Tango01 | 27 Jan 2015 10:04 p.m. PST |
"A senior government official recently posed the provocative question: "Is land warfare dead?" While his premise was primarily directed at the Army and Marines, the broader question is relevant to all of the military services: Are all forms of traditional warfare land, sea, and air dead? This question might seem flippant, given the enormous challenges of dealing with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Russians in eastern Ukraine, and Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. Traditional forms of warfare which one of us has described as "Wars of Iron" are not dead. But they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the average American. Allies and adversaries alike have learned a key lesson from all U.S. wars since the 1991 Gulf War: fighting the United States in a conventional, force-on-force battle is a recipe for failure. Instead, fighting the United States successfully requires an asymmetric approach that extends beyond military means…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
David Manley | 27 Jan 2015 11:14 p.m. PST |
As the article says, "increasingly irrelevant to the average American" obviously not the case for most of the rest of the world. |
Noble713 | 28 Jan 2015 12:19 a.m. PST |
BLUF = "No. Next question." "Allies and adversaries alike have learned a key lesson from all U.S. wars since the 1991 Gulf War: fighting the United States in a conventional, force-on-force battle is a recipe for failure."
How long do we intend to rest on our laurels though? The gap in land warfare technology is rather narrow. The US largely relies on institutional experience (millions of combat-deployed personnel, doctrines refined over 100 years of industrial/post-industrial warfare) and airpower (another narrowing capability gap). And it's been written before that we shouldn't draw conclusions from pummeling the Iraqis twice. The Iraqi military, despite its size, is one of the most incompetent conventional armies of our time. |
nickinsomerset | 28 Jan 2015 1:08 a.m. PST |
Only against a foe with no AD capability and there is no desire to take and hold ground! Next question do we need manned fighter aircraft!! Tally Ho! |
wminsing | 28 Jan 2015 6:42 a.m. PST |
As always for these sorts of questions, the answer is 'Yes, until someone decides No, and then 'regular' war becomes relevant again'. -Will |
Clays Russians | 28 Jan 2015 8:28 a.m. PST |
The last great land battles were WW2. We are very unlikely (hopefully) to see its likes again. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 28 Jan 2015 9:24 a.m. PST |
Land warfare isn't dead; it just changed from conventional to asymmetrical, which has also been called 'insurgency,' 'guerilla,' etc. depending on the current fashion. |
willthepiper | 28 Jan 2015 9:34 a.m. PST |
The last great land battles were WW2. We are very unlikely (hopefully) to see its likes again.
What do you consider a 'great land battle'? Of the top of my head I can think of the Korean War, the various Arab-Israeli wars, Indo-Pakistan wars, Iran-Iraq war all involving significant ground engagements. |
Legion 4 | 28 Jan 2015 9:43 a.m. PST |
obviously not the case for most of the rest of the world.
Agreed, just turn on the world news … I hope who ever came up with this question was not paid too much … BLUF = "No. Next question." Ditto … again, is the guy that made these statements a MENSA member ? And it's been written before that we shouldn't draw conclusions from pummeling the Iraqis twice. The Iraqi military, despite its size, is one of the most incompetent conventional armies of our time. Very true … they are one step above street gangs with guns … |
Landorl | 28 Jan 2015 12:53 p.m. PST |
There were tank battles in Korea, and ask Israel about tank battles. They may not be as big as those on the Western Front in WWII, but they were nasty all the same. The way that relations are heading between the US and Russia or China, there may be more land battles yet to come! |
Legion 4 | 28 Jan 2015 12:59 p.m. PST |
Even if MBTs don't come up against other AFVs. They provide support for the Infantry. And they work together, combined arms, etc. … Which is what in WWI they were originally created for. MBTs/AFVs are still quite viable useful and effective. But like many things the commanders need to know how to use them and all their capabilities correctly … |
Bangorstu | 28 Jan 2015 1:07 p.m. PST |
More recently the Ethioian vs Eritrean war was a conventional one IIRC. As soon as the USA thinks it doesn't need to fight a 'proper' land war, it'll find it does. Because once the perception of deterrence has gone…. |
Mako11 | 28 Jan 2015 2:10 p.m. PST |
|
Deadone | 28 Jan 2015 3:59 p.m. PST |
I think US is right now in the same place Europeans were in period 1870-1914 – basically colonial warfare. With China ascendant and Russia rearming, I think we'll be returning to a more Cold War mentality. Ethiopian vs Eritrean war was a conventional one IIRC. Yup. Except it finished in 2000. Last conventional war was Russian intervention in Georgia in 2008. Ukrainian, Libyan, Syrian and Iraqi civil wars have elements of conventional combat, especially Ukraine. In all instances holding of territory is a key component and all sides use combined arms if they can. The Syrians/Iraqis do add some elements of insurgency warfare to support conventional goals – for example VBIEDs to force a breach in a defensive position. |
Klebert L Hall | 29 Jan 2015 9:24 a.m. PST |
You can tell it was a politician / bureaucrat asking the question, nobody else can develop that level of idiocy. -Kle. |
cwlinsj | 29 Jan 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
This is a re-working of the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) theory, which foresaw asymmetrical warfare, warfare through surrogates as well as through other means such as economic and even cyberwarfare. The USA hasn't fought a war since 1950-53 where it hasn't had supremacy of air and sea, and at least parity in conventional land forces. Future wars for the USA will likely be more heavily dependent on air mastery and sea supremacy I think there's some truth to this. |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Jan 2015 12:13 p.m. PST |
I think US is right now in the same place Europeans were in period 1870-1914 basically colonial warfare. I'd have to agree with that. Thugs come down the pass and raise hell, the Empire sends a force to stomp on them. Repeat annually. With China ascendant and Russia rearming, I think we'll be returning to a more Cold War mentality. I just wished that the Cold War 2 brought along a reduction in terrorism to the levels we had in the first Cold War. |