project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
29 Aug 2014, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Contact Support Team Frequently Asked Questions Register today!

View Poll Results: Do you think high tech has the advantage in present days warfare?
Yes 65 66.33%
No 18 18.37%
Not sure 15 15.31%
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2007, 12:22 PM   #51
puglous

puglous's Avatar
Default

No, I'm not ADVOCATING we bomb everything, or do whatever it takes to win. I'm only saying that's why we're at a disadvantage.

EDIT: This silence is making me uneasy. I hope everyone gets what I was really trying to say now...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
puglous is offline
Last edited by puglous; 06-17-2007 at 12:30 PM..
Old 06-17-2007, 01:06 PM   #52
blackeagle1992
Banned
Send a message via ICQ to blackeagle1992
Default

lol wtf is that question ofcourse high tech is the thing that lets us beat our enemies
blackeagle1992 is offline
Old 06-17-2007, 01:15 PM   #53
Michael_Denmark
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by puglous
No, I'm not ADVOCATING we bomb everything, or do whatever it takes to win. I'm only saying that's why we're at a disadvantage.

EDIT: This silence is making me uneasy. I hope everyone gets what I was really trying to say now...

Copy.

Then i will reply with a couple of questions:

If I understand you correct you’re focusing on the pure military factor without having any focus on the civilian factor when speaking about advantages and disadvantages in a pure military technology state of mind, right?

In example if we take the present day Iraqi War Theater then the high US air technology should be enough to defeat any low-tech Iraqi ground technology?

And in addition to these two questions, isn’t that argument more or less the very same type of argument that we can read about from the period between the two world wars, when some theoreticians argued that pure air power would be enough to win any ground war?


Note:
I know that if one think of what can be mounted on most airborne technologies of non-conventional weapon systems, then high tech has already shown us in Japan WWII, that when used properly in a pure military way without any focus on the civilian factor, any low tech will be defeated.
So for the record, my questions are related to conventional warfare only.



Mike

We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots.
Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven.

Tomorrow...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Michael_Denmark is offline
Last edited by Michael_Denmark; 06-17-2007 at 01:26 PM..
Old 06-17-2007, 01:57 PM   #54
puglous

puglous's Avatar
Default

Quote:
If I understand you correct you’re focusing on the pure military factor without having any focus on the civilian factor when speaking about advantages and disadvantages in a pure military technology state of mind, right?

In example if we take the present day Iraqi War Theater then the high US air technology should be enough to defeat any low-tech Iraqi ground technology, right?

And in addition to these two questions, isn’t that argument more or less the very same type of argument that we can read about from the period between the two world wars, when some theoreticians argued that pure air power would be enough to win any ground war?
Yes. What I mean by winning, like I said, would just be preventing a group hostile to the US from taking over Iraq. I'm ignoring the issue of hearts and minds.

If the US adopted a vicious focus on its goal, to make sure Iraq didn't become the territory of its enemies, disregarding how much life was lost in the process, the win in Iraq would be quick and easy (for the US). 26 million people would die in the process (I'm pretty sure that's Iraq's population), but they would all be Iraqis.

The point is, whether its because the US has a genuine concern for human life, or because it needs to maintain a good image, the US imposes ethical boundaries on its own forces that give it a disadvantage that compensates the advantage it gains through superior technology. Sadly, when you're fighting the type of enemies the coalition is fighting in Iraq, no good deed goes unpunished. Some Iraqis are starting to turn against Al Qiada because they see who the real enemy of the Iraqi people is, but for the most part, from a purely militaristic stand point, the morals of the coalition are its detriment.

True terrorists don't worry about such things as collateral damage. Their goal is their only goal, everyone and everything else that gets in the way of that process can rot in hell (or that's the message they're demonstrating).

However, when terrorists in Iraq commit atrocities that raise the civillian body count, the average citizen of the world (as opposed to citizen of a specific country) probably thinks "Damn those American bastards for going in there and putting Iraq through this" as opposed to "Damn those Al Qiada bastards for going in there and putting Iraq through this." I'm not saying the coalition shouldn't take any blame for what happens in Iraq, but during any attack the majority of the blame should go to whoever is directly responsible. Instead, people seem to be deflecting the blame of any terrorism in Iraq towards American troops with the racist philosphy of "arabs will be arabs, but you Americans should know better." If people would throw most of the blame at the terrorists for the attacks they were directly responsible for, as opposed to throwing the blame at their American enemies who were unable to stop them, TRUE terrorist attacks would stop.

