Somali Pirates Seize Cargo Ship With 24 Aboard

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You are partially correct but I don't think you are not thinking on a vast enough scale. If the enemy begins defending its rear areas, attack the MSRs feeding them, if they defend them attack the production facilities that build the supplies or the ports that bring them in, if they defend them attack the raw materials that get shipped there, defend that attack the people who work in the factories and so on. Make it so the enemy has to defend all of its own territory to the point where there needs to be a group of troops on every street corner depleting their front line forces at the same time as you sow discontent over both the war and military "occupation" (Martial Law) in the civilian populous.

Even if you succeed in getting it all worked out, you become a nuisance, not a genuine threat to the war. Sure, you might blow up some supply convoys, sabotage some factories and port facilities, destroy some raw materials and kill some factory workers, but while this has some short-term effects, you won't really do enough damage to any one of these to actually cripple the enemy war effort (And your units will still be taking heavy casualties). Unless, of course, you have some ridiculously large number of special forces that you somehow managed to get behind enemy lines and then supply and coordinate.

The morale effects of such raids, of course, exist, but they can backfire completely against a determined enemy.

Oh, and don't forget that while you're devoting your resources to doing all this, the enemy divisions might be making mincemeat of your front lines.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There is no reason why the lighter mobility doctrine can't be transitioned in to a conventional force. The Air Mobile forces in Vietnam are a prime example of this doctrine where you have regiment sized units that can bypass terrain and enemy strong holds to strike at critical targets. Another example is the MAGTF which is highly flexible and mobile and capable of most any mission and incorporates infantry, armor, aircraft (and by due to its amphibious nature warships).

A large conventional unit attempting to pass through the lines to attack somewhere is much more liable to being detected, both before and on the way there. Airborne and airmobile forces can be shot down by aircraft and SAM sites, ground units counterattacked and destroyed by mobile reserves. And these forces would still fighting at a disadvantage because they don't have heavy equipment or easy resupply. Amphibious assaults are another matter entirely, of course.

I'm not saying special forces, guerrilla, airmobile units and the like are useless, they are far from it. But if you devote all your resources to try to raid the enemy army's command and logistics without actually engaging and defeating it, you won't be achieving much.

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Commies like to glorify their contributions to WWII
especially partisans and guerrilla
Even now, the Chinese textbooks says the communist partisans killed around 1.2 million Japanese troops.

What does that have to do with anything I've said?

[Gerald]

I agree that rapid small units are important, and also has a lower radar signature, which means a better "invisibility"..

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Oh, and don't forget that while you're devoting your resources to doing all this, the enemy divisions might be making mincemeat of your front lines.

Well this would not be the entire army.... just read on...

A large conventional unit attempting to pass through the lines to attack somewhere is much more liable to being detected, both before and on the way there.

Being detected and having the enemy being able to react to it is two different things. As I specified a while back a primary target is the enemy C4 systems. If the enemy's ability to communicate and coordinate its army is broken then if one unit detects the attack but is unable to relay that information then the larger defending force can be bypassed.

Airborne and airmobile forces can be shot down by aircraft and SAM sites, ground units counterattacked and destroyed by mobile reserves. And these forces would still fighting at a disadvantage because they don't have heavy equipment or easy resupply.

Its not a question of not having heavy equipment or lack of supply. Such items do fit within the doctrine on a larger scale, a mobility focused mechanized division would for example not have large numbers of hard to transport and supply MBTs but rather lighter APCs with ATGM launchers or ATGM teams.

I'm not saying special forces, guerrilla, airmobile units and the like are useless, they are far from it. But if you devote all your resources to try to raid the enemy army's command and logistics without actually engaging and defeating it, you won't be achieving much.

Its less about the use of those specific units and more the general mind set. Lighter, rapid deploying units over heavy mechanized units. Air dropable armor over ones that need to be transported by ship or to an airbase. At sea smaller faster multi-purpose vessels.

Think of it as structuring all units like the Army's Stryker Brigades, capable of getting anywhere in the world in 96 hours and equipped to handle any mission required.

its high time they start using machine guns on those ships to kill every unannounced boat daring to go near a ship in those waters or at least transfer the cargo to a well armed cargo carrier.

a message needs to be sent load and clear that you WILL die if you go after ships



if it were up to me i would station a US navy ship nearby and send helicopter gunships to any vessel in need of help with orders to kill every person and sink those pirate boats.

very quickly it will be known you cant attack the ships anymore and the pirates will have to find a new way to make money

[Task Force]

We need to go to the old way of "Killing pirates by hanging, or other means"

Originally Posted by Task Force

We need to go to the old way of "Killing pirates by hanging, or other means"

my way you kill the pirates AND destroy their boat so they run out of both and it limits their ability to continue. the pirates are dead and the leaders lost their boat so it hurts them too.


i understand those poor bastards are starving and just trying to survive and in most cases are doing it just to feed their family but the ones in charge also need to be targetted somehow

[Gerald]

