Pakistani PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733614]Unfortunately, the average Westerner does not like to see massive casualties in a type of war they perceive to be the "best" at.[/QUOTE] I'm not an average Westerner, or at least that's what I've been told :v: Massive casualties is all part of formal wars.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733600]Insurgency is at its heart a junior leader's war, with a few exceptions. The problem is that we are making similar mistakes that the Soviets did in the '80s. But hey, for the guerrilla, battlefield victory is almost irrelevant.[/QUOTE] I would say the Soviets were even a bit better suited to that this type of conflict, even. They had a bit more flexibility than we do on the tactical level.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733604]yea yea yea fine forget i said equipment pretend i said doctrine, the point stands either way[/QUOTE] Theorizing new doctrine, and implementing it in practice are two different things.

Normally I'm against pulling out, but if they're going to bitch at us for doing a job that they're too corrupt to do themselves, we should just say "fuck it" and leave.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733644]Theorizing new doctrine, and implementing it in practice are two different things.[/QUOTE] And very often, the best doctrines are made in the middle of a massive war.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733607]That's not what we did in the last four wars. Yes I consider the Korean War an actual fucking war, not a "police action".[/QUOTE] so what did we do then? either you support the war and the war effort or you dont and you bitch about it

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733659]so what did we do then? either you support the war and the war effort or you dont and you bitch about it[/QUOTE] I'll most likely support it, but I have a feeling a majority of Americans will bitch as soon as the first causalities hit us.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;29733635]I would say the Soviets were even a bit better suited to that this type of conflict, even. They had a bit more flexibility than we do on the tactical level.[/QUOTE] Actually, at the low tactical level (squads and platoons), Soviet tactics are pretty rigid. Form a skirmish line and advance. And the Soviet troops that showed the best performance were airborne, air assault, Spetsnaz and motorized rifle brigade troops. The motorized rifle regiments were pretty mediocre.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733670]Actually, at the low tactical level (squads and platoons), Soviet tactics are pretty rigid. Form a skirmish line and advance. And the Soviet troops that showed the best performance were airborne, air assault, Spetsnaz and motorized rifle brigade troops. The motorized rifle regiments were pretty mediocre.[/QUOTE] It was all about times and efficiency, not self preservation and free thought.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733644]Theorizing new doctrine, and implementing it in practice are two different things.[/QUOTE] and luckily for us right now just about all countries are limited in the same way when was the last conventional war anyways? it seems insurgency is all the rage these days

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733653]And very often, the best doctrines are made in the middle of a massive war.[/QUOTE] If you're talking about Soviets during the late period of the Great Patriotic War (1944-1945), they actually were "rediscovering" Tukhachevsky's "deep battle" theories and adapting them to their current situation.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733698]If you're talking about Soviets during the late period of the Great Patriotic War (1944-1945), they actually were "rediscovering" Tukhachevsky's "deep battle" theories and adapting them to their current situation.[/QUOTE] Actually no, I was talking about smaller battle doctrines that we had to learn. I was talking about in general, not just the Russians.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733689]It was all about times and efficiency, not self preservation and free thought.[/QUOTE] That's one way of look at it, though in fact, Soviet officers at battalion level were expected to show flexibility and creativity. And in battle, Soviet troops transition to the defense after moderate casualties and call for fire support instead of slavishly pushing on.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733719]That's one way of look at it, though in fact, Soviet officers at battalion level were expected to show flexibility and creativity. And in battle, Soviet troops transition to the defense after moderate casualties and call for fire support instead of slavishly pushing on.[/QUOTE] Exactly, it was the officer's who made the call.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733709]Actually no, I was talking about smaller battle doctrines that we had to learn. I was talking about in general, not just the Russians.[/QUOTE] What, like on-the-field "how to" stuff handed down from experienced troops to newcomers?

