Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What constitutes the ideal modern army?
Cybernuke    12/26/2009 9:51:19 PM
I want to discuss what is the ideal Modern Army? Though each country faces different threats and priorities, the discussion centers around constant conditions such as no immediate threats. I will begin this discussion with an incomplete idea what this modern army should be in rather general and vague terms. A modern army in my mind should be a flexible and mobile army. It should be light and must be able to react to a threat in a speedy timetable. A modern army should be professional and should exhibit quality over quantity. A modern army should, though light and flexible, be able to exert an incredible amount of firepower but should not be bogged down with machinery that is too heavy to move quickly. A modern army should be able to communicate securely and effectively throughout its ranks. A modern army should be able to work with intelligence to effectively figure out who they are fighting, what they are fighting, and how many they are fighting. Please expand with fresh ideas and don't be afraid to argue about my points :D.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Cybernuke       12/26/2009 11:56:05 PM
I am adding to the previous post:
A modern army should strive to minimize supply lines. In effect, an army should be able to conduct combat operations with limited reinforcements and supplies (in the case of supply lines being cut). 
 
Quote    Reply

Cybernuke       12/27/2009 12:02:57 AM
I am adding to the previous post:
A modern army should strive to minimize supply lines. In effect, an army should be able to conduct combat operations with limited reinforcements and supplies (in the case of supply lines being cut). 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Nothing New   12/27/2009 6:58:01 AM
A modern army should be capable of supporting the political objectives of the nation exactly like all armies have needed to do since the dawn of warfare.  At the political level many nations have no real external threat and their armies are thus required to be oriented around coalition operations out of area.  A nation like India however faces a variety of threats from neighbors it has had multiple wars with over the past 40 years and requires an army able to fight in the mountains and in armored formations in more open terrain.
 
Mobility need have nothing to do with light vs heavy units.  Indeed certain very heavy armored units are the most tactically as well as operationally mobile.  From the dawn of time we've had the combined arms team of infantry, cavalry (chariots and tanks), and artillery (bows to missiles).  Modern warfare places more emphasis on combined arms not less.  Modern warfare is more urban and thus requires heavier and more armored forces.  See world wide trends in adding more armor to everything from infantry carriers to trucks to the individual rifleman.  More mobility means more trucks, more and bigger transport aircraft, more ships, and more pre positioned equipment.
 
Certainly I agree with much of what you write above but consider the emphasis on intelligence, supply, mobility, communications, flexibility, etc you write about above and whether these are not exactly what say Sun Tzu writes about and whether these things are really timeless.   A modern army needs to reflect the timeless reality that war is an art governed by eternal truths; however, a modern army reflects it's nation's needs, aspirations, and realities.  Some nations are well served by armies that would ill serve others.
 
Most units are getting heavier.  This is not going to change.  Everyone involved with serious urban combat (US, Russia, Israel) all agree on the need for more armored units- especially much more heavy armored combat engineer units.  The US Army as an institution is not unaware of it's own reports on 2003.  Note both Russia and Israel building heavy armored personal carriers on tank chassis including Israel's new HAPC the Namer which weighs over 60 tons.  A modern army placing emphasis on leadership, training, and doctrine would be well served today, in the future, or at any point in the past.  A modern army recognizes it's most important asset is it's soldiers. 
 
Quote    Reply

Cybernuke       12/28/2009 4:10:37 AM
Certainly I agree with you that there are timeless characteristics of an army. The army is a political tool, one of many that is needed to win a war or stabilize a region. Yet, I argue that the army is an evolving tool with time and the introduction of new technology that change the style of combat in ways Sun Tzu could never have dreamed of. I did put a notice on the first post that this was an incomplete posting/list. The ideal modern army is in fact much different from that Sun Tzu on the conceptual level such as a modern army should be able to take on multiple roles whenever it is required, if not at the same time. Ancient armies did not operate that way, in fact it is a recent development. There was the invasion/defense, the battle, the occupation. Todays armies must be offensive and defensive in nature, be able to occupy, be able to conduct peacekeeping operations, conduct counter insurgency, and win the hearts and minds of the people. As we see the U.S. military in Afghanistan, they wear many hats.
Now, about heavy weaponry. They don't exactly fit into the modern fast paced combat zones. As we see in Afghanistan and all the way back to Vietnam and probably further there's acute difficulties in mobilizing and getting heavy weaponry into combat zones. Yes, that is why the U.S. devotes so much in transportation but we SHOULDN'T have to. Why accommodate heavy, bulky, difficult to deploy weaponry when we can retain their firepower in smaller and faster units.

