Most powerful military in the known world? (Today)

[Antarticaria]

Well actually if you consider it, some WW1 style tactics would still work in modern day, such as Trench Warfare. And with modern automatic weaponry that would actually make a Trench Line Defense more efficient.

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

and modern vehicles of war.

[Gotengo]

Well actually if you consider it, some WW1 style tactics would still work in modern day, such as Trench Warfare. And with modern automatic weaponry that would actually make a Trench Line Defense more efficient.

Trench warfare wouldn't work against the US or any Western coalition (or for that matter, Russia, either) because of the heavy emphasis on combined arms and mobility. These nations would not let themselves get bogged down in trench warfare, and if they did somehow magically get bogged down, it would largely be fought out until some aspect (notably air supremacy) would end that particular warfare.

In other words, trench warfare is all but obsolete for major, conventional conflicts.

Actually that theory of it being obsolete is disregarded by a great many experts and historians. You see the classic Trench Line included Machine Guns, Mortars, Rifle Lines, and Howitzers. In a modern Trench Line, with automated weaponry it would reduce the amount of troops actually need to man the Trench Lines since they can be controlled remotely. And explain why the modern trench line is unable to counter Combined Arms and Mobility. There are such things as Land Mines and AA Defenses which have also advanced with modern technology.

[Napkiraly]

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

and modern vehicles of war.

And modern artillery strikes.

[Gotengo]

Well actually if you consider it, some WW1 style tactics would still work in modern day, such as Trench Warfare. And with modern automatic weaponry that would actually make a Trench Line Defense more efficient.

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

What about modern AA Defenses?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Do you have a source that most of them aren't seaworthy? I've studied the DPRK a lot, and by all accounts the majority of the submarines they operate are active with the possible exception of the missile subs they purchased from Russia which, following DPRK tradition were most likely cannibalized and reverse engineered.

I'm going to see if i can dig up one of my more academic books in the subject, i'll get back to you on whether i can find it or not.

But read this article to get a sense of what i'm saying.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16 ... e-in-1961/

Feel free to TG me them, I can add it to my immense list of info about the DPRK.

[Gotengo]

All the advantages that can work against Trench Warfare can also be used to strengthen it.

[Antarticaria]

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

What about modern AA Defenses?

Blow them up with Modern Tanks and Modern Infantry.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well actually if you consider it, some WW1 style tactics would still work in modern day, such as Trench Warfare. And with modern automatic weaponry that would actually make a Trench Line Defense more efficient.

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

Basic, uncovered five-foot-deep trenches are very effective shelters. They can reduce the number of casualties from a nuclear strike by 25% (or 75, I cannot recall).

[Napkiraly]

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

Basic, uncovered five-foot-deep trenches are very effective shelters. They can reduce the number of casualties from a nuclear strike by 25% (or 75, I cannot recall).

I never stated they were ineffective shelters.

[Antarticaria]

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

Basic, uncovered five-foot-deep trenches are very effective shelters. They can reduce the number of casualties from a nuclear strike by 25% (or 75, I cannot recall).

I would be less worried about the large unaimed explosions than I would the smaller accurate weapons of the modern day.

[Imperializt Russia]

Basic, uncovered five-foot-deep trenches are very effective shelters. They can reduce the number of casualties from a nuclear strike by 25% (or 75, I cannot recall).

I never stated they were ineffective shelters.

What I took from your post was that the air attack had largely invalidated the trench - implying its ineffectiveness as a protective shelter.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Apart from when you're blown into flying mince due to air strikes.

Basic, uncovered five-foot-deep trenches are very effective shelters. They can reduce the number of casualties from a nuclear strike by 25% (or 75, I cannot recall).

And so it was that the shovel, not the sword, paved Rome's road to glory. And saved a quarter of its troops from mass-produced divine retribution.

[Imperializt Russia]

Basic, uncovered five-foot-deep trenches are very effective shelters. They can reduce the number of casualties from a nuclear strike by 25% (or 75, I cannot recall).

I would be less worried about the large unaimed explosions than I would the smaller accurate weapons of the modern day.

For which you have covered trenches, blindages, dugouts, prefab bunkers, wooden-reinforced structures, sandbags and air defence assets to defend against precision weapons and their delivery systems.

[Marcurix]

I'm going to see if i can dig up one of my more academic books in the subject, i'll get back to you on whether i can find it or not.

But read this article to get a sense of what i'm saying.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16 ... e-in-1961/

Feel free to TG me them, I can add it to my immense list of info about the DPRK.

Alright, this might take a bit as i have to venture into my loft. If no one hears from me in a day or so, send help.