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733726]What, like on-the-field "how to" stuff handed down from experienced troops to newcomers?[/QUOTE] Pretty much, or is that not doctrines. I don't have the cash nor the library card to look into military books. The closest one I have is Panzer Leader and I'm still reading it thru it.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733666]I'll most likely support it, but I have a feeling a majority of Americans will bitch as soon as the first causalities hit us.[/QUOTE] nah, it will prolly be a pretty even split, if not more on the side of supporting the war a conventional war would actually have a lot more support than the occupations we have been doing, we got a actual country and military we can point at as the bad guy, rather than a some small seemingly faceless group roaming around slowly trickling down american numbers

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733748]nah, it will prolly be a pretty even split, if not more on the side of supporting the war a conventional war would actually have a lot more support than the occupations we have been doing, we got a actual country and military we can point at as the bad guy, rather than a some small seemingly faceless group roaming around slowly trickling down american numbers[/QUOTE] There was massive groups of protesters against our involvement in World War I and the Korean War. The only reason we had support for World War II was Pearl Harbor.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733746]Pretty much, or is that not doctrines. I don't have the cash nor the library card to look into military books. The closest one I have is Panzer Leader and I'm still reading it thru it.[/QUOTE] im pretty sure that fits in doctrine but dont quote me

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733746]Pretty much, or is that not doctrines. I don't have the cash nor the library card to look into military books. The closest one I have is Panzer Leader and I'm still reading it thru it.[/QUOTE] In Western parlance, doctrine is "established procedures". Ad-hoc solutions and techniques are just that - ad-hoc.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733767]In Western parlance, doctrine is "established procedures". Ad-hoc solutions and techniques are just that - ad-hoc.[/QUOTE] Ah okay.

Fucking babies need to shut up. We found what we were looking for, now they're just provoking the matter.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733761]There was massive groups of protesters against our involvement in World War I and the Korean War. The only reason we had support for World War II was Pearl Harbor.[/QUOTE] good point, i was under the assumption the hypothetical country threatened us directly for some reason it definitely depends on the circumstances, the general public doesnt like us waging war on behalf of other countries but are all for it when we are directly threatened [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;29733767]In Western parlance, doctrine is "established procedures". Ad-hoc solutions and techniques are just that - ad-hoc.[/QUOTE] this is why you dont quote me :v:

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733781]good point, i was under the assumption the hypothetical country threatened us directly for some reason it definitely depends on the circumstances, the general public doesnt like us waging war on behalf of other countries but are all for it when we are directly threatened [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] this is why you dont quote me :v:[/QUOTE] Wasn't planning too. Oh whoops :v:

[QUOTE=CjienX;29733776]Fucking babies need to shut up. We found what we were looking for, now they're just provoking the matter.[/QUOTE] Half of Pakistan supports the Taliban, so I'd expect this from the PM.

As an aside, Panzer Battles had some rather stereotypical depictions of the Soviets. German sources are generally unreliable when they talk about the Russians :v: [quote]Hence, Mellenthin made such judgments as these: the Russian soldier is tenacious on defense, inflexible on offense, subject to panic when facing unforeseen eventualities, an excellent night fighter, a master of infiltration, a resolute and implacable defender of bridgeheads, and neglectful of the value of human life. As was in the case of Guderian, Mellenthin's experiences against the Red Army encompassed the period before spring 1944 and reflected impressions acquired principally during years of German success.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;29733814]Half of Pakistan supports the Taliban, so I'd expect this from the PM.[/QUOTE] This is like throwing a rock at the high school bully after he takes lunch money that was really your friends that was just hiding in your pocket unknown to you.

Is bad that 4 people have dominated nearly 3 pages of the entire thread?

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733815]As an aside, Panzer Battles had some rather stereotypical depictions of the Soviets. German sources are generally unreliable when they talk about the Russians :v:[/QUOTE] That was during German Success, not failure. If you read near the end of Panzer Leader when Hitler brings Guderian back during the end of the War, he gain a completely different view of the Red Army.

[QUOTE=CjienX;29733836]This is like throwing a rock at the high school bully after he takes lunch money that was really your friends that was just hiding in your pocket unknown to you.[/QUOTE] He really should've said that they dislike foreign incursions in their own country. But then again, if his intelligence service was up to scratch, they'd have found out about Bin Laden before the Americans.