High Tech vs. Low tech

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

But do you think that the replacement is as good as the original ?

[<SS&D>Bys0n]

No! Technology is a tool, at the end of the day it is whoever is in control of it which determines how effective it is.

Look at the vietnam war, the US was far superior technologically speaking but the veitnamese had better tactics, even though its a taboo topic and "no one" really won i dont believe that is true, yes the americans killed more vietnamese but it wasnt about who killed most it was was about who achieved victory in their goals in which case sadly to say was the low-tech vietnamese

IMO Anyway

[RittWitt]

When the initial item is of such low quality to begin with, the replacement doesn't have to be. As you probably know, most of the insurgent groups we fight operate in cells. The lowest tier members, the least skilled if you will, are the only ones we see on the battlefield on a regular basis. To actually kill a bomb*maker* is one thing, but to kill the emplacer is something totally different, and ineffective.
I aplogize if I sound a bit jaded, but I am. To go over there and see young men and women die in terrible ways every single day - it's difficult to come out of that with any hope. The losses we suffer are never really human until you see the grief on others' faces - see the emptiness left over. I suppose it just difficult to experience that and not see an end in sight.

[Michael_Denmark]

Originally Posted by [R-PUB]Viper5

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

Doesn’t it depend on the situation?

I mean, Urban fighting where high tech meets low tech?

[Michael_Denmark]

Originally Posted by <SS&D>Bys0n

No! Technology is a tool, at the end of the day it is whoever is in control of it which determines how effective it is.

Look at the vietnam war, the US was far superior technologically speaking but the veitnamese had better tactics, even though its a taboo topic and "no one" really won i dont believe that is true, yes the americans killed more vietnamese but it wasnt about who killed most it was was about who achieved victory in their goals in which case sadly to say was the low-tech vietnamese

IMO Anyway

Hope I’m not offending anyone here, but is the V war still a taboo in the US?

If I do, please accept my apology.

Anyway, if one views the NV defence of centre part of Hue city (inner strongpoint “perimeter” defence) in February 1968, it actually does show a low tech defender against a high tech attacker trying to get the city back. And it shows that it did take the high tech attacker almost a month to recapture Hue.

So not that Low tech actually won the battle of Hue, but it did show abilities against High tech.

[Kruder]

Originally Posted by [R-PUB]Viper5

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

Vietnam vs. USA=USA lost.
USSR vs. Afghanistan=USSR lost.

You cant ignore numbers or the will of the fighting sides.

Some bitch about insurgency's figthing style what do you expect them to do? buy tanks and planes? wear uniform?

Dropping white phospored bombs(worse than prohibidet napalm) cluster bombs or strafing them with uranium cored bullets is ok
hit and run tactics of insurgency is not ok.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Ya know, it might be the kidnapping and execution of soldiers, or the indiscriminate bombing of civilians that makes people feel that the insurgency is not " playing fair " or obeying the rules of war.

The Vietnam war was lost just like the war in Iraq will be lost, by lack of national will to win and opportunistic politicians.
You need to read the military history of Vietnam and you will find out that while it took some time for the Army and Marines to adapt they did kick the crap out of the VC.
After the Tet offensive in 1968 the low tech Viet Cong ceased to exist as a fighting force and the NVA took over.
The NVA were low tech at Khe Sahn and they lost, decisively and there are other smaller scale examples of how the NVA were not successful leading up to the "Vietnamization" of the war.

There is also the factor that the US did not, for many reasons, use all of the "high tech" options it had such as mining the Haiphong harbor or attacking the air defense network in full.
The political decisions concerning where to bomb had a huge impact on the war not to mention the political pressure to negotiate a peace.
The negotiations were often pushed the hardest at the same time the North was having severe supply problems.

But of anything, you need to read about the '68 Tet offensive because in the US the media portrayed it as total loss for the US when it was the exact opposite.

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/khe/index.html
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...ietnam/tet.htm

The VC were an incredible fighting force that for many reasons could not sustain operations against a high tech mobile force but I think you will find that many Vietnam vets have a great deal of respect for their former enemies and it is not the " hit and run " tactics that soldiers hate so much as the unbridled savagery that is par for the course in the current area of operations.


There is this notion that we are fighting uneducated goat herders who live in a cave and ironically it's the left who says things like most often but the reality is the Al Queda has a lot of smart people fighting with and for them and they can read a history book and they know that all the high tech in the world is useless without the will to implement it and so they do everything possible to weaken the resolve of the US.

From Cindy Sheehan to Ward Churchill to Murtha,Kerry and Reid, the leaders of Al Queda knows what buttons to push and it is working quite well.



PEACE OUT YO !

[Epim3theus]

Yes to put it really cruel, if (ic.)USA was allowed to go all out with its killing potential they would win with ease. ATM media is putting them in check, no killing of innocent and what not.
They are at a disadvantage because they are expected to follow rules, and respect human live. Maybe to win you have to combine Low with High tec, and be brutal.

[puglous]

The political discussions on this forum are such a breath of fresh air from what I usually see on the internet.

I have to agree. If winning this war simply means making sure Iraq isn't taken over by a government that is hostile to the US, the US could easily win this war by leveling the whole country from the sky. Then we wouldn't have lost over 3,000 soldiers, and probably would be done already. The reason the US is losing is because it won't do just anything to win. The insurgency, on the other hand...

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Well bombing everything is not a solution but attacking Iran and Syria at their borders to prevent them from aiding the insurgents would be a more effective strategy.