War strategies

ElRazur

ElRazur

ElRazur

Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2005
Posts
10,424
Location
I am everywhere...
Given the event on the news at the moment, plus the past military history..Gulf war, Iraq Invasion and *possibly world war II.

I have noticed that the main option of choice is to do the following -

Air invasion
Motar pounding / attacks from borders using all sort of missile
Attack via sea (if enemy land has a sea port of some sort)
Ground troups deployment.


America especially seem to have perfected this method/system of attack. Is their any other strategies that can be used i.e if a nation is to be invaded - For argument purposes let's say Nigeria.

The problem i see with this method is that, the enemy troupe would only move underground (like we are seeing in Lebanon) and this will lead to a high number of fatalities btw the invader and the enemy so to speak.
Look at Iran for instance, they will appear to be moving all their potential-target-installation underground....Is their any stategy to counter this?

Why is this strategy preffered (air attack and lastly invasion via ground troups/battallion) and is their a better alternative?
I dont know much about military stuff so pardon me if i appear a lilttle vague. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Well aerial attacks are for more effective at hitting targets, they can pinpoint targets from high above and shell them at will.
 
The strategies employed are used to minimise casualties on the attacking force whilst maximising effectiveness. Strategic targets are identified and are hit with brutal precision. Air attacks are far less likely to result in casualties for the attacking force, and if you send in ground troops before assaulting with any kind of long-range attack you're likely to lose a lot of troops.

There are ways of taking out underground targets.
 
There's loads of different types of warfare El. What you're talking about can probably be grouped under 'conventional' warfare, you also have other types of warfare such as: attrition, guerrilla, unconventional and psychological. The Germans in WWII were great fans of the Blitzkrieg tactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfare

- There's links to different tactics on the right.
 
ElRazur said:
Given the event on the news at the moment, plus the past military history..Golf war, Iraq Invasion and *possibly world war II.
Click to expand...

Woud that have been the famous battle between John Daly v. The Atkins Diet??


:p
 
It is the only way to try and minimze civillian casualties, albeit not always successfully. The other strategy for winning outright is just to nuke 'em!

Longer strategies will depend on the specific country you are attacking, for instance, electronic warfare, economic attacks, assassinations and covert ops etc. will be more or less effective.

That said in all wars eventually there is a need for grunts to go in on the ground.
 
they've got large bunker busting weaponary already:

253px-Missile_test_montage.jpg



You could also use a thermobaric weapon such as a fuel air bomb:

Wikipedia said:
The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment. Unprotected personnel are injured or killed as well. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in "stiff" enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.

The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa) and the temperature can be 4500 to 5400°F (2500 to 3000 °C). Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 2 mi/s. Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to lift and throw a human. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air draw.

The effects produced by FAEs (a long high duration pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiation—although this is inexact; for all current and foreseen subkiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heating—very little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great.

Some fuels used, such as ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic. A device using such fuels is very dangerous even if the fuel fails to ignite; the device then becomes essentially a chemical weapon.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Whatever happens - Men with rifles, freezing, sweating, bleading and dying win any war.

You can't win anything without troops on the ground, if you want something - blowing up every military target of interest with planes and missles doesn't make it yours, you need a force of occupation to phyiscally take it.
 
AthlonTom said:
Whatever happens - Men with rifles, freezing, sweating, bleading and dying win any war.

You can't win anything without troops on the ground, if you want something - blowing up every military target of interest with planes and missles doesn't make it yours, you need a force of occupation to phyiscally take it.
Click to expand...

Aye but its considerably easier on your own infantry if you wipe out every last piece of infrastructure the enemy has before you send in your troops.
 
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Aye but its considerably easier on your own infantry if you wipe out every last piece of infrastructure the enemy has before you send in your troops.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the pure psychological effect of such ranged attacks. Even in this day and age being attacked by an unseen foe, whether known or not, is a huge moral breaker.
 
Youve just got to look at our desires from war.

Kill the enemy.
Survive.

Now if you have the technology to kill the enemy and not lose lives on your own side you use it.
 
miracleboy said:
Barbaric weapons more like. The details of that fuel bomb are horrific - I'm surprised it's not banned, sounds very close to napalm. :(
Click to expand...
Its not an incendiary its a blast weapon, I do find it deeply ironic when people say one class of weapon is barbaric but blowing people to bits and letting them bleed to death or making holes in them and letting them bleed to death is considered acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom