Thread 64154739

How would America handle a war where GPS isn't guaranteed, and where air support isn't guaranteed? Where all communications aren't guaranteed? And where being able to send in armoured support right on the front isn't guaranteed?

I think the last wars America has been involved in has made them combat princesses and they are totally unprepared to handle a near peer adversary.

Gee OP i dunno, how would any military front line unit function while cut off from its logistics and support?

Shit thread

>>64154739 (OP)
To not have any of that, we would have to be invaded. If some other country that isn't Mexico or Canada (lel) did it, then they would have to cross entire oceans. That would just not happen.

>>64154739 (OP)
That's what they are training with Finns these days, as those guys are hyper focused on just that kinds of scenarios

>>64154739 (OP)
how would America handle going back to line infantry with fife and drums?

>>64154739 (OP)
Easy to be unprepared for near-peer adversaries when you don't have any near-peers on the planet.

>>64154739 (OP)
>GPS isn't guaranteed
1m CEP PGMs are now ~5m CEP
Units get a little lost constantly slowing movements until land nav improves with use over time.

>air support isn't guaranteed
Significantly higher casualties
Enough armour for combined arms to still defeat any military

>communications aren't guaranteed
Clusterfuck short term but medium term flares, smoke and running cables would let them regain most of their effectiveness.
Platoons would need to be within flare range of each other so one can't get cut off without anyone knowing.

>I think the last wars America has been involved in has made them combat princesses and they are totally unprepared to handle a near peer adversary.
The public isn't going to have the stomach for the number of casualties near peer war will produce without a good reason, another foreverwar won't get the support needed but an attack on the US / false flag would.

but in a hypothethical scenario where the US just cant wage an air campaign to destroy enemy CnC and air power on day 0, then the US strategy would be to seize smaller objectives within a local air superiority can be gained
essentially, focus on smaller, limited objectives first in areas where they are able to send consistent air support and then try to expand and consolidate that area
it is no different to how a side with limited artillery assets might overcome an enemy with greater one, focus available assets in areas where local parity can be achieved

>>64154739 (OP)
Where is this supposed near-peer adversary? Are they in the room with us today?
We have the GPS you know about and the GPS you don't know about. Our geopolitical adversaries lack the capacity to knock our positioning satellites out and we have private companies like SpaceX that can put a few hundred satellites up in a week if we pay them nicely.

>>64154739 (OP)
>where GPS isn't guaranteed, a
why would the US not have GPS when they literally launched the GPS satellite network that half the planet uses?

>and where air support isn't guaranteed
why wouldnt the US have air support when they have the largest airforce in the world and have put a lot of time and resources to ensure that air superiority can be achieved on day 0?

>And where being able to send in armoured support right on the front isn't guaranteed?
why wouldnt the US have armored units deployed when they have poured an untold amount of money into making sure they have force projection?
this is like asking how the soviets would win WW2 if they didnt have artillery superiority

>and they are totally unprepared to handle a near peer adversary.
first of all, what near peer?
second of all, like all other countries, if they cannot secure air superiority before the ground invasion, they would instead operate closer within where air power can be brought to bear
you essentially put the cart before the horse, the US doesnt send troops in and then take air superiority, they will take air superiority and then send troops in
any area where the enemy can take and maintain air superiority is an area that the US airforce will avoid and instead try to deplete enemy air assets elsewhere
this is the same as asking how a soviet army how they would take an area where they dont have artillery support; they wont, they will instead operate in areas where artillery is available and attrite enemy artillery there

>>64154739 (OP)
Lasers

>>64154981
Warcrime

>>64155000
They shine lasers at our pilots, fuck them. Melt their retinas with the force of 1000 suns.