US LSCO Doctrine And Tactics

Does anybody else get the feeling that the US military is woefully unprepared and relying way too much on technology for a potential near peer conflict? I mean, the whole idea of attacking, especially with the new penetration divisions where they rely entirely on Corps level shaping operations - Specifically to suppress temporarily enemy artillery and communications so that they don't get obliterated seems pretty sketchy. As if the enemy couldn't just use low tech combined with basic shoot and scoot and not being moronic with their electronic emissions could easily negate any attempt to thoroughly defeat their IDF capabilities. It may also just be me, but it feels like the Army just plans on rolling up to the enemy main defensive positions without even considering the possibility of forward deployed enemy units who can hit and run and call in IDF as a mechanized/armored force advances. I feel like we just looked at our own success in 91 and 03 when we defeated a laughably outmatched and poorly ran military force and have just assumed that that's how it's always gonna go. I can't imagine how much of a shit show it would be if the US Army had to go fight an enemy that actually practices radio discipline, concealment, and had decent counter-battery fire capabilities.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >reformer posting

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How is not wanting to get blown up by artillery reformer posting?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're in the Venn intersection of too naive plus too uneducated plus too faux-concerned.

        Drop the feels and take a hard look at the basics so you can at least fake the image of pretending to know what you're blithely spamming. Read some doctrine or something.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Can't find and defeat insurgents
          >But can surely find and kill professionally trained observers and enemy recon
          Sure

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >doubling down
            I see I was right. You have a lot of wrong preconceptions to unlearn before you rise to the level of neutral amateur. Right now you have negative knowledge.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >insurgents are the same thing as recon
            Half the reason you can't kill insurgents is because they are insurgents, ie they hide in the enemy population until it's time to fight. Insurgents in the open preparing to conduct attacks are easy as frick to spot and have been regularly annihilated in all US actions. Hell most of the difficulty is confirming they actually are insurgents since a lot of farmers carry rifles around there, otherwise basically anyone carrying a weapon within 3 km of a US force would get killed.

            >if the US Army had to go fight an enemy that actually practices radio discipline, concealment, and had decent counter-battery fire capabilities.
            they fight against themselves just so they know what to do in such a situation
            that's why all the major NATO militaries are gearing to fight in "degraded [electronic] environments"

            Red Flag has jammers and shit too btw. Like "route your flight in commercial airspace around the military area if you need GPS at all" tier jammers. They had to do it at midnight in 2018 to minimize impacts on air travel.

            >Electronic warfare aircraft, including the Navy's EA-18 Growler and the Air Force's EC-130 Compass Call, will play a role in shutting down the satellite navigation system for everything within as large as a 450 nautical mile radius.

            But remember all US training is against dumbfrick Afghanis with RPKs lmao

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >remember all US training is against dumbfrick Afghanis with RPKs lmao
              if anything LSCO is about the Army's pivot AWAY from decades of COIN
              truly implessive how turdies can take this to mean the US Army ISN'T preparing to fight LSCO

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >MUH ARTILLERY IS THE GOD OF WAR
        yep, its reformer hours

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >t. reformer
        go boil your head

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're in the wrong place to discuss this. No idea where you could go as reddit is just as bad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How is not wanting to get blown up by artillery reformer posting?
        >the US military is woefully unprepared and relying way too much on technology for a potential near peer conflict?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >surely our high tech jamming, thermals and precision strike capabilities will be able to defeat a forward observer hiding in a bush using a field phone

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My god he's so moronic he doesn't even have the knowledge base required to understand that he's moronic. Impressive.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            as a matter of fact, yes, yes they can

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I can jam a hand cranked field phone
              Sure

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What's the range of one of these field phones, anon? It wouldn't be far less than the distance of any SAM regiment or artillery battery, would it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I will have the time to lay field phone wire in a modern fast-moving 21st century war
                WW1 is over a hundred years old at this point, moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody tell this moron about wire detectors or non-linear junction detection. I want him pure and unstained for Civil War II. Glowies gotta get those early wins.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah the planes flying around with SDRs and beefy antennas will get him first.
                >I can just use this phone, I need to not have it on cellular though
                >a helicopter flying over the woods booms "WRONG MOTHERFRICKER"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >having guys search for wires behind enemy lines
                You can't be this moronic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but if you think that a conventional war can be fought against the US government by any kind of faction like that you’re delusional

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think he's going for the real meat, that anon thinks he can win in a civil war. You don't think this "The US military is weak and can be defeated by based insurgents! US lost in Afghanistan!" shit is talking about the Chinese, do you? They're procuring two plates for every soldier and investing in squad fired grenade launchers. They want to fight a stand up, conventional war and win it.

