Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Scout26 on June 12, 2013, 01:23:30 PM
-
From over at Ranger Up.
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/does-the-infantry-have-a-future/#comment-47150
To which I quoted T.R. Fehrenbach:
“In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies the buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
TL/DR: "If he ain't on it, you don't own it."
-
If he ain't on it, you don't own it."
I imagine in the future that will change to "If you don't drone it, you don't own it."
I think the fear of being killed by a flesh and blood occupying force is a lot less than being surgically annihilated by an unseen godlike untouchable entity.
-
Here is the original article that sparked the response listed in the OP. It was written by a Marine infantry LTC with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/26/can_the_marines_survive?page=0,0
-
Interesting comments on the article. I believe there will always be a place for significant numbers of boots on the ground. Drones and electronic warfare would not have accomplished the mission in Somalia, Bosnia or Libya. Many comments on the article argue that most boots on the ground tasks can be accomplished by SF Alpha detachments or the equivalent, and I remain skeptical about this.
-
I agree. Drones and bombs and cameras and signal interception are essential tools for winning wars, defeating the enemies communication, infrastructure or supplies. But its still people that are needed for presence, control, interaction, intelligence, direction, politics and rebuilding. In other words, can't resolve disputes, build bridges, or hold elections from a tank. Can't do these things hiding in a bush with a drone overhead as backup. And if there are people involved, then there are going to be fights. If there are fights, then people are going to need guns; which is what infantry just so happen to carry.
-
its still people that are needed for presence, control, interaction, intelligence, direction, politics and rebuilding. In other words, can't resolve disputes, build bridges, or hold elections from a tank.
Some of us would argue those things don't need doing.
I'm trying to figure out when the Department of Defense became the Department of Tearing Apart Other Countries And Rebuilding Them In Our Image =|
-
Since the war for independence, when local support was needed for supplies?
Since the civil war, when occupation and reconstruction was intended to help/force unity in a nation divided?
Since the Spanish-American war, giving Cuba independence, and establishing American colonial power?
Since WW2, Korea, Vietnam when we needed our newly conquered and allies to be stable and resistant to communist sway or returning to old ways?
Its only slightly easier to count who we weren't interested in rebuilding...
Barbary wars - no interest in rebuilding pirate cities
1812, stalement - no new occupied territory to rebuild
Mexican-American War, no interest in rebuilding occupied Mexico
Various tribal nations vs US, no interest in rebuilding
WW1 - no new occupied territory to rebuild
-
Hey, you forgot slaughtering Indians and moving them to
concentration camps reservations :P
-
Are you seriously comparing reservations to concentration camps? =|
-
Yep. We will always have infantry. Next question?
Is this one of those "Do we really need food, when we can drink water and eat light?" type of questions?
-
Are you seriously comparing reservations to concentration camps? =|
Kinder, gentler concentration camps :lol:
-
I worked on a res for 4 years and spent part of that time living in it too. It is the oddest concentration camp I've ever seen or heard of! :P
-
The camps had, overall, better housing, sanitation, and had reliable electricity.
Hatred requires investments which mere apathetic neglect does not.
-
Interesting comments on the article. I believe there will always be a place for significant numbers of boots on the ground. Drones and electronic warfare would not have accomplished the mission in Somalia, Bosnia or Libya. Many comments on the article argue that most boots on the ground tasks can be accomplished by SF Alpha detachments or the equivalent, and I remain skeptical about this.
When the U.S. was planning to invade Iraq, the then head of the Joint Chiefs told the administration that we needed 300,000 pairs of boots on the ground to secure the country after an invasion. Donald Rumsfeld, in his infinite wisdom, replaced said Chief and decided that 100,000 was enough.
Guess who was wrong?
-
Interesting comments on the article. I believe there will always be a place for significant numbers of boots on the ground. Drones and electronic warfare would not have accomplished the mission in Somalia, Bosnia or Libya. Many comments on the article argue that most boots on the ground tasks can be accomplished by SF Alpha detachments or the equivalent, and I remain skeptical about this.
SOF teams (neglecting the direct action parts, which aren't the topic here) are force multipliers, if there isn't a local force to train/equip/advise/support, then it doesn't work as well, and you need conventional boots on ground.
-
Kind of deja-vu all over again. The powers that be AKA They decide that with all the fancy new gee-whiz technology means we don't need as many boots on the ground. So, they cut the boots on the ground man power to a shadow as well as the supporting infrastructure. Then we get into a conflict and all the gee-whiz tech doesn't replace boots on the ground and since we don't have enough boots to put on the ground they just up the op-tempo to make up for the lack of forces of course they also don't up the infrastructure budget either.
Then they don't understand why the boots on the ground burn out so fast.
They ain't very *expletive deleted* bright
-
Kinder, gentler concentration camps :lol:
With resorts and casinos.
-
With resorts and casinos.
Reservations were a bit different back in the 1880 - 1920 era.
-
Reservations were a bit different back in the 1880 - 1920 era.
Even back in the 1880 - 1920 era reservations had no ovens, showers, or Zyklon-B. And the locations of real concentration camps haven't been turned into pleasure resorts by the survivors and their descendants . . . which suggests that even those directly involved see things in a different light.
-
Can't win without boots on ground
-
Can't win without boots on ground
Exception: without obliterating substantial amounts of the population
See: WWII conventional/incendiary/nuclear bombing of Japan.
