Stormtrooper

How come infiltration attacks and gap attacks (sapper attacks) have never really been used by the US military despite being used by literally every single enemy we've fought throughout the 20th and 21st centuries?

>inb4 modern infantry are stormtroopers
No they absolutely are not.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough movement.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      huh

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Muh movement seems to only work in the modern era if you massively outclass your enemy. Ukraine is a good example but it's only the most recent one, every single peer conflict in the last 40 years has turned out to be slow and methodical.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How many "peer" conflicts have been fought by relatively modern, well-equipped and well-trained militaries in the last 40 years?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The examples I had in mind were Ukraine, the recent wars between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and on shakier ground parts of the Syrian civil war. Some periods of the Yugoslav wars might also qualify but I won't stand by that if someone disagrees since I don't know nearly as much about those and great powers were a lot more involved. I admit the direct evidence is thin but it almost all runs one way. It also just makes sense if you think about it logically. The high price of competitive equipment and the sheer amount of firepower both sides can bring to bear make offensive operations risky, and the long range and destructive power of modern artillery + very good modern reconnaissance makes it difficult for an attacker to concentrate enough forces to achieve a local overmatch.

          I actually think infiltration tactics stand a chance of making a comeback, since they came about originally to solve a very similar problem in WW1 (albeit one that existed for very different reasons.) I also expect we'll see cost-cutting and a lot fewer bells and whistles on military vehicles to go along with the apparent push in NATO countries toward building capability to raise a mass army through conscription.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it comes with extremely high loss rates. often done out of pure desperation. americans just arent that dedicated and why would they be? they can just pack up and leave whenever things get rough.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >inb4 modern infantry are stormtroopers
    > No they absolutely are not
    qrd?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >stormtrooper tactics are typically heavily decentralized down to platoon and mostly even squad level
      >heavy emphasis on infiltration, stealth, and surprise
      >why set up a support by fire to support an assault when you can just silently bayonet everyone in their fighting holes while artillery is fired to suppress the audible sounds of men dying from said bayonets
      >Heavily used by forces such as the North Koreans, PAVN, and insurgencies around the world
      >Used both in conjunction with more traditional fire and maneuver when you can use it or used exclusively because it is either the only thing you can do or is the only thing that actually works against the enemy (typical western COIN tactics suck major ass at actually killing insurgencies)
      >Used heavily to break stalemates and are essentially the real reason why the stalemate in WWI for example finally broke at the end of the war, not because of tanks and combined arms
      >Combined arms mechanized forces are best used to take advantage of the exploits made by stormtroopers, they themselves don't usually make said exploits and usually results in heavy attrition when they're used as such
      >Also mainly a reconnaissance pull rather than command push overall strategy since most times in war, you don't have a lot of info on the actual whereabouts of the enemy forces and heavy centralization can lead to units getting fricked just to keep "tempo" and synchronization (think Generation Kill but an alternate universe where the enemy actually put up a resistance, that show would've ended at the airfield assault with all marines dead just to keep the tempo)
      >Also generally better infantry tactics as battle drills go far beyond just the basics, but that starts to lead into another conversation

      tl;dr infantry are used in a more true traditional light infantry role where the line between "line infantry" and "special forces" gets blended together.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        while the rest of your post is reasonably accurate, one point is patently untrue.
        >are essentially the real reason why the stalemate in WWI for example finally broke at the end of the war
        nothing broke the stalemate in WWI. Attrition just finally took its toll and the strategic implications of the US joining the war forced the central powers to surrender. There was no tactical innovation that ended that war, not stormtrooper tactics, not armor, not methodical battle, those just changed the rates of attrition. There was nothing that ended the stalemate and restored a war of maneuver.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Germans conquered more territory at the end of the war than they did throughout the entirety of the war itself and it was all thanks to their stormtroopers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            true, but they were unable to shift the state of the war from stellungskrieg to bewegungskrieg. They changed the rate of attrition and enabled territorial gains, but that didn't change the simple fact that the stalemate wasn't truly broken. It was still fundamentally a war of attrition.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They also lost all of their gain in the hundred day offensive.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The German Spring Offensive was resisted and the British used American supplies and tanks to drive the Germans back to the Siegfried Line. They asked for the armistice because they were on the verge of a rout

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The German Spring Offensive was resisted
            the spring offensive happened in the first place as a hail mary last ditch attempt to win the war before the US arrived, hence why I said that "attrition just finally took its toll and the strategic implications of the US joining the war forced the central powers to surrender"
            >They asked for the armistice because they were on the verge of a rout
            the French were also experiencing massive mutinies, both sides were on the verge of collapse and it's a coin toss who would have won if the US hadn't joined, especially since the western front would have received an influx of German troops from the Russian front.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're not modern tactics but they formed the foundation of modern infantry tactics. There's a clear break from pre-WW1 regiment-sized centralized tactics to the more free mission-type tactics involving squads of postwar infantry and it's genesis comes from stormtroopers.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The sort of decapitation strike or shock attack has been replaced in US military doctrine by airpower.
    Combat engineers still train for contested attacks on fortified hard points though. I think something nuts like a 60% casualty rate on an initial breach is considered by regs to be successful.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      airpower doesn't do much when either the enemy can hide their shit or when they are using forests to literal mountains to hide and be protected by. Unironically the only time US airpower has been successful has only been when we fight inbred morons in the open desert who just put all of their toys out for us to blow up. Every other situation we have been in, airpower is either greatly reduced in effectiveness or is just downright unsuccessful. GBU's are not going to blow up a mountain nor will they arrive in time to blow up an insurgent ambush position when they already left an hour before the plane even arrived.

      It is doubtful that potential enemies like China would fight the way that we want them to fight. They will probably just go Serbia mode and just hide all of their armor in separated areas all while air defense either harasses our air power or is used as an early warning to alert their own air power to contest the skies. Many countries and non state actors aren't as stupid as we want them to be. They know we have massive airpower. They don't want to frick with that. So they're going to negate it by any means. Means that have been used before against us and have proven to work against us.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I can confirm from personal experience that a GBU does a very good job in killing insurgents, and even a slow flyby from a jet or helicopter can be enough to persuade them to kindly break contact and frick off.
        The point of failure when it comes to using airpower in an insurgency is that there has to be a plan set to prevent new terrorists from joining up after you've turned the old terrorists into paste. It's unfortunate that the US was asleep behind the wheel for the last 20 years of nationbuilding, but I promise you airpower is still a very effective way of killing motherfrickers dead.
        As for- and I use this term VERY loosely- "peer" enemies, the very fact that they're having to constantly adapt their strategies proves that we still own the skies.
        As for Yugoslavia, read a book on the matter. We completely eradicated the Serbian military and pushed them out of Bosnia and Kosovo with air power alone. The Serbs back home were so mad to see NATO jets flying over Belgrade every day unopposed that Milosevic's government got overthrown. All for the cost of like 4 or 5 aircraft shot down and no NATO casualties.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did the Chinese use storm trooper tactics back in Korea?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most of their attacks where exactly that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Chinese and North Koreans were fond of infiltrating at night or pre-dawn and then exploiting a weakness with a company-sized force. On the attack they tried to isolate and destroy strongpoints, but any that managed to resist the initial attack would direct artillery to obliterate any Chinese in the area

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because stormtrooper tactics are cope for poor countries that cannot affort the firepower and support arms to match the US, simple as.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      BAR is shit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It was god-tier in 1918

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wasn't even good then.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Name some better light machine guns that were available in 1918

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I really like that Val was the first dude to test his dad's new gun in combat. I'm sure John was nervous.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The stormtrooper was an effective substitute for advanced communication techniques and technology, and eventually became specialized into more heavy infiltration units for assault given the European and Asian front and theater structure. The answer is really nuanced, and I'm a historian for this era, but essentially here's the autism:
    >American units were more often 'patterned' for reasons beyond me. Redfor OOB and org structures could often be specialized beyond even the most radical American units.
    >Tactics were well communicated by rule in American doctrine, and the chain of command remained skeptical. You assume a degree of loss, and you forfeit the autonomy of a unit always off-shore. I'd imagine the allure of jack-of-all-trades was high instead of min-max of your forces.
    >Not a clear line, where I'd argue the trend has been towards specialization in every military since 1965-70. You will find heavy, more pure, and ultimately less typically American in some air assault divisions.

    However, I'd definitely say the infantry specialist is missing in modern American force structures. You have infantrymen, grenadiers, gunners, etc. but not exactly heavy units composed entirely of grenadiers in the line.

    >just a dumbass historian

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >gay "operational" buzzwords
    Because it is fake, pushed by armchair morons ("flag officers")

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US has always had the material advantage in artillery and/or air supremacy, making infiltration unnecessary. In situations where the US doesn't have these assets, they either dig in and wait for it to arrive or retreat.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because combined arms beats the shit out of it and it's not even close.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stormtrooper tactics do not replace combined arms. They enable it and are apart of it. They are the ones who create the situation for an armored combined arms force to exploit in the first place.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The neat thing about a combined arms force is that it can both make and exploit a breach in the enemy's lines.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Except they don't. Breaching operations are one of the most high attrition type of missions you can undertake and that is when you're fighting a textbook enemy who is doing all the things we want them to do to maximize our combat power. The idea that we "own" insurgent forces because we drop bombs everywhere just isn't true. Especially when said insurgents almost always retreat before the aircraft even reach the AO's. The textbook breach works fine when the enemy isn't putting IED's along your lines of communication and are conducting a mobile defense against your forward forces before even reaching the line, just for most of the positions to be decoy positions to take the brunt of the hits with the actual units being held back in covered and concealed strongpoint positions. And that's even with an enemy that is no where near being a peer. Fighting someone like China where they would also have counter battery, air defense, and strike aircraft would be a whole other situation.

          tl;dr brute forcing success only works when you have a massive advantage against the enemy. Fighting anyone else, even a very low tech enemy but with high morale to fight will do nothing but generate extremely high attrition.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >breaching operations don't work if the enemy doesn't have lines to breach
            no kidding?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Almost as if by design by literally every single enemy we've fought in the last century.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No it's not. We've fought many conventional forces, they just get annihilated so fast you straight up forget they exist.

                Everyone is all "vietcong this" "vietcong that" Black person where did the North Vietnamese Army go? Oh right, they all frickin dead.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you actually implying the PAVN was wiped out during the Vietnam war? Are you actually that moronic?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Name one time they faced US forces and did not get steamrolled.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Having the enemy infiltrate into your AO, frick up your forces, and then leave to do it again; just to then claim that we "won" because they're too much of pussies to fight us in a big boy battle is beyond moronic. The whole point is to avoid set piece battles which they did very successfully. Even in said set piece battles. The K/D's were highly inflated for propaganda and unit success metrics because as it turns out; using planet Earth as a shield via tunnel systems is a pretty good way to defeat air power.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes that's totally good as long as you are convinced your enemy will not simply genocide the lot of you, since you lack the ability to stop them and they have the force to do so.

                There is no answer to insurgency besides "don't fight in the first place" or "kill them all"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >precedes to murder everyone in a city because one terrorist cell did a car bomb attack
                Really good strategy there general.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Having the enemy infiltrate into your AO, frick up your forces, and then leave to do it again
                That's not what infiltration tactics are.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Infiltration tactics have nothing to do with COIN. Nothing. Terms have specific meaning. Learn what they are before you start talking about them.

                >infiltration
                >decentralizing a unit for each individual subunit to make their way through an area without alerting the enemy to then mass for an attack
                that is exactly what they were doing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >In warfare, infiltration tactics involve small independent light infantry forces advancing into enemy rear areas, bypassing enemy frontline strongpoints, possibly isolating them for attack by follow-up troops with heavier weapons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it's almost as if a direct conventional confrontation is not a viable way to defeat the United States.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >*laughs in Vietnamese
                No shit?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you not understand what "direct" and "conventional" means?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They are the ones who create the situation for an armored combined arms force to exploit in the first place
        the shaping operations are carried out by artillery flattening and suppressing enemy positions, airpower interdicting logistics and command, and infantry probing and fixing enemy positions

        stormtrooper operations would be a subset of infantry operations
        a very small and specialized subset that in most cases is a nice-to-have rather than an essential
        especially since mech infantry who can deploy and advance rapidly alongside the armor further pushes all-infantry infiltration attacks into a smaller niche

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the shaping operations are carried out by artillery flattening and suppressing enemy positions
          >hits dummy targets
          >doesn't even know about the forward operating units
          >dies from counter battery fire

          >especially since mech infantry who can deploy and advance rapidly alongside the armor further pushes all-infantry infiltration attacks into a smaller niche
          >dies from mines
          >dies from small unit hit and run attacks
          >allows to be bypassed in order to hit said mech infantries logistics

          The US will only learn that the invasion of Iraq was a fluke and was already won before it began due to low morale when the US will inevitably get fricking smashed against an enemy who actually tries. You don't need some high tech near peer threat to do that either. Even in the invasion of Iraq itself, air power struggled to have a meaningful effect during the actual ground invasion due to iraqi units hiding in the cities and avoiding massing forces giving no real lucrative targets. A lot of it just came down to the Iraqis just giving up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hits dummy targets
            if it was this easy to fool artillery, then no one would bother
            but artillery is and always has been the primary shaping tool on the battlefield
            use of decoys can mitigate the damage, but ultimately cannot stop them unless you can be sure 100% of all targets hit are dummies

            >dies from counter battery fire
            counter-battery fire has been known and utilized since artillery existed, but both sides have access to it
            this has not stopped artillery being the lynchpin of the operations

            >dies from mines
            and non-mech infantry dies to bullets

            >dies from small unit hit and run attacks
            so do non-mech infantry, and they are far more susceptible to it because they can only run on their legs

            >allows to be bypassed in order to hit said mech infantries logistics
            this is the mortons fork of being attacked by an armored unit
            while you can try to cut off the attack from its logistics, this has bee SOP since WW2, the whole time you are trying to do that the enemy is already sweeping at high speed to attack your logistics
            and a the same time, the flanks are being defended by rifle units to delay any such counter-encirclement long enough for the armored thrust to dismantle and roll up any enemy defense

            so often, you really have no choice but to try and stop the spearhead rather than go for their logistics because in the time it took for you to try that the enemy has already completed their encirclement and forced a withdrawal

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The US actually sucks just as bad at war as we do, only they're better at hiding it than we are
            Classic Russian reverse-cargo cultism

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we instead said
    >we will destroy your entire frontline and steamroll your shitheap of a country
    And then did it.
    If anybody else had the ability to do this, they would too. Because at the end of the day our logistics are unbeatable, yours are not.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Give me one example of this happening. I have a feeling the only examples you have would be against Iraq, both in 91 and in 03. Both cases where they just put all of their shit in the desert or just flat out deserted along our axis' of attack. Everything from WWII to Korea to Vietnam to the insurgencies we've been fighting for over two decades. That hasn't been the case at all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >verything from WWII to Korea
        We did exactly that
        >insurgencies
        only exist because the conventional forces were deleted so fast you forgot they existed

        get raped you stupid streetshitting subhuman.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we did exactly that
          Sounds like somebody knows nothing of what they're talking about.
          >only exist because the conventional forces were deleted so fast you forgot they existed
          Just like the Taliban huh?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Just like the Taliban huh?
            Yes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Just like the Taliban huh?
            Yes anon, literally exactly like the Taliban. They lost the ability to fight conventionally and instead spent 20 years getting decimated until the US got bored.

            When is the last time your country controlled a foreign enemy through military might for 20 years, and lost less than 2,500 men during that entire two decade timespan? Never?

            >*laughs in Vietnamese
            No shit?

            >laughs in Vietnamese
            >millions of Vietnamese die
            >Vietnamese lose every single battle
            >literally just keep dying until the US gets bored and leaves
            >America acts like it's their greatest national tragedy, less than 58,000 Americans died
            wow I sure would want to be on the "winning" team there yeah you're so right

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Korea
        flattened every major city in the north through strategic B-29 bombing campaigns, maintained air superiority, and dabbed on the most advanced eastern fighter design so hard the communists had to resort to flying shitty pre-ww2 observation biplanes by the end of the conflict

