Perimeter defences plan for a military base for the GWOT - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
October 1st, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Frogman
You simply cannot leave the border unmanned, that would be mad, stupid and unthinkable.
Well we are told it'll be "the end of combat operations by 2014", right?

So is your notion that it will be OK for us to leave the border unmanned by 2014 but not before then?

We need to defeat the enemy equally both sides of the border. Having forces along the border makes it no easier to hit the Taliban deep into Pakistan. For that we need air power.

It's such a long border that making it impenetrable in summer is impractical and in winter the weather does the job fine.

It only takes one enemy supply path open through the mountains to make the whole border operation pointless.

The border FOBs are difficult to supply, difficult to redeploy forces to and from, a drain on resources and don't help our strategic objectives which is to defeat terrorism on both sides of the border.

So forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! We need to lose our obsession with the strategically meaningless border and concentrate on our strategic objectives in the war on terror.

Yes we do need strong defensive lines against the Taliban but we ought to choose defensive lines that suit our military efficiency, not suit the historical political map which drew the border.

It's much more efficient to choose defensive lines parallel to and at the end of our main supply lines. That way our FOBs are easier to supply and our supply lines are more secure.


Image: The text in this picture where it says "Border Defences" that does not refer to the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! NO IT DOESN'T! Those "Border defences" being mentioned just mean the "Side-of-the-road defences". Repeat, the image above has absolutely nothing to do with the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! This road is a main supply road, a highway. Forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border for one minute of your life if you possibly can! I know it is tough but go on, you can do it!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Frogman
An intelligent guy such as yourself must be aware of the current financial "crisis" affecting the worlds economies?
Yes I am aware.

Are you aware that I am not proposing that we spend more? I am proposing that we spend less but spend it more efficiently.

What part of -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
- didn't you understand?
October 1st, 2012  
42RM
 
Do you have any idea what kind of war we are fighting??
October 1st, 2012  
Capt Frogman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
Do you have any idea what kind of war we are fighting??
Apparently people who have never set foot in the country are the experts. Those who have been in the country know nothing.

This is the Internet, everyone's an expert!
--
Boots
October 1st, 2012  
Capt Frogman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
Well we are told it'll be "the end of combat operations by 2014", right?

So is your notion that it will be OK for us to leave the border unmanned by 2014 but not before then?

We need to defeat the enemy equally both sides of the border. Having forces along the border makes it no easier to hit the Taliban deep into Pakistan. For that we need air power.

It's such a long border that making it impenetrable in summer is impractical and in winter the weather does the job fine.

It only takes one enemy supply path open through the mountains to make the whole border operation pointless.

The border FOBs are difficult to supply, difficult to redeploy forces to and from, a drain on resources and don't help our strategic objectives which is to defeat terrorism on both sides of the border.

So forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! We need to lose our obsession with the strategically meaningless border and concentrate on our strategic objectives in the war on terror.

Yes we do need strong defensive lines against the Taliban but we ought to choose defensive lines that suit our military efficiency, not suit the historical political map which drew the border.

It's much more efficient to choose defensive lines parallel to and at the end of our main supply lines. That way our FOBs are easier to supply and our supply lines are more secure.


Image: The text in this picture where it says "Border Defences" that does not refer to the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! NO IT DOESN'T! Those "Border defences" being mentioned just mean the "Side-of-the-road defences". Repeat, the image above has absolutely nothing to do with the Afghanistan / Pakistan border! This road is a main supply road, a highway. Forget the Afghanistan / Pakistan border for one minute of your life if you possibly can! I know it is tough but go on, you can do it!



Yes I am aware.

Are you aware that I am not proposing that we spend more? I am proposing that we spend less but spend it more efficiently.

What part of -



- didn't you understand?
The majority of that is unrealistic, way off the mark and shows a complete lack of understanding. I can't be arsed picking it all a part as I have more constructive things to do with my time.

I am in awe of your superior knowledge! . Clearly my 20 odd years of leading a team in countless conflicts (Afghanistan twice) counts for nothing!
October 1st, 2012  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Frogman
Apparently people who have never set foot in the country are the experts. Those who have been in the country know nothing.

This is the Internet, everyone's an expert!
Well CF
We´re just some silly little boys in uniforms who know nothing about war.
October 1st, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
Do you have any idea what kind of war we are fighting??
We ought to be fighting the Afghanistan / Pakistan battles of the Global War on Terror in an efficient, strategically wise way. That takes intelligent leadership by republican intellectuals.

I am concerned however that if Her Majesty's generals or HM's current or aspiring honorary Knights Commander and Knights Grand Cross of the British Empire from the US general staff are calling any of the shots then the kind of war we might end up with will be a replay of the Royal military disaster-wars of Afghanistan such as the 1842 retreat from Kabul / Massacre of Elphinstone's army.

What kind of war should we expect royalist twits to be fighting?
October 1st, 2012  
42RM
 
So in your opinion, how do we fight in an efficient, strategically wise way?
October 1st, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 

Topic: How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
So in your opinion, how do we fight in an efficient, strategically wise way?
Thanks. That's a fair question. I should start a new topic on AfPak and war on terror strategy because it is a long answer - some of the stronger defensive measures I have mentioned here but we need a stronger offence as well, taking the fight to Taliban central and their Pakistani military intellegence (ISI) backers. Slapping Iran about a bit more would probably help some too, come to think of it!