Trade ships are well aware that they can risk problems in these waters, and sure they would be able to have light weapons in self-defense, and the pirates know that the ships have some form of defense, so perhaps they are reluctant to attack

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Trade ships are well aware that they can risk problems in these waters, and sure they would be able to have light weapons in self-defense, and the pirates know that the ships have some form of defense, so perhaps they are reluctant to attack

There are a verity of countermeasures short of small arms or heavy weapons available to merchant vessels today...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Webster

its high time they start using machine guns on those ships to kill every unannounced boat daring to go near a ship in those waters or at least transfer the cargo to a well armed cargo carrier.

a message needs to be sent load and clear that you WILL die if you go after ships



if it were up to me i would station a US navy ship nearby and send helicopter gunships to any vessel in need of help with orders to kill every person and sink those pirate boats.

very quickly it will be known you cant attack the ships anymore and the pirates will have to find a new way to make money

Not so easy in real life. Earlier this year there was a cargo ship being chased by a small boat. The small boat called the cargo ship telling it in broken English to stop and they were going to board them. The crew freaked out and called the Navy.... the small boat was a Yemeni coast guard patrol boat looking for contraband...

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Not so easy in real life. Earlier this year there was a cargo ship being chased by a small boat. The small boat called the cargo ship telling it in broken English to stop and they were going to board them. The crew freaked out and called the Navy.... the small boat was a Yemeni coast guard patrol boat looking for contraband...

yes but in that case it was announced but if the boat isnt clearly marked they must do so or its their own fault.

plus ships shouldnt be that close to land anyway IMHO

[Gerald]

@TLAM Strike! Yes, there was a lot of "candy" but companies may want to avoid the cost, so then there will be no upgrade on the ship

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I didn't mean it would strip the frontline and thus put you at a disadvantage, I meant it in the sense that the enemy might well force you to fight on his own terms if you don't engage him directly.

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.

But you're relying on the fact that you've disrupted the enemy's communications so thoroughly that it cannot react at all, while if the enemy was properly managing and guarding its communication centers, the whole thing falls apart.

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.

Certainly it is a question of heavy equipment and supply, since if you have neither you are fighting at a distinct disadvantage. For example, you might put your light division anywhere in friendly or enemy territory, but it will not be able to fight that effectively if it's faced by a heavier formation.

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.

Sure, lighter units might be more strategically mobile, but they lack the heavy equipment required to fight a land war against a properly equipped enemy. You might get a light brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but it won't be properly equipped to fight an enemy with superior firepower in the open.

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.

Originally Posted by Webster

yes but in that case it was announced but if the boat isnt clearly marked they must do so or its their own fault.

plus ships shouldnt be that close to land anyway IMHO

Well the US and CTF-151 can't be everywhere. Local navies and coast guards are necessary to conduct counter piracy operations. Not every navy around there can afford clearly marked ships with well trained multilingual signalmen.

This is the best some of these navies have to use:

[Raptor1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gerald]

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.


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.



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.


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.


Well the US and CTF-151 can't be everywhere. Local navies and coast guards are necessary to conduct counter piracy operations. Not every navy around there can afford clearly marked ships with well trained multilingual signalmen.

This is the best some of these navies have to use:

to secure the region

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well this would not be the entire army.... just read on...

I didn't mean it would strip the frontline and thus put you at a disadvantage, I meant it in the sense that the enemy might well force you to fight on his own terms if you don't engage him directly.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Being detected and having the enemy being able to react to it is two different things. As I specified a while back a primary target is the enemy C4 systems. If the enemy's ability to communicate and coordinate its army is broken then if one unit detects the attack but is unable to relay that information then the larger defending force can be bypassed.

But you're relying on the fact that you've disrupted the enemy's communications so thoroughly that it cannot react at all, while if the enemy was properly managing and guarding its communication centers, the whole thing falls apart.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Its not a question of not having heavy equipment or lack of supply. Such items do fit within the doctrine on a larger scale, a mobility focused mechanized division would for example not have large numbers of hard to transport and supply MBTs but rather lighter APCs with ATGM launchers or ATGM teams.

Certainly it is a question of heavy equipment and supply, since if you have neither you are fighting at a distinct disadvantage. For example, you might put your light division anywhere in friendly or enemy territory, but it will not be able to fight that effectively if it's faced by a heavier formation.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Its less about the use of those specific units and more the general mind set. Lighter, rapid deploying units over heavy mechanized units. Air dropable armor over ones that need to be transported by ship or to an airbase. At sea smaller faster multi-purpose vessels.

Think of it as structuring all units like the Army's Stryker Brigades, capable of getting anywhere in the world in 96 hours and equipped to handle any mission required.

Sure, lighter units might be more strategically mobile, but they lack the heavy equipment required to fight a land war against a properly equipped enemy. You might get a light brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but it won't be properly equipped to fight an enemy with superior firepower in the open.

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

you see, we think guerrilla are so tough mainly because of commie propaganda. they are not that good in real life

I never said I thought guerrilla are "so though". In fact, I specifically said guerrilla forces aren't very useful on their own.