4 ms·

Right, hence my statement that a properly fortified base (from the GP) can't protect shit from missiles.

by SEJeff 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago
Bunker busters are not really conventional artillery even if they are not nuclear. These are also not missiles, but very very heavy bombs. And you can also reinforce against them, just usually not at the FOB level, but considering the cost of every one of those bombs they aren't really going to be used to blow up a pillbox on a hill. A fortified base will also not protect you from strategic bombardment on a massive scale, but that doesn't mean they are useless even against nations with modern standing armies, it's not like they are going to attack every outpost and base with everything they got, that would be pointless. Force depletion can happen rapidly without any casualties, if you are going to use the bombs you would want to use to take out strategic command and control centers, factories, and natural resource reserves to blow up a couple of of dirt boxes you ain't going to be winning that war. On the other hand pretty much the most basic field fortification will be enough to nullify virtually all field artillery which is exactly what it's likely to encounter - self propelled howitzers, mortars, and multi-role ground attack missiles.
- SEJeff 10y ago
  I'll respectfully beg to differ. At the beginning of the US war in Afghanistan (at the time I was a US Army UAV "drone" pilot in training), for the first 48 hours, a Tomahawk cruise missile was fired, on average, every 12 seconds. They were firing at all kinds of things up to an including caves! I think that would qualify as firing everything you've got at little outposts. I think ultimately it depends on the situation and the resolve of the aggressor to take you out. After 9/11, the US went balls to the walls with conventional military.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    That's because the US conducts modern wars like it has an unlimited supply of everything, mostly because it doesn't need to worry about the economics of the otherside. This is why I specifically talked about wars where there is any level of parallelism between the belligerents. The US will not fire a 2M missile at every Russian pillbox if there would be a real war, because they would lose. When you are fighting the Taliban who doesn't have any real long range or strategic weapons you don't really care about force depletion, if you are fighting a standing army with equal equipment, equal or greater manpower and at least as far as war economy goes equal or greater production capabilities you start picking your targets with considerably more discrimination. The US excels at combined arms coordination, but it also makes it's engagement very wasteful, granted one can argue that losing less men is important than having more bombs but that doesn't go very far once the economics of a full war with an equal opponent kick in. If you are going to waste an airstrike on every ground engagement, and a Javelin missile on every truck you'll have issues when 50,000 tanks start rolling into Europe (these are cold war numbers, chillax ;)). Shock and Awe might work against Iraq and the Taliban, it wouldn't work against China or Russia, they can withstand it and return in kind, you also will never push a nuclear power into a corner, so US tactics will change to facilitate holding and controlling the ground rather than carpet bombing Beijing or Moscow for 48 hours expecting a surrender. If nothing else is that this only works when you can unilaterally walk out of the fight like the US can do it now, they could and had dumped everything they could on Afghanistan and Iraq and they can and did just walked away, if you do the same thing to a country that can then chase you home you probably going to reconsider how you wage war.

Right, hence my statement that a properly fortified base (from the GP) can't protect shit from missiles.

by SEJeff 10y ago

Right, hence my statement that a properly fortified base (from the GP) can't protect shit from missiles.

Bunker busters are not really conventional artillery even if they are not nuclear. These are also not missiles, but very very heavy bombs. And you can also reinforce against them, just usually not at the FOB level, but considering the cost of every one of those bombs they aren't really going to be used to blow up a pillbox on a hill. A fortified base will also not protect you from strategic bombardment on a massive scale, but that doesn't mean they are useless even against nations with modern standing armies, it's not like they are going to attack every outpost and base with everything they got, that would be pointless. Force depletion can happen rapidly without any casualties, if you are going to use the bombs you would want to use to take out strategic command and control centers, factories, and natural resource reserves to blow up a couple of of dirt boxes you ain't going to be winning that war. On the other hand pretty much the most basic field fortification will be enough to nullify virtually all field artillery which is exactly what it's likely to encounter - self propelled howitzers, mortars, and multi-role ground attack missiles.

SEJeff 10y ago
I'll respectfully beg to differ. At the beginning of the US war in Afghanistan (at the time I was a US Army UAV "drone" pilot in training), for the first 48 hours, a Tomahawk cruise missile was fired, on average, every 12 seconds. They were firing at all kinds of things up to an including caves! I think that would qualify as firing everything you've got at little outposts. I think ultimately it depends on the situation and the resolve of the aggressor to take you out. After 9/11, the US went balls to the walls with conventional military.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  That's because the US conducts modern wars like it has an unlimited supply of everything, mostly because it doesn't need to worry about the economics of the otherside. This is why I specifically talked about wars where there is any level of parallelism between the belligerents. The US will not fire a 2M missile at every Russian pillbox if there would be a real war, because they would lose. When you are fighting the Taliban who doesn't have any real long range or strategic weapons you don't really care about force depletion, if you are fighting a standing army with equal equipment, equal or greater manpower and at least as far as war economy goes equal or greater production capabilities you start picking your targets with considerably more discrimination. The US excels at combined arms coordination, but it also makes it's engagement very wasteful, granted one can argue that losing less men is important than having more bombs but that doesn't go very far once the economics of a full war with an equal opponent kick in. If you are going to waste an airstrike on every ground engagement, and a Javelin missile on every truck you'll have issues when 50,000 tanks start rolling into Europe (these are cold war numbers, chillax ;)). Shock and Awe might work against Iraq and the Taliban, it wouldn't work against China or Russia, they can withstand it and return in kind, you also will never push a nuclear power into a corner, so US tactics will change to facilitate holding and controlling the ground rather than carpet bombing Beijing or Moscow for 48 hours expecting a surrender. If nothing else is that this only works when you can unilaterally walk out of the fight like the US can do it now, they could and had dumped everything they could on Afghanistan and Iraq and they can and did just walked away, if you do the same thing to a country that can then chase you home you probably going to reconsider how you wage war.