Has War Itself Evolved?

Has War Itself Evolved? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pinksugarsub -> Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 5:13:22 PM)
For A/all the military history buffs here, this is my question: has war itself evolved? After the end of World War II in 1945, America engaged in a series of 'police actions' and 'peacekeeping missions', but did not engaged in combat with the troops of others nations, allied together and led by a military hierarchy run by the governments. These 'police actions' and 'peacekeeping missions' seem to call for a different kind of combat - guerilla warfare against a more diffuse and independent enemy (or enemies). Do Y/you think we'll ever again conduct a war in the same manner as World War II? pinksugarsub

Alumbrado -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 5:19:28 PM)
http://www.rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/ Ranger Question of the Day: It's 2300 -- do you know what your Army is doing? ______________ The fifth Medal of Honor is also the third awarded for jumping on a grenade and sacrificing self to preserve the lives of fellow soldiers. How are hostiles getting close enough to our combat vehicles to put grenades into or through a gunner's hatch, not a large opening? ...It is an accepted military maxim not to get bogged in city fighting with mechanized assets. The Abrams can kill another tank at 4,000+ meters, and we are putting them on street corners guarding intersections. Is this a joke, or does somebody actually believe they are providing a useful function? Tanks are not a COIN Population and Resource Control asset, so why are they being employed as rolling road blocks? The confusion is palpable at all levels. Applying heavy combat assets as replacements for street cops is beyond stupid -- it is insane. The result is that soldiers are being forced to jump on grenades to protect their buddies.

Level -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 5:25:20 PM)
War has evolved, in some ways, in that we use, or attempt to use, smart weapons, rather than massing troops to confront other massed troops, but that's no guarantee that things will remain that way.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 5:48:06 PM)
quote: After the end of World War II in 1945, America engaged in a series of 'police actions' and 'peacekeeping missions', but did not engaged in combat with the troops of others nations, allied together and led by a military hierarchy run by the governments. We engaged in combat with North Korean and Chinese government troops who were aided by the Soviet Union from 1950-1953. We were joined by 16 other countries allied together under the United Nations some of which were the British, French, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Belgium, and others. We also engaged in combat with the North Vietnamese Army who were aided by the Soviet Union. We were joined in that effort by 8 other countries which included Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea, and others. The North Koreans and Vietnamese were allied with other governments and did have a hierarchy in place. quote: These 'police actions' and 'peacekeeping missions' seem to call for a different kind of combat - guerilla warfare against a more diffuse and independent enemy (or enemies). Do Y/you think we'll ever again conduct a war in the same manner as World War II? The Korean War was hardly a guerilla war. The only reason that they were called police actions is because war was never officially declared by us. It is possible that we may see another war like the Second World War. The Chinese and Russia are already cooperating in military exercises. We are in direct competition with China over oil supplies. Both the Chinese and the U.S. have officially declared that neither would be denied access to oil. Essentially we both said in a indirect way that we don't rule out military force to get oil. So, it's possible. War hasn't evolved all that much. Weapons and technology have evolved, but the practice of war is essentially the same. The World hasn't evolved that much. We fight wars for the same reasons that people fought them 2,000 years ago.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 5:54:03 PM)
quote: For A/all the military history buffs here, this is my question: has war itself evolved? The answer is an automatic "yes, of course". War evolves in step with the societies that wage war. It is highly unlikely that the world will ever see another naval battle like Coral Sea or Midway, where the opposing fleets did battle "over the horizon"; cruise missiles rather than fighter craft are the likely weapons of future naval encounters. Certainly there will never be another naval battle such as Leyte Gulf--the modern naval flotilla centers around aircraft carriers rather than battleships with 16- and 18-inch guns. The world may yet see another hedgerow campaign such as was fought in Normandy after D-Day. It likely will see battles such as Operation Market Garden, where airborne paratroops were the principal military force. Tank battles such as Tobruk and El Alamein have already been repeated (Medina Ridge during Desert Storm). For even as war evolves, it remains the same. The tactical and strategic significance of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu have not diminished in this technological age. The imperatives of logistics, planning, and intelligence have not changed since Hannibal crossed the Alps. Similarly, these "police actions" and peacekeeping missions are not novel creations of the 21st Century. The United States Marine Corps Small Wars Manual traces its history back to Major S. M. Harrington's 1921 report The Strategy and Tactics of Small Wars, with significant contribution from Major C. J. Miller's 1923 report Diplomacy and Spurs in the Dominican Republic, on the Marines' intervention in the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century. The SWM was first published in 1935, and was revised in 1940--before there was ever a Saddam Hussein, or an Osama bin Laden. Written before World War II, it remains a staple of US military doctrine. Will there be another World War? Tragically, very likely. War seems to be in the nature of mankind. As has been the case in the past, the time between world war will be filled with small wars. It is the history of war, and likely its future as well.

