Modern Trench Warfare

>>34158463
*dies from carpet bombing*

It's mostly a matter of command and control and field grade leadership.

Combined arms warfare requires a lot of coordination and professionalism, which the Iraqis didn't have. It isn't a matter of equipment, so much as human capital.

Arabs are just really fucking bad at war. They need to be handheld and coddled by people who know what they're doing to get anything done and once they have to stand on their own two feet they revert right back to being fucking useless again.

See Afghanistan as an example. Taliban got their shit pushed in when ISAF was around, but once the ANA had to do their own shit they got shown up as the lazy, apathetic shitbags they are.

>>34158463
trench in pic related is retarded. trenches are supposed to have 90 degree angles every few yards to minimized pressure waves from explosives.

>>34158463
Functional air power and the ability to drop infantry behind trench lines for envelopment makes trenches obsolete. The only reason it worked in Iran-Iraq was because both air forces had prioritized destroying each other on the ground, so you had something like 40 or 50 attack helicopters and maybe 20 fast movers in-theatre by the time the war stalemated

without meaningfully effective air power or air deployment you're back to the stone age throwing explosive rocks at each other's holes

>>34158463

drone warfare and smart munitions have made any kind of semi-permanent fortification or defense useless.

it's impossible to hide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myuZUxS3Uww

>>34158463
Trench warfare is inevitable in any combat scenario. As infantry move and stop, they will dig in. Digging in implies trenches. and when these units are attacked, trench warfare.

It's already happening in Ukraine, neither side uses aircraft, both sides are stocked to the brim with ATGMs, the landscape is flat and open which means that the war has devolved to both sides digging in and trading artillery shots, with the occasional assault that ends in failure.

>>34158463
modern air burst pgms will make trench warfare much different than in the past, even down to the 40mm AGLs

>>34158484
I wonder if a C-RAM would be able to neutralize a cluster bomb after it dropped its bomblets

>>34159588
Afghans aren't arabs, dipshit

File: CZBrIXnW8AA4rNM.jpg (41KB, 600x320px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x320px

>>34158463
>If AT rocket technology were to progress to the point that even modern MBT's were at high risk to an average soldier, would this happen again?
We're already there, and yes it has happened in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine. In Iraq and Syria, both sides use bulldozers to dig trenchs and/or build berms to use as cover in the otherwise flat desert areas. They're kinda more like moats than a WW1 style trench

>>34159606
>trenches are supposed to have 90 degree angles every few yards
>every few yards
>I know nothing about trenches the post

>>34158463
Considering the use of wire-guided missiles in Syria, exactly like it is now.

File: somme.png (128KB, 468x326px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 468x326px

>>34159588

This minus the afghan stuff because afghans arent Arabs


But yeah Arabs are truly shit at war

>>34159757
>it's impossible to hide.
This. In modern warfare, if you're not moving, you're dead.

>>34160660
While you're right, he isn't wrong.

Every force from Syria to Pakistan, and from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, is utterly and completely useless for anything other than pillaging peasants and shitting in their own water sources while high as shit.

>>34160845
Using ISF victory over Taliban as proof of skill is stupid. The Taliban are simply outclassed in firepower and that is due to economy not skill.

>>34158463
>If AT rocket technology were to progress to the point that even modern MBT's were at high risk to an average soldier, would this happen again? What would warfare be like in a setting where the value of Armor has been hugely reduced.

buddy have you paid any attention to Syria? even Yemen?

File: 2349077637.jpg (62KB, 609x343px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 609x343px

>>34158463
>>34159757
>>34160845
>>34160830
Has everyone on this board forgotten the 2006 Lebanon war? Or are they just too busy jacking off about the most modern army in the world kicking in goat herders shit and unlikely hypothetical scenarios?

Hezbollah (Arabs) took on the most formidable force in the middle east and kicked there shit in, using tunnels, trenches and lots of semi-permanent defensive positions against overwhelming air support, cluster bombs, drones, tanks, naval support, more tanks, support vehicles and well over 3 times as much infantry that were generally better armed. Arabs can fight given sufficient training, equipment and provided they have sufficient motivation. But that's besides the point, in answer to OP's question yes trenches and semi-permanent defensive positions, alongside sufficient Anti-Tank weapons (likely ATGM's) are viable but need to be very well hidden and positioned to survive modern advancements in surveillance, air support etc. It's also not viable to hold any prepared defensive position for any length of time lest it becomes the target of overwhelming firepower, an intertwining and mutually supportive network of defensive positions where your forces can frequently change positions too and from is far better then a static defensive line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

>>34162824
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
I'd hate to point this out, but while Israel didn't achieve some super-decisive win, they were by far the better off party at the end of the war.

If you are going to have a static defense, for the love of god put it underground. Big, visible defenses are basically dinosaurs at this point. Cover and concealment are always your friend, and forever will be, but Iran/Iraq war wasn't all "hide in underground tunnels we have been building for 5 years in case of war with Israel".

