Author Topic: Is there a case for a new Garrison Artillery?  (Read 11983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,702
  • Freespeecher
Re: Is there a case for a new Garrison Artillery?
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2006, 00:10:12 »
I'm pretty sure Odysseus would not be too surprised if he were to have a tour of the modern battlefield. Even the motivations of the ACM (greed, plunder, dominance) would be pretty transparent to the crafty King of Ithaca, and after he worked out the general effects of the weapons Pallas Athena had granted us, he would probably be coming up with solutions we would recognize, even if we were not bloody minded enough to implement them.

Military science (time, space, terrain, effects) is fairly consistent over the millennia, winners are masters of military art (putting the "science" into action).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,790
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Is there a case for a new Garrison Artillery?
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2006, 01:01:46 »
I think that any soldier from before 1900 (perhaps the US Civil War veterans less so) would be very suprised to tour a modern battlefield, and I don't think that the adjustment would be very easy.  WWI, with its dress rehearsal at Port Arthur, showed what happens when a real revolution in military affairs occurs.  Alexander would have done well at Waterloo once he had had a quick primer.  The strategy and tactics would have been quite familiar to him.  In 1916, the very things that had stood him and his army so well would have been turned against him and I wager he would have gone down in slaughter like the rest.  The "empty battlefield" stumped pretty much everybody for quite some time.

Going back to today, I think that winning an insurgency is much more than military tactics and military strategy.  The overall strategy and solution must be political in nature or you are stuck with "no win//no lose."   This goes beyond the question of forts and mobile columns.

Cheers
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Is there a case for a new Garrison Artillery?
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2006, 11:23:54 »
I think that any soldier from before 1900 (perhaps the US Civil War veterans less so) would be very suprised to tour a modern battlefield, and I don't think that the adjustment would be very easy.  WWI, with its dress rehearsal at Port Arthur, showed what happens when a real revolution in military affairs occurs.  Alexander would have done well at Waterloo once he had had a quick primer.  The strategy and tactics would have been quite familiar to him.  In 1916, the very things that had stood him and his army so well would have been turned against him and I wager he would have gone down in slaughter like the rest.  The "empty battlefield" stumped pretty much everybody for quite some time.

Perhaps that "empty battlefield" was as much a result of weapons being able to apply effects farther than the field commanders could see with their own eyeballs.  They were still restricted to what they could see and what was reported by someone else (using their eyeballs and brains) at the speed of the fastest horse.

Maybe all that is happening now is putting the "field" commanders back in the loop on the "global battlefield".  That seems to be the effect of long range, real time surveillance and instantaneous global communications - an effect often called micro-management.  That effect too was known in historical battles as Field Marshals and Generals got involved in Captains' fights.

Quote
  Going back to today, I think that winning an insurgency is much more than military tactics and military strategy.  The overall strategy and solution must be political in nature or you are stuck with "no win//no lose."   This goes beyond the question of forts and mobile columns.

Cheers

Agreed entirely....Insurgency is all about governance.  To beat the insurgency then you have to get people to trust the government.   

By the way, in Southern Afghanistan are we talking about defeating an Insurgency,  a rising of the population against their recognized government,  or are we talking about establishing dominion, or empire, by Kabul over people that have never recognized even a local empire much less a distant empire?

I am not against empires or dominions so I don't consider Kabul's efforts in that field to be a problem.  It just seems that a campaign of empire building would supply different opportunities and problems to a counter-insurgency campaign.

Now significantly off the topic of the role of a Garrison Artillery in the defense of fixed bases......regardless of size and purpose.  No matter how we slice the campaign, any campaign, there will always be bases to be defended, ranging from section and platoon sized "police stations" that are effectively permanent in nature to Brigade Maintenance Areas that may be in place for a temporary period of months or decades to lagers and FOBs.

My point in all of this originally was that there are places that demand long term covering of arcs.  That can be done as effectively, if not more effectively, by emplaced artillery (defined as any projectile launching system from rifle calibre machine guns to ICBMs) than by tying up scarce manoeuvre forces.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,702
  • Freespeecher
Re: Is there a case for a new Garrison Artillery?
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2006, 15:40:38 »
You want to project power from afar?

Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon: ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html,

Marines in Spaaaaaace!: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001815.html
Low-cost access to orbit: space Marines to the rescue: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/530/1

Have light Infantry patroling the AOR and the ability to bring on robotic firepower at a moments notice and the Marines a short while later will certainly change the way business is conducted.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Is there a case for a new Garrison Artillery?
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2006, 16:51:28 »
All good stuff Arthur - but where do the patrolling light infantry sleep and get to listen to their I-Pods and send their e-mails?  Living in sleeping bags must get old, even for Canadian infanteers.

As to the other stuff - There is always this:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,54658.msg496663.html#msg496663

Combine the best aspects of Parachuting and Glider Troops - stealthy approach, reduced scatter and reduced training requirements.  Pegasus Bridge with the Ox and Bucks in Gliders was one of the most successful Airborne missions of WW2.

Stand By to Drop!
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"