Real_Trouble -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 6:02:57 PM)
To make a few quick points: 1 - If you want to understand the current direction of warfare, do some reading on John Boyd (air force colonel) and concepts such as OODA loops. He has a good presentation on creation / destruction and others on various military themes that are quite interesting. I can dig up links to these if anyone really wants to know more, as I think the DNI site might still have them, but I'm going to stop talking about this for now before I tear off a 20 page treatise. 2 - A world war such as WWII is perhaps unlikely thanks to the advent of nuclear weaponry. The potential lethality index of warfare has far outstripped past conflicts with the introduction of such weaponry; a 'world war' at this point could kill us all. Or, at least, kill us most.

DomAviator -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 10:16:41 PM)
Yes I think war has evolved and have studied at great length where it has gone and where it is heading. The days of trench warfare and massed troops facing off are over. That all changed with the introduction of Air Calvarly to Vietnam. The focus also shifted from the infantryman to air power and technology. Fighter pilots used to have to engage in protracted dogfights using guns, now they can engage over the horizon without ever seeing their target. This reduced the overall numbers needed to maintain air superiority. Whoever controls the skies controls the battlefield. (Subject of course to having the will and resolve to win even if unpopular. For example we COULD pull the ground troops back and oust insurgents through massive air strikes but the delicate members of our population would find the collateral damage unacceptable. ) However, I dare say I think warfare has changed to the point where there will never be another fighter ace....

Zensee -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/10/2008 10:50:25 PM)
Yeah. Airpower was crucial to the resounding U.S. victories in Korea and Viet Nam... Warfare has evolved to where fewer people can inflict greater cruelty on an even more invisible and impersonal target. Otherwise, it's still just apes beating each other with sticks. Z.

slvemike4u -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 12:03:37 AM)
CL ...where do you get all those cool facts...DA air power can not take or occupy territory...boots on the ground and all that...Zensee i do believe we "won" in Korea if the goal was, and it was, the maintenance and continued existence of South Korea,where by the way the U.S. Marines once again covered them selves in glory...I am not as proficient as some in getting the links and as it turns out correctly attributing quotes but some Marine General said something to the effect 'we're coming out and we're bringing our dead with us"...as they pulled out of The Chosin Reservoir ...got to love the Marines

meatcleaver -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 1:22:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator Yes I think war has evolved and have studied at great length where it has gone and where it is heading. The days of trench warfare and massed troops facing off are over. That all changed with the introduction of Air Calvarly to Vietnam. The focus also shifted from the infantryman to air power and technology. Fighter pilots used to have to engage in protracted dogfights using guns, now they can engage over the horizon without ever seeing their target. This reduced the overall numbers needed to maintain air superiority. Whoever controls the skies controls the battlefield. (Subject of course to having the will and resolve to win even if unpopular. For example we COULD pull the ground troops back and oust insurgents through massive air strikes but the delicate members of our population would find the collateral damage unacceptable. ) However, I dare say I think warfare has changed to the point where there will never be another fighter ace.... Air power is only an auxilary force, it can't capture and hold land. It can inflict terror and cause mass destruction but win, well as Zenzee pointed out, it proved pointless in Vietnam for everything but mass murder of innocent civilians. One could argue air power had a major effect in WWII. The RAF's defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain more or less meant that German couldn't win the war but then, air power only stopped the Germans, it couldn't win them alone. In fact one could argue that Germany's reliance on air power to defeat Britain was a huge tactical mistake but then, the British Navy was to large for Germany's so air power was Germany's only throw of the dice. However, war is still ape beating ape with sticks and as long as fools think there is something heroic in dying for a government full of criminals, I guess we as a species have hardly evolved since climbing down from the trees.

