Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Seems counter intuitive that by not engaging an enemy army directly that they are forcing me to fight on his terms.
I could see a strategy utilizing a major force in such a way, but it would only result in a prolonged war of attrition. A war of attrition against a faster lighter force that can pick and chose its battles is not feasible.
|
That's the point, you
can't pick and choose your battles because the enemy will force you to fight. If the enemy decides to roll his armoured and mechanized divisions on your capital and supply centers, you either stand and fight or be overrun and lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Well then it comes back to flexibility and forcing the enemy to guard against anything again. IF its defended against an attack on the ground then attack from the air, if its defended against air attack then use TBMs, if it has defenses against that jam them. Either the enemy siphons forces to defend those sites against anything or it bunches its C4 with other rear units making more inciting to attack as it would cause more damage.
|
Yes, but you're not relying on the fact that the enemy is defending his rear areas, since that doesn't have any effect if you fail to engage him. You're relying on the fact that the enemy communications are disrupted in the first place, and to such an extent that he cannot react at all.
Even if you
do manage to disrupt enemy communications that much and push your unit through the lines to whatever objective it was supposed to go, you still haven't done anything to prevent being counterattacked and obliterated by mobile reserves once the enemy recovers his communications to any extent. Not unless, of course, you actually exploit the disruption by engaging the enemy while he's out of communications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
A light division doesn't mean it does not have firepower, it means it not mounted on heavy armored vehicles. The HIMARS rocket artillery is mounted on a 5 ton unarmored truck, the M1128 features a 105mm gun capable of enraging enemy armor but is mounted on an wheeled APC. There are missile like the 9M133 Kornet that out range a tank gun (the 9M123 has even more range).
The trick is to have a combat force with the greatest verity of the most powerful weapons on the fastest platforms in every unit.
|
Yes, you might put some fancy weapons on light units, but you're still at a disadvantage compared to heavier units. An MLRS can put twice as many rockets in the air as the HIMARS, a light APC or a vehicle like the M1128 isn't nearly as likely to survive a hit as a main battle tank.
Also, while your units have better strategic mobility, your operational mobility is still much more restricted by your supply lines than how light your units are. Especially if you're going about dropping these units behind enemy lines, in which case your supply is anything but guaranteed to get through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
The whole point is that it would not fight in the open. It would fight in skirmishes of its own choosing depleting the enemy that way.
|
Fine, go ahead and refuse to fight in the open, you might inflict some casualties on the enemy and preserve your fighting strength. But when he overruns your supply depots, airfields and ports because you couldn't defend them in a pitched battle, that'll have little consequence.