Military Review

Features of modern warfare: “smart” and slow

27

Reports coming today from the most "hot" military direction - the Syrian, among other things, make us think about how, in the current conditions, not only the methods and methods of warfare have changed, but also the pace and speed of hostilities. The situation looks paradoxical: in the presence of a military aviationcapable of covering vast distances in a matter of minutes, and of the same missiles that could be struck instantly from another hemisphere, modern armies have returned to practice, in which battles for mastering small towns have been going on for almost years. Why?


Really, sometimes it seems that we returned to the ХІХ, and even to the ХVIII, when the siege of the fortresses lasted for years, and the military campaigns - for whole decades. Then this was due to technical issues: not every weapon could control good fortifications, troop transfers were carried out “on their own” and depended extremely on both the quality and quantity of roads and simply on weather conditions. Lasciviousness could easily frustrate any “blitzkrieg”, and the conquerors who stormed their gates and bastions, sometimes pounded their foreheads in the most literal sense of the word.

The current means of destruction make it possible to level almost any fortifications with the ground, and enormous military contingents are moving around the world at a speed that our ancestors could not even imagine. Progress, however ... it is precisely his achievements that largely determine the utmost caution, which directly translates into the slowness with which military operations are conducted today. Firstly, why drive the infantry or “armor” into the attack if the enemy’s defenses according to new military doctrines must first be loosened with electronic warfare equipment, bleed by bombing, and at the same time exert maximum demoralizing effect on his personnel in one way or another? Didn’t work the first time? Let's try again. And more ... The main thing is that we have fewer losses, and even better - they were completely absent.

Secondly, given the cost of any modern combat vehicle, it doesn’t matter tank, an armored personnel carrier or even engineering support equipment, its loss or serious damage turns into a major loss. We don’t even have to talk about aviation - there are such numbers in use that they can cause a heart attack for an understanding financier. And the soldier in most modern armies is not a free recruit or low-budget draftee at all. As a rule, insurance payments in the event of his death and disability are also very noticeable. Well, and who after this needs rapid assaults and dashing attacks? For comparison, one of the most important battles of the Great Patriotic War, the Battle of Stalingrad ... On both sides millions of armies, thousands of tanks, planes, tens of thousands of guns were involved. Now they don’t fight like that.

In this case, one more thing to consider: the vast majority of modern military conflicts are conducted with the participation of the US Army and its allies. And the “military tactics” there roughly fit into the principle: after the first shot in your direction, face you in the ground and wait until the air support arrives! Even better - in combination with such a missile and artillery strike, from which everything will be plowed several kilometers in breadth and several meters in depth. So they are fighting. And it doesn’t matter at all that the task is set to occupy a settlement, the entire “garrison” of which is about ten “barmaley” with a rifle weapons. While the enemy will give at least some signs of life, no one will go into a frontal attack, they will “iron” - at least a week, at least a month, at least six months.

Russians, of course, have never fought like that. “A bullet is a fool, a bayonet is well done!” And so on ... It’s very easy to imagine our tank and motorized infantry columns advancing with an irrepressible steel shaft on the same Idlib and taking it in the shortest possible time. That's just ... How many of our guys will remain in Syrian sands after that? A bullet, she, you know, is not always a fool. So, maybe everything is going slower, but it’s really smarter. And most importantly - with less loss of people and equipment. Especially when it comes to our people.