DomAviator -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 1:43:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u DA air power can not take or occupy territory...boots on the ground and all that... Air power can most certainly take territory as we saw in 1991. By the time the ground troops went in vast areas of territory were already cleared for them by air power and all they had to do was step over the body parts and keep rolling in. It is very easy to take territory when the opposing forces have all either been killed, deserted in an attempt to save their lives, or are so hungry, thirsty, sick, and sleepless that they are surrendering at brigade strength to unarmed television news crews. Not to mention that when they have no command and control, no close air support, no resupply, no medical care or possibility of evacuation, no communications, no electricity, no water, and no sanitation they are rendered "combat inneffective". The current approach to warfare is to gain air superiority, to cut off all of the critical items above, to cull down the numbers of enemy forces and break the wills of those who remain alive and to then send in relatively small numbers of infantrymen to quickly clean up remaining pockets of resistence. This is a vast departure from the huge amphibious landings of WW2 and infantrymen who claw their way inland an inch at a time... The statistics of the 1991 Gulf War speak for themselves - over 100,000 sorties flown resulting in hundreds of thousands of enemy casulaties, the country left with only 4% of its electric power, no major damns or bridges, no operational airfields, few passable highways or no railroads or pipelines, only intermittent communications, little running water anywhere in the country, most waste water treatment plants destroyed, most factories, warehouses and food reserves bombed, crops burned in the fields by incendary munitions, hundreds of aircraft destroyed on the ground, 38 mig kills, 11 navy vessels sank and the remainder severly damaged, and then then ground troops rolled in to clean up what was left. So we had reduced them to the stone age in 38 days of pilot play then sent in the ground troops to tidy things up in 100 hours of combat infantry. Total US casulaties - including air crew losses - 146. By comparison Iraq had over 200,000 military personell KIA, 80,000 POWs, and 75,000 wounded without even the hospitals, electic power, or running water to treat them.

JulieorSarah -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 2:01:52 AM)
From what i remember of history there's been a major confilct (war, action of some sort) in each century - the 20th had two! so if you want to call that evolving we are in overdrive ... When the forces are close to equal little changes - trench warfare in WW1, dramatic changes can occur if there is an imbalance in combatants, ie the French Revolution or in weaponry - Nagasaki and Hiroshima ... Humans are a tribal creature, there will always be conflict, as each generation has to learn the horror and futility of the destruction war creates. Yet if one tribe were to try to obliterate another, i'd like to think all reasonable people would try to prevent it. The allies against the Nazis ... As one born in 1960 i believe there will be at least one more global impacting conflict/war in my lifetime - hope i'm wrong.

slvemike4u -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 2:04:33 AM)
DA didn't mean to touch a nerve...Airpower by itself can not occupy territory,you need boots on the ground to acomplish that...seriously I wasn't denigrating the impact owning the skies above a contested area has, but to occupy that area sooner or later foot soldiers must go in

meatcleaver -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 2:17:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u DA air power can not take or occupy territory...boots on the ground and all that... Air power can most certainly take territory as we saw in 1991. By the time the ground troops went in vast areas of territory were already cleared for them by air power and all they had to do was step over the body parts and keep rolling in. It is very easy to take territory when the opposing forces have all either been killed, deserted in an attempt to save their lives, or are so hungry, thirsty, sick, and sleepless that they are surrendering at brigade strength to unarmed television news crews. You were fighting a conscripted untrained mob armed with sub standard obsolete weapons. You were involved in mass murder not war, my local boy scout brigade could have taken on the Iraqi army, their moral was below zero before the first shot was fired. The truth is if such mass murder was commited by the Soviets or the Chinese, you would be calling them animals. Many of the Iraqis that were slaughtered could have been taken prisoner or left to harmlessly run away. Thousands of fathers and sons were needlessly killed because after a certain point in the conflict they posed no real threat but were the victims of blood lust. And yes, I know more than you think I know about the conflict. In fact, under international law, Iraq had a good case for claiming Kuwait as part of its territory since it was part of its province in the Ottoman Empire. The Brits created Kuwait for the sole reason of a weak state Britain could control having control over the region's oil. This was what the conflict was about, oil, not freedom as the so called west tried to say it was. The average Kuwaiti having no more rights than the average Iraqi. Of course, spoils to the victors which is why there are no war crimes tribrunals or UN investigation into the rights of the Iraqi claim. If the Iraqi claim being valid, the west would have committed a war crime as they did in the second gulf war and the blood lust that happened would have been subject to further investigation. But of course, the west doesn't believe in international law, it just says it does for convenience sake.

