High Tech vs. Low tech - Page 4

~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ · 06-15-2007, 12:01 AM

But bombing it was never the answer.
Another 2 divisions would have made a lot more difference.

Ironcomatose · 06-15-2007, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmedDrunk&Angry

But bombing it was never the answer.
Another 2 divisions would have made a lot more difference.

How is bombing it not a answer? Its not THE answer but it is one answer that favors america, assuming we are all heartless bastards like i am.

Ringo876 · 06-15-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironcomatose

How is bombing it not a answer? Its not THE answer but it is one answer that favors america, assuming we are all heartless bastards like i am.

I'm a nice guy. I prefer avoiding a mass of senseless slaughter of civ's.

Michael_Denmark · 06-15-2007, 03:44 AM

So just to get back on track here guys, it seems that in a democratically society certain factors makes it complicated if not impossible on a large battlefield scale for a high tech military force to make use all of its battlefield related power.

But does that really mean that a more low-tech opponent actually can benefit from it on today’s battlefield?

And if yes, then how can a more low tech opponent benefit in a tactical way? (battlefield wise speaking)

~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ · 06-15-2007, 04:28 AM

Human shields.
Low tech guerillas ( terrorists ) have been using them for years.
Hamas did a great job last summer getting their "own" people killed by launching from residential areas.
What I don't know that they are doing but what I would do, low tech speaking, is make a lot of small bombs, let them find them and waste time and blood dealing with lots of little bombs.

@ ironcomatose. if you think carpet bombing is in america's interests in any way you are not looking at the bigger picture.

The_motivator · 06-16-2007, 03:35 AM

For those of you who read the 4GW link i posted, 4GW is the attempt to attack the enemy's public support of the war, as opposed to the full-out destruction of its military and industrial resources.

3GW is what our military has been stuck in for a while, and have been fighting wars based on 3GW principles.

While the authors make comments on whether or not Terrorism counts as 4GW, from what i can gather, Geurilla warfare counts as 4GW. Look around, watch the news, talk to a random person on the street. Whether you like it or not, based on 4GW principles, we as Americans, are greatly losing. the amount of loud voices who don't support the war are breaking the will of those who do, or making some of them complacent with the eventuality that we will give up or turn tail, or just lose. They(the insurgents, and whoever's backing them) are going for the win.

Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot we can do about it, as about 1/2 the people I meet daily (I work retail, so that's a fair amount) are spineless. The other 1/2 are either very strong valued, or i can't read so well personality wise.

Low tech won Vietnam through 4GW principles, and is winning this war through 4GW principles. NVG, M1A2 Abrams, and the JSF don't matter if the enemy can ambush a squad of our men, behead them on video, and make us turn tail.

The_motivator · 06-16-2007, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael_Denmark

And if yes, then how can a more low tech opponent benefit in a tactical way? (battlefield wise speaking)

sorry for the double post, but I had to address this. There are three levels of war, Operational, Strategic and Tactical.

You can win all of the tactical situations, but lose the strategic aspect. (see Vietnam).
You can lose most of the tactical situations, but win the strategic objective through misinformation, terror, and geurilla warfare.
Operational aspects generally can't be defeated unless they are given up, IIRC. OEF, and OIF can be indefinate until they are announced failed.

~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ · 06-16-2007, 04:06 AM

Operational aspects generally can't be defeated unless they are given up, IIRC. OEF, and OIF can be indefinite until they are announced failed

Or worse............annouced as victory with immediate withdrawal.

Viper5 · 06-16-2007, 07:09 AM

A high tech army will always beat a low tech army militarily. Always.

RittWitt · 06-16-2007, 02:39 PM

I owe my life many times over to the robots we use in EOD to help us defuse IED's emplaced by the enemy. But not for one second do I believe that technology gives us a real advantage over the enemy. In my opinion, the effectiveness vs. troops that IED's have shown is proof of this concept, as heart-wrenching as it is. What saddens me the most is that with all this technology, all we've done is discovered better, more efficient ways to enact terrible slaughter upon our fellow man.
Modern war can be dehumanzining at times and painfully realistic at others.

More to the point of the thread, I think there is very little argument that in a stand-up fight against a "real" enemy that "plays by the rules," we would have a strong advantage with superior technology. However, that is not the situation we face in today's world. Our enemy doesn't play by the rules; he uses civillians as shields and sometimes as fodder. He won't fight us in combat because he knows he will lose. He is content to watch, wait and kill with impudence until someone takes him out. And even when he is eliminated, others surge forward to take his place. To me the question is not how much (or little) of an advantage our technology gives us over our enemy, but how many good men it takes to kill one who is so easily replaced?