>>34162938
Yeah well a war like the Iran-Iraq war is unlikely to ever happen again. As for the 2006 war in Lebanon neither side could quite claim a victory but I'd say it leans more towards Hezbollah coming out better, in just 34 days they:
-left the IDF embarrassed with over 1000 dead and wounded and dozens of tanks put out of action.
-Maintained there ability to fire rockets into Israel even despite the IAF resorting to indiscriminate use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous.
-Managed to maintain an effective defense till the wars end, without the any significant or irreplaceable losses in men, equipment and leadership.
-Still got to trade the Prisoners they captured in the beginning of the war (or what was left of them) to Israel in return for high ranking Hezbollah prisoners

over 10 years later and Hezbollah is stronger then its ever been, receiving even more combat experience and equipment in Syria. Israel has the right to be worried about them.

>>34158498
This. At strategic and operations level, the Iraqi Army completely failed to utilize its advantages, concentrating on making a big show of their fireworks and seizing the cities instead of pushing deep into Khuzestan and starving out strongholds.

Bulldozer assault, first Gulf War. Didn't work out too well for the guys in the trenches. Miles and miles of limbs sticking out of dug up trenches. We buried whole battalions alive. Sucks to be them.

File: 681b1bd10e7fde4032f4031009d20f44.jpg (122KB, 736x535px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 736x535px

>>34160817
>all that blue
The patrician choice of an entrenched army

>>34162824
>>34163061
Hezbollah lost that war badly. Before the war they were in complete control of southern lebanon as if it was their own country. After the war, they had to accept the Lebanese army occupation of their territory. Hezbollah only seems to have won because they have never shown just how much they lost. For example did you know that the infrastructure of southern lebanon was reduced so much that the GDP dropped by a factor of 10?

>left the IDF embarrassed with over 1000 dead and wounded and dozens of tanks put out of action.
while losing at least 3 times as many

>Maintained there ability to fire rockets into Israel even despite the IAF resorting to indiscriminate use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous.
Considering they had stores in Syria, there is literally no way an Israeli intervention in Lebanon could have stopped all Hezbollah rockets.

-Managed to maintain an effective defense till the wars end, without the any significant or irreplaceable losses in men, equipment and leadership.
They lost so many men, that they lost control of their fiefdom to the lebanese army. Which btw is not exactly known for its quality.

-Still got to trade the Prisoners they captured in the beginning of the war (or what was left of them) to Israel in return for high ranking Hezbollah prisoners
This is the biggest mistake Israel made. They should have hung at 2500 prisoners instead of handing them back. It was literally 25% of Hezbollah that was captured and returned, many of which still fight Israel to this day.


Also Hiding among civilians is not the same as trench warfae

File: 0110ukrainetrench01.jpg (2MB, 3500x2333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3500x2333px

Look at Ukraine, its all trenches now.

Cheap UAVs and artillery mean that anything in the open is going to die.

>>34164562
>For example did you know that the infrastructure of southern lebanon was reduced so much that the GDP dropped by a factor of 10?
Civilians who's home town's were bombed to shit made less of a living after the war. Who would've guessed? Apart from making more recruits for Hezbollah I don't see how that passes as any type of successful achievement for the IDF.


>>left the IDF embarrassed with over 1000 dead and wounded and dozens of tanks put out of action.
>while losing at least 3 times as many
Israel only claims 600 killed and that's very likely inflated, even including wounded I seriously doubt it would be 3 times the 1365 casualties the IDF acknowledged taking.

>>Maintained there ability to fire rockets into Israel even despite the IAF resorting to indiscriminate use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous.
>Considering they had stores in Syria, there is literally no way an Israeli intervention in Lebanon could have stopped all Hezbollah rockets.
So..the IAF could drop 1000's of tons of bombs from the sky with impunity, each side had there indisputable advantages. and regardless nearly all there rockets were stored in Lebanon and the vast majority of there rocket firing sites were in south Lebanon the IDF FAILED it own set goal to neutralize the threat posed by these rocket sites/stores.

>>Managed to maintain an effective defense till the wars end, without the any significant or irreplaceable losses in men, equipment and leadership.
>They lost so many men, that they lost control of their fiefdom to the lebanese army. Which btw is not exactly known for its quality.
They didn't lose it the the Lebanese army in the way you implied they agreed to giving it them, which alongside the UN deal forced the IDF to withdraw saving Hezbollah from a costly protracted conflict, while steal managing to keep hold of there bargaining chips (the IDF prisoners) and proving to Israel that they were a significant threat.

>>34160143
Good example is when pro-russians attacked Ukrainian checkpoint over the field, well both Btr's got torched long before they reached checkpoint by the tank which was present at the Ukrainian checkpoint.

>>34161443
Taliban were good at hit and run ambushes which proved to be a problem because while aircraft get there Taliban are long gone

>>34164651
Yeah, also due to the fact that both Russians/Rebels and Ukrainians/Government have state of the art AA systems and not exactly state of the art airforce everything bigger than drone is grounded breaking the stalemate is almost impossible.

>>34158463

Part of the problem with the Iran-Iraq war, and many other similar wars, is that poor training & morale of the forces and a lack of combined arms coordination means offensive operations are incredibly difficult without taking excruciating losses.

Arguably a bigger problem with WW1 was not so much that it was hard to win an offensive battle, but that there wasn't the communication or the mobility to exploit a breakthrough if it was achieved. Even if ATGM lethality increases, during high intensity warfare a supported, focused armored assault would (terrain permitting) be able to bypass and cut off enemy strong-points while rolling over dispersed defenses with; obscurants, artillery & air support. There would be inevitable losses, but in high intensity warfare these must be expected and accepted.