                Also if you want a hint field telephones don't stand up long against artillery unless they're pre-placed, dug very deeply and probably encased in concrete. It's also a job of special forces and recon to tap/destroy enemy field telephone lines.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                werent field telephones really vulnerable in WW2?
                soviet telephone lines kept getting cut by accident, enemy fire, or pure luck and had to resort to runners to coordinate fire

                US also had field telephones, but for FO to company commander, with company commander, fire control, and batteries communicating with wireless FM radio

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, WW1 also. It was one of the first things noticed. Telephone wires don't have the best tensile strength and everything from close artillery impacts to cute little doggos wanting a snacc could break them. You have to bury them pretty deep to keep them 100% safe.

                Also all of this discussion about field telephones misses the point everyone would have made if that anon continued to be moronic- having non-interceptable cranked field telephones doesn't matter when your command post or whoever unit/position you're relaying through, which absolutely can intercept 155mm shells, has to be within 5-10 km of your observation post. Radios have the benefit of far longer range with an intelligent selection of relays, antennae types, frequency bands and power levels.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                also, one of the huge huge factors about the "blitzkrieg" in 1940 was radio
                you can't command units if you're not in contact with them, so the speed of laying cable dictates the speed of advance, or the speed of counterattack, or whatever

                the French thought there was no fricking way the Germans could move that fast, because the speed of laying field wire was only that fast, right?
                WRONG
                on top of all the other factors in their favour, the Germans had lots of radios, more than the French
                this is one of the reasons why the French were regarded as "slow-reacting" - not only because they weren't individually decisive, but also because they took more time to receive news and disseminate orders: units cannot be told to move out if they haven't finished stringing up field phone wire

                and so for the rest of the war the Allied armies rapidly began pumping out radio sets so they could react as quickly
                it's one of those small but significant things that add up to the whole

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >without even considering the possibility
    No, anon. The entire US military is in fact not unaware of screening forces.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why can't they just call this the Armored Division and the other kind of heavy division the Mechanized Infantry Division? Why all this Penetration/(Reinforced) nonsense when we already have perfectly decent names that have been in use for literally decades?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        P E N E T R A T I O N

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In ya mum.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because P E N E T R A T I O N is what you'd use to blow into a hostile country and frick everything up. It's very tank heavy and has a lot of support/firepower assets assigned to it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        because an armored division is composed of both tanks and mech infantry
        the cold war did have armored and mechanized division, but they were largely identical in mission, only differing slightly in force organization, they had slightly different proportions of tanks to mech infantry
        this is much more confusing than armored/heavy and reinforced armored/heavy division

        armored and reinforced armored (heavy penetration was not chosen as a name) makes the differences in how they are used much clearer
        the armored division has 2 ABCTs and 1 SBCT while a reinforced heavy division has 3 ABCTs, and additional engineering (literally an armored division that has been reinforced)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        because these are names used in planning, not actual unit names, and in planning names need to reflect their purpose

        also, it's fricking annoying to have to keep using adverbs to get the idea across, and can rapidly devolve into a Pronoun Game comedy sketch
        >send the armoured division
        >which armoured division, the armoured division (penetration) or the regular armoured division?
        >the first
        >the 1st Armoured Division? but they're all the way over on the left flank
        >no, I meant the armoured division in the middle
        >the armoured division (reinforced)?
        >yes we shall reinforce them
        >who with?
        >the 1st Armoured Division
        >but that's who we're sending
        >yes
        >how can we send the 1st Armoured Division to reinforce itself?
        >no, they're reinforcing the other 1st Armoured Division
        >oh you meant the 1st Cavalry Division!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The US Army has never used the term "mechanized division"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          they did exist
          they were just nearly identical to armored divisions outside of having a different ratio of mech inf: tanks
          6:4 instead of 5:6

          modern armored divisions are now streamlined, with the differences in ratio between tanks and infantry at the brigade level instead of divisional
          usally 2 "heavy" CABTs with 2 tanks and 1 infantry, and 1 "light" CABT with 1 tank and 2 infantry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OP is a massive homosexual, but I am concerned about M-SHORAD and Counter UAS being a small Division level unit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        makes more sense to have them at a higher level of command, so if the enemy is concentrating their air assets in a single front then their AA can concentrate as well

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Eventually they'll have one pair of these for every company; anti-drone radar plus 30mm airburst plus Coyote anti-drone missiles

        the unspoken problem right now is deconfliction - how to have these things AND our own drones operating in the same battlespace

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Huh? I'm pretty sure the task of killing enemy forward observers/recon is the job of the ENTIRE ARMORED CAVALRY SQUADRON AND AVIATION BRIGADE.

