As a soldier, how would you feel if one day there would be a

>>33642939
Shit's fucked. I just hope I don't die. If I do, so it goes.

Things like MOABs would become useless, these things are memes that wouldn't be worth shit unless you are bombing third worlders and have literally 100% complete uncontested control of the skies as we do in Afghanistan.

>>33642939
I'm old enough to remember that the opening phase of OIF was conventional in nature. The same tactics and strategy used to confront those conventional forces would be used to confront others.

/k/ommandos get caught up in "this platform vs that" when they fail to realize that on the operational level, these things do not matter as much as you think that they do. We focus on the capabilities of this tank and the range of this gun, and the reality of the situation is that those things are largely irrelevant to operational strategy. We fixate on them because they are easy to understand and comprehend while the real operational stuff (the kind of thing you go to war colleges for) is complex and difficult for the layperson to understand.
Thats why we will argue endlessly about F-thingamajigs vs Su-whatevers without understanding how these individual platforms fit in the overall operational strategy of the country that produced them.

Notice how whenever a thread pops up comparing two weapon systems, the argument always ends up at the use of nukes?
Thats because /k/ommandos do not understand operational art.

>>33642939
'Full fledged' conventional war has taken place since The Korean War. Examples include the Six-Day and Yom Kippur wars in the Middle East and the various Indo-Pakistani wars.

>>33643570
Mind giving us a scenario to illustrate your point?

You've got a point since the more I think about it, the more I realize that debates on /k/ really do devolve into who can sling the heaviest shit

>>33643667
Do you think the individual differences in the range of their respective rifles had an influence on the outcome of D-day?

How about the bursting radius of hand grenades?

Even the one example of an outclassed enemy in 91 Desert Storm doesn't fit. I would submit that it was the use of an army designed for maneuver warfare as a fixed defensive force that had more outcome on that conflict.

You can find examples where great technological disparity can overcome all other factors, but they tend to be the exception.

The respective performance of weapon systems can influence the outcome of individual engagements, but have a minor impact on the outcome of the entire war. You could have given Saddam T-80's and Su-27's and if he fought the war the same way the only thing that would be different would be Coalition casualties. The war would have ended the same.

He was just a rookie trooper and he surely shook with fright

he checked off his equipment and made sure his pack was tight

he had to sit and listen to those awful engines roar


you ain't gonna jump no more

>>33643860
>I would submit that it was the use of an army designed for maneuver warfare as a fixed defensive force that had more outcome on that conflict
Fred Franks talked about how their Soviet based doctrine of echelon tactics didn't really allow for the freedom of expression, so to speak, on the individual level, and as such, they weren't really capable of maneuver warfare, let alone against such a superior force with such mastery of the topic. He explained that the shit that really scared him was when the Iraqis managed to hunker down and set up kill zones where their only real chance of doing damage was to hope a coalition element wandered into their established defensive fields.

>>33645474
The Soviet army was structured for maneuver warfare.
You are misunderstanding his points. Franks is saying much what I am, that the way he used his army was contrary to the way its weapons were designed to be used.

>>33645530
I get that the soviets could into maneuver warfare, I'm just saying that the Iraqis didn't have the finesse required to actually maneuver and that they were most capable of damage when they were entrenched, albeit easily maneuvered against.

>>33645563
>I'm just saying that the Iraqis didn't have the finesse required to actually maneuver and that they were most capable of damage when they were entrenched, albeit easily maneuvered against.
Thats what I was saying.
Equipment differential didn't make the difference in the Gulf War. Operational art did.

>>33642939
>how would you feel if one day there would be a war against an enemy of proportionate assets
it would be nice to fight someone who isn't stronger for a change
t. polan

>>33642939

It would be similar to World War 1, where nobody knows how technology is going to change things and it might be a nightmare for all sides.

Any prolonged modern war will end up with conscripted troops fighting each other with late cold war ear weapons pulled from deep storage. Shits fucking deadly and accurate now.

The lead time and resource requirements on modern weapons are way too high to sustain anything like ww2 ever again. All the magnetite iron ore in America was used up in ww2 for instance. This isn't even counting all the other shit that has to be imported for use in manufacturing.

>>33643601
One might argue the Iran-Iraq war too. Only with such horrible planning they literally resorted to conventional WW1 tactics.

>>33645792
To be fair WW2 itself started out something akin to that scenario, with forces mostly being equipped with older weapons but a transition to the most modern ones.

The Germans used the Panzer III and IV much longer than they were top of the line, let alone Panzer Is and IIs as well. But they upgraded as industrial capacity improved.

>>33643570
You sound exactly like a history professor I had in college. Please continue. The operational level of warfare tends to get drowned out by the tactical and strategic levels.

>>33643464
So you're saying that the moment any nation achieves air supremacy their opponents will lay down and surrender, and/or not have any large reinforced targets that need to be destroyed? Definitely sounds like the most likely possible scenario to me.

>surrender after air supremacy
Not necessarily. There are still MANPADs and anti-air vehicles that could be fielded.

File: FAA29BE6-3FCD-4F28-92F6-2E4EE657C8BC-3733-0000093228E1925D_tmp.jpg (26KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x250px

>ITT
>People who have never been in the military or if they were, were in stupid people jobs.
You people are fucking stupid and have no idea what you are talking about. Please use common sense for once in your life.