>>34164562
20 shekel were deposited on your account.

>>34165130
Ukr gov. used aircraft extensively during the first 3 months but stopped using it after aircraft started to fall like flies from the sky due to SAMs and MANPADS

>>34159683
Have you ever seen how many air to air engagements there were in the Iran-Iraq war? An Iranian F-14 crew got 12 or 13 kills.

>>34165130
No airforce on Earth could freely operate within a modern IADS. Even with SEAD working to dismantle, the remaining units will simply fall back into an ambushing attritive role, causing notable casualties to anyone trying to fly openly. Especially in a flat country like Ukraine.

>>34165441
Layman here. Is it not possible to deal with a ground-based air defense system with a deluge of ballistic missiles accompanied by decoys to reduce interception rate? I was under the impression that even the most modern ground-based systems still have a set-up time before and after firing that potentially renders them vulnerable.

>>34160143

Yes Ukraine is the best example of modern trench warfare. Ukraine does not use aircraft because the Russians have plenty of AA and manpads in the Donbass. They lost a lot of aircraft in the beginning of the war. Russia won't use aircraft because it would blow their "cover".

File: Kalustoesittely_itsenäisyyspäivä_2015_14_Leopard_2_Marksman.jpg (283KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1280x853px

>>34165535
>Layman here. Is it not possible to deal with a ground-based air defense system with a deluge of ballistic missiles accompanied by decoys to reduce interception rate?
Yes and the US is actively developing swarms like that to deal with IADS. Not a deluge of ballistic missiles though, but air-launched missiles, with accompanying decoys.
The problem though is that to succesfully target enemy anti-air, you need to know where it is. The Yugoslav conflict proved very well that with basic camouflage and decoy work, you can completely neuter an enemy's airstrike capabilities. NATO pilots were confident that they had caused massive casualties to Serbian ordnance and vehicles, while they had in fact been targeting decoys, some as simple as a tarp with a candle under it, leaving the majority of real vehicles intact and safe. And this was a combined NATO airforce, far superior to what smaller nations, Ukraine, for example could muster. Air power is nowhere near as effective tactically, as many on /k/ love to claim.
>I was under the impression that even the most modern ground-based systems still have a set-up time before and after firing that potentially renders them vulnerable.
It depends on the system, but yes, most long range anti-air requires a short set-up, but they are not especially vulnerable during that time, since they will not be radiating and will instead remain hidden under multispectral camonetting, until a target of opportunity arrives into their sector. At which point they will fire, forcing the planes to either evade or be shot down, at minimum distracting them from their mission and buying time for interceptors, if they still exist.
Naturally during CAS, low flight, or something similiar, the planes are FAR more vulnerable and SPAAG and modern manpads pose a very serious threat.

File: 2E5.jpg (34KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x375px

>In fact, there were very few shots fired, and only a handful of artillery barrages. They were hardly needed, given the creative killing methods devised by the Iraqi army for the occasion.
>"You wait until nighttime, and you will see how we are killing these Iranian dogs," an Iraqi officer said with a broad grin. "We are frying them like eggplants."
>He then took us on a tour of dozens of thick electrical cables his troops had lain through the marshy battlefield, a spaghetti network that snaked in and out of the patchwork of lagoons. He showed us the mammoth electric generators that fed the exposed power lines from positions just behind the Iraqi front lines. And, when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made their regular evening advance, the officer and his men demonstrated the macabre genius of their invention.
>Iraqi gun batteries fired just enough artillery to force the Revolutionary Guards from their marsh boats, and, when hundreds of them had been forced to continue their advance through the lagoons on foot, the men manning the Iraqi generators flipped a few switches and sent thousands of volts of electricity surging through the marshland.
>Within seconds, hundreds of Iranians were electrocuted.
>Afterwards they made their way through the marshes, gathering up the dead Iranian soldiers like dynamite fishermen harvesting a day's catch. Working methodically, the Iraqis piled the corpses on top of one another in the water in head-to-toe stacks, five bodies high and five across.
>Together, the human piles formed long rows, the width of a troop truck, the top layers above the water's surface. Each row extended in a straight line through the marshes from the Iraqis' positions toward the Iranian border. Finally, the rows were sprinkled with lime and covered over with a foot-thick tier of desert sand.
>It was the Iraqi method of road building, using the bodies of their enemies to construct assault routes for tanks and trucks.

Doesn't sound fun tbqh.

>>34164562

Everyone, which includes Israeli and americans said that Israel lost the war, what more do u need ?

>while losing at least 3 times as many
They dont care about some militiamen they are expendables and willing to die, but israeli arent.

>They lost so many men, that they lost control of their fiefdom to the lebanese army. Which btw is not exactly known for its quality.
Hezbollah is even more powerful these days than before so ...

>Also Hiding among civilians is not the same as trench warfae
They didnt hide among civilians, they hid in tunnels and bunkers which israel couldnt even destroy

>>34165579

>he Yugoslav conflict proved very well that with basic camouflage and decoy work, you can completely neuter an enemy's airstrike capabilities.

