Posted on 02/27/2023 2:19:20 PM PST by frithguild
“Any war at the turning point of technological epochs ( and we are just in a state of such transition) is burdened by a lack of understanding of the principles of operation of new weapons and tactics of their use, as well as the overall strategy of the entire complex of military and political actions.”
There’s been an increasing realization and acknowledgement from all sides, that the current conflict has shaken the foundations of a lot of doctrinal military theory, and the very understandings of how strategy and tactics are employed in a modern ISR-dense (C4ISR) and observation/integration/network-centric-dominated battlefield.
This war may very well be the first truly 4GW and 5GW conflict. For those not familiar with the concept of generational warfare, you can get up to speed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_warfare
[Snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at simplicius76.substack.com ...
The author is too deep inside their domain. The article never defines C4ISR. So I had to google it.
C4ISR is Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4) Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
So ISR is not Infant Swimming Resource, which was my first Google result? I thought one side or the other was chucking babies into the Dnieper.
Do you want Russia to succeed in overcoming American military systems and advancements?
We had PRC 77 and hand and arm signals.
But against a large mass of guys in $30K trucks with guns and ammo who get up close and shoot people its less effective and certainly the cost calculus is a loser.
We have shown time and again we can take out communications and power and major supply depots. The resulting mass insurgency we have more trouble with.
And then you get to psychological warfare and information warfare of the 5GW and it turns out this stuff starts to backfire as you discover your own citizens don't even believe your lies and propoganda anymore, and won't get behind the war your Orwellian propoganda is pushing you into.
The underlying rule of war is that the other side will react to what you do, in a very fluid and usually unpredictable way.
While we belittle Russia for not establishing air dominance, Russian doctrine is that they won't be able to and therefore must be able to operate assuming they don't have air dominance.
Anyone who hasn't paid attention, the biggest single coner in wester defence planning isn't another intelligence satellite. It's that we never planned to stockpile the quantities of ordnance required for a real war and Ukraine has drained western armories.
Good article...
The end of the article shows the analysis is based on the assumption the Russians are inflicting 10 to 1 casualties.
The 10 to 1 casualty figures might apply if Ukranian civilians are being included, but even that seems insanely one-sided.
If the casualty figures were 10-1 in favor of the Russians, they would not have retreated. They would not be bogged down in the Donbass.
Some of what the author writes about the capability of modern sensors is simply wrong. Clouds are not nearly the impediment he thinks they are.
From a Russian point of view, certainly. Nonetheless, it is worth a read, especially for those whose conception of warfare is primarily from entertainment. It is also worth a read as an eye opener to the dedication of the Russians in the emoyment of technology in the theater of battle - not just a gas station. This also explains why there are no big arrow campaigns.
As an ordinary person posting on FR, I have no handle on the kia and casualty data. Nobody does who is here is my assessment. Time will reveal the truth, which is about a sad a fact as I can immagine.
Why do you ask?
Ya think? The stupidity of these neocon War Vampires has made us a contemptible dumpster fire. Policy should flow from and accurate assessment about what can be achieved with the resources available. What I see is policy based upon a Dunning-Kreuger confidence by products of postmodern education in the arc of history. Lighting bolts and electric chairs arc, not history.
It was a very basic and simple question to what you chose to post to us.
You don’t want to say no, you do not want Russia to succeed in overcoming American military systems and advancements?
The one certain thing is that the government itself is a major source of disinformation and we should disbelieve everything single thing they tell us great or small.
I hate when writers don't expand their TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) at first usage unless they're very common like FBI, IRS, CIA, etc.
Succede by what metric? I want it to end.
The writer is immersed in jargon, certainly. When you are so deep into a subject, you tend to lose sight of the fact that the new or casual reader wnt know what you think is basic.
“”Succede by what metric? I want it to end.””
It was a simple question “Do you want Russia to succeed in overcoming American military systems and advancements?”
The writer is immersed in jargon, certainly. When you are so deep into a subject, you tend to lose sight of the fact that the new or casual reader wnt know what you think is basic.
The problem with your statement is that Russia hasn’t had to deal with a real western/US/Nato military. It can try to get away with its artillery tactics vs Ukraine, but that would be untenable vs a military with the resources to achieve air supremacy. Their artillery could not survive that.
The other factor is about the purpose of artillery. In conventional doctrine (both NATO and Cold War Soviet) artillery is meant to suppress enemy positions in order for the attacker to penetrate his defenses, break through and exploit into maneuver warfare. Artillery is not supposed to bombard for months on end. This doctrine of suppression became standard in all countries in the last months of WW1. This breakthrough function is unavailable to both sides in Ukraine due to lack of resources, in terms of concentrating maneuver units to feed into a breakthrough.
The only reason Nato stockpiles of conventional artillery ammo are short is because it is being fed into a war where the planned aerial and other interdiction resources are unavailable to both sides, the possibility of maneuver warfare is limited, and so artillery has to take on a greater role. Ukraine is a unique situation and not an accurate model for a modern war.
C2
C3
C3I
C4I
C4I2
C4ISR
C5ISR <— Curent
C6ISR <— Soon
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.