IS indifference to air power
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right...I'm sure the ICC is fairly well down Assad's list of things-to-worry-about, no1 being avoiding getting Gadaffi'd to death in the street.
But as to your wider point, in the present context, if "victory" is achieved only by adopting the murderous tactics of our enemies, is it a victory?
But as to your wider point, in the present context, if "victory" is achieved only by adopting the murderous tactics of our enemies, is it a victory?
Last edited by ShotOne; 2nd Jan 2015 at 22:17.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say if it prevented terrorist atrocities on western soil, then absolutely, yes. Ultimately, its about winning. The question should be, if similar total war were the only means of achieving victory, why shouldnt such tactics be employed? The whole moral element of how we fight was never really countenanced in ww2 and I would that was the last time we had a decisive victory.
IS make it so much easier to contemplate this as they are a bunch of mediaeval savages who have it coming to them.
IS make it so much easier to contemplate this as they are a bunch of mediaeval savages who have it coming to them.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
total war as you put it can only be foaghtagainst nation states - the concept is useless against terrorists unless you plan to lay waste to the whole country
and experience shows that you still don't"WIN" - you just start the cycle over - ask the Israelis - never beaten but still in a stage of armed siege after 76 years as a nation
and experience shows that you still don't"WIN" - you just start the cycle over - ask the Israelis - never beaten but still in a stage of armed siege after 76 years as a nation
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its easy to pick bad examples. It worked in Iraq during the 2nd battle for Ramadi and Fallujah when the Sunni militia got so sick of the repeated hammering from the US Marine Corps that they sued for peace with the more extreme elements, ending up turning on the real bad guys.
I cant think of a single example where modern ROE has contributed to the fight. We tried controlled restraint in Afghan and as far as I see, utterly failed. It failed in Basrah when brit forces, constrained by ROE, were unable to deal with the relatively large number of lawless militias, who ended up terrorising the locality. There is plenty of evidence that the vast majority of law abiding Iraqis in the locality would have loved to have seen said militia given a thoroughly vicious shoeing. Same in Amarah. Fiasco by thomas e Ricks makes interesting reading, as does Occupational Hazards by Rory Stewart.
I cant think of a single example where modern ROE has contributed to the fight. We tried controlled restraint in Afghan and as far as I see, utterly failed. It failed in Basrah when brit forces, constrained by ROE, were unable to deal with the relatively large number of lawless militias, who ended up terrorising the locality. There is plenty of evidence that the vast majority of law abiding Iraqis in the locality would have loved to have seen said militia given a thoroughly vicious shoeing. Same in Amarah. Fiasco by thomas e Ricks makes interesting reading, as does Occupational Hazards by Rory Stewart.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based purely on the OP's submission, it would seem that the air component of this effort has prevented the IS fighters from mounting an effective conventional ground offensive. In other words they're stuck, they can hold or E&E into the night. You want to re-take ground, someone on the ground will have to make that push.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as the OP, I feel that's a reasonable summary, bd. Vinrouge you make some valid points but blaming ROEs for the shambles of Iraq post major-conflict is like blaming Titanic's sinking on the wrong furniture polish. After the political decisions to disband pretty much every aspect of government it's hard to imagine what ROE's could have made things right.
While it is more complex than that, I suspect that the policy decision to disband, as you put it, was a root cause for a lot of problems faced by the coalition from 2004 onwards.
That would be Apaches rather than drones I think.
Unless there are drones armed with 30mms that we don't know about.
And I doubt that anyone can be indifferent to that kind of visibility and that kind of firepower.
Unless there are drones armed with 30mms that we don't know about.
And I doubt that anyone can be indifferent to that kind of visibility and that kind of firepower.
Interesting - I had wondered if that might have been the case.
A couple of things stand out.
Wonder why there is not a double tap or triple tap setting on the 30mm?
Is there?
One could burn through rounds pretty quickly on full auto.
Each engagement seemed to take a min of three bursts to immobilise the target.
I can also see why DARPA are interested in steerable rounds.
It can take quite a few shots splashing all over the place to actually ensure whoever is down stays down.
Awesome weapon though.
Combined with the FLIR, there is literally nowhere to hide... just shreds them.
No sympathy whatsoever quite frankly.
A couple of things stand out.
Wonder why there is not a double tap or triple tap setting on the 30mm?
Is there?
One could burn through rounds pretty quickly on full auto.
Each engagement seemed to take a min of three bursts to immobilise the target.
I can also see why DARPA are interested in steerable rounds.
It can take quite a few shots splashing all over the place to actually ensure whoever is down stays down.
Awesome weapon though.
Combined with the FLIR, there is literally nowhere to hide... just shreds them.
No sympathy whatsoever quite frankly.
