"New tech means defense outweighs offense" Topic

New battlefield technologies mean that the defense is "dramatically" stronger than the offensive, Army Futures Command head Gen. James Rainey told reporters today…

Defense One: link

Hmmm ? Interesting take …

Intel is the most important at all levels, from the fireteam to Generals.

TimePortal the will is more important than even intel.
The men at the Alamo stayed until death. They accomplished their mission of delay for Santa Ana.
The French in WWII fought well but only for a few weeks once operation tempo increased and casualties got too high they quit. Paris did not foreshadow Berlin.

Bunkermeister

TimePortal the will is more important than even intel.

Wasn't that Japanese doctrine in WWII?

"New tech means defense outweighs offense"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where anti-drone defenses are working better than drone strikes…

It'll swing back the other way some point. It always does. And it'll be even more horrendous.

Russia Warns Ukraine's F-16s Will Be Treated as Nuclear Threats

link

Armand

Russia Warns Ukraine's F-16s Will Be Treated as Nuclear Threats

– as they usually do when faced with something they fear.

Their attitude is akin to a small boy saying 'I'll tell my dad about you' or something similar.

I invite you to an exhibition of captured weapons in Moscow. A new exhibit is coming soon – F-16)))
YouTube link

The author of this article is clearly looking at Ukraine / Russia conflict. The only reason offense does not work is because neither side has the ability, equipment and logistics to launch effective offensives. This reminds me of the Iran / Iraq war where neither side could gain the upper hand for years until Iraq invested time, resources, equipment and training to field the Republican Guard armored corp against Iran. If the USA had gone up against Russia in a conventional conflict this would look nothing the current Ukraine / Russia conflict. We would not see this attritional slugfest, it would be decided much more quickly and decisively.

Cuprum2 – no thanks, I would probably be framed for a non existent crime and spend 10-15 years in a Russian prison.
I imagine, also, that the display of captured equipment is pitiful compared with the Ukrainian equivalent. Denis Davidov's YouTube updates show that the vehicles in that display were ones that couldn't be recovered and repaired.
Mr P is a master of misinformation!

Glup!…

Armand

Read the article and it misses a major point: deep positioned minefields channeling attacks into artillery crossfires. What happened to the Ukrainian penetrations last summer reminded me strongly of the WWII battle of Kursk. Russians had plenty of time to set up such minefields before the offensive began.

That sounds about right. However, we were taught at Benning and elsewhere in the Army. That to win you must go on the Offensive. Attrite as much of the enemy as you can you while on the Defensive. Build up your forces and then attack based on the terrain and situation.

IF the US [along with NATO] had sent what Ukraine needed a year ago. The situation probably would now be in their favor. Verses the stalemate that it is now. With as usual the Russian are suffering heavy losses with few gains …

What can you say about the Israeli fiasco?

It is impossible to concentrate large forces for a strike – they will immediately be attacked, it is impossible to create large warehouses near the front line – they will be immediately attacked, supplying troops on the front line, transferring reinforcements, evacuating the wounded is a big problem due to the abundance of kamikaze drones; the use of artillery, especially its massing, is problematic – after three shots you are forced to change position, the widespread use of traditional aviation is only possible when the enemy's air defense is suppressed, which neither side was able to achieve, high-precision weapons have lost their effectiveness due to the effective operation of electronic warfare. The fog of war has ceased to exist – the enemy sees virtually everything you do in real time…
The attacking troops leave their protective "umbrella", are deprived of electronic warfare and air defense protection and are immediately destroyed. Positional deadlock.
All that now allows you to fight effectively is close combat. Machine gun and grenades. The actions of small assault groups, as in the First World War. Then the enemies lose their technological advantages and fight "eye to eye."

An effective modern war must begin with the destruction of the enemy orbital satellite constellation… Although – why only the enemy? Where are the guarantees that information will not be passed on to your enemy by a supposedly neutral party? This means we need to destroy all satellites… In a global world, a big war will also be global.

The IDF is doing pretty much most things correctly. In one of the most difficult missions a military can be tasked with. I.e. an urban insurgency with fanatics. Regardless, what some in the media say the IDF will be successful as in '48, '56, '67 and '73.

It is impossible to concentrate large forces for a strike – they will immediately be attacked, it is impossible to create large warehouses near the front line – they will be immediately attacked, supplying troops on the front line, transferring reinforcements, evacuating the wounded is a big problem due to the abundance of kamikaze drones; the use of artillery, especially its massing, is problematic – after three shots you are forced to change position, the widespread use of traditional aviation is only possible when the enemy's air defense is suppressed.

You said similar to what I would have posted. You must have at least air parity if not air superiority. As well as ADA/AAA systems down to Company level, e.g. Stingers, Strellas, etc. For your forces to be effective.

Armies must be very mobile. For obvious reasons.

The drone has changed the battlefield at the tactical and operational levels. But as with the advent of the large use of aircraft or in WWII. Countermeasure were developed, i.e. ADA/AAA and AT weapons …

It has long been noted, even in Sci-fi[e.g. Hammer's Slammers] orbital assets must be removed. As with air assets, you must gain "Space Superiority" as well. As tech develops so must the tactics, techniques and training.

The USA's new branch the Space Force is part of that concept/paradigm. Their missions will evolve as the tech does. Like in any type of warfare. But don't except Starship Troopers, MACOs or Space Marines any time soon.