Article

2008-09-18 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-18 09:34|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 The big loser, it seems to me, is the USMC which could have carved out a niche much as it did with amphibious operations before WWII.

To discuss this aspect would likely take up most of Rantburg. But some reasons for not being able to carve a niche is a) the emphasis on joint operations, 2)a serious blurring of interservice missions/interoperability (particularly SPECOPS), 3) the 'heavy-ing' of the USMC.

Posted by Pappy 2008-09-18 12:26|| 2008-09-18 12:26|| Front Page Top

#2 ...the (Viet Nam) war, he says, was unwinnable, given the "perseverance, cohesion, indigenous support, and sheer determination of the other side, coupled with the absence of any of those things on the American side.

Bull feathers. When we went to the Paris Peace Talks the NV diplomats started arguing about the shape of the table, etc and wouldn't talk about anything of substance. So we fired up the USAF and commenced to turn Hanoi into a field of smoking craters. The NV diplos rushed back to the table and started talking peace loud and clear.

My point? While we were not permitted to invade N. Viet Nam, We had other options to make Viet Nam winnable.

Posted by DLR 2008-09-18 13:29|| http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]">[http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html] 2008-09-18 13:29|| Front Page Top

#3 Being an artillery troop (Fire Direction Control) in the late '70s I can testify how quickly the skills for a competent artillery unit can vanish, with deadly consequence. The same is true for all conventional forces.

Like the close air support we so appreciate requires first that air supremacy be obtained so too is the ability to control the battlefield required before the techniques of the "long war" can be applied.

As in a proper diet, a little of everything is required. Don't fight the last war, including this one. Try to be flexible enough to fight the NEXT one, whatever it may be.

Posted by tipover 2008-09-18 14:50|| 2008-09-18 14:50|| Front Page Top

#4 It seems to me that this is mostly a training question. The low-tech, social engineering phase of a war can only come after a certain level of stability has been achieved. That stability can only come when the enemy has been degraded significantly. The degradation comes about through the use of traditional force application (both tools and techniques).

That said, do we gear-up for a war with China or do we gear-up for a prolonged Afghan-type operation. I guess this is a "how heavy" question. But I don't see a prolonged conflict with China on the horizon.

Posted by remoteman 2008-09-18 15:38|| 2008-09-18 15:38|| Front Page Top

#5 Do not look at the direct situation. Usually when these guys are rabble rousing, they are planning something else completely. When the big boys there get together, they usually want to discuss business. Not so much borders. Chess.

Posted by newc">newc 2008-09-18 19:48|| 2008-09-18 19:48|| Front Page Top