    Also the Iraqis in 1991 were not terribly run, the Republican Guard units were heavily attrited but still capable of defensive operations when the allied armor slammed into them. You know that quote about "after a month of bombing I had 12 tanks, after 5 minutes against the Americans I had none"?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if the US Army had to go fight an enemy that actually practices radio discipline, concealment, and had decent counter-battery fire capabilities.
    they fight against themselves just so they know what to do in such a situation
    that's why all the major NATO militaries are gearing to fight in "degraded [electronic] environments"

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are we just forgetting the weeks long air campaigns that preceded '91 and '03? People always talk about how Iraqi military was not going to put up a fight, but that didn't happen magically. Pre-desert storm the Iraqi military was one of the most battle-tested fighting forces on the planet and had been getting pumped full of gibs from the U.S. and U.S.S.R. for over a decade. It's worth thinking about how the U.S. made it look so easy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Comparing Iraqi "let's leave our radars on" air defense to anything even remotely considered to be competent air defense
      >Blowing up tanks in the desert with zero concern for concealment is the same as fighting the enemy that actually attempts to hide
      Air power is not a press X to win solution against an enemy with an IQ above 90.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Air power is not a press X to win solution against an enemy with an IQ above 90
        May I see it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        homie you just accidentally described the entire purpose of radar seeking missiles. The fricking point is that you force the enemy to use their air defense sparingly at best.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >AD can't share information
          >AD can't alternate emissions
          >AD can't stop missiles
          wew

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >AD can't share information
            >AD can't alternate emissions
            Kari you stupid fricking c**t.

            >AD can't stop missiles
            Oh it's just a moron, got it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >AD can't share information
            Sure, they can to some extent, while generating a footprint and losing crucial time scanning air in huge swathes of land.
            >AD can't alternate emissions
            See above
            >AD can't stop missiles
            They can certainly try, but the track record for Eastern equipment intercepting missiles isn't exactly good. Plus, what is this, some moron world where any Western country with radar seeking missiles doesn't use other shit as well? You understand SEAD/DEAD also incorporates artillery, GPS guided missiles, etc, not just radar seekers, yeah? You're aware we destroy ingress/egress points when we find any trace of EAD to hamper them in case we somehow don't kill them, yeah?

            Regardless of your coping method, this is all still greatly beneficial to the side of the fight with more air power. Your entire criticism boils down to "Oh yeah well NATO can't heckin' instakill literally everything!", which is moronic when you remember that NATO also has artillery, armor, aviation, reconnaissance, infantry, engineers, etc.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Comparing Iraqi "let's leave our radars on" air defense to anything even remotely considered to be competent air defense
        If you knew anything about 1991 you'd know that air defense sites had to use their own radars to acquire targets, and later on their fire control radars to scan for targets, because the country wide IADS had been heavily degraded for this exact reason. They were using their organic radars to search for targets because the US wanted them to.

        >Blowing up tanks in the desert with zero concern for concealment is the same as fighting the enemy that actually attempts to hide
        Ah yes, Iraq is entirely desert and nobody in 1991 or 2003 made attempts to hide. Sure. You're so smart anon I wish I was like you.

        Fricking idiot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I'll just turn off my radar, checkmate
        congrats, you have been Suppressed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The classic "it doesn't count!" argument.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It helped that the French dude that designed the entire Iraqi Air defense network gave the coalition all the details on it.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Does anybody else get the feeling that the US military is woefully unprepared and relying way too much on technology for a potential near peer conflict?
    Reformers think this way, but here in the real world the ability to communicate and maneuver effectively is actually much more important than thinking you're going to LARP as a Boy Scout in a firefight. Also, at no point did the Army just decide to suddenly stop training conventionally.
    >especially with the new penetration divisions where they rely entirely on Corps level shaping operations
    Using an armor division with engineer, cavalry, and artillery assets isn't exactly far from tried and true doctrine. Even in the image you posted, the text in the bottom right uses the word "revive" for a reason.
    >As if the enemy couldn't just use low tech combined with basic shoot and scoot and not being moronic with their electronic emissions could easily negate any attempt to thoroughly defeat their IDF capabilities.
    Competent counterbattery, competent SEAD/DEAD, competent EWO, and if that fails, competent infantry, armor, artillery, and reconnaissance on the ground who also shoot and scoot are a good answer.
    >without even considering the possibility of forward deployed enemy units who can hit and run and call in IDF as a mechanized/armored force advances.
    What the frick do you think the purpose of the armor, artillery, and aviation supporting the infantry is?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically this is a good idea though and I can't see any issues with it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can your cheap ass drone:
      >detect enemy aircraft
      >fly fast and high enough to get within range
      >patrol long enough to be useful
      >rtb with unexpended munitions
      If the answer to all this is yes, then it's probably not cheap.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >doesn't understand why this type of division is being proposed
    >instead of reading the rationale for it makes up nonsensical claims
    >uses this strawman to argue against
    No. It's pretty easy to understand and it somehow flew over your head. You can literally go on the army's website and read about it and here you are instead.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Could use more Engineer's imo

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