Since the death of quality trained soldiers post Iraq surge and the entire concept of light infantry formally being small squad sized to platoon sized elements operating inside and beyond the security zones of both friendly and enemy, now being just mech infantry with MRAP's. I don't understand how nobody else seems to realize how horrible the US would perform in a similar situation to Russia in the Ukraine war. The likeliness of your shit getting laughably fricked up well before even reaching the probable line of deployment for an objective is very high since everyone seems to be practicing counter-blitz operations and other similar techniques.
Will the US Army go back to the good old days of dropping a shit ton of light infantry in the enemies rear and security zones and royally fricking their shit up in a modern form of skirmisher engagements while also emphasizing security i.e. movement to contacts during offensive operations? Or will we continue the strategy of "drive down the MSR until you reach the objective, deploy if you have to. DON'T FRICK UP MY TEMPO"? Because the way I see it, there is no reason why the US wouldn't be getting equally fricked if we found ourselves in a similar situation as the Russians right now. I even drew a highly detailed picture to convey my dismay.
ok
No, not ok
maybe
frick ya mudda
Tactics aren't real. All that matters is if you can supply 3,000 tonnes of ammo a day or not.
You're admittedly amazing drawing omits the z-axis which America has made considerable investment into gaining superiority over.
this hahaha
but seriously though, it's an interesting subject if the us was involved in a conflict with a contested airspace
America fights (and wins) the air war first. I can't really think of a feasible scenario where the U.S. would find itself in a land war with contested airspace.
then US would just use HIMARs and Tomahawks
I think there's a big difference between fighting an enemy with competency and decent IAD that's actually integrated and can hide thanks to the terrain, and shooting literal low IQ morons in the desert who don't even want to fight.
The U.S. has gone up against and utterly dismantled some of the most complex IAD networks in the world. You're missing the forrest for the trees. The U.S. land tactics are what they are because the crucial tenent of U.S. doctrine is dominating the skies and crushing the enemy behind his lines. If you manage to contest airspace against the U.S. for any significant period of time, congrats! You've beaten the U.S.
I wouldn't call a random BUK here and a random S-200 there as a complex IAD anon. I mean shit, using Iraq as an example again. Even with all of our technological advantages circa 2003, we couldn't find any of Saddam's SCUD launchers at all, despite using SOF and the Air Force.
We found SCUD's, just not all of them.
What do scud launchers have to do with anything? They're not AA. If all his AA is hiding not tracking or launching SEAD has done its job.
There is, but who is this mystical enemy peer? Certainly not Russia, as we've seen. China is closer but their corruption hasn't been put on display like Russia's has with this war.
Interesting thread with a well defined question and good picture anon. It'd be a shame if moronic people started screaming that youre a Russian or armatard or a vatnik or a chink
>Since the death of quality trained soldiers
lol
lmao even
You're insane if you don't think there's been a drop in quality from 90's early 00's light infantry in the US Army and light infantry 07-. I doubt most LT's even allow for decentralized patrols being led by their NCO's at all. Especially from what's said about US unit performance in joint exercises against foreign countries where they will do nothing but stick to roads and only conduct frontal attacks since the bulk of their training is usually just gunnery range and that's all they know how to do.
>he still thinks that joint exercises is some kind of scored event where the objective is to win
lol
lmao even
Try AAR's and vignettes.
>implying you have an AAR of any joint exercise from the last 15 years.
lol
lmao even
Post the relevant AARs from CALL.
>Spits into dip bottle
aight, troop, we gon' getcha squared'way, Airbone?
Gon' git at pray-ress.
See, it all
>spits
come downna' new forma LESSCO wurfurr.
>spits
Iffn' th'enemy ain't got SAMs, we gon' go'head and do a vertical envelopment, court'sy of THE DIVISION, y'hear?
>spits
See, th'integration a' RAYNGERS in the d'sruption or bad guy s'curity zone 'sposed to disrupt those A2AD cap'bilities, trackin'?
>spits
When 'at happens, we gon' go head and use Aerosol or vertical lift to put our killers in the 'sruption zone, wreak havoc an' all.
>spits
See, inna you-kraine, ruskies figgered they'd do the Aerosol thing WITHOUT the RAYNGERS to back'em up, and WITHOUT doin' proper rear-area frickery.
>spits
This left their Aerosol boys out to dry, w'thout heavy weapons, and no way to get more. Their air force didn't suppress the SAMs
>spits
and at no point did they advance under proper air cover or intel. They lacked off-road cap'bilities
>spits
which cayn-nal-ized them onto roads. We would do better by performing RAYNGER raids on hard points,
>spits
proper s'pression of air defence, and not cr'ating a logistical clusterfrick 40 miles long.
>spits
Any quess'ons, ask yer' first line. Chief's gotta 'pointment.
>doesn't include air superiority
No sizeable US unit in the last 20 years has left the wire without massive air cover.
anon no one here actually knows anything about war
im gonna go magdump into a steel target from 10 yards away
The U.S. has excellent Soldiers, tied into an outstanding Joint logistical and assault delivery system. The Russians got canalized, ran out of supplies, and subsequently buttfricked with reckless abandon.
In rough order, they:
>Did not maintain their troops in readiness
>Did not bring enough supplies to fight a war
>Did not establish effective ISR
>Did not do SEAD
>Did not maintain reasonable goals for their capabilities
>Did not allow commanders on the ground any leeway to fight with METT-TC factors in mind
>Did not attempt to prevent canalization
>Did not bring secure radios
>Did not integrate ground and air fires
>Did not establish appropriate security zones
>Did not maintain logistics
I could go on, but these are all things the U.S. does exceedingly well.
Let's check:
>maintain their troops in readiness
Hey, my slides are green, Sir.
>did not bring enough supplies to fight a war
[laughs in 88M]
>did not establish effective ISR
Motherfricker, you can't even imagine. You have no idea.
>Did not do SEAD
My MIL actually did work on the first gen HARMs.
>Did not maintain reasonable goals for their capabilities
This one's kind of a whiff, but all our hard-chargers are usually wiped out in the first few weeks. You got us on this one.
>Did not allow commanders on the ground any leeway to fight with METT-TC factors in mind
What is Mission Command?
>Did not attempt to prevent canalization
AEROSOL
>Did not bring secure radios
[laughs in AN/PRC-XX] Yes, I know it drops fill sometimes. I don't know why. At least it works. Mostly.
>Did not integrate ground and air fires
Oh man. A joint fires cell is nuts.
>Did not establish appropriate security zones
Give the MPs something to do, I guess. Keeps the Kherson militia from schwacking your mayor at the first opportunity.
>Did not maintain logistics
[88M laughter gets even louder].
In conclusion, we have spent a LOT of money getting this good, but it was worth every penny.
>The likeliness of your shit getting laughably fricked up well before even reaching the probable line of deployment for an objective is very high since everyone seems to be practicing counter-blitz operations and other similar techniques.
Maybe you shouldn't designate the opposite border of the country you're invading as your initial objective, then?