Posted on Feb 14, 2020
Are heavy ground combat units better than light forces and airstrikes?
556
5
7
3
3
0
Posted in these groups: 
Combat
Airstrikes
Combat Airstrikes
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
Depends on what you want, and how much you're willing to pay for it.
If the U.S. wants to maintain a global presence without risking conventional and protracted conflicts, let alone the corresponding high casualties...you go for special operations and surgical strike. If we try to do that with an inadequate number of qualified personnel, or "skinny" the budget for stand-off delivery systems...eventually, that plan will fail; some may suggest it already is.
Alternatively, we can concentrate massed forces of combined arms in a region such that any potential adversary MUST commit to a wide-scale conflict...but on our terms. With some allowances for the differences in technology, tactics, and objectives...that's pretty much what we did during the last phase of World War II in Europe.
Neither approach is "perfect"; no martial strategy is. Conventional ground units are "cheaper" in the long run, but there's a greater cost in the lack of precision. Surgical strikes and raids allow you to control the collateral damage...but may result in high-value losses, and a lack of theater control.
If the U.S. wants to maintain a global presence without risking conventional and protracted conflicts, let alone the corresponding high casualties...you go for special operations and surgical strike. If we try to do that with an inadequate number of qualified personnel, or "skinny" the budget for stand-off delivery systems...eventually, that plan will fail; some may suggest it already is.
Alternatively, we can concentrate massed forces of combined arms in a region such that any potential adversary MUST commit to a wide-scale conflict...but on our terms. With some allowances for the differences in technology, tactics, and objectives...that's pretty much what we did during the last phase of World War II in Europe.
Neither approach is "perfect"; no martial strategy is. Conventional ground units are "cheaper" in the long run, but there's a greater cost in the lack of precision. Surgical strikes and raids allow you to control the collateral damage...but may result in high-value losses, and a lack of theater control.
(2)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
In reality, the mission of SOCOM is relatively limited and trying to win wars with Special Operations and stand off weapons have serious limitations. It's important to remember that in the 80's after the collapse of the Soviets that the consensus was that major wars between modern armies were a thing of the past and that we needed to train for "Operations Short of War", which meant Peace Keeping and Counter Insurgent Warfare. Since then, we have fought two conventional wars in Iraq. If you look at successful nation building after a conflict, such as Japan and Germany, that rebuilding was done after the Conventional military had effectively leveled and occupied those countries.
I doubt that Conventional Forces are "cheaper" since they are much more equipment and personnel intensive. The difference is that Conventional Forces have substantially more organic firepower and their logistical chain is designed to maintain them in the field at a high operational tempo.
I doubt that Conventional Forces are "cheaper" since they are much more equipment and personnel intensive. The difference is that Conventional Forces have substantially more organic firepower and their logistical chain is designed to maintain them in the field at a high operational tempo.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Are you invading a city or rescuing a hostage or taking out a talibani timmie? Each mission requires different applications of force.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
How do u measure deterrence? If we post one M1 tank in Germany, can we say it is a deterrence because the Russians have not attacked?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google