Surprise Value of New Weapons and Combat Techniques

Principles of Surprise (Erfurth) | English translation 1943 | General Waldemar Erfurth

[Fusion]

There is one important military principle of almost eternal validity: if, at the beginning of a war, absolute numerical superiority is not obtainable, one should try to be superior at least in one important weapon. It would not be reasonable to expect great differences between the armaments of the major powers. Yet special progress in technical inventions is always possible.

A new weapon must be put to use suddenly and in great quantity, nay, in maximum quantity. Otherwise the surprise of the opponent is neither complete nor decisive. Consequently, one must wait until the new weapon is available in large numbers.

All new weapons which were used in World War I were used prematurely and in small quantity. Perhaps human imagination is incapable of forecasting correctly the effects of a new weapon. The opponent can be fundamentally surprised by new techniques. Novel methods can basically change the course of the war.

It is the task of the theorist to understand quickly every novelty and to advise on their adoption.

[Fusion]

February 8, 1904 -- January 2, 1905

The forces of freedom on the move. Europe trembles.

[Fusion]

General Erfurth's basic premise postulates that in any conflict the outgunned side can garner operational surprise -- and thus re-direct tempo and momentum -- by introducing new weapons systems en masse into the conflict matrix. The Islamic entente airborne assault versus the United States on September 11, 2001 a perfect example of such a novel surprise attack vector -- as four jumbo jets were turned into sub-atomic cruise missiles.

Now the Islamic entente prepares once more to stun the West with a massive pre-emptive surprise attack. Utilising unconventional kampfgruppen in a Tet style strike, Islamic entente forces seek to recreate a Port Arthur like strategic re-alignment against the lumbering Anglo-American forces that have lost the strategic momentum as they sit idly in their forward deployment zones.

President Bush must launch the American attack now. The European appeasers cannot be permitted to cost hundreds of thousands of British and American lives twice in three score years.

To wait is to permit the opposition a clear look at the rim as the clock is ticking down. When the buzzer sounds for the Allied attack, it will do little good if the Islamic entente three-ball has already been launched.

The forces of freedom on the move. Europe trembles.

[donmeaker]

In the first gulf war, air power had to be used with precision, and with finesse. Basing was a major restriction. Fighters were used to launch precision pinpricks. The B-52 could be used after the air defenses were down.

This time the B-1 and B-2 are both on line, and EVERY TARGET identified before the war can be hit the first 3 days. The B-1 coming in at low level is really tough for an enemy air defense system to handle. The B-2 is impossible. Throw in the B-52s, and add that all of these are now using precision weapons (one bomb per target) and you run out of targets pretty quick.

After 3 days, the ground forces come in, and Saddam will have lost his ability to command his men. We can focus many against few, pick our battles. If he tries to attack, his people will be waxed in the assembly areas.

The big question is the peace. We have made contact with the Iraqi opposition, and the Kurds and Shiites have had some experience with freedom and self government. We have a good chance to establish a destabilizing democratic government, with limited powers.

[Theophilus]

I agree that we should attack immediately. But your jargon does not strike me as being cohesive. I think the outgunned side is only concerned about how quickly they can wave the white flag.

[archy]

After 3 days, the ground forces can come in, and Saddam will have lost his ability to command his men.

We agree about the probable effectiveness of air power in the coming days, though I suspect it'll require a bit more than 3 days to get the job done. Let the first annihiliation take place, destroying in wholesale lots enemy forces and equipment in their well-prepared poositions, then follow up that first sledgehammer blow with another, which will catch the survivors in less well-prepared hasty fortifications. That oughta' do it, if within a week or ten days, if not three. But within that first three I'd expect to see most of the air defenses and wide-area communications disappear, leaving a damaged and demoralized army with C-cube problems with which they'll hopefully be unable to contend.

It's entirely possible that crew fatigue and endurance of our aviators may be more worrisome considerations than enemy fire, or certainly at least to as much of an extent. Neither would it surprise me if such initial operations take place under orders to present as minimal a risk to attacking aircraft as possible; once spotted and noted for further additional targeting a given enemy position or stronghold can always be visited by successive loads of air-to-ground attention: anything worth bombing is worth bombing well.

Too, recall that during the air campaign in Bosnia during the Clinton administyration, about half of our F16 fleet was down with engine replacement problems. Hopefully, we'll not be depending on any one critical system to accomplish any single vital task, and if we do uncover any glaring deficiency in any system or piece of equipment, there'll hopefully be enough overlap from similar elements that can take up the slack, whether from our own or allied forces. But we still need to plan a logistics effort intended for a fight over the long haul. Better to have and not need than vice-versa, and remember that amateurs and junior officers study strategies and tactics, while real professionals sweat the logistics.

