What will surprise us in the next big war?

[Bulletpoint]

I'm just sitting here drinking some coffee and thinking about the future. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this:

In the next war between major powers, what do you think will surprise us?

Just like in WW1, at first the machinegun and massed artillery changed warfare completely, then the later invention of the tank changed it once more.

In WW2, suddenly air superiority became extremely important.

Now we have had peace (in the West at least) for many years. Technology has become extremely advanced, but it's developed in a world where big powers mainly fight small insurgent groups. The US can count on their whole fire control and C2 system being intact.

If The US went to war against China or Russia, what would be the lessons learnt? Assuming the war did not turn nuclear.

Would the tank lose its importance due to too many powerful infantry anti tank missiles available?

Would airstrikes knock out the radars and tech necessary to keep drones in the air?

Of course, if you are able to guess what will surprise us, it won't be a surprise.. but I'd like to hear what you are thinking anyway.

 

[Sempai]

Hm, I think the next war as You describe it (and if it becomes a years long war) probably will be a test game for drones and "mechs". Maybe not that huge ones one knows from all the games but more the small ones. Unmanned fighting vehicles quick replace the men and women of the starting phase. Tanks will get obsolete to a great part. A few unique types of tanks will stay in service for a while yet. And in the worst case satellites and similar will stimulate weather, nature, men and other beings/animals. Air superiority will lose its importance. As the tanks as well it will surely hold on on it for a few special tasks. And biological and chemical warfare could get a new value again. So far as I know there is no way to protect water and food before a greater biological or chemical attack. And if one of the war parties can´t persist it is well possible that party uses that kind of weapon. Even the most advanced war technique has to be controlled by or for humans. If that humans starve the technique is for nothing.

Greetings

 

[Stafford]

In a war between major nations I think we will see a much larger use of electronic warfare, in an article I read recently about the Crimean war Ukranian soldiers were being hit with mortar fire within a minute of using their phones, in effect the Russians were locking onto their phone signal.

 

[Bulletpoint]

So far as I know there is no way to protect water and food before a greater biological or chemical attack. And if one of the war parties can´t persist it is well possible that party uses that kind of weapon.

Hmmmm... well I was about to say that I doubt those weapons would be used, as even in the last part of WW2, the Germans did not use chemical weapons, even though they had them.

Then again, in the recent war in Syria, chemical weapons have been used repeatedly.

 

[Bulletpoint]

in an article I read recently about the Crimean war Ukranian soldiers were being hit with mortar fire within a minute of using their phones, in effect the Russians were locking onto their phone signal.

Could this just be a coincidence though? Since if you have hundreds of soldiers, all with mobile phones, there will always be someone using his phone at any one time... And even when you don't actively use your phone, it's still in contact with the cellphone masts, exchanging information.

 

[Stafford]

Hmmmm... well I was about to say that I doubt those weapons would be used, as even in the last part of WW2, the Germans did not use chemical weapons, even though they had them.

Then again, in the recent war in Syria, chemical weapons have been used repeatedly.

From what I've read, the reason the Germans didn't use chemical weapons was because - strangely enough - Hitler forbade it, as he was a victim of mustard gas in the first world war.

Could this just be a coincidence though? Since if you have hundreds of soldiers, all with mobile phones, there will always be someone using his phone at any one time... And even when you don't actively use your phone, it's still in contact with the cellphone masts, exchanging information.

The article was linked on these forums somewhere, but I can't recall in what section, the impression I got from the article was that soldiers being hit after using their phones was happening too often to be a coincidence.

 

[Badger73]

From what I hear, the thing that keeps the US Joint Chiefs of Staff up at night is CYBER. I read somewhere that the US Navy has reintroduced Celestial and Sextant navigation training to deal with the likelihood that GPS will be made unreliable. Militarily successful Malware would wreak havoc on logistics and transport support as well as sow confusion on the immediate battlefield. Globally effective malware could shut down civil societies. Chinese PLA Unit 61398 exemplifies such efforts.

 

[Nemesis]

I was thinking about this the other day.

1) The war will start and drones will be INEFFECTIVE. They will be easily jammed. Later innovations in AI will allow drones to be reintroduced. They will be HIGHLY EFFECTIVE.

2) Expensive supplies of smart munitions will get used up quickly. Armies will still rely on dumb munitions with "smart launchers" just because of economics.

3) Lasers will be used to blind people. So optics will become electronic to prevent this.

4) Small numbers of soldiers with exoskeletons are fielded. At a minimum, drone "mules" will haul supplies.

5) Armies that move away from tanks come to regret it. In fact, tanks are very powerful because of anti missile systems. Almost all vehicles get anti missile systems.

6) Shooting down satellites becomes commonplace.

7) Effective body armor becomes more common. Soldiers take fewer casualties from shrapnel and small arms. Small arms fire much heavier projectiles to get through body armor.

8) Battery technologies near perfection.

9) Communications jamming is highly effective. Ancient means of directing men are reintroduced.

10) Aircraft are swept from the skies. Aircraft cannot dodge AA missiles. There is no close air support. Artillery provides indirect fire.

11) Counterbattery fire becomes a death dance. Units that fire will take immediate counterbattery fire.

This is just off the top of my head.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I read somewhere that the US Navy has reintroduced Celestial and Sextant navigation training to deal with the likelihood that GPS will be made unreliable.

This is probably a good idea, but you can't fire Tomahawks by sextant. It seems to me all Western armies have become so used to shooting insurgents with high tech weapons from long distance that I wonder how soldiers would react in a situation where those weapons no longer function, and where casualties were way higher than anything they ever experienced.

Then again, in a peer war, the same would go for the other side. They would also be dependent on hitech gadgets. My guess is that the next war would be decided very quickly by whomever managed to knock out most of the other side's command and control facilities first.

 

[Bulletpoint]

1) The war will start and drones will be INEFFECTIVE. They will be easily jammed. Later innovations in AI will allow drones to be reintroduced. They will be HIGHLY EFFECTIVE.

I also think they would prove ineffective at first. As I see it, drones are a symptom of decades of counterinsurgency where friendly casualties are avoided at all cost. The Taliban can't really do anything against high-flying drones, but a peer enemy could.

As for later AI drones, I think their effectiveness would be kept in check by specialised anti-drone drones. Again, the only reason drones are so effective today is because they are used against primitive militias - and because they are used against specific high value targets in operations where the attacker has a long time to prepare and plan.

 

[Bulletpoint]

5) Armies that move away from tanks come to regret it. In fact, tanks are very powerful because of anti missile systems. Almost all vehicles get anti missile systems.

This is a point where I disagree. I think main battle tanks are already obsolete - we just don't realise it yet.

If the protection of the tank comes down to an anti missile system, that system can just as well be fitted on a much lighter vehicle. Strong enough to survive autocannon and maybe more, but not the lumbering armoured beasts of today.

 

[Nemesis]

This is a point where I disagree. I think main battle tanks are already obsolete - we just don't realise it yet.

If the protection of the tank comes down to an anti missile system, that system can just as well be fitted on a much lighter vehicle. Strong enough to survive autocannon and maybe more, but not the lumbering armoured beasts of today.

But no anti-missile system will be able to stop a sabot round. Only heavy armor can do that.

 

[Bulletpoint]

But no anti-missile system will be able to stop a sabot round. Only heavy armor can do that.

Yes, but what good is that if the heavy tank can't survive the missile coming the other way? I think the situation is a bit like WW2 with the heavy German tanks VS upgunned Shermans. The Sherman has no chance to survive the Tiger II's main gun - but the Tiger II often can't survive the Firefly's cannon either.

The anti missile system on the tank might be able to defend against the first missile, maybe the second one too. But how many will it have to take before getting new ERA panels installed? Infantry also fire missiles.

These days, tankers leaving basecamp on a peacekeeping convoy know that soon they will be back at base for a nice hot meal, getting their tank refitted and refuelled.. but that can't be taken for granted in a real extended war.

I think it will surprise people that all the solutions made during semi-peacetime won't function when the whole support system we take for granted isn't there any more.

I see modern heavy tanks a bit like battleships before WW2. They added more and more AA guns as airpower became more and more dangerous. Also they added torpedo nets. But today those capital ships are obsolete.

 

[Captain K]

They will turn this lethal.

 

[Aurelius]

@Bulletpoint - concerning MBT's and their place today> First, the tolerance for MBT losses would be higher.

Second, all the points you raise mean that commanders (and crews) will have to be smart and create their opportunities to use armor successfully. To that end I think we will see more widespread use of IR-blocking smoke artillery barrages and IR reducing camouflages for tanks. The side that breaks the combined arms team of the opponent will win.

So far, the conflicts have shown that there always exist a need for direct fire support - a role that MBT's can readily provide. It is just that their usage will have to be thoroughly planed - a job that the already existing structure of the officer and NCO corps can do and already is doing.

 

[Bulletpoint]

So far, the conflicts have shown that there always exist a need for direct fire support - a role that MBT's can readily provide.

True, but isn't that like shooting sparrows with a cannon if lighter armoured vehicles can provide fire support just as well?

 

[Nemesis]

A few other points:

1) A few high tech weapons will flop spectacularly when faced with low tech countermeasures.

2) Cyber attacks on civilians will be common.

3) The US will not be able to beat China in an Asian mainland war. China is now the dominant power on mainland Asia.

4) The advantages conferred by Stealth technology will go away.

5) I mentioned that AI drones would be effective. These would be drones on the ground or near the ground. Again, the skies will be swept clean of aircraft. Space will be swept clean of military satellites.

 

[Aurelius]

True, but isn't that like shooting sparrows with a cannon if lighter armoured vehicles can provide fire support just as well?

What kind of vehicle? Do you propose a light tank or something like BMPT (even though it's not a good example, cause it's built on T 72 chassis)?

Even if they are built, they will only support, never break through and exploit.

 

[Bulletpoint]

What kind of vehicle? Do you propose a light tank or something like BMPT (even though it's not a good example, cause it's built on T 72 chassis)?

I'm thinking something like APCs with non-manned autocannon turrets and missile racks. Possibly mixed in with some light tanks that have heavier guns to knock out more entrenched positions.

One counterargument against relying too much on missiles is that in a real war, many missiles would probably be launched at the wrong targets. AT rockets used against infantry etc. So supplying and reloading the missile racks would be a problem.

Even if they are built, they will only support, never break through and exploit.

But did this idea of breaking through and exploiting ever work, apart from in the first part of the attack on Russia? Later on, it became known that tanks advancing without infantry was suicide. And that was even before AT missiles became invented and widespread. The breakthrough doctrine is based on the rear areas being defenceless against tanks. That was not even true in later WW2.

 

[Bulletpoint]

1) A few high tech weapons will flop spectacularly when faced with low tech countermeasures.

4) The advantages conferred by Stealth technology will go away.

I thought these two were particularly interesting. Care to elaborate?