Somali Pirates Seize Cargo Ship With 24 Aboard

[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

[Gerald]

Somali pirates are reported to have received a total of $15m (£9m) in ransom money to release two ships.

They are believed to have been paid a record $9m (£5.6m) for Samho Dream, a South Korean oil tanker, and $7m (£4.3m) for the Golden Blessing, a Singaporean flagged ship.

"We are now counting our cash," a pirate who gave his name as Hussein told Reuters news agency. "Soon we shall get down from the ship."

The ships' release was not confirmed.

The Samho Dream supertanker was hijacked in the Indian Ocean in April and its crew of five South Koreans and 19 Filipinos were taken hostage. It was carrying crude oil from Iraq to the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11704306

Note:6 November 2010 Last updated at 14:54 GMT