[Hoplite]

But your jargon does not strike me as being cohesive.

Ya think?

You can trace Greg's literary diet by the new catchphrases which crop up in his posts, and note Greg's ability to retain knowledge of said catchphrases - as in the case of 'stosstruppen', which has been replaced with 'kampfgruppen' here.

[TADSLOS]

Cool print.

[bvw]

Good thing that ... sort of the dog's nose applied to verbal expression. You can see what the other fellow is eating intellectually.

[Theophilus]

Being a pretentious fellow myself, I recognize it when I see it. You can't BS a BSer :-)

A common tactic of pretence is to litter your writing or speech with catch phrases. They tend to lend credibility. Unfortunately, as all fans of Dilbert know, catch phrases do little to promote cohesion. I believe fusion is in earnest but I think he is wrong about several things:

• There is one important military principle of almost eternal validity: if, at the beginning of a war, absolute numerical superiority is not obtainable, one should try to be superior at least in one important weapon. - Does this mean the if numerical superiority is achieved, technical superiority is less important? This is at best a statement of the obvious.
• It would not be reasonable to expect great differences between the armaments of the major powers. - I can't think of many great historic conflicts where there were not great differences in armament???
• A new weapon must be put to use suddenly and in great quantity, nay, in maximum quantity. - Naturally this is true, if a new weapon proves effective. However, many times, new weapons are used without appropriate changes to Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) resulting at best, in a lessening of effectiveness, and at worst, a Pyrrhic victory (American Civil War) or (WWI either side) or (9/11).
• All new weapons which were used in World War I were used prematurely and in small quantity. - This is simply wrong! Long range artillery, machine guns, aircraft, chemical weapons, land mines, submarines etc etc were used in tremendous quantities. The only exception was the tank and that was because engine technology had not advanced to the point that it could properly support the system.
• Now the Islamic entente prepares once more to stun the West with a massive preemptive surprise attack. - Where is the evidence of this? One could imagine that they are doing this. One could certainly believe that they hope to do this. But history shows Islamic genius to but rather more of a spark than a wildfire. 9/11 was not only operational suicide, but it was also organizational suicide. It was as if the antelope had left the herd to go fart on a pride of sleeping lions.
• ...lumbering Anglo-American forces - more like a sprinter poised on the starting line.
• the Islamic entente three-ball has already been launched. - Are you suggesting that we're tied? But they haven't even scored since the first five minutes ?!?!?!?!

Finally, if fusion were really up on his jargon, we would hear the expression: "asymmetrical threat" mentioned at least three times! LOL

[MeekOneGOP]

FOX News is reporting that there will be more bombs dropped in the FIRST day than were used in all of Gulf War I. Saddam is toast ! . . .

[MeekOneGOP]

Bu-bye, Saddam ! . . .

President Bush:

Hey, Colin! Do you know what time it is? ...

[FairOpinion]

To wait is to permit the opposition a clear look at the rim as the clock is ticking down. When the buzzer sounds for the Allied attack, it will do little good if the Islamic entente three-ball has already been launched.

----

I agree. We need to strike BEFORE there is absolute certainty in the UN, which would tip off Saddam, that the game is really-really up, and allow him to mount a pre-emptive strike against us. I am sure President Bush is fully aware of this and is planning accordingly. But the wait is nerve wrecking. Presumable also and especially for Saddam, who may withhold his attack with WMD, while he feels there is still a chance that the UN may protect him, but not a minute longer.

Also recall the warnings that have been coming out of AQ, that they are ready to strike.

[archy]

Bu-bye, Saddam!...

There are some Iraqi soldiers about to have a real bad day at the office....

-archy-/-

[MeekOneGOP]

Oh, yeah !!

[Hoplite]

You can see what the other fellow is eating intellectually.

I concur, though I don't think you could have phrased it in a more unappetizing way if you tried.  = )

[riri]

Where'd ya go????

[Fitzcarraldo]

The Coalition is nearing the doorstep of Baghdad...what are your observations?

[aruanan]

Now the Islamic entente prepares once more to stun the West with a massive pre-emptive surprise attack. Utilising unconventional kampfgruppen in a Tet style strike, Islamic entente forces seek to recreate a Port Arthur like strategic re-alignment against the lumbering Anglo-American forces that have lost the strategic momentum as they sit idly in their forward deployment zones.

Come back to the real world. Please!

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

Fusion we're missing you're insignt & analysis on the war. Where are the Islamic mobs shooting up the London streets?

Oh well, I guess you're hunkered down with the rest of the Republican Guard south of Baghdad..