DomAviator -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 2:41:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u DA didn't mean to touch a nerve...Airpower by itself can not occupy territory,you need boots on the ground to acomplish that...seriously I wasn't denigrating the impact owning the skies above a contested area has, but to occupy that area sooner or later foot soldiers must go in Oh yes, Ill definitely concede that. My initial point was merely that the current evolution of warfare is to gain air superiority, then "kill people and break shit" as rapidly as possible so as to render the enemys territory uninhabitable and to break the combat effectiveness of the opponent, and to then send in smaller numbers of ground forces to clean up and to occupy. This is a dramatic departure from the massed armies of history, such as the opposing lines of early warfare squarimh off across a field under different banners, or the trench warfare of WW1 or the huge amphibious assualts against heavily defended beaches of WW2. In another thread we are talking about raising the flag on Iwo Jima. Today we would simply bomb the piss out of it using targets illuminated by special forces teams and blown away dug in troops detected using FLIR on Apaches at night, and when we had essentially broken the resistance we would have rolled up that rock to plant our flag in an hour or less. Chances are an air cav unit would have been flown in to plant the flag while we were still carpet bombing the downslope positions. Also, and it pains me to no end to say this but I also dont envision a child of mine ever being a combat pilot riding a cat shot or making a carrier trap. I think warfare will continue to evolve, with UAV's becoming more and more capable until eventually "fighter pilots" will be men and women who sit in airconditioned offices with a cup of coffee in one hand and a joystick in the other dropping "smart bombs". I doubt there will ever be another ace and I think I am probably a member of the last generation of a dying breed. There is a band, comprised of military pilots, called Dos Gringos who sing "fighter pilot songs" and they have one entitled "Last of the Breed" and I have to say as Ive sat in a bar across from Ellington Field downing Jerimiah Weed with other guys who have been there and done that from Korea to Iraq and watched the Predators coming and going I came to realize the truth of the lyrics to these three songs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXCoswUD74c Last of the Breed and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng3HPrea90k JDAM Blues and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtg Predator Eulogy It sucks to know what the dinosaurs felt like, evolution bites! [8\|]

meatcleaver -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 4:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u DA didn't mean to touch a nerve...Airpower by itself can not occupy territory,you need boots on the ground to acomplish that...seriously I wasn't denigrating the impact owning the skies above a contested area has, but to occupy that area sooner or later foot soldiers must go in Oh yes, Ill definitely concede that. My initial point was merely that the current evolution of warfare is to gain air superiority, then "kill people and break shit" as rapidly as possible so as to render the enemys territory uninhabitable and to break the combat effectiveness of the opponent, and to then send in smaller numbers of ground forces to clean up and to occupy. No it isn't and never has been. War is to apply political aims by other means. To quote Sun Tzu “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu I think you are mixing up the current American military philosophy of overwhelming force rather than any philosophy on war. One of the problems with the current American philosophy is that so many innocent people get killed, resentment grows in the population you want to win over to the point where none participants start supporting your enemy. Why make the enemy's land uninhabitable, you merely make resistance grow and spread beyond the war zone and make the war pointless in the first place. In WWII America (as were other countries) were attacked so the sole point of the war was to crush the enemy. In wars since, the aims of American wars have been to grab someone elses resources or prevent countries having the government they want in preference for governments the USA wants them to have. In those circumstances, to merely kill people and make land uninhabitable is rather naive and self defeating. The victims of agent orange in Vietnam are still suffering and their images are still being shown around the world which reminds the world of American disregard for innocent people in that colonial war and other imperial wars.

