Question on Military Strategy
lasainte at earthlink.net
Thu Mar 20 18:55:35 MST 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "lvnadal" <lvnadal at earthlink.net>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Military Strategy
> You're welcome-- regarding your other question, about coordination-- it's
> not all that difficult, calculations are made based on time to target,
> on target, time away from target-- attacks are separated in time,
> and altitude. Moreover, with ordnance no longer requiring line of sight
> contact from the platform, i.e. pilot in a plane, it get's even easier....
I understand what you're saying. However, my point is the shock and awe
approach is supposed to be far, far more intense than has ever been seen. If
so, it means that coordinating this must be much more difficult because the
timing of each operation has to be so very more precise than in the past.
Otherwise, it could be a more lethal version of 12 guys jumping on one guy.
That is, they would at best be getting in each other's way. That's my
question. Isn't that what would happen, striking at that level of intensity?
> Tougher is close air tactical support of ground operations-- there again
> sequencing and vectoring is supposed to control the confusion-- but things
> never go as planned in a firefight-- you got artillery throwing shells 15
> 20 miles towards points on a grid, attack and transport helicopters in
> engagement with ground forces, tactical attack aircraft, and then of
> some genius calls in high altitude strategic bombing and the next thing
> know there's a big hole in the ground and a slippery pink mist in the air
> where half a company used to be.
I can believe it. Thanks again for the info.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism