Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joint warfare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joint warfare

    Hey guys,

    Recently, I've been trying to learn more about naval and air warfare and have found the more I learn about the other arms the more I learn about land warfare.

    Does anyone here study naval and air warfare or are we primarily just land warfare? If you study the other arms, what theories/articles/books have you found most interesting? And how has it improved your understanding of land warfare?

    Anyway, I know these are odd questions, but thought I'd throw them out.

    Take care,
    Brian

  • #2
    The best way to appreciate the nuances of air and naval warfare is to game them. Natch.

    I greatly enjoyed the PnP Air Superiority game back in the day. Not to mention Harpoon. When Harpoon came out on computer, that was pretty awesome, although those titles have had their share of problems. Until recently, there was no true "tactical" air game on computer, since everybody wanted to produce flight sims instead. Frankly, "twitchy" games like that don't interest me much. I haven't had a chance to look at Tiller's latest Airpower effort, but that game might finally fill the niche.

    But yes, anybody who aspires to a complete appreciation of modern warfare can't neglect the study of power projection in air and on sea.

    --- Kevin

    Comment


    • #3
      Well,I know a bit about the air arm,but I find the navy a bit....uninteresting.

      Anyways,the reason you keep learning about land warfare,is because the principle of the airforce(not sure about the navy..)is to support the land troops.

      Basically,you don't see infantry supporting a jet in a dog fight,but you see a jet supporting infantry in combat.

      All I know about war,I learn from PC games,my own observations and reading materials.

      I learn it mainly from Panzer General,Panzer General 3D,Operation Flashpoint,and the Operational Art of War.

      Some of these feature outdated tactics(Panzer General,Panzer General 3D),but the tactics they used in WW2,are still used today,except with small changes,more modern weapons,and some more innovations.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Victor1234
        Well,I know a bit about the air arm,but I find the navy a bit....uninteresting.
        That's interesting because I am just the opposite. I have an undeniable love of fighting ships, even as I have only begun to read historical accounts of naval warfare. Aircraft are interesting for their technology and thrill-ride qualities, but I don't take much interest in their operational applications.

        Anyways,the reason you keep learning about land warfare,is because the principle of the airforce(not sure about the navy..)is to support the land troops.
        And an Air Force person would tell you that this is just what an Army commander would say. Air Force commanders see the issue differently, and tend to use those air assets differently. That's a point of contention in the operational theater even today.

        Basically,you don't see infantry supporting a jet in a dog fight,but you see a jet supporting infantry in combat.
        Perhaps not while a jet is in a dogfight, but ground forces can make a large difference in supporting aircraft operations by going in and taking out anti-air assets. Nowadays, this can be left more to guided missiles and anti-radar ground attack aircraft, but ground forces can still play an important role in supporting air operations. One example of this is using forward observers to paint a target for a laser guided bomb drop.
        "...patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."
        O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander, 1970.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kbluck
          Until recently, there was no true "tactical" air game on computer, since everybody wanted to produce flight sims instead.
          ahh not true - Avalon Hill had Flight Commander 2 back in the day - still pretty damned good too. (for Air-to-Air)

          Brian: my knowledge of jointness pretty much sticks to the MAGTFs and similarly, the whole Australian core MOLE doctrine - not in the same vein as the "Shock & Awe" clique to be sure.
          Now listening too;
          - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

          Comment


          • #6
            The LAND 'Campaigns' greatly affect the AIR ones.

            As one of the few people to have actually played (3) of Lou Zocchi's designed "Air Campaign" games(namely "The Battle of Britain", "Luftwaffe", & "Flying Tigers"), ONLY the last one had this 'aspect' factored in! In "Flying Tigers", the Japanese would have to "Bomb out" the Chinese Airbases that the "F.T.s" could operate from in order to 'Conquer' them and then deny those for further use. There weren't any LAND forces involved in this, just an 'assumption' that there would be a 'follow up' from them, once the 'Bases' had succumbed to being devastated due to the 'Air Bombardment' inflicted upon them during the course of the 'Campaign'. Another thing to keep in mind was that the 'Allied' Player could NOT 'recapture' any of the 'Bases' that they LOST! Here's another 'subject' that could use a decent updating and subsequent publication for someone's gaming experience!

            With some of the SPI games produced during the 1970s, they'd have a 'Ground Element' Unit that had a corresponding 'Air Element' paired up with that, and they'd 'Operate' together with the 'Base' being somewhat Mobile. You were able to move the 'Base' around but if you did, then the 'Air Unit' wasn't able to perform it's 'normal' functions while this happened. It was a decent concept and provided a means for the fluctuation of the 'Airpower' projection to ebb & flow with the accompanying LAND game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh yeah, I almost forgot about this as well.

              Getting BACK into the 'Modern' theme of this 'Thread', I've also 'gamed' with TSR's "The Hunt for Red October", "Red Storm Rising", and even "A Line in the Sand", of which they all are based on more 'recent' doctrines. There have even been times when we combined "T.H.f.R.O." & "R.S.R." into one massive and LONG game-(1)'Turn' of THIS could last over (2)-Hours to complete! Then there were the games of "Bar-Lev" when you incorporate BOTH the LAND & AIR 'elements' in THAT, and I'm talking about the 1st edition with the "glowing ORANGE" map for that! Yes, I realize that the 'Air Battle' portion of this game wasn't detailed at ALL, but the resolution of that COULD affect the 'Ground Support' during the LAND game's turn. You also had to contend with the 'S.A.M.s' and as someone else mentioned, it's where the Ground Forces really come into their own in an attempt to 'take them out!'

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
                ahh not true - Avalon Hill had Flight Commander 2 back in the day - still pretty damned good too. (for Air-to-Air)
                I wonder if it was at all based on their board game 'Flight Leader', which came out in 1985. Pretty good air combat game, and quite playable. Haven't played it in many many years, though.
                "...patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."
                O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander, 1970.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Joint Warfare

                  Originally posted by Scully
                  Hey guys,

                  Recently, I've been trying to learn more about naval and air warfare and have found the more I learn about the other arms the more I learn about land warfare.

                  Does anyone here study naval and air warfare or are we primarily just land warfare? If you study the other arms, what theories/articles/books have you found most interesting? And how has it improved your understanding of land warfare?

                  Anyway, I know these are odd questions, but thought I'd throw them out.

                  Take care,
                  Brian
                  Hello Brian,
                  You may want to look at the U.S Marine Corps and some of our manuals such as FMFM1 Warfighting which talks about joint warfare. The reason I suggest looking at Marine publications (including British) is that we fight in the joint arena. Marines spend time aboard ship and on land. I believe that we owe our existence to the understanding of how to operate in a joint enviornment. Over the past couple of years the Marine Corps has taken on some roles that had once belonged to the Army or so one would have thought. Just my 2 cents.

                  Semper FI
                  Andy

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tankleader
                    Hello Brian,
                    You may want to look at the U.S Marine Corps and some of our manuals such as FMFM1 Warfighting which talks about joint warfare. The reason I suggest looking at Marine publications (including British) is that we fight in the joint arena. Marines spend time aboard ship and on land. I believe that we owe our existence to the understanding of how to operate in a joint enviornment. Over the past couple of years the Marine Corps has taken on some roles that had once belonged to the Army or so one would have thought. Just my 2 cents.

                    Semper FI
                    Andy
                    Hey Andy,

                    Thanks for the tip. I have actually read FMFM1 and found it to be outstanding. So good in fact I've read the planning and operations ones as well.

                    Take care,
                    Brian

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well Brian, to answer your question, this forum is primarily for ground pounders. There are a few of us here who have an interest in air and naval warfare.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Might I suggest...

                        Victory At Sea - World War II in the Pacific J Dunnigan / A Nofi

                        Originaly written in electronic form for the computer game by the same name, later printed as a game book. Trust me, it is not nearly as dry as one might expect. In fact, not at all. Many people I know that have read it in print never realized that it was a game book. 612 pages.

                        The United States Navy - A 200 year history Edward L Beach

                        Not a book of romaticized events in American Naval history. One of more formative events - as opposed to just the more famous.

                        On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                        ACG History Today

                        BoRG

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As an air defender during my Army tour, we had the privilege to study both land and air warfare, so I feel very comfortable in my knowledge of both. My lack of naval warfare and history skills are my weakest, and it is primarily through gaming that I get to 'learn' and study in those areas.

                          Two Tiller games comes to the front of my mind here: his latest War Over Vietnam, and the classic Age of Sail.
                          Stay Alert, Stay Alive!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Victor1234
                            Anyways,the reason you keep learning about land warfare,is because the principle of the airforce(not sure about the navy..)is to support the land troops.
                            While the Navy does have a joint support mission in coastal areas and amphibious operations its primary mission has always, at least from the 17th century been strategic. To wit: To keep open the sea lanes to both military and commercial traffic with specific emphasis on keeping open key choke points in ocean commerce.

                            Without strategic sea control there is no capacity for projection of force and the military is largely limited to home and contiguous territory defence. Even today when troops themselves can be moved by air only bottoms can move the material necessary to support conflict.

                            The single most important strategic factor in every war of North American forces has been control of sea lanes and approaches and river operations. Even the European campaigns in WWI and II were only possible through the establishment of sea lane control.

                            Note: In case anyone wonders my service was in the Army (mostly armored cav, not the navy) I am just facinated by the fundamental difference between true maritime powers (those with the ability to move both combat forces and commerce through sea lane to any point in the world) and land powers.
                            Boston Strong!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JSMoss
                              While the Navy does have a joint support mission in coastal areas and amphibious operations its primary mission has always, at least from the 17th century been strategic. To wit: To keep open the sea lanes to both military and commercial traffic with specific emphasis on keeping open key choke points in ocean commerce.

                              Without strategic sea control there is no capacity for projection of force and the military is largely limited to home and contiguous territory defence. Even today when troops themselves can be moved by air only bottoms can move the material necessary to support conflict.

                              The single most important strategic factor in every war of North American forces has been control of sea lanes and approaches and river operations. Even the European campaigns in WWI and II were only possible through the establishment of sea lane control.

                              Note: In case anyone wonders my service was in the Army (mostly armored cav, not the navy) I am just facinated by the fundamental difference between true maritime powers (those with the ability to move both combat forces and commerce through sea lane to any point in the world) and land powers.
                              As an ex-squid I have to agree with this.
                              "Teamwork is essential - it gives the Enemy someone else to shoot at"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X