The circumstances of that conflict were unusual. There was no threat of NATO ground forces, and Serbian forces were at relatively low density in Kosovo. Using this example to declare tactical air-power as trifling is unwise. The US would simply rather not attempt to use tactical air-power to find and destroy dispersed hidden ground forces. For example in Syria not only do air controllers within the SDF designate targets for the USAF but the simple presence of opposing ground forces makes ISIS either concentrate their forces (presenting targets) move their forces (presenting interdiction opportunities, or allow the SDF to roll over them (with individual strong-points neutralised with PGMs. The best example of this was Kobane, where relatively few isolated YPG fighters were used by the USA to force the previously elusive ISIS to concentrate its forces and present a lucrative target to their aircraft.

>>34165744
>Using this example to declare tactical air-power as trifling is unwise.
You're putting words into my mouth. I merely said it's not as powerful as /k/ often claims, but that's simply because this board is full of ignoramuses.

>>34165579
Thanks for the explanation; this is some really interesting stuff. Do you happen to have any links to a good primer on the topic of "the future of interactions between aircraft/ground-based air defense systems," or something along those lines?

Also, a related question. The numbers I have seen suggests that the United States military lost 10k aircraft of all kinds during the course of the Vietnam War. Is this figure actually correct?
Were any particular lessons learned from the air war in Vietnam that became new techniques or doctrines?

>>34165757

You're the one using an unusual situation to make a sweeping generalisation. Using the Kosovo situation to argue against the effectiveness of tactical air support is as misleading as using the Serb F-117 shoot-down as an argument against the effectiveness of low-observable aircraft.

>>34160678
Those tank ditches on the Iraq/Syrian border have been there for a long time.
Source: I pooped in one 10 years ago

>>34158463
>If AT rocket technology were to progress to the point that even modern MBT's were at high risk to an average soldier, would this happen again?

This already happened about 60 years ago. The Iran-Iraq war was a consequence of this.

>What would warfare be like in a setting where the value of Armor has been hugely reduced.

It would be like the Iran-Iraq war, assuming neither side had air superiority or a decent air force (which is what happened in that war). Air power is what allows you to get the front lines moving again.

>>34166250
>Using the Kosovo situation to argue against the effectiveness of tactical air support
On the contrary, I was arguing for the effectiveness of camouflage, decoys and concealment, as that is the state any anti-air units will find themselves in when not engaged with enemy forces. The occurences in Kosovo were very relevant, as they represent what non-frontline troops would experience most of the time.

>>34166342

All Kosovo showed was that the unusual result of the Gulf War air campaign in degrading dispersed defenders in a purely airborne campaign (which was itself exaggerated) was unlikely to be repeated. An enemy that is forced to keep its troops dispersed and concealed at all times in conventional war has already lost all initiative.

>>34166657
>An enemy that is forced to keep its troops dispersed and concealed at all times in conventional war has already lost all initiative.
Nah, it's just that Americans can't into dispersion and concealment at fucking all. Don't even have camo nets for all their vehicles.

>>34165626
Except the US and Israel have always officially claimed Hezbollah lost.

The problem with the 2006 war is that the lack of a decisive result means it's hard to definitively tell who "won".

Israel can claim victory because Hezbollah was essentially kicked out of southern Lebanon and rocket attacks pretty much ceased entirely. There's never really been another major Hezbollah attack on Israel since then. In addition, Hezbollah was always valued as a strategic deterrent against Israeli aggression, and the fact Israel ignored that deterrence vastly diminished their value to countries that would host them.

On the other hand, Hezbollah can claim victory in the pure sense that they weren't completely destroyed by the IDF. And as an underground terrorist group, it's always hard to tell how bad they actually suffered.

>>34166300
>Air power is what allows you to get the front lines moving again.

so how come the 2014 Ukraine war was a mobility war despite no air assets on both sides where artillery became god of battlefield?

>>34166807
That's usually because there's practically nobody that can grab air superiority over them, so why bother.

>>34165816
Roughly. Vietnam was new ground for the US in a lot of ways. It was the first war where they had to deal with SAMs, and the first war where air cavalry was deployed en nasse. That meant a lot of untested doctrine and harsh lessons to be learned, like having specialized SEAD/DEAD units to neutralize AA and armed gunships escorting transport helicopters.

>>34166841
MLRS. It's really mostly because the US hasn't been involved in any serious conflict for a while and at this point the USMil is completely geared for the kind of COIN / low intensity conflicts it's entangled in.

>>34159588
>US fights talibans for 10 years and still fails to win.
>Afghans are shit

No, they are not. Its just the ANA that is shit.

>>34166807

That'll probably have to be re-trained now that the use of drones to direct fire is proliferating. They will no longer be able to rely on air supremacy to cover for sloppy concealment.

>>34166996
Taliban can't match the US in open warfare or even small scale tactical skirmishes. Their only winning move is to hide in caves until NATO leaves.

File: 1394818301817_Image_galleryImage_Collect_aerial_photos_cap.jpg (206KB, 964x1340px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 964x1340px

>>34160805
>>34159606

Ehh he's not 100% wrong. Every few yards might be an overstatement, and I've always heard that they were angled so trench raiders couldn't fire straight down the trench like a shooting gallery but still.

