|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
December 20th 03, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Chad Irby wrote in message . com... In article , (Jack Linthicum) wrote: Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s, ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair in...' http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer He got a "freebie" in the first part of the exercise, and managed to "sink" a lot of the US fleet (which would *not* have happened in real life, with the intel and resources he had available) so they reset the exercise. This is "gaming the exercise, not the scenario," and it takes advantage of holes in the exercise that aren't meant to model the real world. He then went to a low-tech communications mode, to "beat" the high-tech intel that the US normally gets when fighting against pretty much anyone else in the real world, and expected to have 100% effectiveness in fighting the game. Of course, his low-tech methods (motorcycle couriers and personal communications) were degraded by the exercise monitors, like they would be in real life. Present situation seems to duplicate that low tech communications mode. So far. You know that for a fact, Jack? Some of the other results were very much non-real, like sneak attacks that only succeeded because the one guy sitting at a terminal was looking something up, and missed the first warnings - something that couldn't happen in reality, with hundreds of people out there to notice troop movements. You are assuming 'troop movements' the present situation is guys hiding in mosques or behind children ambushing GIs who get out of the protective zone. You were trying to use Van Riper as your example--he was NOT modeling two-three man sniper attacks during that simulation though, was he? The biggest problem with van Riper was that he allowed his ego to outgrow the goals of the exercise and tried to effectively hijack it midstream. He was unprofessional and extremely unrealistic--if you are running a corps-plus level exercise, you are not going to be creating accurate models of low level combat in the first place, and every swinging Richard who has ever played in the BBS-CBS arena knows that. The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of the deaths and a shorter war. We expected a war from March to way past December? Recommend you go back to misunderstanding the wierd world of your mythical micro-nukes, Jack--this subject is obviously beyond your comprehension level. 
|
|
#3
December 20th 03, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
December 20th 03, 05:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 Dec 2003 15:42:36 -0800, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote: Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s, ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair in...' http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer General Ripper. Now there's a name that brings back memories. http://wso.williams.edu/~mhacker/strangelove4.html
|
|
#5
December 20th 03, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:31 -0500, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote: "phil hunt" wrote in message ... What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? One word: Surrender I must admit that this post by Ray has motivated me to consider the original problem more thoroughly :-) One of the primary goals, as I see it, is to try and maintain control over the air. If a country can control it's airspace, the US (or perhaps China or Russia or whatever major power is becoming bellicose), being at the end of a very long supply chain, is going to have some serious supply problems. However, it will be very difficult and expensive to maintain an air force capable of battling it out in the air with US forces, if it is even possible at all. I think the problem can be subdivided into two problems - the first is the aircraft carrier issue, the second is ground based aircraft. Nukes are a definite possibility for sea "defense", IMO. While I'm sure the US won't be happy to have a carrier fleet nuked, it seems to me that it is a lot less likely to result in your country being turned into a plain of glass than a nuclear attack on ground based forces. The delivery system of choice remains a problem. I would think a relatively unguided ballistic missile would be the best choice, especially if it could be reasonably well armored. Decoys would also aid penetration. If terminal guidance technology becomes advanced enough, the decoys can be given conventional warheads and seeking capability. However, it would be better to do the job without nukes if possible. The original idea of autonomous weapons might be able to work here (as in the terminal guidance missile weapons I mentioned above, or LCCM's). Torpedoes are another definite possibility, to avoid having to deal with the antimissile and point defenses. They'd either have to have a very long range, or be air droppable, or preferrable both (but I'm not sure how feasible it would be to have both). The next problem is the one of ground based aircraft. Anti-runway weapons seem to me to be the weapon of choice here. This is another area in which LCCM's or terminally guided munitions might work well.
|
|
#6
December 19th 03, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"phil hunt" wrote in
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? To deal with the US Army... Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on the back. In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the rounds travel at a mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds to dudge, which would be simple with guidence from the radar. Meanwhile the top-attack missiles tear through the thin turret roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual use surface/air to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters and to rip enemy soldiers to pieces. To deal with the US Air Force... Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and modern AA radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old fighter designs, and hang them fully fueled and armed from ballons. That'll multiply thier endurance by a factor of ten at least. Fit search-radar in envelope and have them patrol your boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to surprise US attacks. To deal with the US Navy... Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize entries) with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the torpedos within a few miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're garanteed to blow up something *really* expensive! Alternatively buy the following: 1 million RPG-7s 5 million RPG-7 rounds 10 million AK-74s 1 billion bullets Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then blow up everything of value they own the second they let their guard down. They'll leave in a few months and you can go back to normal. Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power stations. The aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy America as an effective strategic power. ANTIcarrot.