[Azaflaza]

Actually, and again no offence, I would have to say any Country that has been militarily active longer than the U.S. so any country that has been in wars for more than 300 years. You see I don't look at it so much as technology and budgets, but experience. Countries that have longer military history, they have more experience fighting, they've picked up tricks and tips, developed special tactics for certain situations, I look at it a matter of experience. These countries will know what to do and when to do it.

So my favor would go to countries like Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Russia, China, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Austria, Egypt, Greece, and Israel. No offence to the U.S. but all these countries just have more experience, more knowledge of war, better tactics. Brain over Brawn.

This only counts if these strategies and tactics remain national secrets. They don't. So your argument fails.

[Gotengo]

Actually, and again no offence, I would have to say any Country that has been militarily active longer than the U.S. so any country that has been in wars for more than 300 years. You see I don't look at it so much as technology and budgets, but experience. Countries that have longer military history, they have more experience fighting, they've picked up tricks and tips, developed special tactics for certain situations, I look at it a matter of experience. These countries will know what to do and when to do it.

So my favor would go to countries like Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Russia, China, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Austria, Egypt, Greece, and Israel. No offence to the U.S. but all these countries just have more experience, more knowledge of war, better tactics. Brain over Brawn.

This only counts if these strategies and tactics remain national secrets. They don't. So your argument fails.

No need to be rude.

[Napkiraly]

This only counts if these strategies and tactics remain national secrets. They don't. So your argument fails.

No need to be rude.

That's not being rude.

[Caninope]

Trench warfare wouldn't work against the US or any Western coalition (or for that matter, Russia, either) because of the heavy emphasis on combined arms and mobility. These nations would not let themselves get bogged down in trench warfare, and if they did somehow magically get bogged down, it would largely be fought out until some aspect (notably air supremacy) would end that particular warfare.

In other words, trench warfare is all but obsolete for major, conventional conflicts.

Actually that theory of it being obsolete is disregarded by a great many experts and historians.

I'd love to see some sources on this.

And explain why the modern trench line is unable to counter Combined Arms and Mobility.

For one, the current emphasis on mobility allows modern armies simply to avoid entrenched opponents, or to focus such energy on them as to break through the line. Unlike World War I, technology is sufficiently advanced that the command and control structure of an enemy hierarchy can and will be attacked, both avoiding the need to get bogged down (and thus preserving momentum). To even get bogged down in trench conflict, two have to tango, and current military doctrine just doesn't emphasize this. That's why it's obsolete- current thinking puts such an emphasis on overwhelming power that no one is going to allow themselves to get bogged down in such a situation. This is only compounded by the fact that relying on a combined arms approach means that by some magic, an infantry tried to get the infantry of a military bogged down in this warfare, there are other units (armor, air support, missiles, etc.) that would either destroy the enemy infantry units/entrenched positions, or allow the infantry to retreat (obviously, with a heavy bias towards doing the first). It's telling that the most dramatic example of trench warfare in the past half century was in the Iran-Iraq War, with neither armor sporting particularly fantastic armor or air units, but having a ton of infantrymen.

There are such things as Land Mines and AA Defenses which have also advanced with modern technology.

And most modern militaries (especially the US) has poured a lot of money into learning how to solve the SAM problem, and has generally come up with workable solutions, at least for now.

[Antarticaria]

I would be less worried about the large unaimed explosions than I would the smaller accurate weapons of the modern day.

For which you have covered trenches, blindages, dugouts, prefab bunkers, wooden-reinforced structures, sandbags and air defence assets to defend against precision weapons and their delivery systems.

Would be nice but I still would much rather avoid a receiving end of one of those.

[Caninope]

I never stated they were ineffective shelters.

What I took from your post was that the air attack had largely invalidated the trench - implying its ineffectiveness as a protective shelter.

Air attacks haven't invalidated the trench as a basic entrenchment, rather, it's invalidated trench warfare. Combined arms strategies and current technology has allowed for both very focus attacks as well as a mobility that I can only imagine calvarymen once dreamed of (not that I'm sure that's something we should be proud of). This has meant that trenches can certainly be useful, but widespread trench warfare will not be.

[The Polarian Empire]

Duhh the Daleks

[Gotengo]

Actually that theory of it being obsolete is disregarded by a great many experts and historians.

I'd love to see some sources on this.

And explain why the modern trench line is unable to counter Combined Arms and Mobility.

