Since modern day ISR capabilities and precision strikes from missiles to drones make fixed lines of communications, fixed logistics hubs and massing of large combat formations very difficult. How successful would it be if you took Cold War hypothetical nuclear war thinking into the modern battlefield? Namely:>Battalion to regiment sized forces that bring enough supplies with themselves to operate independently of any outside resupply for days or longer while sustaining high intensity engagements>Rapid mobility of everything from infantry to artillery to logistics>Dispersed and decentralized The basic premise being that these guys penetrate the lines and continue on to operational level objectives without giving two shits about maintaining LOC with the main force. Success is then exploited by more conventional forces that can now penetrate through gaps and weak spots making the overall battlefield far more fluid and hasty. The raid force or "strike force/group" are bypassed, linkup or return to friendly lines. These forces can utilize drones for ISR and attacks which can compensate for the overall dispersion. Has the solution been there the whole time /k/?
>>65565014Its remarkably easy to forget that Frontlines: Fuel of War and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars are two separate games.
>>65565014Logistics > strategy basically alwaysIf the force is large and equipped enough to sustain operations deep in enemy territory without the need of regular resupply, the force likely completely outclasses the enemy anyway, and by extension their entire military probably outclasses the other. It's far more effective to find weak gaps in the enemy lines and conduct shaping operations that are fueled by a constant connection to command and resources. Breaking communication serves no purpose, nor does breaking logistics lines, even if a small percentage of your supply gets hit, it's still better than no supply whatsoever while you get pounded from all sides.SUAS is not magic, the only reason we see so much interdiction to such great effect is because both Russia and Ukraine have large gaps in their front lines, and are so tight on supplies that even minor hits can be devastating.
>>65565014It feels to me like airstrikes can do the same job faster, cheaper and at a lower risk for personnel
>>65565136>cheaperNuh huh
>>65565136units can just hide and wait with drones
