Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Indeed, we are new embroiled in 3 block 4th Generation asymmetric warfare.

People pick up a weapon, fire a shot, throw it down and say – Hey, I’m a civilian, you cant shoot at me.

Children carry guns that are just as deadly in their hands as in an adults.

Commanders escape in ambulances, using Geneva Convention protection as the relocate to a new position (this happened in Fallujah, and is a common tactic).

“Doctors” appear on Al Jazirah, wearing white coats and talking about injuries to children. No one at the hospital recognizes them, and they vanish after the press interview, but the 30 second grab is out, and your soldiers are child killers in the public eye.

To be honest I support the Hitler approach. If someone fires a shot, flatten a village. Round up 20 local dignitaries and shoot the f***ers. If someone gives a interview from a hospital, bomb it flat.

Asymmetric warfare only works when we follow rues and they don’t.

Originally Posted by Burbage

Call it war if you like. It's not. War happens between nations. Not between nations and organisations. What's happening in the Middle east is occupation forces are placed in hostile territory for no reason beyond making their political leaders look as if they're doing something about "terrorism".

You can't fight terrorism with armies. We discovered that in Ireland.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Infantry minor tactics are like a dance, both sides know the rules, the one who performs the steps the best wins.

It’s a simple process, I can explain it in a pew paragraphs id you really want to know about triangulated warfare….


Here you go, from somethng I wrote years ago:

An army thinks in threes. Its not an accident that there are three sections to a Platoon. Its all to do with "Triangulated Warfare".

Early generations of warfare were linear. Armies lined up, marched together and beat the crap out of each other. Two straight lines. Armies prided themselves upon the straightness of the lines. They still do when you stand on a parade ground.

The advent of rifles and mounted cavalry changed all of that. If the enemy could get behind the line then things could get very sticky indeed. Bad enough that some guy in front of you was trying to kill you, but your concentration was broken when his mate popped up over your shoulder with a mean look in his eye.

To put a bit of reassurance into things armies began forming squares. Behind you, covering your backside, was another group of your mates. The British army were masters at this. An average British square was huge. Three ranks of a hundred men each, on each side of a square. 1200 men, long bayonets on the end of long rifles, formed a massive porcupine. The dead and dying were dragged into the middle (this now the parade ground “square”, and the reason it is revered.

When machine guns appeared (the Gattling gun) they were placed on the corners, firing diagonally across the frontage. Anyone advancing on the square had to walk through its wall of fire.

The problem was the squares were huge, unwieldy, and the closely packed soldiers were hammered by artillery fire. Once the guns ranged onto the square they simply walked the fire up and down decimating it.

The answer was the smaller triangle that we use today. A triangle has the smallest number of corners to an enclosed space. Put a machine gun on each corner and you have a defended zone.

Three sections in the Platoon each adopt a defensive position approximately 250m apart. The ground within the triangle is the held ground. Each corner of the triangle is held by the fire group (with assault rifles) and the gun group (with two section machine guns). Only the corners are manned. Instead of a thousand soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder, the line is held by enfilade fire from the machine guns. The fire group protects the guns from an assault, and each pair of guns fires in a clockwise direction around the perimeter.

It is much harder for artillery to hit the dug in machine guns. No soldiers stand out in the open. The area is as large as the squares of old, but are held with 40 times fewer men.

This is why a Platoon consists of three sections. Triangulated Warfare.

On a grander scale, a company consists of three infantry Platoons (together with a Support section). The same logic applies. Three Platoons (each laid out in thee defensive triangles) occupy a massive defensive triangle, each providing mutual supporting fire to the other. To overcome the larger frontage distances of a Company triangle, each platoon has a pair of massive sustained fire machine guns with an effective range approaching a kilometer.

An assault is simply a moving version of the defensive triangle. Moving one point at a time the triangle is “walked” forward, until the enemy finds itself being enveloped in fire from the machine guns firing along the sides of the triangle.
If the actual position of the enemy is known the advance is “two up”. The frontage line of the triangle is pushed to the enemy pace by pace.