|
|
#7
December 19th 03, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:10:41 -0000, "John"
wrote: "phil hunt" wrote in What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? To deal with the US Army... Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on the back. In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the rounds travel at a mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds to dudge, which would be simple with guidence from the radar. Meanwhile the top-attack missiles tear through the thin turret roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual use surface/air to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters and to rip enemy soldiers to pieces. And watch them all die horribly. SUV's will be picked up by the forward screens of the army units, which can shoot them up just wonderfully-- not only that, but the first thing the U.S. will do is nail the SUV's from the air. Cluster muntions do horrible things to lightly armored vehicles. In addition, some hotsmoke rounds already incorporate anti-radar chaff. You can't move until the warhead hits-- because if you're using vehicle mounted radar, that's probably a form of beam rider of SAH guidence. Both are eminiently jammable. 76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't mind losing at all. To deal with the US Air Force... Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and modern AA radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old fighter designs, and hang them fully fueled and armed from ballons. That'll multiply thier endurance by a factor of ten at least. Fit search-radar in envelope and have them patrol your boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to surprise US attacks. And woudl you prefer to do this before, or after we develop the anti-matter driven beam cannons? integrating things like AA missiles into a civilian air frame is incredibly complex, and as for dangling fighters from ballons, that's just silly. Not only that, but they'll be blinded by ECM, painted by AWACs and killed from a long way off by fighters. Networkign is a nice phrase-- how exactly do you intend to do this against the most technologically advanced power on earth? Note he specificed mid-range powers, which means mid-range budget. This concept, even if it would work, would break the bank of the United States, which means no other nation could even concieve of it. The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots. To deal with the US Navy... Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize entries) with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the torpedos within a few miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're garanteed to blow up something *really* expensive! Getting a torpedo to successfully deploy from a rocket, in working condition is far, far more difficult-- and no Nimitz class BG is going to get within 100 miles of your coast until those rocket launchers are dead, dead, dead. Alternatively buy the following: 1 million RPG-7s 5 million RPG-7 rounds 10 million AK-74s 1 billion bullets Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then blow up everything of value they own the second they let their guard down. They'll leave in a few months and you can go back to normal. Expensive-- and begs the question of will the people fight. Still, probably the most logical solution here. The U.S.'s greatest weakness has always been long term guerilla conflits. Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power stations. The aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy America as an effective strategic power. 1. You won't get mutiple Chernobles. We have somewhat more effective designs than the russians, taht don't blow up quite as enthusiastically into steam explosions. In many cases, you probably won't even fully breach the containment building. You will get some release of radiation, but not the doomsday amounts you expect. 2. Congratulations. You've just launched a strategic attack on the United States. We'll see your airliners, and raise you a few nuclear strikes on major military bases. Alternately, we'll just go fully to war, decide not to count the cost, and dig out every soldier above the rank of Lt. and shoot him. Direct attacks on teh U.S. by any identifiable nation is a big like walking up to a grizzly bear and smacking him in the nose. Not smart.
|
|
#8
December 19th 03, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Charles Gray wrote:
The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots. They'll stay concealed until someone tries to use them.... The J-STARS picks up the trucks, an intel weenie figures out the truck/airplane cycle and... Your depot gets a visit from the USAF. One thing the US is getting good at, is identifying the head, and cutting it away from the body. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion.
|
|
#9
December 22nd 03, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charles Gray" wrote
"phil hunt" wrote in What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? To deal with the US Army... Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on the back. In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the rounds travel at a mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds to dudge, which would be simple with guidence from the radar. Meanwhile the top-attack missiles tear through the thin turret roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual use surface/air to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters and to rip enemy soldiers to pieces. And watch them all die horribly. SUV's will be picked up by the forward screens of the army units, which can shoot them up just wonderfully-- not only that, but the first thing the U.S. will do is nail the SUV's from the air. Cluster muntions do horrible things to lightly armored vehicles. Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs? In addition, some hotsmoke rounds already incorporate anti-radar chaff. You can't move until the warhead hits-- because if you're using vehicle mounted radar, that's probably a form of beam rider of SAH guidence. Both are eminiently jammable. I never said the radar was for guidence; it's there so they can see and dodge incomming tank-rounds and other munitions.. You can use any missilbe for the SUV, and you can manouver whilst firing. During this period the wire is being pulled out the tube at 300mps at minimum, a few mps to either side is not going to break it. There are also fire-and-forget missile systems. 76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't mind losing at all. US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun turns and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage. To deal with the US Air Force... Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and modern AA radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old fighter designs, and hang them fully fueled and armed from ballons. That'll multiply thier endurance by a factor of ten at least. Fit search-radar in envelope and have them patrol your boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to surprise US attacks. And woudl you prefer to do this before, or after we develop the anti-matter driven beam cannons? integrating things like AA missiles into a civilian air frame is incredibly complex, Not that complex. As long as the air-frame can take the load and there's room for the wires it's rather easy. With any boeing of airbus aircraft the belly is fully accessable and there's plenty of space to add any kind of load-distribution system you like. Modern phased arrar radar can be mounted in the same location weather radar is, eith the electronics placed directly behind the bulkhead in 'first class'. and as for dangling fighters from ballons, that's just silly. It would increase a fighter's patrol endurence from hours into days at little extra fuel cost. That's not silly. That's *very* useful for a cash-strapped military. Not only that, but they'll be blinded by ECM, painted by AWACs and killed from a long way off by fighters. And the ballons die horribly, but the fighters have already dropped away and are consuming the USAF's attention and running the terrible risk that an american might die (GASP! HORROR!) before they even cross the boarder. And what makes you think that things like AWACS will be able to fly in the near future? Very simple rockets could be built as first stages to older missilbes, or clusters of older missiles, which could put them in enough danger that commanders draw them back beyond their useful distance. If something cannot be used as effectively it's as good as badly damaged. Even if they slow the USAF down an hour, that's an hour's warning more than a country without such a system woudl get. Networkign is a nice phrase-- how exactly do you intend to do this against the most technologically advanced power on earth? America's boastful tendencies do not change the laws of physics. Stealth aircraft do not reflect radar back at the origin radar - but they do reflect. If you have an array of linked radars the others may well pick up the reflected radar pulses, even if the origin array does not. Note he specificed mid-range powers, which means mid-range budget. This concept, even if it would work, would break the bank of the United States, which means no other nation could even concieve of it. The purchase of a few AWAC systems (minus aircraft) would not break the bank of most middle-ranking nations. Linking them together is a computer problem. The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots. I would point out that building or buying new VSTOLs is going to be far more expensive than anything I've said. To deal with the US Navy... Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize entries) with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the torpedos within a few miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're garanteed to blow up something *really* expensive! Getting a torpedo to successfully deploy from a rocket, in working condition is far, far more difficult-- and no Nimitz class BG is going to get within 100 miles of your coast until those rocket launchers are dead, dead, dead. Again, reducing the range of US navy fighters by 200miles is going to be worth it! Deploy special-forces with the missiles to hunt down all the US-special-forces they'll send in, and you can severely inconvenience the US navy. Plus they have to keep supply-ships away by a similar margin. That would have a devistating impact on the army's ability to fight a sustained battle. Alternatively buy the following: 1 million RPG-7s 5 million RPG-7 rounds 10 million AK-74s 1 billion bullets Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then blow up everything of value they own the second they let their guard down. They'll leave in a few months and you can go back to normal. Expensive-- and begs the question of will the people fight. Still, probably the most logical solution here. The U.S.'s greatest weakness has always been long term guerilla conflits. By contract, obscenely cheep. Could probably be done for a quarter billion dollars. In any population you usally get enough people who will fight, and in war the actual guns and AT weapons will usually fall into their hands. After that it boils down to tactics. An RPG-7 can disable any tank in the world with a good side-shot. And massed against the front they can do enough damage to disable one. Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power stations. The aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy America as an effective strategic power. 1. You won't get mutiple Chernobles. We have somewhat more effective designs than the russians, taht don't blow up quite as enthusiastically into steam explosions. You'd think so wouldn't you? Or at least the government would like you to think so. Truth is that western reactors have more safety systems than their russian equivolents, and therefore really are safer. But all that safety gear counts for very little when it's burnt or blown up, and most of it is *outside* the reactor building, so it can be accessed if there is a major incident. At the very least the sudden and violent removal of several cooling towers would have a disabling effect on power-outout, causing brown-outs over a large areas and many days. 2. Congratulations. You've just launched a strategic attack on the United States. There is no geneva convention that reads, "Thou Shalt Not Attack The United States." If Sadam had retaliated on US soil they'd have had to just sit there and take it, because he'd have been well within his rights under international law. You could try and excecute him for a lot of things but something like this would not have been one of them. Any other country would have the same freedom. There are more strategic targets than nuclear ones. Blowing up the alsakan pipe-line would have given the american oil-industry a heat attack, and put the economy in seizers, particularly if accompanied by effective bombings of oil-tankers whilst in port. Shutting down conventional power stations isn't terribly difficult either. Do enough of them and the entire US grid will fail. Since natural gas is pressurised by the national grid, that will fail as well. And that would be *fun*. ^.^ This is to say nothing of a small numer of lesser terrorist attacks you could commit, like bombing the NY subway, blowing up petrol tankers and stations, or shooting government officials. Successful or not any attack will shut the area down and down the economy and popularity ofthe war down a peg. Alternately, we'll just go fully to war, decide not to count the cost, and dig out every soldier above the rank of Lt. and shoot him. Direct attacks on teh U.S. by any identifiable nation is a big like walking up to a grizzly bear and smacking him in the nose. Not smart. At wich point you get sanctions placed on you by the oil-nations and your stategic assets over-seas are seized and/or destroyed. In fantasy-land at any rate. Terrorists doing such things is one thing. But a suposed democratic country doing them is another. Considder how upset some people are whe nthe US pretends half a dozen peopel in Guantanimo Bay don't deserve basic human rights. Now multiple that by a few hundred thousand... ANTIcarrot.
|
|
#10
December 22nd 03, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"John" wrote: Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs? "Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?" "Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH for a while..." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |
Hybrid Mode