OK, I've now started a new topic at this link.

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)
October 1st, 2012  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
...No this would allow enemy infantry mortars to get within firing range of the Central Base.


...Thanks for trying to find a flaw in my base defences.
Well just for the fun of it and because this is this what I feel an absurd idea I ran your base defense through TACOPS milsim yesterday night, in different scenarios, my first intuition turned out to be right on the spot I think:

- First scenario: 3 toyotas with a 60mm 3-tube mortar team within one them simultaneously tried to squeeze through all your towers at the same time for a total of 600 toyotas and 200 mortar teams. I gave the base an AH 64 squadron, the towers 30 mm cannons and TOW (obstacles as pointed out by you: Wire and ditches), guess what: 87 mortar teams managed to fire one volley at the base, 36 got two volleys off, and 12 got 5 volleys off (I stopped it there).

- 2nd scenario: 100 LMG armed Toyotas with 30 (Russian) 82mm 3-tube mortar teams and 3 faulty old MANPADS tried to squeeze between 5 of your towers. Same defenses as above. Result (repeated three times with little difference in outcome): 15 mortar teams got 3 volleys at the base before eliminated.

- 3rd scenario: Attack on 3 of your towers with the intent to disable the middle one, using supressive fires by 6x 82 mortar teams (3 tube each) and 30 LMG equipped Toyotas took out the middle tower every time (the mentioned lack of mutual support) against a flight of AH 64 and 30mm cannons/TOW leaving a gap of 1600 yards where the follo up could easily enter.

Since the Maginot Line in the ´30s we know that such static defenses dont work and are useless once the enemy gets by (and he will with maneuver warfare): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line .

Excerpts (rings a bell?):

Quote:
The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defenses, which France constructed...

...The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilise in the event of attack, allowing French forces to move ... for a decisive confrontation with attacking forces. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. Military experts extolled the Maginot Line as a work of genius, believing it would prevent any further invasions from the east ...

... The specification of the defences was very high, with extensive and interconnected bunker complexes for thousands of men; there were 45 main forts (grands ouvrages) at intervals of 15 kilometres (9.3 miles), 97 smaller forts (petits ouvrages) and 352 casemates between, with over 100 kilometres (62 miles) of tunnels. Artillery was coordinated with protective measures to ensure that one fort could support the next in line by bombarding it directly without harm. The largest guns were therefore 135 mm (5.3 in) fortress guns; larger weapons were to be part of the mobile forces and were to be deployed behind the lines. ...

... Armoured cloches There are several kinds of armoured cloches. The word cloche is a French term meaning bell due to its shape. All cloches were made in an alloy steel. Cloches are non-retractable turrets.
  • The most widespread are the GFM cloches, where GFM means Guetteur fusil-mitrailleur (machine-gun sentry). They are composed of 3 to 4 openings, called crenels or embrasures. These crenels may be equipped as follows: Rifle machine-gun, direct vision block, binoculars block or 50 mm (2.0 in) mortar. Sometimes, the cloche is topped by a periscope. There are 1,118 GFM cloches on the line. Almost every block, casemate and shelter is topped by one or two GFM cloches.
  • The JM cloches are the same as the GFM cloches except that they have one opening equipped with a pair of machine-guns. There are 174 JM cloches on the line.
  • There are 72 AM cloches (armes mixtes or "mixed weapons") on the line, equipped with a pair of machine guns and a 25 mm (1.0 in) anti-tank gun. Some GFM cloches were transformed into AM cloches in 1934. (The aforementioned total does not include these modified cloches.)
  • There are 75 LG cloches (lance-grenade – grenade launcher) on the line. Those cloches are almost completely covered by concrete, with only a small hole through which grenades were launched for local defence.
  • There are 20 VP cloches (periscopic vision) on the line. These cloches could be equipped with several different periscopes. Like the LG cloches, they were almost completely covered by concrete. ...

... The line included the following retractable turrets.
  • 21 turrets of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1933
  • 12 turrets of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1932
  • 1 turret of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1905
  • 17 turrets of 135 mm (5.3 in)
  • 21 turrets of 81 mm (3.2 in)
  • 12 turrets for mixed weapons (AM)
  • 7 turrets for mixed weapons + mortar of 50 mm (2.0 in)
  • 61 turrets of machine-guns
  • ...
... As such, reference to the Maginot Line is used to recall a strategy or object that people hope will prove effective but instead fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that "generals always fight the last recent war, especially if they have won it" ...
Try your scenarios out for yourself... :

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php...122&Itemid=172

Rattler
October 1st, 2012  
Tankboy
 
 
Is this some kind of x box war game.
 


Similar Topics
Next US President
Great Military Leaders vs Military Education
What was said on the 3rd presidential debate.
*Joining the Military - Questions Abound - Help Appreciated!
Kerry Unveils Plan To Overhaul Military