View Poll Results: Do you think high tech has the advantage in present days warfare?
Yes	63	65.63%
No	18	18.75%
Not sure	15	15.63%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

06-15-2007, 03:44 AM	#34
Michael_Denmark Join Date: Jul 2006 Denmark Location: Project Reality Frontline Posts: 639	So just to get back on track here guys, it seems that in a democratically society certain factors makes it complicated if not impossible on a large battlefield scale for a high tech military force to make use all of its battlefield related power. But does that really mean that a more low-tech opponent actually can benefit from it on today’s battlefield? And if yes, then how can a more low tech opponent benefit in a tactical way? (battlefield wise speaking)
	We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots. Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven. Tomorrow... ---

06-16-2007, 03:35 AM	#36
The_motivator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 600	For those of you who read the 4GW link i posted, 4GW is the attempt to attack the enemy's public support of the war, as opposed to the full-out destruction of its military and industrial resources. 3GW is what our military has been stuck in for a while, and have been fighting wars based on 3GW principles. While the authors make comments on whether or not Terrorism counts as 4GW, from what i can gather, Geurilla warfare counts as 4GW. Look around, watch the news, talk to a random person on the street. Whether you like it or not, based on 4GW principles, we as Americans, are greatly losing. the amount of loud voices who don't support the war are breaking the will of those who do, or making some of them complacent with the eventuality that we will give up or turn tail, or just lose. They(the insurgents, and whoever's backing them) are going for the win. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot we can do about it, as about 1/2 the people I meet daily (I work retail, so that's a fair amount) are spineless. The other 1/2 are either very strong valued, or i can't read so well personality wise. Low tech won Vietnam through 4GW principles, and is winning this war through 4GW principles. NVG, M1A2 Abrams, and the JSF don't matter if the enemy can ambush a squad of our men, behead them on video, and make us turn tail.
The_motivator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 600	Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.

06-16-2007, 07:09 AM	#39
Viper5 Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Muther Russia Posts: 2,352	A high tech army will always beat a low tech army militarily. Always.
	Originally said by: [TG]Dirtboy "Wow. Your not cool because you quote Generation Kill. In fact, you're uncool. Yeah.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-15-2007, 12:01 AM	#31
~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Island Posts: 6,971	But bombing it was never the answer. Another 2 divisions would have made a lot more difference.

06-15-2007, 04:28 AM	#35
~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Island Posts: 6,971	Human shields. Low tech guerillas ( terrorists ) have been using them for years. Hamas did a great job last summer getting their "own" people killed by launching from residential areas. What I don't know that they are doing but what I would do, low tech speaking, is make a lot of small bombs, let them find them and waste time and blood dealing with lots of little bombs. @ ironcomatose. if you think carpet bombing is in america's interests in any way you are not looking at the bigger picture.

06-16-2007, 04:06 AM	#38
~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Island Posts: 6,971	*Operational aspects generally can't be defeated unless they are given up, IIRC. OEF, and OIF can be indefinite until they are announced failed* Or worse............annouced as victory with immediate withdrawal.

06-16-2007, 02:39 PM	#40
RittWitt Join Date: Nov 2005 United States of America Location: AR Posts: 27	I owe my life many times over to the robots we use in EOD to help us defuse IED's emplaced by the enemy. But not for one second do I believe that technology gives us a real advantage over the enemy. In my opinion, the effectiveness vs. troops that IED's have shown is proof of this concept, as heart-wrenching as it is. What saddens me the most is that with all this technology, all we've done is discovered better, more efficient ways to enact terrible slaughter upon our fellow man. Modern war can be dehumanzining at times and painfully realistic at others. More to the point of the thread, I think there is very little argument that in a stand-up fight against a "real" enemy that "plays by the rules," we would have a strong advantage with superior technology. However, that is not the situation we face in today's world. Our enemy doesn't play by the rules; he uses civillians as shields and sometimes as fodder. He won't fight us in combat because he knows he will lose. He is content to watch, wait and kill with impudence until someone takes him out. And even when he is eliminated, others surge forward to take his place. To me the question is not how much (or little) of an advantage our technology gives us over our enemy, but how many good men it takes to kill one who is so easily replaced?

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links