While we had boots on ground on the island hopping, one can argue that the war wasn't "won" after Okinawa, Saipan, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, etc, and only after the home islands surrendered.
That being said, you could caveat:
Unless you plan to destroy effectively the entire infrastructure AND either eliminate or substantially reduce the population AND not "occupy" against a militant population (ie threat of further annihilation is sufficient), THEN you need boots on ground. In other words, what is the definition of "win".
Simply put, with the argument taken to the extreme, if the entire area is glassed, you have "won".
-
Exception: without obliterating substantial amounts of the population
See: WWII conventional/incendiary/nuclear bombing of Japan.
While we had boots on ground on the island hopping, one can argue that the war wasn't "won" after Okinawa, Saipan, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, etc, and only after the home islands surrendered.
That being said, you could caveat:
Unless you plan to destroy effectively the entire infrastructure AND either eliminate or substantially reduce the population AND not "occupy" against a militant population (ie threat of further annihilation is sufficient), THEN you need boots on ground. In other words, what is the definition of "win".
Simply put, with the argument taken to the extreme, if the entire area is glassed, you have "won".
So, short of The Ender Wiggins style of winning we still need Infantry. ;)
-
So, short of The Ender Wiggins style of winning we still need Infantry. ;)
We won in the pacific in WWII. Hypothetically, we could have done so without any troops, had we had the aircraft range and nuclear weapons earlier...
-
When the U.S. was planning to invade Iraq, the then head of the Joint Chiefs told the administration that we needed 300,000 pairs of boots on the ground to secure the country after an invasion. Donald Rumsfeld, in his infinite wisdom, replaced said Chief and decided that 100,000 was enough.
Guess who was wrong?
100k was enough to defeat the Iraqi military and take the real estate. Way more than 300k would be needed to civilize the place after the conquest. As we found out.
-
We won in the pacific in WWII. Hypothetically, we could have done so without any troops, had we had the aircraft range and nuclear weapons earlier...
One of the legacies of the Cold War is for better or worse this country is unwilling to commit the kind of genocide that winning a war without BOG would take. If we were to refight WWII now, with ICBM's, I don't think we would nuke the home islands. We'd invade instead.
I agree with you in theory some wars can be one without BOG. There are still times that are strategic goals involve not completely destroying the place and we need something a little more surgical than an Illudium Q-36 space modulator. That need, along with our nations aversion to committing to a war for real, mean the infantry is safe for a while. I just hope we get power armor soon.
-
When the U.S. was planning to invade Iraq, the then head of the Joint Chiefs told the administration that we needed 300,000 pairs of boots on the ground to secure the country after an invasion. Donald Rumsfeld, in his infinite wisdom, replaced said Chief and decided that 100,000 was enough.
Guess who was wrong?
100k was enough to defeat the Iraqi military and take the real estate. Way more than 300k would be needed to civilize the place after the conquest. As we found out.
???
Are you agreeing with me or disputing me?
It's axiomatic that it takes a lot more effort to try to bring something under control after everything has gone down the tube than it would have taken to prevent the flush from the git-go. If it would realistically have taken 300,000 warm bodies to "preserve the peace" immediately following a (hopefully) successful invasion, it should be no surprise that after not "preserving the peace" properly we simply don't have enough manpower to rescue the situation after the fact.
-
I agree with you in theory some wars can be one without BOG.
You just have to define what you mean by "winning" =|
We could bash the hell out of someplace without raising a sweat, and then tell them to behave or we will do it again.
-
One of the legacies of the Cold War is for better or worse this country is unwilling to commit the kind of genocide that winning a war without BOG would take. If we were to refight WWII now, with ICBM's, I don't think we would nuke the home islands. We'd invade instead.
I agree with you in theory some wars can be one without BOG. There are still times that are strategic goals involve not completely destroying the place and we need something a little more surgical than an Illudium Q-36 space modulator. That need, along with our nations aversion to committing to a war for real, mean the infantry is safe for a while. I just hope we get power armor soon.
Speaking of power armor...I was part of the kick-off team for the DARPA exoskeleton project (one of my inputs was I wanted to use an M230 30mm chain gun as an infantry weapon).
Since then, and having worked on a few parts of it, I can tell you this...if you -really- wanted to, you could build a power armor suit somewhere between Ironman (minus the flying, but that form factor) and a more traditional sci-fi system (I.e. 2.5-3m tall, about a metric ton or two) right now, and have it be pretty decent, but it would cost about $10-20M each for the latter, and $150M for the former.
-
Did you read John Ringo's Posleen war books? Call me when I can have ACS with a grav gun. =D
(Actually, what DARPA's playing with is cool. Infantry in about 75 years will be pretty dang tough.)
-
Did you read John Ringo's Posleen war books? Call me when I can have ACS with a grav gun. =D
(Actually, what DARPA's playing with is cool. Infantry in about 75 years will be pretty dang tough.)
In the battle between armor and projectile, projectile will always win. Even with power armor, infantry of the future will only be usable in close range engagements with limited LOS and a concern for collateral damage.
-
We still needed 350,000 troops to occupy Japan after the surrender in Tokyo Bay. While we didn't "kick in the door", we still invaded and took over running the country for 5 about years.
-
Did you read John Ringo's Posleen war books? Call me when I can have ACS with a grav gun. =D
Reading Gust Front now.