For one, the current emphasis on mobility allows modern armies simply to avoid entrenched opponents, or to focus such energy on them as to break through the line. Unlike World War I, technology is sufficiently advanced that the command and control structure of an enemy hierarchy can and will be attacked, both avoiding the need to get bogged down (and thus preserving momentum). To even get bogged down in trench conflict, two have to tango, and current military doctrine just doesn't emphasize this. That's why it's obsolete- current thinking puts such an emphasis on overwhelming power that no one is going to allow themselves to get bogged down in such a situation. This is only compounded by the fact that relying on a combined arms approach means that by some magic, an infantry tried to get the infantry of a military bogged down in this warfare, there are other units (armor, air support, missiles, etc.) that would either destroy the enemy infantry units/entrenched positions, or allow the infantry to retreat (obviously, with a heavy bias towards doing the first). It's telling that the most dramatic example of trench warfare in the past half century was in the Iran-Iraq War, with neither armor sporting particularly fantastic armor or air units, but having a ton of infantrymen.

There are such things as Land Mines and AA Defenses which have also advanced with modern technology.

And most modern militaries (especially the US) has poured a lot of money into learning how to solve the SAM problem, and has generally come up with workable solutions, at least for now.

You realize the same vehicles and systems can be used in the trenches. And what if say in the case of where facing the entrenched troops cant be avoided and the entrenched forces have air support and armored troops.

[Caninope]

I'd love to see some sources on this.


For one, the current emphasis on mobility allows modern armies simply to avoid entrenched opponents, or to focus such energy on them as to break through the line. Unlike World War I, technology is sufficiently advanced that the command and control structure of an enemy hierarchy can and will be attacked, both avoiding the need to get bogged down (and thus preserving momentum). To even get bogged down in trench conflict, two have to tango, and current military doctrine just doesn't emphasize this. That's why it's obsolete- current thinking puts such an emphasis on overwhelming power that no one is going to allow themselves to get bogged down in such a situation. This is only compounded by the fact that relying on a combined arms approach means that by some magic, an infantry tried to get the infantry of a military bogged down in this warfare, there are other units (armor, air support, missiles, etc.) that would either destroy the enemy infantry units/entrenched positions, or allow the infantry to retreat (obviously, with a heavy bias towards doing the first). It's telling that the most dramatic example of trench warfare in the past half century was in the Iran-Iraq War, with neither armor sporting particularly fantastic armor or air units, but having a ton of infantrymen.


And most modern militaries (especially the US) has poured a lot of money into learning how to solve the SAM problem, and has generally come up with workable solutions, at least for now.

You realize the same vehicles and systems can be used in the trenches. And what if say in the case of where facing the entrenched troops cant be avoided and the entrenched forces have air support and armored troops.

See, here's the thing. Large, conventional militaries (especially the US) have a hard-on for ensuring air superiority. That's a thing.

Secondly, how exactly is one going to be using tanks inside of a trench?

[Azaflaza]

No need to be rude.

That's not being rude.

Exactly this ^. Its blunt and to the point but not rude.

[Imperializt Russia]

Actually that theory of it being obsolete is disregarded by a great many experts and historians.

I'd love to see some sources on this.

And explain why the modern trench line is unable to counter Combined Arms and Mobility.

For one, the current emphasis on mobility allows modern armies simply to avoid entrenched opponents, or to focus such energy on them as to break through the line. Unlike World War I, technology is sufficiently advanced that the command and control structure of an enemy hierarchy can and will be attacked, both avoiding the need to get bogged down (and thus preserving momentum). To even get bogged down in trench conflict, two have to tango, and current military doctrine just doesn't emphasize this. That's why it's obsolete- current thinking puts such an emphasis on overwhelming power that no one is going to allow themselves to get bogged down in such a situation. This is only compounded by the fact that relying on a combined arms approach means that by some magic, an infantry tried to get the infantry of a military bogged down in this warfare, there are other units (armor, air support, missiles, etc.) that would either destroy the enemy infantry units/entrenched positions, or allow the infantry to retreat (obviously, with a heavy bias towards doing the first). It's telling that the most dramatic example of trench warfare in the past half century was in the Iran-Iraq War, with neither armor sporting particularly fantastic armor or air units, but having a ton of infantrymen.

There are such things as Land Mines and AA Defenses which have also advanced with modern technology.

And most modern militaries (especially the US) has poured a lot of money into learning how to solve the SAM problem, and has generally come up with workable solutions, at least for now.

I think the issue here is that "trench warfare" has become conflated with the situation that was much of WWI - two deeply entrenched opponents that barely moved.

As well as ignoring the mobility capabilities that modern warfare allows to entrenched and assaulting forces, it also ignores the highly mobile initial and final stages of WWI.

Russian motor rifle units in the defensive were trained to prepare trenches and vehicle dugouts at the platoon, company and battalion level. I guarantee that American units are trained to prepare and fortify trenches.