>>34167169
It's also for artillery to not wipe out a half a platoon with one direct hit.

>>34164651

Yes but the Ukrainian government has resorted to even using artillery cannons to directlydestroy tanks and the rebels are starting to find themselves more and more abandoned since Russia already had what it wanted(Crimea) and now doesn't support them as much.

So it would seem that the problem starts when you cannot use either tanks or air forces and you over rely on infantry and artillery to achieve breakthroughs, when static defensive positions start to mean something again.

So I would say that trench warfare only happens when Arabs are around(aka; people who don't even know what maintenance means) and poorer countries that aren't able to field anything but mortars and bodies into the battle.

Otherwise I would say that trench warfare only works in irregular fighting through the use of heavy concealment.

File: 18299531_304.jpg (146KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 940x529px

>>34167456
Ukraine has seen heavy use of tanks on both sides. Lostarmor.ru has recorded 255 photographed MBT losses, that is not insignificant. Obviously that was pre-Minsk which saw both sides agree to withdraw heavy equipment but during that stage of the conflict trenches and other field fortifications were still common.

The problem was between poor logistics, the absurd number of AT weapons including ATGMs, the huge reserves both sides have and indirect fire the tanks didn't work.

>>34167134

Who would win?

>Strongest military alliance in the world

>Some old caves

File: photoreport1.jpg (25KB, 449x288px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 449x288px

>>34167134
well no shit they can't match an army with massive amounts of airsupport, state of the art modern equipment and far larger concentration's of forces in any type of direct combat when they can barley even get there hands on scoped weapons and have to use 50 year old weapons with shocking quality surplus ammo.

The Taliban matched the Americans by managing to maintain the ability to constantly harass there patrols and cripple there mobility with IED's. In most areas with significant Taliban presence the coalition were barley able to exert influence much beyond the wire of there bases, while surrounding villages and havens for the Taliban essentially stayed in there control or at the very least were contested until the NATO presence was massively reduced, leaving them in the hands of the incompetent ANA (who may as-well just have handed them back to the Taliban).

The war of endurance against a vastly superior force requires you to be pretty good at war, maybe not in the sense some on /k/ have with; high body counts and sweeping offensives. But enduring 1000's of explosive tonnage in airstrikes, constant flying killer robots targeting your leadership, frequent night time assaults by special forces with NV equipment, constant raids, cordons and patrols and after all of that managing to maintain the morale among your force of relatively simple village kids to continue the fight with 50 year old slavshit over the course of a decade is really understated by a lot of people in the US military.

>>34169246
It's less about being very good at war and more about being highly motivated, which is easy to do when you're under the impression that you're fighting to defend your own turf or you just hate the West that much.

The Taliban as an organized military force and government basically crumbled the moment NATO looked their way. Even as a guerilla force they've largely been unsuccessful in inflicting significant casualties or material damage to international forces other than the occasional suicide attack or IED.

Their success stems more from the issues that are endemic to countries that have circumstances like Afghanistan. Poor government administration, porous borders, and a fractured population means there will always be a place for the Taliban to hole up and wait out the storm.

>>34167456
>>34167697
The problem is assuming that the Ukrainian military and the separatists are actual professionals, which they are not. Pre-invasion, Ukrainian military organization and equipment was basically post Gulf War Iraq tier. And the Separatists were just an angry mob that got propped up by the Russians.

Nobody really had the advanced level of tactics or strategy to grasp the intricacies of maneuver warfare, and neither side really had the equipment to make wide flanking moves or breakthrough actions possible.

>>34158498
Muslim armies failure to perform anything except the most basic forms of unit cohesion is much studied by war historians.

Middle eastern military tradition has typically been of the hoarde varietey, even the ottomans relied largley on foreign mercenaries to perform more complex roles. In modern warfare with modern weapons this tribalistic mentality towards unit cohesion makes combined arms impossible.

The typical middle east army can field artillery effectivley, they can field armor decently, ditto for air and infantry. The failure is in combining those. You will almost never see a middle eastern army sending infantry forward supported by armor as artillery pins the enemy in place whilst air provides cover and hits critical targets to open soft spots and disrupt logistics.

The typical muslim mindset is to carpet bomb for a while, try a mass infatry attack, send in tanks, try a mass infantry charge, try arty, try another infantry charge.

They just cant get outside of this narrow tribal mindset and work together in any meaningful way. When they succeed its mostly on accident, or because they are facing an even more incompetant or outnumbered enemy.

Muslims do 2 things well. Mass infantry attacks and ambushes. Other than that dont expect to see them pulling combined arms shit under their own volition or commanders. Theyre almost culturally incapable of it.

>>34169693
Bosnians did great given the odds and formed a world recognized military from militia groups, stop clumping them all together.

>>34169246
Afghan vet. More simply put is that the bastards just dont quit. Frankly its incredible, these illiterate dirtbags dont got booksmarts but that dont mean they aint smart. They just keep trying stuff over and over until they find a method that works. On top of that is a very VERY steadfast willingness to make sacrifices necesarry to get the job done.

At the risk of sounding cliche I always did somewhat admire their tenacity and willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve a goal. You dont see that in western societey much.

