ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/10/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 9, 1986 5:05PM Volume 6, Issue 16 Today's Topics: Automatic weapons Deep Strike Paranoia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 13:49:38 EST From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1> Subject: Automatic weapons The function of automatic weapons is primarily to achieve full fire super- iority by means of fire suppression. Many "old timers" have never understood this concept, and have traditionally groused about the demise of older, long-range aimed fire small arms like the M-1 Garand and the M-14. Unfortunately, as the Germans during the latter stages of WWII, and then the Soviets right behind learned, the era has long passed where the majority of infantry combats would take place at 600-1000m ranges, favoring more accurate slow fire weapons. The fact that combats since mid-WWII average about 150m or less, and the advent of automatic weapons at all levels of infantry organizations, has placed emphasis on lighter, higher firepower weapons which allow for the massing of fires so as to overpower the enemy's fires. This means, in effect, that keeping the other guys' heads down is more important than individually zapping them. Going back to the original musing that started further musing on automatic weapons, theorizing incorrectly that the advent of automatic weapons was somehow inspired by a need to indiscriminately plaster the opposition so as to obviate the chances that soldiers would deliberately choose to miss enemies out of humanitarian concerns, it just isn't so. - It may be of some interest along the lines of that earlier discussion that great numbers of Vietnam veterans were traumatically affected by their inability to acquire targets so that they could strike back at the enemy who they hardly ever saw, yet who remorselessly slew and maimed their comrades. Perhaps the humanitarian reluctance to shoot the other guy is a noble feeling among troops fresh to the fray, but one which dissolves rapidly as the reality of seeing one's friends killed, and of being a target one's self, comes home. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 13:55:42 EST From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1> Subject: Deep Strike ** Tried to send this to Gary Chapman <PARC!CSLI!chapman@glacier, but our mailer burped it back at me. Glad to hear you are aware of the OMG's. They are actually a carry over of the Mobile Groups, a concept that has been around since WWII. The OMGs are not specific tactical units assigned specific missions as you state, but are a concept for task organizing of combined arms groups anywhere in size and strength from the battalion to the front (army group), depending on the opportunity presented the Direction commander. You have your terms mixed-up - it is AirLand Battle 2000 that is currently called Army 21 (not Army 20), since tha innovations envisaged now extend a couple of decades past the turn of the 21st century. AirLand Battle and AirLand Battle 2000 are not different birds, altogether or separately. ALB is the basic concept, again, akin to the concept of the OMG, whereby the Army is attempting to switch emphasis from the defensive set-piece battle relying on continuous frontal lines fighting either in retrograde defense based on strongpoint anchors or linear offensive, to the notion of penetrating in strength at weakpoints, going deep in the enemy's rear to disrupt his second and third echelon follow-on forces and his supply and LOCs as well. This is somewhat revolutionary for us as it concedes that the enemy's local superiority will disadvantage our traditional approach to conventional warfighting; fat, dumb and happy - i.e. counting on our traditionally expected high consumption of supply based on our traditionally ample availability of bullets, beans and bodies. Now our leaders must be prepared to live off the land, travel with less baggage, use captured materiel, and practice other areas of resourcefulness which we historically didn't have to worry about. ALB 2000 is/was the projections out thru the turn of the century as to how we would carry out this concept in the future. Unfortunately, in my opinion, a lot of the pragmatic rightthinking involved in adopting this approach to warfighting is diluted by the overemphasis on hi-tech gizmos envisaged to help fight this difficult sort of battle, thus promoting the notion of a "Genie in the bottle" to save our forces butts, replacing the older notion that our wealth of resources would save our butts. Again, the tactical concept of deep penetration to cut off and disrupt local enemy forces, and the strategic concept of deep penetration to ultimately sever enemy theater forces from support, are not fundamentally new ideas in warfare, and if either sides' adoption of them can be said to be more "dangerous" than any other tactic, I don't see how.d ------------------------------ Subject: Paranoia Date: 09 Jan 86 13:42:57 PST (Thu) From: foy@aero >What difference does it make that the Soviet leadership considers its military >outlays purely defensive if their defensiveness is based on a paranoia that >requires them to look upon the world from behind militarized borders and bands >of buffer states which never seem to totally satisfy? No informed person >believes that they have held the East Europeans in thralldom as part of their >"world-wide ideological conspiracy" It is their buffer zone against the West >in general and against Germany in particular, the specter of whose re- >unification strikes more fear into the Russian soul than six Ronald Reagans. > J.Miller It makes a big difference if their expansionism is coming from paranoia rather than something else. The worst way of dealing with paranoia is to do things which reinforce their belief that the world is out to get them, ie installing cruise misssiles in Germany etc. richard foy ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************