That's all I can write for tonight; too tired. 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Modern vs Ancient   12/29/2009 2:13:29 AM
The wars you cite, Afghanistan and Vietnam, are insurgencies.  Personally I see Sun Tzu as relevant to an insurgency as anyone else including Mao.  Armies have been fighting insurgencies from the dawn of time.  Winning hearts and minds is an old notion.  As one example note the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid's around 165 BC.  While modern warfare includes the full spectrum of warfare, including the insurgency, this does not mean a total focus on lighter forces even for counter insurgency- see battle of Fallujah.  In fact when insurgencies contain an urban focus heavier forces are required, especially armored combat engineers.
 
To argue "heavy weaponry" doesn't "exactly fit into the modern fast paced combat zones" is with all due respect absurd.  There are many types of terrain where only heavy armored can either operate or be reasonably expected to oppose an enemy armored force.  Moreover, the weight of a specific vehicle might go up or down but the weight of units is increasing and this trend will continue.  Your "smaller faster" units have a place but require medium to heavy weight helicopter and aircraft units for both mobility and firepower; moreover, these units are too light for many aspects of modern warfare.  Note Afghanistan where NATO forces are seriously lacking in helicopter support which are medium weight forces.
 
The notion that we shouldn't have to devote as much attention to transport ships misses the boat.  If what is required is a heavy armored corp than that is what must be transported and supplied in theater.  Trying to do the same job with a medium weight force risks mission failure.
 
The Israeli army has both heavy and light forces but is primarily a heavy armored force with thousands of tanks and infantry carriers.  While you can fight as an insurgent against the Israeli army they seem to have defeated Hamas and the PLO on numerous occasions and if you are a nation you must be prepared to fight modern combined arms warfare with large numbers of heavy armored forces to attempt to defeat the Israeli army.  Other nations with different defense needs and geography are not well served with an emphasis on heavy armored forces.  However, to argue the Israeli army should be getting lighter would be ridiculous given there are getting much heavier and they have the combat experience to support their doctrine and equipment choices.  Indeed, all the US Army after action reports and studies from 2003 clearly indicate the need for more armored combat engineer units and heavier kit such as D9's instead of the D7's the US Army thought it could get away with. 
 
The MBT is not getting lighter.  The IFV is clearly getting significantly heavier.  Note the 10+ ton increase in weight between Marder and Puma and both Israel and Russia (and others) using MBT's.  Israel's new IFV is 60+ tons on a newly built Merkava 4 chassis.  Choosing to fight such heavy armored forces with light to medium weight forces would be an extremely bad idea.  FCS was entirely flawed in concept.  If one create a medium tank as good as today's MBT then one can certainly design a superior vehicle in the weight class of today's MBT.  The weight of the tank having far less meaning today when one is armoring all the trucks in sight.  Modern armies will continue to see the weight of units increasing for decades to come.  This trend is not going away.  Where we had the jeep replaced the much heavier humvee we then went to the armored humvee and heavier MRAP and the JLTV program to replace the humvee.  Indeed the USMC recently warned it would not buy a 20,000lb humvee replacement.  
 
It's simply an illusion that lighter units can substitute for heavy units in all situations.  Many modern armies will remain heavy and only get heavier.
 
 
Certainly I agree with you that there are timeless characteristics of an army. The army is a political tool, one of many that is needed to win a war or stabilize a region. Yet, I argue that the army is an evolving tool with time and the introduction of new technology that change the style of combat in ways Sun Tzu could never have dreamed of. I did put a notice on the first post that this was an incomplete posting/list. The ideal modern army is in fact much different from that Sun Tzu on the conceptual level such as a modern army should be able to take on multiple roles whenever it is required, if not at the same time. Ancient armies did not operate that way, in fact it is a recent development. There was the invasion/defense, the bat
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       12/29/2009 7:11:53 AM
For starters a minimum of career politics.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Depends on the task   12/29/2009 7:42:13 AM
Modern warfare is largly against guerilla and terrorists bases in urban areas so modern army should be -
1) Very well informed with great intelligence network for target selection. UAV here is a great tool.
2) Capable of quick deep penetration strikes and evac.
3) fight in multiple environments, like urban, mountains, jungles.
4) Be multi-lingual and culturally adept in mixing with locals.
5) Have a great media relations team.
6) Prepare for long low casualty tours- i.e. not cut n run.
7) Have a great medical and psychology team to keep morale high during what may seem as never ending pointless wars.
 
