How would large scale warfare be fought today? Like, massive

>>32762968
I honestly think that it would look something like modern warfare 3. Large scale invasions in massive cityscapes.

>>32762968
nukes

>>32763040
>pulling an aircraft carrier right up into a city harbor that you don't have control over
k

>>32763040
>Modern warfare 3

kys

>>32763040
>I honestly think

Saying this does not make what you say next sound any less retarded. It actually makes you sound more retarded.

at some point in ww3 massive infantry attacks would be needed, a war between two powerful militaries have very different tactics then one powerful military killing local unorganized groups in a sandbox

>>32763080
Okay well obviously im not saying mw3 is gonna happen. Im just saying that it would be very first world and not super gurrilla. Small units clearing buildings and drone combat would be most common in metropolitan areas. Heavy use of helicopters and anti infantry vehicles

You don't have massive armies anymore. More people died during WWI Somme Offensive than France Germany and the U.K. have troops in total now.

>>32762968
Gulf War is probably the closest thing to a large scale modern war you'd find. And no, it doesn't involve massive infantry "attacks." It involves the army with a superior air force bombing the shit out the one with the inferior air force, then sending in artillery and armor to clean things up. Infantry only does what bombing, artillery, and armor can't do, which isn't much.

It definitely depends on which countries are at war. Their tactics will vary, also there could be some sort of tactic that nobody has executed proficiently yet and would grant one side a great advantage. Or maybe black projects that they unveil on the battlefield.

Arguably, the nature of warfare has changed. The stakes in full mobilization are too high - inevitable nuclear escalation and the subsequent annihilation of life on earth, at least of the largest human population centers.

The future of warfare is largely going to be asymmetrical or hybrid. Asymmetrical warfare is essentially what people are fighting in the Middle East - a state actor going against non-state actors without defined territories (one of the reasons ISIS is so unusual is that they have claimed territory), formal militaries, or governmental structures. This makes the weaker side (the insurrection) much more difficult to destroy completely. This leads to another asymmetry - an asymmetry of patience. The military occupation of a country takes will, money, and expenditure. If the state actor gives up and goes home, then the non-state actor has won. There are a lot of other asymmetries out there - qualitative asymmetry of troops and machinery, asymmetry of tactics, ethical asymmetry, but you get the idea. Large-scale confrontations are possible, but not a favored tactic.

Hybrid warfare is the other tactic. This is what is being waged most successfully now by the RF. Its theaters are informational, soft power, the funding of insurgent groups, and the ability to mobilize a population to support a course of action that goes against the interests of another country.

So, a large confrontation would look less military and more like a campaign of focused propaganda, disinformation, and discouragement of actions that would work against your country's interests.

File: IMG_7853.jpg (3MB, 4500x2250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4500x2250px

When was the last time a uniformed NATO/WP military was at war with another uniformed NATO/WP military?

I would be interested to see what it would look like if Canada/Germany/France/etc was at war with Poland/Denmark/Bulgaria/etc in the modern times.

Would there be infantry invasions? Drone attacks? Missile strikes? Undercover flamethrower flash mobs?