John G
Member
INFANTRY.
Everything else is just support.
Everything else is just support.
Do we need ground troops?
- Thread starter twoblink
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Member
This very subject has reared its head any number of times through the last 100 years.
Guilermo Douhet (I think that's who it was) predicted that the aircraft, through strategic bombing, would A) make wars unfightable and B) would make ground and naval forces obsolete.
In the United States Gen. Billy Mitchell was such powerful, and abrasive, proponent of air power in the 1920s that he was actually court martialed for his advocacy. He didn't have a lot of tact, and he also greatly upset the Navy, whom he said would be totally outmoded by aircraft.
With the dawning of the atomic age the Air Force and Army tried to A) gut the Navy and Marine Corps, and B) predicted that with all wars of the future being atomic, only a few ground troops would be necessary to take and hold the ground.
In all cases, though, the need for an integrated, broad-base force comprising air, ground, and naval assets was shown to be absolutely critical.
World War II showed the gaping holes in Douhet's and Mitchell's theories.
Korea proved that only the United States Navy had the ability to provide the kind of support that ground troops needed.
Guilermo Douhet (I think that's who it was) predicted that the aircraft, through strategic bombing, would A) make wars unfightable and B) would make ground and naval forces obsolete.
In the United States Gen. Billy Mitchell was such powerful, and abrasive, proponent of air power in the 1920s that he was actually court martialed for his advocacy. He didn't have a lot of tact, and he also greatly upset the Navy, whom he said would be totally outmoded by aircraft.
With the dawning of the atomic age the Air Force and Army tried to A) gut the Navy and Marine Corps, and B) predicted that with all wars of the future being atomic, only a few ground troops would be necessary to take and hold the ground.
In all cases, though, the need for an integrated, broad-base force comprising air, ground, and naval assets was shown to be absolutely critical.
World War II showed the gaping holes in Douhet's and Mitchell's theories.
Korea proved that only the United States Navy had the ability to provide the kind of support that ground troops needed.
Mike Irwin
Member
No Navy can clear and hold a piece of ground...
Well, the United States Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, so if you really want to split a hair...
Well, the United States Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, so if you really want to split a hair...
I always like the quote attributed to an A-10 driver that you can dsetroy all you want from the air but it does you no good to RTB to find the Russian tank commander drinking coffee in your ready room.
America's biggest armor chink is that since mid 1942 we have not known what it is like to fight on a battlefield without air superiority. Eventually someone will figure out how to put us in that fix. Our dependence on air superiority is so great that it is intertwined with our military psyche. Regarding Somalia, the Somali leaders considered the beating they took to be a victory because they knocked a hole in our aerial infallibility and made us bleed. But that leads into another psych problem regarding the viewing public, post-vietnam POW squeamishness, etc....
America's biggest armor chink is that since mid 1942 we have not known what it is like to fight on a battlefield without air superiority. Eventually someone will figure out how to put us in that fix. Our dependence on air superiority is so great that it is intertwined with our military psyche. Regarding Somalia, the Somali leaders considered the beating they took to be a victory because they knocked a hole in our aerial infallibility and made us bleed. But that leads into another psych problem regarding the viewing public, post-vietnam POW squeamishness, etc....
Sure. Until someone's standing on the ground saying "this is now ours," you haven't won.
Bombs and air-power are more about softening up the enemy before the ground troops move in.
Having said that, I remember something like that question on a Frontline on Desert Storm; apparently Air Force officials thought enough bombing would push the enemy to surrender. Didn't happen, and I don't know if there's been a more effective air campaign in history.
Bombs and air-power are more about softening up the enemy before the ground troops move in.
Having said that, I remember something like that question on a Frontline on Desert Storm; apparently Air Force officials thought enough bombing would push the enemy to surrender. Didn't happen, and I don't know if there's been a more effective air campaign in history.
Two Blink: you might want to consider suggesting that your student do some reading on different types of military deception - especially at the tactical and operational levels. She'll have to do some digging to find much current info on it, since it's obvious that for such things to work they must not be common knowledge. Even so, if she just takes the stuff done in WWII and extrapolates she may well be able to see that the whole idea is to get the other side to bomb, shell, and generally rip the 
out of areas of little value while protecting those of high value - like troop concentrations, FARPs, headquarters units, and that sort of thing.
If she can see that much it should become obvious that the ONLY way to actually secure any piece of real estate is to have somebody on our side standing on top of it prepared to deal with anything that comes along.
out of areas of little value while protecting those of high value - like troop concentrations, FARPs, headquarters units, and that sort of thing.If she can see that much it should become obvious that the ONLY way to actually secure any piece of real estate is to have somebody on our side standing on top of it prepared to deal with anything that comes along.
Mike Irwin
Member
Navy Joe,
There were many times when the local air superority issue was in question during Vietnam, as well. The Vietnamese had very credible anti-aircraft assets, and sited them extremely well.
They took an especially heavy toll on American helicopters.
It was largely American experience in Vietnam and the tactics and weapons that were developed in the aftermath that allowed the United States and coalition to deal so effectively with Iraq's integrated AA defenses in the opening days of the Gulf War.
Iraq had an extremely complex AA suite, and yet it was cut out with minimal losses and in a minimal amount of time.
There were many times when the local air superority issue was in question during Vietnam, as well. The Vietnamese had very credible anti-aircraft assets, and sited them extremely well.
They took an especially heavy toll on American helicopters.
It was largely American experience in Vietnam and the tactics and weapons that were developed in the aftermath that allowed the United States and coalition to deal so effectively with Iraq's integrated AA defenses in the opening days of the Gulf War.