In the end, today the political, economic is often above the military aspect. Any offensive, including a successful one, often runs into a conflict of political and economic interests, immediately followed by a well-known series: negotiations, a truce, a de-escalation zone, then a rollback, followed by new military operations - and all over again. The realities of the new time.
Author:
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Livonetc
    Livonetc 26 February 2020 06: 57 New
    +9
    I will give, possibly with errors, the full version of "the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is great."
    "Save the bullet for three days, or even the whole company.
    Shoot accurately, with a bayonet if firmly.
    The bullet will amuse itself, but the bayonet will not amuse itself.
    The bullet is stupid, the bayonet is great. "
    "The Science of Winning". A.V. Suvorov.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 26 February 2020 08: 30 New
      +6
      Absolutely right. And then, Suvorov wrote his "Science of Victory" in accordance with his time and in accordance with the capabilities of the then small arms. Namely, low accuracy and long reloading of weapons. Had he gotten to write his "Science" today, I suppose the conclusions would have been different. Hand-to-hand fighting has not been canceled today, but I can hardly imagine a modern army marching in dense columns into a bayonet attack on enemy machine guns.
      1. Livonetc
        Livonetc 26 February 2020 09: 20 New
        +2
        I wanted to bring the other side of the statement.
        Namely, saving resources.
        Since the war in Syria is a war of attrition.
        And in the absence of support from the Russian Federation, Syria definitely lost this war even without the introduction of intervention troops.
        The article emphasizes the saving of especially human resources.
        This is crucial for CAA.
        Since taking up arms and defending the homeland, as practice shows, is not the most common desire among Syrian society.
        And among modern society as a whole.
        Hataskrayniki phenomenon is not only krainy.
      2. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 26 February 2020 10: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        Absolutely right. And then, Suvorov wrote his "Science of Victory" in accordance with his time and in accordance with the capabilities of the then small arms. Namely, low accuracy and long reloading of weapons. Had he gotten to write his "Science" today, I suppose the conclusions would have been different. Hand-to-hand fighting has not been canceled today, but I can hardly imagine a modern army marching in dense columns into a bayonet attack on enemy machine guns.

        With the suppression of riots and the prohibition to shoot combat drinks laughing
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 26 February 2020 06: 58 New
    +4
    It is necessary that women would be the heads of state - they quarrel and do not talk to each other! And no wars! love
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 26 February 2020 07: 28 New
      11
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      It is necessary that women would be the heads of state - they quarrel and do not talk to each other! And no wars! love

      Yeah. As you recall the Catherine the Great and Maria Theresa of the Empresses, or the Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, you will agree with you.
  3. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 26 February 2020 06: 59 New
    +2
    it all depends on the tasks. if you need a quick solution, then the methods will be different. sometimes they will have to win a tactical advantage with blood and will not look at losses.
  4. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 26 February 2020 07: 11 New
    +4
    Russians, of course, have never fought like that.
    Not true, as soon as the opportunity arose, they did not spare either shells or bombs. It’s just that they often fought at least with an equal enemy.
    In the end, today the political, economic is often above the military aspect.
    So far, the opponent of the technical level is "allayavbar", but already with the Georgians in 2008, everything began much more severely.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 26 February 2020 08: 16 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Simple most often fought with at least equal opponents.

      And with an adversary who is hiding behind “snotty children,” throwing stones, women and the elderly; with the enemy, who surrenders when threatened with death and arms at the first opportunity, did not learn to fight.
      Then it would be time to share the laurels with Assad, and not with Trump and Erdogan, of which the same "allies" as from the "alumina" bullet.
  5. Far B
    Far B 26 February 2020 07: 11 New
    +1
    It’s very easy to imagine our tank and motorized infantry columns advancing with an irresistible steel shaft on the same Idlib and taking it in the shortest possible time. That's just ... How many of our guys will remain in Syrian sands after that? A bullet, she, you know, is not always a fool. So, maybe everything is going slower, but it’s really smarter. And most importantly - with less loss of people and equipment. Especially when it comes to our people
    Strange paragraph. And are we already going to take Idlib? There on earth, EMNIP, the Syrian army with the IRGC are portraying something.
    And about the slow wars - if Assad had enough of his own strength to push Erdogan back to Turkey, he wouldn’t have been willing to stretch this pleasure for years. Because he would be in his own right. But Assad does not have enough strength, so you have to focus on other players, and those have their own interests that do not imply an escalation of the conflict. Therefore, there is a marking time, and not because
    Progress, however ... it is precisely his achievements that largely determine the utmost caution, which directly translates into the slowness with which military operations are conducted today. Firstly, why drive the infantry or “armor” into the attack if the enemy’s defenses according to new military doctrines must first be loosened with electronic warfare equipment, bleed by bombing, and at the same time exert maximum demoralizing effect on his personnel in one way or another? Didn’t work the first time? Let's try again. And more ... The main thing is that we have fewer losses, and even better - they were completely absent.
    Whenever possible, everything is decided as quickly as possible. An example is the 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX war, which lasted only five days. Frowning memory - and other examples can be remembered.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 26 February 2020 08: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Dalny V
      Frowning memory - and other examples can be remembered.

