previous post next post  

H&I* Fires, 22 APR 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

*****************************
An article that’s sparked a bit of interest in the PLAN watching group I’m part of: Taiwan performs a wargame with a PLAN carrier in the enemy's mix.

Here’s the point of contention: should ROC forces spend more attention on the flat top or on the amphib forces? What's the proper split of attention? Keep in mind PLAN doctrine for carriers may be very different than ours since they don’t have an operational one currently (though one wonders what they’re doing with Varyag since they put a new antenna farm on her not that long ago), are heavily influenced by Sov doctrine, and have vastly different agendas than the USN.

What would you do and, more importantly, why if you were ROC (or USN interjecting yourself)?
--
This is a rare case of some of us right leaning and some left leaning folk finding some good common ground. I too don’t think anyone should be able to ruin someone’s life on a lie without consequence. We’re not talking about instances of simple charges being dropped, but of outright lies. Keep that in mind before you go ballistic please.
--
Cassie asks a perennially difficult question. Poor woman, she’s always torturing herself thus. I simply gave up trying to understand it and thereby learned to love the Bomb.
--ry


*****************************
Vietnam: Fact vs. Fiction. Some of the myth-corrections will be familiar to anyone in or around the military, but much will likely be new information to many.

In more myth-busting, TCS takes on the "only in America" response to the VA-Tech shootings.

Powerline and Mark Steyn both have thoughts on the Yale Dean's inanity (or, considering the lack of connection to reality, insanity) that are worth reading. For what it's worth, I have some commentary here. - FbL

*****************************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

7 Comments

Wow.....the Varyag is a weird lookin' critter, ain't it?
 
The TCS response was outstanding. Better hide your kitchen knives before the Scots get them!
 
The Carrier first and then the Amphibs. I would also use a high number of long range anti ship missiles to attack the carrier and escorts. The reason for is that a), the Chicoms are going to have a large blow to their spirit when their newest toy is taken out early in the battle, and b) the carrier is a mobile airfield that allows Chicom pilots to spend more time over the target area. Take that out and the Chicom pilots have to fly further to drop their ordnance in support of the ground forces. That will lead to increased fatigue in the long run for the Chicom pilots that survive the early rounds.
 
A carrier as a means of force-projection is useless against Free China. But Taiwan is not the only island off the coast that China claims. A carrier would be of great use in maintaining a hold on the Spratleys or the Parcells, or even the odd Phillipine island or two. China's strategic aims are to move its borders off the coast and they have expressed claims on all of the island nations that presently exist there. It would also be a useful part of any Chinese move into the Russian Far East. The Russians have next to nothing to oppose them in the region. Why useless? A Chinese military move on Taiwan would have to be some combination of amphibious and airborne, along with a significant amount of local support. Whatever carriers they may have, far less capable than ours and with far less capable and fewer aircraft, would provide little in such an attack and risk much. The Chinese currently believe that Taiwan will become more and more tied to the mainland by their economy and the vast amount of trade which is ever growing. Taking the long view, they perceive Taiwan becoming a "Hong Kong" style province within two or three decades at the current increase in ties between the two areas. Remember that the heads of the party founded by Chang visit and are welcomed in Peking every few months. He and his lovely wife are spinning in their graves, but it is a clear sign that reunion is not impossible. All that could change this is timing. Free China pocesses a modern industrial base and is number three or four in the world in dollar reserves. If the masters in Peking need either, as they surely will, the timetable will be accelerated. Taiwan represents a low cost means of gaining capital, just as Hong Kong did. I am convinced that the leadership of Taiwan could be convinced that reunion is in their economic interest if they were given a modicum of assurances along the lines of the "Hong Kong" model.
 
John, Another good source of truth about Vietnam is the book "Unheralded Victory" by Mark Woodruff. Doesn't have near the amount of statistical data but gives a great explanation of US tactics.
 
...one wonders what they’re doing with Varyag since they put a new antenna farm on her not that long ago... I'll bet you could launch two hundred UAVs from her and assume control of several hundred more launched from the mainland. Flood the battlespace with annoying tactical intel-gatherers the size of a field desk.
 
They will pry my Wusthofs from my cold, dead hands.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.