As opposed to traditional armies where mobility of entire divisions, armor, artillery etc were the key factors.
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       12/30/2009 3:51:01 AM
While modern warfare includes the full spectrum of warfare, including the insurgency, this does not mean a total focus on lighter forces even for counter insurgency- see battle of Fallujah.  In fact when insurgencies contain an urban focus heavier forces are required, especially armored combat engineers.
 
 The focus on heavy forces has scewed strategy to an over reliance on conducing war using these resources to the exclusion of less violent means.  The battle of Fallujah utilized heavy forces, but the Marine general, Mattis did not want to attack at all.  The battle was an operational victory, but like Desert Storm in 1991, a strategic defeat.  General Mattis, just arrived at Fallujah, wanted to get his marines to walk around and patrol on foot.  With the killing of the Blackwater employees, Washington wanted to find the killers, but even more, to send a message.  General Petreaus and his counerinsurgency strategy would not arrive for several years so the lack of an understanding of an effective strategy in Iraq led to many brute force encounters that was counterproductive for U.S. efforts. 
 
Rumsfeld, and the JCOS were opposed to the surge citing a desire and need to maintain a strategic reserve in case there was a flare up in another part of the world.  What they failed to consider was that any potential "flare up" would ultimately involve U.S. forces in a counterinsurgency and nation building role, as most trouble spots were the result of failed states doing something stupid.  If the U.S. had not brought in Petreaus and the surge in 2007, then what use of U.S. forces in any other conflict would have been successful?  We had the learn the lession in Iraq and then apply it to Afghanistan and then to any other potential conflict.
 
Heavy forces tend to cause politicians and generals to believe that a rapid strike to topple a despot and his army will result in an equally quick withdrawal and a copesetic outcome to the conflict.  Quite the contrary.  Future wars will require nation building skills that are far different than leading an armored spearhead against a greatly outclassed foe.  An officer in Iraq observed "Counterinsurgency is PHD warefare." 
 
Had the U.S. undertood the invasion of Iraq with no armor and heavy artilerry, but just humvees, strykers, and trucks, what would the level of planning entailed?  A great deal more attention would have had to be paid to the enemy, his culture, and what the aftermath of the invasion would entail.  The reliance on heavy weapons makes us lazy and distorts strategy considerations.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco    Ideal for what purposes?   12/30/2009 5:10:41 AM
   The problem with this as a topic of discussion is simple.
 
   There are too many variables to determine the "ideal" modern army.
 
   A state such as the US or the UK will have very different needs from Cuba. There is no one size fits all solution. To define the ideal modern army, you must first clarify what its mission is going to be, and every country is goign to have a different definition of that mission.
 
   One point I disagree with completely, however, is the apparent discounting of heavy warfare items. We're not always going to be battling insurgents. To get rid of heavy armor because its use is limited in the current war is foolhardy and shortsighted. At some point we are going to run up against an enemy which has heavy armor. Realistically speaking, there are two ways to eliminate the enemy's armor from the battlefield. Our own armor, or complete air supremacy and enough A-10 equivalents to saturate the battlespace.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Cybernuke       12/30/2009 7:24:34 AM
I should clarify this "heavy weaponry" backlash I am arguing. I feel that innovation in weaponry should be making weapons smaller and lighter. We hear of new bullet-proof vests that are lighter, lighter assault rifles, and UAVs over manned craft. Personally I have always liked the light tank/APC over the MBT because they were lighter, used less gas, and were generally faster especially with air power and man portable Anti-armor missiles so prolific today. 
Assuming my army is facing a fellow modern army who has heavy MBTs, and assuming my air power is winning the air war...the lighter, faster army with Anti-armor missiles can blitz the opposing army and win. Now if my air power was losing, the lighter army could easily transform into an armored guerrilla force who can move fast and hit the bulky armored force with probable success depending on other facts such as the quality of troops, communications, intelligence, and the biggy...logistics.
I do respect the arguments of heavier is better because it is so pervasive in military doctrine. When you see something bigger, the first thought is it's better. But, we most also understand that full blown conflicts between modern armies aren't exactly common and aren't about to be. The most common enemy is the insurgent and that's how diplomacy of the 21st is, go after the small fights and avoid the big ones/
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics