You’re comparing combat systems of 1975 to 2005? The US spent more time bombing the holy f out of Vietnam and Korea with less effect than the Soviets had.*
Your time reference is off a little. It was between 1979 and 1989. Durring this time the United States and Soviet Union diverged considerably on weapons strategy. You’re correct from the standpoint of remote vehicle use because this started in earnest durring the first Gulf War.
Vietnam is where the concept of ground targetable weapons system was reinvented (Yes there were attempts in WWII). The first use of remote viewing drones proved VERY expensive but also showed the potential. You could say the billion spent on the system was a waste or you could say it proved the concept. The first country to bring a successful technology to fruition is the leader of the pack.
**While the performance of the US troops in Afghanistan was indeed impressive, it is also worth noting that 70% of the country remains in the hands of regional warlords, and anywhere outside of a city is considered prohibitively dangerous. Additionally, the Taliban still controls most of the southern part of the country, and the majority of Al Qaeda suspects, leaders, and fighters escaped before captured or KIA. **
Their getting chewed up with the same technology that worked at the start of the war. We’re not trying to conquer the country or it would have been over in 2 days of bombing. I’m also not sure where you get the figure of 70%. I have dial-up so if you have some good recent references (no anti-war stuff) I would love the link. Not calling you on it, just want the info.
**Pinpointing targets with elite troops brought in by helicopter to direct precision (GPS/laser) guided weapons launched from platforms hundreds of miles away will do a lot to blow sh*t up, but it is pretty ineffective for holding territory. **
We’re in agreement but for different reasons. First a correction, the platforms are not hundreds of miles away, the decision makers are. The platforms are usually close at hand but out of reach (bombers at 50,000 feet or disposable drones at 100-30,000 feet).
It is not possible to conquer a nation. You can subdue it, you can destroy it, but you cannot conquer it. Urban warfare will never work if Democratization is the goal. Stabilizing a region to the point where people WANT the changes is the only long-term method that will work (IMO).
**
Iraq’s military largely laid down and played dead. The conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq were too much of sickeningly mismatched forces, with one side trying to avoid direct confrontation, and without sustained effect, for them to be considered apt demonstrations of the US military superiority.
Too bad it does diddly squat to fight insurgents O_o**
The Iraqi’s surrendered to drones knowing they were part of a linked targeting system. That is technology at work.
Not sure what you mean by diddly squat when fighting insurgents. Having troops linked together has allowed them to target insurgents. It also allows better ground coordination. I haven’t heard any specific ratios of dead but my impression is that it is better than 10 to 1.
What is not being used and has not been introduced (to my knowledge) is small targetable munitions. Air strikes are not used against individual targets. There have been 500 lb bombs directed at suspected ammo dumps or large nests of fighters.
**Additionally, this battlefield bravado, while certainly impressive, does little to hold ground. IMHO, this has always been America’s weak point - we are known for excessive bombardments followed by a quick strike. Literally, carpetbomb and sweep up. While effective against battlefield troops, these tactics are incredibly INEFFECTIVE against insurgents and in urban warfare. Following my IS theory and basic logic, the enemy will increasingly rely on these methods and avoid where we shine. We can keep them from fielding a massive army of tanks, but god help us if they’re inside a city. Then we just tend to lay siege and letting corpses pile up, which is incredibly bad for international politics.
So, my question is more related to what is going on in urban/insurgent warfare, where we are more likely to fight our future battles.
Are lightly armored mobile platforms with linkups and laptop computers for every soldier worth the investment in urban warfare?
I look to the experts on these situations - people who have been engaged in this type of warfare for decades - for answers. I don’t see Humvees with guided rockets being used in most of these conflicts.