      What is there to wrinkle the memory of wars taking place “somewhere”?
      There you are:
      the war in the Middle East between Israel on the one hand and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Algeria on the other, lasting from June 5 to 10, 1967.
  6. gmb
    gmb 26 February 2020 07: 32 New
    +2
    The war in Syria is a bad example, the number of players is large, in addition, some of them change allies over time. The composition of the troops does not correspond to that adopted for such operations.
  7. DDZ57
    DDZ57 26 February 2020 07: 35 New
    -7
    Russians, of course, have never fought like that.

    Why only Russians. When the army was only Russian.
    It’s just that they often fought at least with an equal enemy.

    What an equal adversary: ​​Afghanistan, Chechnya - and the results of these companies.
    And now Syria. How many times and which year have they already said that the Barmalei have finished.
    An example is the 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX war, which lasted only five days.

    Compare the SKVO grouping and the Georgian army. Loss of equipment and personnel.
    Nothing to brag about.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 26 February 2020 08: 39 New
      +4
      DDZ57 (Valery)
      Why only Russians. When the army was only Russian.
      And when was she not Russian?
      What equal opponent: Afghanistan, Chechnya
      And why did you remember only Afghanistan and Chechnya? And in the Second World War, WWII, the Crimean War, with whom did we fight?
      and the results of these companies.
      How do you not like the results?
      And now Syria. How many times and which year have they already said that the Barmalei have finished.
      Who said where?
      Compare the SKVO grouping and the Georgian army.
      I want to remind you for a moment that the United States stood behind the Georgian army.
      Loss of equipment and personnel.
      Well, what are the losses?
      Nothing to brag about.
      Personally, yes, nothing!
  8. rocket757
    rocket757 26 February 2020 07: 51 New
    +1
    In the end, today the political, economic is often above the military aspect.

    In general, before economic interest was the main cause of conflict ....
    Now this aspect is concentrated to impossible .....
    1. max702
      max702 27 February 2020 18: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      In the end, today the political, economic is often above the military aspect.

      In general, before economic interest was the main cause of conflict ....
      Now this aspect is concentrated to impossible .....

      Sales markets are the main interest of all wars .. everything else is just preparatory measures for this ..
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 27 February 2020 19: 12 New
        0
        Plus a resource base. No resources now.
        1. max702
          max702 28 February 2020 19: 46 New
          0
          Quote: rocket757
          Plus a resource base. No resources now.

          And what are the resources for? In order to produce goods and redirect them to sales markets .. Without these, resources are not needed .. So that everything only rarely happens to yourself .. Especially today ..
  9. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 26 February 2020 08: 03 New
    +1
    In the end, today the political, economic is often above the military aspect.

    When guns speak, muses are silent
    From Latin: Inter anna silent Musae (inter arma selent muse).
    The expression was created on the basis of another - an old saying used in ancient Rome: When guns rattle, laws are silent - Inter arma silent leges

    In the end, we came to a situation where the decision to conduct military operations rests with politicians who are hundreds and thousands of kilometers from the battlefield.
    Then Gennady brought us:
    Quote: Livonetc
    I will give, possibly with errors, the full version of "the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is great."
    "Save the bullet for three days, or even the whole company.
    Shoot accurately, with a bayonet if firmly.
    The bullet will amuse itself, but the bayonet will not amuse itself.
    The bullet is stupid, the bayonet is great. "
    "The Science of Winning". A.V. Suvorov.

    I'm afraid that even A.V. Suvorov could not have done anything in Syria, when he was led by "fabulous" military experts and "best partners" of the leadership of those who gave direct commands to destroy Russian soldiers who were doing their duty at the request of legitimate President Assad.
    But in our life, the main events were investigations - who killed the Jap. Apparently by the principle:
    "Someone that hurts ..."
  10. Boris55
    Boris55 26 February 2020 08: 32 New
    -1
    Quote: A. Kharaluzhny
    In the end, today the political, economic is often above the military aspect.

    Why today? It's always like this. A couple of quotes:

    Politics is a concentrated expression of the economy.

    War is a complex of measures aimed at seizing other people's natural, energy and human resources

    That is war solves the economic tasks of politicians. It is for this war that politicians always begin and end.