meatcleaver -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 5:04:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator This is a dramatic departure from the massed armies of history, such as the opposing lines of early warfare squarimh off across a field under different banners, or the trench warfare of WW1 or the huge amphibious assualts against heavily defended beaches of WW2. Actually, the tactics of WWII were formulated towards the end of WWI by the British General Henry Rawlinson. During the war, Rawlinson was noted for his willingness to use innovative tactics. He organised one of the first major night attacks by a modern army in 1916. For a 1918 offensive, he combined attacks by aeroplanes and armoured units with the infantry. Rawlinson's tactics often achieved success in their area but were too localised to have a decisive effect on the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rawlinson,_1st_Baron_Rawlinson

celticlord2112 -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 5:05:32 AM)
quote: Today we would simply bomb the piss out of it using targets illuminated by special forces teams and blown away dug in troops detected using FLIR on Apaches at night, and when we had essentially broken the resistance we would have rolled up that rock to plant our flag in an hour or less. Chances are an air cav unit would have been flown in to plant the flag while we were still carpet bombing the downslope positions. That's basically what was done in 1945. Naval forces shelled and bombed the hell out of the island before the first Marine contingents were sent in. However, Mt Suribachi itself is essentially solid igneous rock--bunker busters don't work in that terrain because there's no soft soil to penetrate prior to detonation. The Japanese hunkered down and waited out the bombardment in reinforced bunkers (the Japanese on Iwo Jima had structurally superior bunkers compared to the Iraqi Republican Guard in 1991), and as such retained a viable fighting force to offer up a proper welcome reception to the first wave of Marine landings. Even with all the wonderful new jet jockeys have to play with today, taking and holding ground against the enemy remains the job of the grunts.

DomAviator -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 6:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Today we would simply bomb the piss out of it using targets illuminated by special forces teams and blown away dug in troops detected using FLIR on Apaches at night, and when we had essentially broken the resistance we would have rolled up that rock to plant our flag in an hour or less. Chances are an air cav unit would have been flown in to plant the flag while we were still carpet bombing the downslope positions. That's basically what was done in 1945. Naval forces shelled and bombed the hell out of the island before the first Marine contingents were sent in. However, Mt Suribachi itself is essentially solid igneous rock--bunker busters don't work in that terrain because there's no soft soil to penetrate prior to detonation. The Japanese hunkered down and waited out the bombardment in reinforced bunkers (the Japanese on Iwo Jima had structurally superior bunkers compared to the Iraqi Republican Guard in 1991), and as such retained a viable fighting force to offer up a proper welcome reception to the first wave of Marine landings. Even with all the wonderful new jet jockeys have to play with today, taking and holding ground against the enemy remains the job of the grunts. Celtic I see what youre saying but its a matter of scale, technology, and accuracy. The Navy air strikes of WW2 cant even begin to compare with what we have today. The bomb load of my A-6E was six times that of a B-25 and more than three times the gross take off weight of several smaller carrier based attack planes. This a hell of a lot more ordnance can be put on target with far more rapid turn around times. Furthermore - WW2 naval gunnery and bombing wasnt nearly as accurate as now. I wouldnt need to bunker bust as I could quite literally now put it right in the cave mouth or drop incendaries that will asphixiate the dug in with smoke, heat , and by consuming oxygen. We can now kill a specific person from several miles out, in total darkness without harming the dog they are walking. Remember helicopters and air cav werent used in WW2, the marines had to advance up that hill. Now they can chopper in to the top and work their way down, this getting the enemy from both sides... Air cav removed the enemies ability to hold a line... Plus the use of helicopters automatically gives you the high ground - In ww2 we had to strafe on the run and could only get what we could see visually. We can now engage multiple targets from over the horizon with accuracy good enough to put a missle or bomb through a window or literally in someones ass. (There is a pretty funny gun can film from Iraq where someone was bending over to tie his shoe and they put the pipper on his ass and gave him a hellfire enema... ) But anyway with air cav an enemy cant hold a line and provide a reception for a first wave because they are getting it from all sides, they are automatically flanked as their lines are breached... Herd them where you want them and then burn them out with snakes and nape. Yes the marines mop up and hold the terrain but with modern equipment there would be no amphibious assaults, no storming the beach and fighting in....

Irishknight -> RE: Has War Itself Evolved? (6/11/2008 6:34:45 AM)
I will only agree that warfare has evolved in that we are more efficient at killing our fellow man. The flyers are more dangerous, the groundpounders are able to respond faster and with more firepower, and the navy is faster and better armed than ever in history. If we are to have war, we should make certain that we stay at the top of the game in these things. "Kinder, gentler" warfare techniques only cause more of our troops to die in the end. True evolution would be not having wars.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02