I remember when some taliban guys lugged 120mm chinese rockets up a cliff face to a peak theyd somehow noticed we werent watching, set em up, used crude plumb-lines as sights, scratched some geometry into the dirt, then fired it and plowed 3 rockets directly into our command post from 3 miles away.

Our counter barrage from 81's shredded em anyways but when we got up to the ridge and looked at how they did it (dirt math and all still next to the launch ramps) I couldnt help but be amazed.

They had probably been lugging those heavy as fuck rails and rockets up that cliff for days. The had to KNOW they wouldnt be able to run anywhere in enough time to escape counter battery, but thats the only way they could get a shot on target so they did it anyways and accomplished their mission.

Dont think im gettin all teary eyed. They were still my enemy, and they were probably boy lovin fuckheads who deserved exactly what they got. But still, thats some real tenacity and dedication to cause.

Shit like that played across tens of thousands of small engagements for decades is why they never lose. Because as long as there are foreigners to shoot at or afghans to carry weapons the fight isnt over. To end the war we would either have to withdraw 100% or kill them down to the last individual.

Cuz any left alive would crawl out of thier hole as soon as the shitstorm ended and start shooting again.

>>34169712
Yeah the Balkan guys don't seem to have the retard genes.

>>34169501
>The Taliban as an organized military force and government basically crumbled the moment NATO looked their way. Even as a guerilla force they've largely been unsuccessful in inflicting significant casualties or material damage to international forces other than the occasional suicide attack or IED.

They were never in a position as a guerilla force to inflict significant significant casualties against NATO, the fragmented nature of a country divided by dozens of tribal and ethnic boundaries on top of the almost complete decimation and forced to hiding of high ranking Taliban leadership made any well coordinated nation wide movement, beyond the occasional call to arms almost impossible.
Also given there roots in rural, more socially and economically behind areas the Taliban had to draw from a force of people often suffering from drug addiction, starvation/malnourishment and education deficits a disadvantage that can't be understated.
This also had the added disadvantage of putting them in the position of never getting to draw the coalition into any particularly bloody or decisive urban combat (where enemy air/armor superiority would be less decisive) unlike other more successful guerilla forces (Fallujah in Iraq, Grozny in Chechnya, Hue in Vietnam etc.).
and last but not least they were cut off from any significant outside support aside from dubious help from the ISI. Even foreign fighters who are often essential for bringing in money and experience were too busy in Iraq to lend a hand, leaving them on there own with whatever ancient slavshit they could get there hands on to tangle with the most advanced military in the world.

Given the circumstances I don't really think it could be expected of them to do any better. It really was a failure on NATO's behalf to instill a local movement with equal motivation to crush the Taliban for good, the whole Western democracy concept was like trying to sell soap to a hobo.

>>34169693
>clumping a billion people together based on a book
Yeah leave that level of stupidity to ISIS buddy.

A majority of Muslim armies failed in the past due to the fact they modeled themselves after the failed conscript/lack of intuitive organization of the soviet union, which lead to poor discipline and organization under fire. They also never had the money to sufficiently train or equip there troops the end results are as you'd expect for any army, the fact they were Muslim is totally besides the point.

On the other hand Hezbollah, the Chechen rebels, Bosnian's and elite elements of ISIS have demonstrated that Muslim units can fight quite well provided with sufficient motivation, equipment and training/experience. being Muslim or born in the Middle east doesn't alter your brain chemistry or something, its training, organization, supply, doctrine and equipment that defines how an army performs.

>>34170063
They may be Muslims, but they're not Arabs.

>>34170212
Why do you exactly mean by intuitive organization? Soviet armies had quite a fair bit of organizations due to how effective Deep battle was, and how pulling it off was arguably harder then many other methods of warfare at the time. In a way, saying that the Soviet Union lacked intuitive organization makes it all the more impress they managed such a combined arms strategy at breaking enemy lines and fortifications.

>>34159588
>Arabs are just really fucking bad at war.

No, it's Muslims in general.

>>34166996
>US fights talibans for 10 years and still fails to win.

The "taliban" didn't fight the U.S.. Retards working for the taliban hiding in Pakistan and Iran fought the U.S.....and got their asses handed to them every time.

Nice try, though.

>>34160796
>intentionally using an unsupported firing position to fire a precision weapon system

Pretty much sums up Muslim fighters in one pic...

>>34161443
>The Taliban are simply outclassed in firepower and that is due to economy not skill.

Bullshit.

The Taliban have all the equipment, and manpower, they ever needed to achieve local superiority on coalition forces and kill or capture every single man in the small vehicular / foot patrols they've been using since the invasion.

They know nothing about the use of terrain or obstacles, nor do they have the courage or skill to coordinate their attacks correctly.

I did a year in A-stan, and was relieved to realize they had no fucking clue about fighting, because if they did, they could have used the terrain we operated in to kill every last one of us.

File: 1489455128893.jpg (37KB, 568x443px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 568x443px

>>34167134
And Americans can't beat the redcoats in open warfare, they have to hide in valley forge hurrrrrrrrr

>>34169901
>It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog

This is why Afghanistan will fall the second we leave. The ANA has billions of dollars in equipment and training and yet they'll be defeated easily by the enemy because at the end of the day most ANA soldiers don't give a shit, they just want a paycheck and they couldn't care less who rules afghanistan.

>>34166807
>Nah, it's just that Americans...

Have maintained air superiority over every enemy we've ever faced in the past 70 years.

Bitch.

>>34173638
And for the first few years they couldn't, but they were able to avoid destruction long enough for the balance to tip in their favor.

Thing is, the difference between colonial America and the Taliban was that the US received serious foreign assistance and got their shit together in regards to raising a proper professional army that could fight the British on their own terms. Plus the technology of the time made it much harder to maintain expeditionary ventures.

>>34169246
>The war of endurance against a vastly superior force requires you to be pretty good at war

No, it doesn't.

It just requires you to exist.

Enemy leadership and recruitment can take up refuge over the border as long as there is a will, and the money, to pay for new recruits. You don't have to be "pretty good" to hire idiots to get killed by coalition forces over a border. Nor do you have to be "pretty good" to hire poverty tier dolts to emplace and detonate IED's.

They fucking suck at war.

>>34164241
Source? That's so horrific it sounds too bad to be true yet somehow I know it is.

>>34158484
shit, good point, guess we should like, hide, maybe dig holes in the dirt. maybe make them into sorta lines so lots of people can hide in them and traverse. wonder what we would call them

>>34160678
>one long ass straight line trench

Jesus Christ are they trying to kill as many of their own guys as they can in the eventuality that a bomb lands in their trench? Id be safer laid out in the prone in a wide open field.

>>34167169
It's primarily to compartmentalize blast over pressure so entire platoons aren't wiped out with a single artillery strike.

>>34160782
Damn those Chieftains are sexy

>>34173689
>when we withdraw

Sorry bruv, everything from sangin to the warshir valley got taken back by the taliban last year. My team tried to train the guys holding the pass out of sangin into the warshir valley. They couldnt be bothered to get off their ass and learn something that might have saved their lives when the momentum of the taliban push into sangin last year swept over their position and into the valley behind them.

We said "if you dont fucking listen and shape up you are all going to die when we leave"
>in'shallah Marine! It will be fine!

And we left, and they all died. Fuckin idiots.

File: dumbass.gif (40KB, 465x236px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 465x236px

>>34173945

>>34169557
Also both sides made up of Slavs.
While slightly better soldiers then Arabs they are generally not known for their discipline or initiative.

>>34173945
As opposed to evisceration via shrapnel, bleeding out from a gunshot wound, or vicious hand to hand and assorted close combat in breaching a trench?

People act like getting shot is an off switch. Its not, thats hollywood bullshit. When guys get shot if its anywhere but in the head theres almost always a lot of screaming and flopping around.

War is war, this idea that theres a polite way to kill somebody is stupid.
> "Oh hello Iraqi fortification, would you all kindly line up for your painless lethal injections please? We are trying to be humane you see..."

>>34164651
There is also a distinct lack of night vision capability aside that provided from Tanks and APC's.
When the lack of an effective counter to ATGM, combined with limited armor and due to ground based air defense no CAS or vertical envelopment, you'll probably end up with something somewhat akin to static warfare

>>34165160
Iran and Iraq also had serious shortages of pilots and aircraft, as well as no air assault or paratroop doctrine or capable units outside of their special forces

>>34160845

Right but its key because hes arguing the "all Arab armies are shit" point while Afghanistan isnt Arab just Islamic.

That said, he'd probably be correct to say that the Muslim World, not just Arabs, all have extremely poor professionalism in their armies. People have pointed to Turkey as a counterexample in the past but I think their poor performance in Syria speaks for itself.

>>34174919
Literally this
spoonfeeding fucktards never ends well

>>34162824
FUCK YOU GO NACK TO /POL/ NAZI

>>34160845
>>34161443
>>34175001
the problem with middle eastern armies isn't as simple as LOL BARBARIANS memery; the structure and culture of their armies is one of information hoarding and refusal to train new guys. the new guys don't spray at the horizon uselessly because they're stupid (well, usually they are basically conscripted uneducated peasants, but w/e) they spray at the horizon because no one has told them not to, and they view being told not to more as a suggestion or even a trap to lose glory in the next fight so the person suggesting to them can be promoted before they are, rather than as actual job training.

>>34175063

More fundamentally than that, it's because these armies place combat effectiveness at a much lower priority than other matters. The armed forces in these countries are concerned with; internal security, minimising cooperation & maximising compartmentalisation in the armed/security forces to prevent coup plotting, protecting their own departmental funding, corrupt kickbacks from suppliers or embezzlement, rewarding the government's supporters with luxury jobs, providing cheap labor for generals, a jobs program for the poor masses, buying allies through political procurement, impressing neighbours through ostentatious displays & misleading statistics.

Now, effective armies share some of these problems, but the simple fact is that the ability to defeat a foreign military in conventional warfare is often outside of the top ten priorities for these countries.

>>34169693
it might have something to do with them not being able to do jumping jacks, can't coordinate top and bottom halfs of body at same time but can do so independently

>>34173413
> deep battle
You mean drive foward Ivan!