If you don’t know where the enemy is, the assault is one up, a forward “corner” of the triangle advances, with the other two corners moving up. If the forward corner is attacked from the left or right the triangle can be swung to present the frontage line to the enemy.

When the enemy is located the left hand platoon or section moves almost flanking to them. The gun group pours suppressive fire onto the enemy position, from the enemies left hand side. This tends to worry people, they look at where the fire comes from, and keep their heads low.

At the same time the right hand section or platoon moves diagonally towards the enemy position, in a pincer movement. The enemy is under attack from two sides. And the third leg of the triangle fire directly to the front, further dislocating the enemy. As the right hand group moves forward it moves into a fast fire and maneuver formation. One part firing to cover the movement of the other. The enemy is under fire from three sides.

As the right hand group close with them the other groups cease fire, and it becomes a struggle of death. Assault rifles, capable of automatic fire or single shots, grenades and bayonets are used in close quarter combat. In the end it becomes a bar room brawl with guns and knives. If the right hand group loses more than about 30% of its men to injury or death, the rear centre section moves forward in a direct frontal assault.

As soon as the position is taken, the living victors reorg on the position. They are at their most vulnerable. They will have low ammunition, casualties, they will be tired and shocked. They quickly reform as a triangle around the objective, and prepare to defend any attempt to retake it.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

Disagree. At the political level, that might be the case, (your points on terrorism and what is war) but at the operational level, who cares if it's traditional war - it's a head-scratching new one we deal with (not so new in fact). The Falklands was limited war. In fact, the 'war on terror' IS organisational based - that's our point - those rounds still hurt - targets will fall when hit! In fact, one of the issues with the Ireland situation is that more force could have been brought to bear for drastic and immediate results - but that was not the way it worked. And even if all the naughty boys had been flushed out there would have been more.

However - it was the Brits who sort of discovered the art of counter-insurgency in Asia in the 50/60s. Hearts and minds and all that. The Yanks are not so good at it - but as always, they are getting there with the art. (I don't mean results, I mean the study of it). They are big on psyops etc. They have a division, we have a 2 man cell. etc! Psyop is not so much about stuffing around with people's heads - it's even publicity and education.

Originally Posted by Burbage

Disagree. The more force that was brought to bear in Ireland the more support the terrorists got. You kill one innocent bystander, you create ten terrorists. That's the way it works. I watched it happen for 20 years in Northern Ireland.

In Iraq, if you went in there with teachers, schools, hospitals, jobs, opportunity... you'd get far better results than you do with an army. And it's cheaper. But it doesn't suit anyone's political agenda.

GW Bush went to the senate and got 75 billion dollars, or something, to invade Iraq with. I could have solved the problem for half that, and kept myself a tidy nest egg.

Originally Posted by asprilla

Originally Posted by kevin747

If you knew my background .You wouldn't say that. You are writing bollocks.

Originally Posted by kporte

There are plenty less peaty malts but I like a blend too on occasion. Look out for the attached one, it is very reasonably priced and quite superb.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Kev, have you ever tried this Bailie Nicol Jarvie that Kporte mentioned?

Im off to the bottle shop in the next few days to dry a drop.....

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Kev, have you ever tried this Bailie Nicol Jarvie that Kporte mentioned?

Im off to the bottle shop in the next few days to dry a drop.....

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

Kev....Kev!! What sort of name is that anyhow....have you ever met a Kevin you would trust?

Originally Posted by kporte

How you doing mate! I seem to click with all the Aus-haters even though I am happy here! Maybe deep down I want to go back!

Originally Posted by Burbage

You can't fight terrorism with armies.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

We did and we kicked their miserable communist asses into next week.

Political solutions are the only end result though - as they should be.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

But Amazulu is right, there have been several good cases of armies beating terrorism. The Malayan campaign was a classic one, and Northern Ireland was held under control for 30 years until both sides had worn themselves down to almost nothing.