Solutions for a New Breed of Urban Warfare

Tech Central Station ^ | July 1, 2002 | Joe Katzman

[katman]

The Pentagon is awash with talk about military transformation. An important part of that debate goes beyond transformation, however, and into a concept called 4th Generation Warfare (4GW). The urban battlefield is an important 4GW trend, and the USA will need to have the ability to deal with it. Some new U.S. experiments and lessons from Israel will help us get there... read all about it.

[SteamshipTime]

I'm not sophisticated in these matters, but this "Fourth Generation Warfare" talk reminds me of all the new buzzwords in business despite the fact that there are no new laws of economics. Wars must still be won by killing people and occupying territory; you have to displace enemy forces with friendly forces. That means people on the ground trading small-arms fire unless you just want to lob TMD's at each other.

I think 4GW is popular now because governments, including our own, want to figure out how to suppress revolutions when we learn that $35T in debt has to be repaid.

This article is also suffused with defense industry bias. A well-trained, motivated infantry platoon just doesn't generate the same kind of profit margins.

[Yasotay]

As a schooled military historian, I'm not that excited about 4th GW .... it seems to be nothing more then a buzz word. Today's terrorists are not much different then the terrorists of old ... therefore today's solutions should be modeled after what worked in the past .... JUST KILL THEM!

[sauropod]

Crusader should not have been killed. This transformation hooey is just that.

We are always fighting the last war. It was the Gulf War. Now it's Afghanistan. The USAF says they can do it all from long range. No need for an Army.

The mission need still exists for a much better artillery howitzer system than we now have. That need does not go away no matter how many shazzam briefings that the pasty faces in the building produce that say so.

[Yasotay]

I agree with you 100% about Crusader .... Rumsfeld is so basically wrong on that subject, that it is scary. A Commander NEEDS his own Fire Support and AIR is NOT there (especially when it is needed) 9 times out of 10. As for Artillery in the urban setting just ask the Russians (or the Berliners) why they call Artillery "The God of War".

[monkeyshine]

You don't have to kill them. I read a few years ago about these two giant machines that produce sonic waves. You set them up and point them at the enemy, and when the waves cross, whoever is in the middle (the opposing army) gets a bout of extreme nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. The enemy gets so sick, they collapse on themselves in a stinking mess. They will be incapacitated for hours. Then you just walk in, take their guns, build a big fense around them, and you have big POW camp. The battle is won without firing a shot.

[sauropod]

We call it "King of Battle"

[SteamshipTime]

What you describe would work very well in a downtown street with a massed group of rioters protesting higher taxes (and no earplugs). It would be useless in open terrain. First, you have to equip all your own personnel from its harmful effects. Then you have to get it to the site, protecting the transporting personnel from enemy fire while doing so (such a device would probably be mounted to an armored vehicle, rendering it difficult to deploy in mountainous or rocky terrain). Then it has be deployed under hostile fire (including shoulder-launched rockets) close enough to a conveniently stationary, conveniently massed enemy. Assuming all this is accomplished and the device accomplishes its intended effect, you have to quickly erect your "portable POW camp" (hopefully with no hostile fire). Then you have to take troops from offensive combat to guard and transport the prisoners to the rear.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I'm sure the defense contractor who dreamed up this Rube Goldberg device and sold it to some desk jockey got a nice, expensive R & D contract.

[Yasotay]

For a VERY good reason .... having a battalion of 155mm firing an FPF will beat an M-16 any day (and I was in the infantry)

[monkeyshine]

You're right. It's easier to just shoot them.

[Ides of March]

You don't have to kill them. ... They will be incapacitated for hours. ... The battle is won without firing a shot.

The battle, maybe, but not the war.

Beware.