The Russian way to go to war is do the same thing half a dozen times, failing. Then trying something else

It's like playing rock paper sissies with someone who always does rock, then beats you by choosing sissors on the last round

>>34174946
But if anythings true

Slavs sure do hate Slavs

>>34169693
>Theyre almost culturally incapable of it.
I don't know if it comes from tribal doctrine but it really is an unwillingness to cooperate or share resources. they try one branch then the next then the next because each branch/unit/whatever wants the victory (or at least non-failure) for itself, thinking the others will snipe all of the glory and spoils

the same is why their conscripts and junior officers are also shit-tier: they receive minimal training, since their superiors don't want competition. where in the west, a well-trained and worked-up department makes you look good because your department is only looked at as a team anyway, the east is more individualistic and a trained and worked-up department makes you look bad since why are all these junior fucks just as good as their CO? Why even have the CO there at all? conversely, a bad department in a western force makes the CO/DivO/Senior look bad because he's squandering resources and not getting things done, a bad department doesn't reflect nearly as poorly on an eastern CO/DivO/Senior because, well, they're just untrained conscripts below the guy, what did you really expect?

their forces are run like mid-sized corporations are. management despises any self-organizing workforce for making management look unnecessary, the workforce despises management for not supporting them but distrusts it when they do support them, and the way high echelons of power not only don't care what goes on below since they're kept in a job no matter what, but have no easy way of seeing what's going on that far below them even if they did care.

>>34170212
>A majority of Muslim armies failed in the past due to the fact they modeled themselves after the failed conscript/lack of intuitive organization of the soviet union, which lead to poor discipline and organization under fire.
I didn't knew that modern Saudi army that failed miserably in Yemen was trained and equipped by Soviets

>>34175296
Geee, I wonder then how they managed to fully deny european expansion to the east, forcing them to rely only on naval expansionism and oversea colonies, and then created world-class superpower, which succumbed only to combined efforts of whole West during almost a century. So much for constant failings for poor Ivan.

>>34175743

Which European Eastward expansion did Russia deny? Sweden? Poland-Lithuania? Those were second-rate powers, which never had an empire. Such posts are expected from those with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

>>34175974
>>34175743


Global empire as you describe, that is.

>>34175974
>Which European Eastward expansion did Russia deny
All and any, including Catholic church. And something tells me that Vatican was not really happy about it.

>>34174981
There is also that pesky thing called the Minsk accords. Only thing there is to do now is dig and just pot shot one another from the trenches.

>>34175323
Thats actually a really good point you bring up. Also allocation of resources in arab armies is all fucked up.

In western militaries the guy who knows how to use the machinegun the best is carrying it. The guys who were the most well trained to use the weapons are trusted by superiors to wield them. In arab militaries the commander assigns them to the guys closest to the commander (usually relatives and close political supporters) as symbols of status. In western militaries a bigger gun does not convey a hugher status, but in middle eastern culture there is very much a culture of weapons acting as badges of rank and prestige.

So in a lot of cases the best equipment, weapons, and supplies are being conferred not to where they are NEEDED most but to whom the commanding officer LIKES the most.

Control of the flow of logistics is used as a way for higher ups to maintain their grip on power and protect against mutiny.

>>34176060

You really do have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Charles XII, who Russia zerged at Poltava, was a Protestant monarch. The Muslims thought Russia was too shitty to be worth conquering, so treated Rus as a free-range slave-farm. Napoleon was at most a deist (this being post-revolution France, in enlightenment Europe), and he was just mounting a punitive expedition to stop Russia trading with Britain.

So Russia's claim to "opposing expansion of Catholic European powers to the East" consists of joining an alliance to kick the shit out of the Polacks, GG WP.

>>34176275
>i-it's not like we want any of it
Sure, do enjoy your delicious apple, little fox.

>>34176300

I truly just got told by one of Pasha's favorite eunuchs...

>>34166830

What are you going on about? That war degenerated into trench warfare shortly after it began, for the reasons you said. It's still in that phase now.

Are you asking why it did begin with trench warfare? No war ever does. You have to establish the front lines and dig the trenches first.

>>34176555
>Are you asking why it did begin with trench warfare?

Sorry, I meant to say:

"Are you asking why it did not begin with trench warfare?"

>>34174526
The British call them diggy duggy hidey shooties.

>>34173780
>US received serious foreign assistance
which helped bankrupt France

>>34177486

It was only after I heard the tone of Snoop Dogg saying "roundabout" on somebody's satnav that I realised what Americans feel when they hear British words/phrases for things.

>>34179397
It sounds downright ridiculous to us. Its kinda like when you walk into a room and everyone present is participating in the sort of inside joke where "you just had to be there to get it."

Ditto for brits in merica. If a brit asked a random person here in montana for directions youd get "well ya go bout 15 minutes down the road and yall will see bill's ol place that used to be a dairy. So then yer gonna go left there and head straight for roundabout an hour or so and yall be there."

You say "uhhhhh, what?" And he just stares at you like an idiot cuz literally any other local would have understood his instructions perfectly. Watching tourists minds melt over such stuff is hilarious.

>>34180176
Theres a running joke where i live, if anyone ever asks for directions the route you give em has to include them going down a dirt road.

>>34169693
>>34175323
>>34176106

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
18 years later, it's still valid