Iraq had an extremely complex AA suite, and yet it was cut out with minimal losses and in a minimal amount of time.
Waitone
Member
All the high tech, geewhiz stuff we spend money on is designed to extend and make better the life of Pvt. Rufus Grunt. Wars are won and lost with those people. I hope we never forget that Pvt. Rufus Grunt is the ultimate weapon.
Mike, I'm aware of the Viet mess, but I still say we had air superiority in that no enemy planes were blistering our troops and air support could still be had despite the cost. Yes we became helicopter dependent, we still need other plays in the book to put troops on the ground since doing the same thing time and again with a helicopter was re-underlined as a really dumb idea in Somalia. Vietnam was easier since with much of the terrain any competent opposition commander could pick possible insertion sites and site heavy weapons to make the landing zones rather untenable to sustained airframe life. Excellent counter-tactics were detailed in Hack's book "Steel my Soldier's Hearts".
Another battlefield given has become that we have artillery superiority. Sooner or later someone is going to make an effort to fight us like we fight. In Vietnam the troopers could usually count on prompt artillery support and the redlegs could deliver it from fixed firebases with zero fear of counter-battery of any kind. I hope we never see the day where all of our advantages are nullified by an enemy with some fight in them, but I fear we may. At that point it will most certainly be the well-hardened ground troop that we need.
Another battlefield given has become that we have artillery superiority. Sooner or later someone is going to make an effort to fight us like we fight. In Vietnam the troopers could usually count on prompt artillery support and the redlegs could deliver it from fixed firebases with zero fear of counter-battery of any kind. I hope we never see the day where all of our advantages are nullified by an enemy with some fight in them, but I fear we may. At that point it will most certainly be the well-hardened ground troop that we need.
twoblink
Member
Hmmm... twoblink assigns two books to read, they are:
Anthem (Ayn Rand)
Starship Troopers (Heinlein)
Gee guys... I beat you all to it! As a libertarian, of course I'd start with these two authors!!
I pondered joining the Marines in my younger days; and they said I was "intelligent enough" to carry the radio... One of the toughest jobs in the world; all the snipers in the world are trained to pick you off, and the guy standing next to you!
I see on the history channel sometimes though; these "ivory towered" professors talking about a future where wars are done with all bombs from the air, and no troops are needed..
What is amazing is, you see the serious bombings; and then afterwards, there are still buildings standing etc...
Bombs can't tell a civilian vs. enemy trooper...
Anthem (Ayn Rand)
Starship Troopers (Heinlein)
Gee guys... I beat you all to it!
As a libertarian, of course I'd start with these two authors!!I pondered joining the Marines in my younger days; and they said I was "intelligent enough" to carry the radio... One of the toughest jobs in the world; all the snipers in the world are trained to pick you off, and the guy standing next to you!
I see on the history channel sometimes though; these "ivory towered" professors talking about a future where wars are done with all bombs from the air, and no troops are needed..
What is amazing is, you see the serious bombings; and then afterwards, there are still buildings standing etc...
Bombs can't tell a civilian vs. enemy trooper...
Minute_Of_Torso
Member
Wars are still won by, and only by, the kid with the rifle, pistol, knife, e-tool, sharp pointy stick, or rock.
I think that most people, especially those who are too young to remember Vietnam, have forgotten that the sterile CNN wars they've been watching on TV are the EXCEPTION and NOT THE RULE.
I, too, am too young to remember Vietnam but I was fortunate enough to grow up surrounded by survivors of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.
God bless the infantry!
I think that most people, especially those who are too young to remember Vietnam, have forgotten that the sterile CNN wars they've been watching on TV are the EXCEPTION and NOT THE RULE.
I, too, am too young to remember Vietnam but I was fortunate enough to grow up surrounded by survivors of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.
God bless the infantry!
RustyHammer
Member
NOPE ............... not if we nuke them!
FPrice
Member
Mike Irwin...
"Well, the United States Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, so if you really want to split a hair..."
Speak that in the wrong company and you may find yourself on the wrong end of the attention of some proud Devil Dawgs.
"Well, the United States Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, so if you really want to split a hair..."
Speak that in the wrong company and you may find yourself on the wrong end of the attention of some proud Devil Dawgs.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Personally, I have more sense than to say such. And I've ALWAYS known it. Dad taught me.
Dad's fighting weight was 160 and he liked to brawl up into his thirties He lost one fight but won the rematch.
This is what he had to say about the Marines (he was Navy and Army National Guard): "Son, you can start a fight with any Marine you please with a good chance of success...just make sure it's a Marine and not Marines .
Dad's fighting weight was 160 and he liked to brawl up into his thirties He lost one fight but won the rematch.
This is what he had to say about the Marines (he was Navy and Army National Guard): "Son, you can start a fight with any Marine you please with a good chance of success...just make sure it's a Marine and not Marines .
twoblink
Member
My army buddy has a different version of that saying:
"You can start a fight with a Marine; but don't start a fight with a Marine if you don't think you can finish it before the other Marines finish their beer..."
"You can start a fight with a Marine; but don't start a fight with a Marine if you don't think you can finish it before the other Marines finish their beer..."
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
ABSOLUTELY!
Ground troops are America's backbone of our own
existence. Without them, NO war could be won!
Thumb's Up for the Ground Pounder's
PRIDE, HONOR, AND DIGNITY OF AMERICA'S FIGHTING FORCES!
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
Ground troops are America's backbone of our own
existence. Without them, NO war could be won!
Thumb's Up for the Ground Pounder's
PRIDE, HONOR, AND DIGNITY OF AMERICA'S FIGHTING FORCES!
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
- Status