    That is why the policies of Germany, France and Russia forced Ukraine to stop full-scale hostilities in the east of their country. It was politicians at the conferences of the winners in Tehran and Yalta that agreed on the arrangement of the World after the war ... etc ..

    The military of all countries of the world are subordinate to the political leadership of their country. As an example, the military is presented to the supreme commander-in-chief - politics, not the other way around:

    1. Yamato1980
      Yamato1980 26 February 2020 16: 37 New
      -1
      Well, war is too serious a matter to trust its military wink
  11. rudolff
    rudolff 26 February 2020 08: 46 New
    +4
    I see the main difference between the wars of the past and the present in the fact that the hostilities have moved mainly to large settlements and cities. Such scenarios, which are still being played out in our exercises, when the blues in slender tank rows advance on the red trenches, will probably never really happen in reality. Modern weapons have made fighting "in the field" meaningless. Another thing is in a large city.
    In all other respects, everything remained approximately the same. Initially, the preparation of the offensive by all available means: aviation, missiles, artillery, MLRS, and then the offensive itself. With well-planned training and superior weaponry, an offensive may simply be the deployment of ground forces.
    Well, the attitude towards human life has changed. No political system will allow sacrificing tens or hundreds of thousands in an offensive.
  12. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 26 February 2020 08: 56 New
    +1
    Fair? I still did not understand the purpose of this article ... perhaps I, as they said in the army, is a brake))) The author talks about war at all without understanding what it is, Modern war, unlike the world wars of the 20th century, is not so much smart as stupid. Silly - because the new and intelligent weapon is intended for a potential enemy, not a real one. For some reason, speaking about the current wars, I recall a "man with a gun" - barmaley, dushara, madjahed, and not a combat robot ... "Robots" are effective for fighting a PROBABLE enemy, and not with paramilitary guerrilla groups, which set themselves the task of not the capture of territory, and the capture of the "brains" of the population in the territory where they operate. And brains cannot be won with a "smart bomb" ...
  13. Ka-52
    Ka-52 26 February 2020 09: 09 New
    +1
    in many ways not a professional review in the article.
    Firstly, there is no need to compare semi-partisan and global wars. During the invasion of Iraq, the total number of coalition coalition forces was already more than 150 thousand (and this, with the overwhelming superiority in technical equipment)
    secondly, the very objectives of military operations (and, accordingly, the strategy) are excellent in local conflicts of the last half century. The conduct of full-scale hostilities with the use of large military units may not be justified either by tasks or conditions. For example, the conduct of major military operations by the forces of the 40th Army in Afghanistan, although they had local success, but in general they had little effect on the state of the general situation.
    thirdly, the example of the Battle of Stalingrad is not entirely correct in terms of the speed of the database. Since the task was not to win "with little blood", but in principle to win. Since the entire future of the nation was at stake.
    fourthly, the example of Syria and the Donbass is also not correct, because SAA (Syria) and warring parties (Donbass) have no forces in principle for large-scale operations. The battles of 2014-15 in the Donbass were fought around military units and roadblocks by forces of company or battalion units. Attempts by the Ukrainian side to bring into battle more or less large formations led only to the formation of boilers and their destruction.
    Fifthly, "fiddling" with the capture-retreat tactics does not mean saving one's own forces. Since with such a tactic, losses can significantly exceed the seizure of an NP and its planned defense. In Syria, this is precisely due to the small number of forces of the opposing sides. In which the main DB are conducted by the method of concentration of forces on a local site
  14. knn54
    knn54 26 February 2020 10: 41 New
    -1
    War is the continuation of politics by violent means.
    Today it is a policy that aims to achieve victory over the enemy by ANY accessible ways, methods, means and means.
    For example, the cold war between the USA and the USSR, which led to the collapse of the Union without the use of weapons.
  15. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 26 February 2020 10: 45 New
    +2
    Also, the media that shape public opinion, on which the decision-making of politicians in power depends.
  16. Vsevolod Sidorov
    Vsevolod Sidorov 28 February 2020 07: 18 New
    0
    just before the dough for the war was not enough. Accumulated 3 years - a month of war. And so 100 years ...
    Now the main aggressors also do not have a free resource ....