon fleet’s notional out-of-service date of 2030. This will in all probability see the Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 aircraft’s operational life extended well into the 2030s to help maintain overall combat aircraft fleet numbers. If that does not happen, then by the Royal Air Force’s only combat aircraft would be the F-35B by 2031. The present procurement numbers for the aircraft do not indicate this.

Beyond 2030, the RAF would also begin to introduce a uninhabited combat air vehicle (UCAV) into the inventory. London and Paris are executing a two-year feasibility study into the technologies required for the development of a low-observable UCAV optimised for the air-to-surface role. The UCAV work stems from the 2010 Lancaster House treaties on defense cooperation between France and the UK and could lead to joint development of what is known as the Future Combat Air System.

That feasibility study will conclude likely in mid-2016, with the decision on whether to pursue a joint programme to follow. In political terms at least this could pose a problem in that the British Government is planning to hold a referendum on whether to remain a member of the European Union. Whether Paris would be comfortable committing to a high profile defense collaboration prior to a UK decision on EU membership is a matter for conjecture.

Intriguingly, French officials have suggested that technology from the FCAS programme could also be applicable to a crewed platform. While none of Europe’s traditional defense aerospace nations have a formal project to develop a crewed combat aircraft beyond the present generation, or in the case of the participating nations beyond the F-35, there are signs that assumptions in this regard are being reconsidered. Beside the French comments, London is also re-examining its baseline with regard to its options to meet its Future Combat Air Capability force mix. The UK’s 2005 Defense Industrial Strategy suggested the F-35 would be the air force’s last crewed combat aircraft. This conclusion is now being revisited as part of wider work...

continue -> http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/...il&utm_term=0_4368933672-1c2c3c8650-408269433

 

The problem a lot of people are making in this discussion, is in assuming that the next war (or the war after that) will be like the most recent war or the war before that.

In every war since Korea, the US has pretty much had air domination (in Vietnam this domination came and went, but it had superiority most of the time). When the fighters are not having to look for and react to other fighters, they can spend a lot more time taking out ground targets. When they do not have this dominance, they are going to be spending most of their time taking out air targets, and largely ignoring the targets on the ground.

Look at WWII. The only time the air forces of any nation could effectively concentrate on the ground targets was when the enemy fighters had largely been swept from the skies. And when there were no enemy fighters but enemy bombers, only a fraction of the air force could do ground attacks, the rest were trying to find and take out the enemy bombers.

Also the simple fact that in Iraq, it was pretty much impossible to hide the construction of any kind of bunkers. The US knew where almost all of the bunkers were, and had a damned good idea what was inside of each one, because they had been watching them under construction for years. You can't hide that kind of massive construction in the desert.

This is real warfare in a non-permissive air environment. In this environment, bunkers are actually a good idea. They can protect forces and equipment until they are ready for use. And in an environment like Europe, it is much easier to hide bunker construction. One of the most sophisticated bunkers of WWII was built right in the heart of London, and nobody even knew it was there.

But people should not think that modern bunkers are the same as like the Maginot Line, fixed defensive fighting poistions from which to strike at an attacking enemy. Those in modern terms are FOBs or Firebases. Bunkers in modern use are generally for Command and Control, Communications, and the storage of ordinance (weapons, bombs) and Materiel (tanks, aircraft, etc). And in that instance it is not as much to protect the equipment inside, as it is to minimize the damage if it is struck.

10 airplanes in 10 bunkers will need at least 10 PGMs to take them all out. 10 airplanes not in bunkers can be taken out by a single cruise missile dropping submunitions. We know that we will never build bunkers to completely protect our equipment, but having bunkers does mean that each piece of equipment in them will take an individual weapon to be effective.

This is why in a fixed firing position, a PATRIOT launcher has a 3/4 bunker around it. So hopefully a hit on one launcher will not cause a chain-reaction and take out all of the launchers in a Battery.

 

I really want to point out we are 100% safe from even our nearest big challenger China even with allies from any kind of invasion of our national territory, the fact is just one ballistic missile sub could utterly destroy China as a threat in under 30 minutes and we have many we would deploy with attack subs if war was likely. Then we have bombers, land-based missiles even if old and surface fleets who we could arm with nuclear weapons if we wanted to.

So why not improve our ability to deliver devastating nuclear power with new and deadlier systems, make sure anyone considering invasion has to be likely signing their death warrants.

It would in the long run be cheaper.

 

That all depends who the POTUS is at the time. If the chi-coms believe that the POTUS is a pantywaist and doesn't have a pair to order a nuclear attack they just might use nuclear blackmail.

President Carter was such a pantywaist. We had a hollow military force, NATO knew that they couldn't defeat the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact nations in a conventional war in Europe without resorting to tactical nukes. It was believed that Carter would surrender instead of using nukes.

This was the beginning of the survival movement and the private militias in America during the 1970's. To survive a nuclear attack and fight commie occupation forces on U.S. soil.

By 1980 there were those in the military community who were predicting that if Carter was reelected in 1980 the Soviets would soon move on Western Europe.

But God was on America's side not the "New Left" who hijacked the Democrat Party. Reagan became POTOS and the Soviets were in awe because they respected Reagan because they feared him. With Reagan it was no liberal social engineering of the military, only rearm and train to fight battles and win. ("We win - you lose") "Peace Through Strength" By 1886 most of the damage that the liberals have inflicted on our military was repaired, it cost hundreds of billions to do it. Morale was high among the troops the American civilian population once again respected the military. We had a pretty damn good military that could fight and win battles and maybe even a war.

But still it was discovered we and NATO couldn't defeat the Soviets in a conventional war on land in Europe without using tactical nukes. So what our military did was dug up an old tactic, maneuver warfare.

Now Obama, he's not capable of making decisions when they need to be needed. Would Obama retaliate with a nuclear attack if Russia or the chi-coms had ICBM's in the air headed for the CONUS ? He would probably need a few weeks or months before reacting.

When our generals requested a surge in Afghanistan it took Obama over three months before he would sign off on the surge. How many Americans were killed during those three months ? Should we say six months since it was almost six months before the first surge troops put foot on Afghan soil after the first request was made.

Remember Obama's line in the sand in Syria ? Obama and Putin in a stare down and Obama blinked.

 

I think we are all talking about different things here.

I am stating that Massive Fixed Fortifications and long lines 100's of miles of Fixed Fortifications in this day and age as well as even in WWII cost so much to build and took up so much man power and metal and concrete that the steel and time and manpower would have been better served building more tanks or more aircraft or better weapons.

Of course we will always need secret underground facilities.....but the days of Castles and Moats and Walls and Bunkers is a thing of the past.

AboveAlpha

 

And what kind of "new and deadlier systems" should we develop?

Is there some kind of super-duper bomb and missile that is being kept secret?

Nobody has tried to build "hundreds of miles" of fortifications since WWII. It is simply not effective when it is impossible to protect that much of a border, be it water or land.

But as far as "Castles and Moats and Walls and Bunkers", it is most indeed not a thing of the past. The FOB is really nothing more then the modern version of a Norman Castle. A fortified enclosed self-sustaining fortification, designed to house a garrison that can respond to keep the countryside around it pacified.

Even in the 21st century, we still use modern versions of "castles, moats, walls, and bunkers". We just call them different nanes, and HESCO filled with dirt and concrete has tended to replace stone and wood. But the principles, theories and tactics remain the same.