Okay, I guess that last paragraph was a bit of a digression. My main point is that the coalition has an advantage in technology the terrorists don't, but a disadvantage in its ethical boundaries the terrorists don't.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
puglous is offline
Last edited by puglous; 06-17-2007 at 02:38 PM..
Old 06-17-2007, 05:53 PM   #55
ArmedDrunk&Angry
Banned

ArmedDrunk&Angry's Avatar
Default

I think the high tech, like the EOD robots, explosive sniffers and UAVs are vitally important to beating the "low tech" enemies while preserving the hearts and minds approach.
There does not need to be as many troops on the ground w/ high tech, at least on the front line, and that reduces the "occupation" feeling that would be present if we did not have force multipliers like the above listed equipment as well as integrated air support.
If we had a lower tech army would need twice as many troops than we do now and that puts more lives in danger from IED,rocket and mortar attacks as well as putting a larger strain on the logistics train.
ArmedDrunk&Angry is offline
Old 06-17-2007, 06:19 PM   #56
RittWitt

RittWitt's Avatar
Default

I hope I don't cause any offense saying this, but I wanted to make sure my comments were properly understood. I did not mean to imply that all the insurgents are uneducated goat-herders. To the contrary - I give my enemy the utmost respect for the coordination necessary to run the kinds of counter-occupation operations that go on against US troops daily. I do, however, find it dispicable that most of the foot-troops we fight against are very poorly educated. The people in command are not, but their soldiers are. Ignorant minds are more easily corrupted, and that is exactly what's happening here; Islamic radicals are preying on people's fears and prejudices to enact a "jihad" that turns its back upon many of the tenets of Islam.
I try to maintain a independant viewpoint on all this, but I find it very difficult after the things I have seen. My experience as an EOD tech probably exposed me to a higher volume of brutality than many. For the duration of my operational deployment, if a US soldier was killed in our AO, I was there quite literally picking up the pieces. I am the first to step forward and say that war has no rules. I think that it is ludicrous that anyone would try to civilize something so brutal. However, the civilized part of me thinks that if our enemy would at least engage us face-to-face, there would be some small amount of honor in it. I was blown up several times, lost a friend, and saw many good, young soldiers zipped into bags, but in all that, I never had a active engagement with the enemy. They detonate an IED, sometimes shoot a few wild rounds at us, then they run. Most times, they're gone before we even get there.
I hope that my comments, biased as they may be, can help others to better understand what it is to be a soldier on the ground over there, and to those of you who, like I did, served in combat, I have the utmost respect for the daily sacrifices you have made.
RittWitt is offline
Old 06-17-2007, 06:32 PM   #57
ArmedDrunk&Angry
Banned

ArmedDrunk&Angry's Avatar
Default

So to keep it on topic and based on what RittWitt posted, the low tech angle we haven't mentioned is soldier morale and the effect that guerilla tactics have on it.

I wonder also if RittWitt has a more biased view of IED morale-wise because he came close contact more often that a line soldier would.
Do you think you were more affected because of frequency or less and do you think you knowledge of EOD had an impact ?
ArmedDrunk&Angry is offline
Old 06-17-2007, 07:35 PM   #58
Gyberg

Gyberg's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruder
Some bitch about insurgency's figthing style what do you expect them to do? buy tanks and planes? wear uniform?
I agree, I might be wrong but in my opinion the only open violation of the Geneva convetion is not wearing uniforms, thus not counting as combatants. Using remote detonated bombs is imo a valid tactic, ask your self, if you would have a foreign power occupating your country, which in your opinion does more bad then good, wouldn't you do everything you can to stop them?

EDIT: Hope I dont offend anyone, not wanting to disrespect anyone!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anthony Lloyd, himself a former soldier in the British army and a Northern Ireland and Gulf War veteran:
"The men inside (the APC) might have been UN but they were playing by a completely different set of rules. They were Swedes; in terms of individual intelligence, integrity and single-mindedness I was to find them among the most impressive soldiers I had ever encountered. In Vares their moment had come."
Gyberg is offline
Old 06-17-2007, 09:55 PM   #59
ArmedDrunk&Angry
Banned

ArmedDrunk&Angry's Avatar
Default

Well I don't think killing civilians is part of the Geneva convention nor is video taping the beheading of captured soldiers but .....those are just details and we need to be sensitive to the cultural imperatives of the region.
ArmedDrunk&Angry is offline
Old 06-18-2007, 07:33 AM   #60
puglous

puglous's Avatar
Default

Well, I think when can agree on one point: taken in isolation, higher-technology is an advantage.

But there are always other factors in a war, including battle ethics and who has the home-field advantage.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
puglous is offline
Closed Thread


Tags
high, low, tech
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2014, Project Reality.