# Combat is Evolving..



## JasonH (6 Jan 2004)

I was havin a discussion with a friend and it wound up broiling down to this...

  "Like I said, times are changeing.  It went from Standing in rows and fireing at each other to fighting across battlefields in trench‘s and rushing the opposing side fruitfully and getten wiped out.  To then city to city fighting, building to building fighting.  And now it‘s come down to guerilla attacks.  Combat is evolving as past has shown

  People are getten smarter at how to kill eachother and invoke great pains"

Gives a hint to "Great War Machines" no longer being needed (Except for a few countries with actual armies that are large and will fight tooth and nail like North Korea etc).  Whatcha think?


----------



## JasonH (6 Jan 2004)

So I just have one question for you all... What do you think is next?


----------



## GhostRecce (6 Jan 2004)

infantry etc will always be needed. the bombs wont kill everyone.


----------



## meni0n (6 Jan 2004)

Guerilla warfare is nothing new. I believe the Spanish first to start using it against Napoleon.


----------



## mattoigta (6 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by meni0n:
> [qb] Guerilla warfare is nothing new. I believe the Spanish first to start using it against Napoleon. [/qb]


Were you watching the history channel too last night?

Guerilla fighting has been around forever


----------



## JasonH (6 Jan 2004)

I know that but it‘s becoming more into fullswing of things with smaller armies.


----------



## fusilier955 (6 Jan 2004)

I believe you are refering to "manouver warfare", there are a number of doctrines concerning it.  It is nothing new, and it has been in use for a long time, some countries more than others.  What you talk about is a slice of the pie concerning "manouver warfare".  

If you want to get a fuller picture of what it is about, the earliest doctrine about it is by Sun Tzu in the infamous "Art of War".  In the "modern" context you seem to be refering to, it was pioneered by the germans in WWII.  It began as a simple way to throw the enemy off course by comprimising the mission objectives so that they would be confused and could not adapt well.  

They [the Germans] also had a stratagy if this should happen to them, they made sure that they had a full understanding of the commander‘s intent and the purpose of a mission.  This was so that if the mission was comprimised, they in turn could still contribute to the intent of the commander.  

With this people noticed this was quite effective and explored other ways in which to defeat your enemy before you engage them.  Thus we began to move away from wars of attrition, to more precise ways to wage war.  It became more than those who posessed greater number of men in their armies. 

 Gurrilla warfare is one great example of this, (in Indochina it was nothing new, it was used by the Vitnamese centuries before).  All the new unconventional warfare that occurs now comes from those who are well versed in convention.  They know how to decieve and fight most effectively, that is why you no longer need the "war machines".

 you can no longer attack those who practise this with a so called "war machine" because you will never win fighting this way against an enemy of this sort.  you must in turn become unconventional as well, and use wily tactics. (that does not mean become a terrorist or act like one)  you must use unconvention to counter them, ie-helping a population to get the information that is only known at the lowest level (like a remote town) to help you counter them.

If you are wanting to be familar with this "trend", start of with Sun Tzu‘s book.


----------



## winchable (6 Jan 2004)

If you want help understanding unconventional or Guerilla warfare read Che Guevaras "Guerilla Warfare", it‘s basically a handbook on the proper way to fight a guerilla insurgency.

You‘ll find it covers every single aspect down to the most minute detail, including political propaganda how to recruit out of the population and why tobacco is a must-have in any army.

The art of war(s) (Sun Tzu or Machiavelli) are great books I‘ve read them both, Sun Tzu‘s version is actually somewhat poetic and a little harder to get through the first time (it is helpful to get a copy with a commentary or essays about the text included at the back when reading it the first time), and the language sometimes has to be stretched to fit a modern situation. Machiavelli is a little more realistic as it deals with more specific aspects of war, but Sun Tzu is still a must-read. 

Guevara‘s book is a modern understanding of Guerilla warfare and I‘ve heard it best described as "Guerilla War for Dummies", while maybe not for the average dummy, it is certainly a good place to start when trying to understand how the guerilla or unconventional fighter may think.


----------



## winchable (6 Jan 2004)

As to the question I think yes a smaller army always has a very good chance at defeating a larger army if the situation is right. 

(IE the local population is behind the smaller army and the smaller army has some good support and leadership tactics), 

Unconventional war (not terrorism as has been witnessed most recently, it is very important to note the difference) could defeat a larger army and this has been witnessed in places like Cuba and Indo-China in the past.


----------



## ArmyAl (6 Jan 2004)

To fight unconventional you do have to fight like them and use tactic‘s like they do, I‘ve seen it and experianced it, not cute but it works, believe me, it depends on the soldier on how far he will push the button.
Remember one thing, in North America we grew up in our bubble, a person that kills their meal everyday for food has a different mind set versus the walmart shopper.


----------

