« Previous · Home · Next »
OPFOR Mail Bag
By Charlie
Reader Ben from Denver Writes:
Hey OP-For,
What’s the likelihood of a conventional enemy emerging anytime soon to challenge the US? Also, what would such an enemy even look like and how would they organize? We won’t be fighting terrorists forever –what’s next?
This is a great question. Currently US doctrine isn’t training against a “peer competitor,” and doesn’t believe one will emerge for the next 15 years. However, let’s look at some past conflicts –obviously Panama, Grenada, Iraq (part 1), and Serbia weren’t peer competitors. True “peer competitors” would be Germany and Japan vs America in WWII, or Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. So the current military quandary we face is the America’s ground forces are so preeminent that no one seeks to be the helpless OPFOR against us. Therefore, we get Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan –challenges to us militarily, yet asymmetrically. So –if a nation (and it would have to be a nation) sought to conventionally challenge America on the battlefield, it would have to satisfy some of the following conditions.
First, the terrain would have to be unfavorable to US operations. Wherever this country is that would challenge us, it would have to possess rough, mountainous terrain, numerous water obstacles, thick jungles, complex urban areas, and a hostile population that would not be susceptible to US CA/PSYOPS. It would also help if the country didn’t have a long or accessible coastline, preventing US carrier groups from being used as bases for operations.
Next, the enemy would have to be trained, well supplied, and ideologically motivated to fight against the United States. These three conditions are very hard to meet, and are all subject to the effects of US operations. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that this foreign country had extensive training on weapons systems and tactics from former Soviet Union advisors, was very well supplied, highly motivated, and was deeply rooted in the “ism” of your choice (nationalism/communism/socialism/fanaticism).
All of that being said, traditional conventional unit formations are all very easily recognized by US forces. Take for instance the model for OPFOR- the Soviet motorized Rifle Regiment. This unit was the cornerstone of the Cold War Red Army, and was mainly composed of infantry units on trucks backed by a T-72-equipped armor battalion and SP artillery. However, this is exactly the kind of unit that can be found, fixed, and destroyed by superior US firepower.
If an enemy was to challenge us conventionally, it would have to eschew traditional tactics. Therefore, let’s think outside of the box: maybe OPFOR units in the future will organize themselves into “line units” that are primarily Anti-Tank infantry units, or Air Defense equipped infantry units. Perhaps a future conventional threat will mirror our own “transformation” objectives by pushing combined arms operations down to the battalion and below levels. A maneuver company with infantry, fire support, recon, intelligence, anti-tank, and air defense capability would be a significant departure from traditional maneuver tactics. Combine that with more effective technology to offset US advantages, and it is conceivable that a conventional challenger could emerge.
This is all very unlikely though, when actual nation-states with the capability to field such units are reviewed. The reason decentralized operations are successful is a direct result of the superior training and volunteer nature of US forces. Conscript armies cannot be expected to perform decentralized operations without direct supervision that is often unnecessary for American operations. It is almost a non-issue for a staff sergeant to call in an air-strike, or radio for reinforcements. In many foreign militaries, only high-level commanders can make such calls.
Wrapping up, terrorism isn’t the future of military operations. Irregular warfare has always been with us. We should maintain the military flexibility to respond to any threats that emerge.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/293
Comments
I'll buy that Mrs. D.
Force projection is the name of the 21st century game.
Ya, I tend to agree here. I'm waiting for somebody to actually be able to put boots on the ground around the globe in the manner that the US is able to.
From what I can see, nobody can do it. A couple of Western European states can try, but that's about it.
I disagree. North Korea meets most of the standards listed. Granted, it is equipped with outdated weapons, but the Korean peninsula is not tank country, ground targets would not easily be spotted and targeted and NK has a large army that is literally brainwashed and will fight hard.
A war with NK, say over a missile launch test, would place us in almost the exact same position we were in 1950. We would have to fight an enemy with superior numbers in a region not suited to our talents. The Chinese intervention that took place during the Korean War is an even better analogy. The PLA at the time did not bring any heavy artillery or air support along for the ride. It merely poured hundreds of thousands of troops over the border and overan our over extended lines. Air power, armor and artillery did not slow them down and we were never able to push them back much once the lines stabalized around the 38th parallel.
"First, the terrain would have to be unfavorable to US operations. Wherever this country is that would challenge us, it would have to possess rough, mountainous terrain, numerous water obstacles, thick jungles, complex urban areas, and a hostile population that would not be susceptible to US CA/PSYOPS. It would also help if the country didn’t have a long or accessible coastline, preventing US carrier groups from being used as bases for operations."
Isn't that a pretty exact definition of Afghanistan (except for the "jungle" part) as conceived in 2001? No coastline, very rough terrain, insular* and hostile people, and a "brutal** Afghan winter"?
To answer one of the original questions, though, "...what would such an enemy even look like...?":
They would look Chinese. (And I really hope the subjunctive mood is appropriate.) Nobody else has the cash, technological acumen, and (possibly) the will.
* Using "insular" about a country without a coastline is a bit of a mixed metaphor, but there you go.
** Not "brutal" like, say, Montana, mind you.
North Korea could not challenge the US. They could challenge the South Koreans. If the South Koreans chose to resist, they could probably handle the Norks with little assistance from us other than perhaps some air power. If the South chose not to resist, I suspect we could evacuate our forces much more quickly than we could in 1950. And the Japanese could insert theirs much more quickly, also.
I don't think you're interpreting the question correctly. A "peer competitor" isn't one who could hold us off for a while, it's one that has a non-trivial chance of successfully conquering the US if it came down to a war. Their terrain isn't what will make them a threat, and you can't automatically assume total air superiority or superior firepower. A peer competitor won't look like North Korea in 1950, it'll look like a militarized EU or a technologically advanced China.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
What’s the likelihood of a conventional enemy emerging anytime soon to challenge the US?
Zero, as long as we maintain force levels and quality. The key conditions being conventional and soon.
For any enemy to truly challenge us in a conventional sense, it would have to challenge our naval domination. It is hard to imagine either China or India getting to the point where the could afford to challenge us without them, and their citizens, having become so successful economically that they would have too much to lose by actually challenging us. This is how we have disarmed all our former and more likely potential rivals, by providing prosperity and security for it at a price so low they choose to lease from us rather than buy.
Unconventional threats are another matter. Including Chinese manipulation of our debt.