Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!military
From: borynec@bnr-di.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The death of mobile war
Summary: The entire theatre is the fortress
Message-ID: <26861@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 21 Aug 89 05:54:31 GMT
References: <8033@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8803@cbnews.ATT.COM> <26784@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: DI, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Lines: 47
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: borynec@bnr-di.UUCP

In article <26784@amdcad.AMD.COM>, jeffm@uokmax.uucp (Jeff Medcalf) writes:
> >From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec)
> >With the advent of long range guns and rockets, tied together into
> >an effective communications network, and equipped with weapons (ie.
> >projectiles) which will destroy (or at least immobilize) armoured 
> >fighting vehicles, warfare will once again, become a matter of
> >siegework.
> 
> I disagree.  Any time that you limit your forces to a specific place, and say
> that they cannot move, you have committed suicide.  The reasons are many: for

Maybe I have not expressed myself clearly.  Throughout history, battlefields
have been getting larger.  Armageddon is a tiny little place,  Kursk
occupied tens and almost hundreds  of miles.  With modern communications 
and fire control, I would say that the size of a battlefield is now on the
order of the size of Europe.  This does not mean the density of the troops
needs to be very high.  Indeed, if you concentrate you provide a very good
target.  

That is why I think that the offense is in trouble.  You need to concentrate
in order to attack.  Furthermore, you must shed all of your nonmoveable
armour (ie. earthworks).  This makes you a very good target for all of those
defensive weapons that move faster than your concentrating forces (ie. 
rockets, projectiles, and airplanes.)

The matter is analagous to WWI, where the machine gun, and the field gun
made it hell on earth for the poor bloody infantry who had to get out
of their holes and try to break the wire.   

> I do not think that artillery and rockets are a cure-all.  NATO certainly does

I agree.  I also agree with the person who said that ammunition supply
is the major limiting factor.  I most of all agree with the person who
said that a major conventional war with the Soviets is so unlikely as to
be irrelevant.

However, I do think that the nature of war is considerably different 
from what it was in WWII.  Has anyone heard of any lessons coming from
the Iran-Iraq war?       

-- 
UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec  James Borynec, Bell Northern Research
Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA        Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7