Somali Pirates Seize Cargo Ship With 24 Aboard

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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

yeah, i got carried away, I agree with you

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

well that is because of the odd political situation in the US
I mean, think about it:
the IJA lost more than a million men to frontal warfare, they lost less than 50000to guerrillas
the nazies lost the war because of the frontal war, not partisans

That does not explain Vietnam. Guerrillas are poor at direct warfare, but exceedingly good at what they are designed for.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That does not explain Vietnam. Guerrillas are poor at direct warfare, but exceedingly good at what they are designed for.

Its the politics that made the US lose, not the commies.
The press defeated the US army, it is Americas greatest enemy.
if the us had Kim Jiong Il and Joseph Goebbels doing the press, the IJA training the army in modern warfare tactics(kill all, take all, burn all) and maybe better psyops the Americans could have won

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Its the politics that made the US lose, not the commies.
The press defeated the US army, it is Americas greatest enemy.
if the us had Kim Jiong Il and Joseph Goebbels doing the press, the IJA training the army in modern warfare tactics(kill all, take all, burn all) and maybe better psyops the Americans could have won

Anyone trained by the Imperial Japanese Army in modern warfare tactics shouldn't be surprised when he gets crushed by just about anyone...

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Its the politics that made the US lose, not the commies.
The press defeated the US army, it is Americas greatest enemy.
if the us had Kim Jiong Il and Joseph Goebbels doing the press, the IJA training the army in modern warfare tactics(kill all, take all, burn all) and maybe better psyops the Americans could have won

Maybe I'm remembering my history classes wrong, but there was a hell of a lot of scortched earth going on in Vietnam. If favorable press coverage was able to root insurgents out of holes, Osama bin Laden would have been captured in 2003. No, the US was defeated by a very determined and well-equipped guerrilla insurgency. The media did not launch the Tet Offensive, nor did they lead the Nixon Administration to the conclusion that the war was unwinnable and the beginning of Vietnamization.

[the_tyrant]

there is a huge chance that i got my Von Clausewitz wrong but this is my opinion:
You see, the Vietcong were fighting total war. However, the US is not fighting total war
As we could see from the dirty little wars in Africa, many things that the us deems is a crime against humanity is considered to be a tactic or weapon(for example: mass rape, genocide)
Also, the american population could not take as much loss as the North Vietnamese.
A quote from The Influence of Sea Power on History:""Twice," says Arnold in his History of Rome, "has there been witnessed the struggle of the highest individual genius against the resources and institutions of a great nation, and in both cases the nation was victorious.""
however, the US did not use its full potential

However, this grinds down to moral beliefs, I believe that the ends justify the means. Not sure about you guys though

[Takeda Shingen]

Ah, I see what you are getting at now, but I completely disagree. Classical military theory and doctrine were ineffective against modern insurgent warfare. The US military in 2003 found iteslf between a rock and a hard place; traditional theory, personified by Carl von Clausewitz, called for a reduction of the enemy's capacity through absolute warfare (von Clausewitz never used the term 'total war'). However, in the case of modern Islamic insurgency, such tactics only served to create more insurgents. As such, the US military was forced to adopt new methods to counter the insurgency, thus creating a further separation between the practical modern war and a theoretical view of the Napoleonic battlefield.

In short, the theories of Carl von Clausewitz are not as relevant as they used to be, as absolute warfare is a poor method of counter-insurgency.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Ah, I see what you are getting at now, but I completely disagree. Classical military theory and doctrine were ineffective against modern insurgent warfare. The US military in 2003 found iteslf between a rock and a hard place; traditional theory, personified by Carl von Clausewitz, called for a reduction of the enemy's capacity through absolute warfare (von Clausewitz never used the term 'total war'). However, in the case of modern Islamic insurgency, such tactics only served to create more insurgents. As such, the US military was forced to adopt new methods to counter the insurgency, thus creating a further separation between the practical modern war and a theoretical view of the Napoleonic battlefield.

In short, the theories of Carl von Clausewitz are not as relevant as they used to be, as absolute warfare is a poor method of counter-insurgency.

Ok, now I get it. I was forcing classical theory in a different environment. I mistakenly assumed that simply replacing "country" with "Islamic extremists" as the enemy would have worked.
Well, lets just hope that another genius comes up with another great work like The Art of War or On War soon

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by tater

Non-lethal anti-piracy stuff. Meh. 20-30mm CIWS optimized for small surface craft. Done.

[tater]

The US should put such a CIWS system on all US flagged vessels above a certain size that travel in pirate zones. They'd be sat controlled, so the USN turns them on and off remotely. They'd have a sort of negative dead-man switch. USN turns them on, and they automatically turn off in X minutes unless the USN sat keeps them on so a disconnect results in the system being disabled in a few minutes.

The plus to the US is that ships would then WANT to be US flagged, resulting in tax revenue increases.

[Gerald]

Certainly entails costs but you have to think long term, to pay ransom is no solution to the problem

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Certainly entails costs but you have to think long term, to pay ransom is no solution to the problem

Ehmm, nope! As long as the cost (ransom) is not exceedingly high, ship and cargo and owners can live with it. Piracy raises the "insurance" (put in the proper word) for vessel, crew and cargo but in the end the price is payed by the customer in the destination port. Now if/when piracy inhibits these "economics" then you will see a much more aggressive antipiracy policy and campaign.!


.

[Gerald]

Agree with what you say, customers may pay in the end, but to avoid the need for the special units that are stationed, to avoid unpleasant surprises..

[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.