        >Vietnam
        even though we were limited by the ROE, the USAF innovated with groundbreaking new advances in radar spoofing and SIGINT techniques to frick over the VNAF so bad they had to resort to South Vietnamese defectors to get new aircraft. The Linebacker bombings were untouchable until the NVA happened to work out a blind spot in the B-52 ECM suite through pure luck. The Air Force literally wrote the book on SEAD and anti missile defense that's still being used today and improved upon with modern technology.
        Airpower wins wars and saves lives on the ground. Period. A dozen JTACs riding around on horses singlehandedly caused the Taliban to go running off to hide in caves. Go cry somewhere else because whatever third world shithole you live in can't sustain a sortie generation package in the double digits. The USAF will drop a bomb that costs more than the mortgage of my house on a guy that will never make that much money in his entire life without even blinking. And if they can't do it, then the US Navy will. And if they can't do it, Army Aviation will. And if they can't do it, we'll strap a Hydra pod onto a Cessna 172 and call in the fricking Civil Air Patrol to grease your pathetic ass.
        Don't even respond to me unless it's an apology for acting stupid in front of your betters. This world belongs to Air Combat Command, and your privilege to exist in it is contingent on our mercy.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Korea
          You forgot the part where entire divisions got fricking folded out of existence.
          >Vietnam
          You forgot the part where the PAVN kept entire regiments within South Vietnam and the US could do nothing about them and air power was laughably ineffective since they used bunkers and tunnels.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >entire divisions got fricking folded out of existence.
            whut

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Chinese and Nork troop movements almost always had to take place at night because they'd be annihilated from the air in daylight

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >air power was laughably ineffective
            NVA & Vietcong: 849,018 military dead (per Vietnam)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You cite ACC like they do anything more than deliver the munitions AMC sends them

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            true, AMC got my approval after the commander sent out that schitzo manifesto a few years ago talking about how they're gonna train to empty a clip into a chinaman's head. Big Patton vibes from that general.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It's another episode of "nuh uh, we really won the war because our dicks are so big"

    The drop in IQ on this board is insane. Yes you morons, when a COIN force shows up with an entire brigade worth of infantry tanks artillery and other support assets, they tend to take the day off. That's not you "owning them" or "decimating them". That's just them evading your strengths to attack where you are weak.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Infiltration tactics have nothing to do with COIN. Nothing. Terms have specific meaning. Learn what they are before you start talking about them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we won
      No anon, we lost. And yet, you had a greater chance of surviving being the "loser".
      >That's not you "owning them"
      Kinda is when we control their entire shithole country for 20 years, kill hundreds of thousands of people, and walk away with only 2,500 dead.

      Of course, you're a coping subhuman shitstain who recognizes American lives have value and yours does not, so from that perspective every one of the hundreds of thousands of people the US killed meant nothing, but every American dead had value. Crazy that you guys think like that and we don't, but I guess it's harder to run from the truth when you live it.

      >precedes to murder everyone in a city because one terrorist cell did a car bomb attack
      Really good strategy there general.

      It sure is. Literally why are you in some shithole on the other side of the planet that has literally zero resources helping the incompetent natives who hate you fight the incompetent but motivated natives who hate you? There is no reason. If you're not there for a landgrab, don't be there in the first place.

      If you're in for a landgrab, to make it useful you need to clear space for your people to colonize it.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I trained with German and Canadian troops in the 90s. They usually seemed to have at least one assault platoon per company. I think the issue in the US might be who gets assigned to the assault platoon. I've seen US troops get pretty salty about the existence of and/or not making the cut for a scout platoon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Assault Pioneers, which are effectively modern day stormtroopers, or sappers in Eastern countries is what you are thinking of.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically there should be a new MOS within the infantry field where you pick the best among the them who perform the best and have every battalion scout platoon and a newly formed assault pioneer platoon be comprised entirely of them. That would effectively give each line battalion Ranger like infantry platoons in the HHC. Seeing as how dogshit the actual US military is (a lot of battalions disband their scout platoons because they don't even know how to use them) I doubt something like that would happen.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not just the US which failed to adopt stormtroopers tactics, but also the other Western allies (Britain and France). No, Nivelle tactics and whatever the Bongs were using in 1918 don't count.

    Nome of them had any answer to stormtrooper tactics

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's easier to call in arty or air.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From the thumbnail I initially thought the gas masks were soýjak faces.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's what the French Foreign Lefion is for.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I'm sure most of them were killed in hand-to-hand combat.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a tactic of losers, by losers, for losers.
    Stop worshipping losers and learn what winners did to win.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Panama. Libya. Next question.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *