need book list on tactics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

DarthAmerica RE:need book list on tactics 7/16/2005 5:59:26 AM

What type of war? Era? Are you interested in specific tactics? Or are you trying to read strategy?

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics 7/16/2005 6:22:00 PM

sffbattler My essays on this forum should get you started until you find a book that you like. I would caution you to think about whether or not you are qualified to write about strategy and tactics in regards to providing the military community with something new and original, as it will be very hard to compete with retired military officers who take the safe route and use quote heavy books on the facultative elements of military warfare. It will be very hard to get your book accepted given these facts, but don't give up, as I have had two accepted for publication.

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics 7/16/2005 6:40:46 PM

My essays on this forum should get you started until you find a book that you like. I would caution you to think about whether or not you are qualified to write about strategy and tactics in regards to providing the military community with something new and original, as it will be very hard to compete with retired military officers who take the safe route and use quote heavy books on the facultative elements of military warfare. It will be very hard to get your book accepted given these facts, but don't give up, as I have had two accepted for publication one I have published one book myself. As you will see after reading the essays I have posted on this page, the book I am currently preparing for publication may well be able to compete with some of the best books ever written on war and diplomacy. To those that disagreee, I take on all challenges to the throne. Post a topic by your favorte soldier/strategist/author and I will best it.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica RE:need book list on tactics - Braddock 7/16/2005 6:54:31 PM

Then face me.

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics - Braddock 7/16/2005 9:00:27 PM

Darth America Post some of your work. If you have no work to post then that should give you something to strive for before you go around challenging vets with an unparalleled efficiency rating in miliatary projections, strategy, tactics and multiple discliplines.

Quote Reply

sfbattler RE:need book list on tactics 7/17/2005 1:32:51 AM

I?m writing a so novel, where the earth is invaded by tech advanced species. So it?s mainly going to be defensive war but I will be looking through the eyes of one of the alien?s battalion?s S3, who later takes command of a battalion. I figure I can do it with the right research but I don't know where to start. I say this cause Tom Clancy was and insurance salesman with no military background before writing Hunt for Red October. I just wish I could ask him how he got so versed in the military sciences/arts.

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics 7/17/2005 6:43:28 PM

Maybe you can join a workshop for authors. That should help you.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica RE:need book list on tactics - Braddock 7/17/2005 7:19:59 PM

Braddock, My challenge is not meant to be insulting or derogatory. Only to answer your challenge. My post or mostly on the armed forces of the world board. Feel free to try to rip me a new one if you disagree with anything I say. I welcome the criticism.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 9:49:43 AM

Well could check this list out, should give you some good background info: link The other thing you may consider, is that if you are writing a sci-fi book from an alien perspective you have the advantage of no one can seriously knock your tactics ;-) It's aliens and sci-fi. "I just wish I could ask him how he got so versed in the military sciences/arts." I'm not a real fan of Clancy, but I think a fair amount of his research these days comes from talking to people in uniform. Maybe just start writing and find someone with the appropriate experience to read over it and comment.

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 2:27:55 PM

Darth America Post your best work from the other page, as I want to make sure your work is presented in the best manner possible.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 2:44:42 PM

link The men who bombed the London Trains and Busses have done much to show the world the true enemy we face. These men were not from in a Palestinian slum, a bombed out Iraqi town, Syrian city, Pakistani Tribal Lands, Saudi Arabia or from a poor African nation. No, these men where British Citizens! They lived among us, mostly from birth, enjoying the riches and wonders of our modern society. They played with our children, went to our schools, watched our TV and paid their taxes. Remeber well the paragraph above. Never forget it. So that when someone tells you that the reason we have terrorist is due to poverty, oppression or imperialism. You need only tell them the truth I bring to you in the first paragraph. And when viewed objectively, it applies to the highest of Al-Qaeda's leader ship, Osama Bin Laden. TO the lowest foot soldier, Suicide Bomber. Tell me, when is the last time a group of Africans, bombed Europe because they were poor. Or a Mexican Bomb the USA? But more than that, it also tells us a lot about who we are at war with. We are not at war with terrorism. No, terrorism is simply a type of MILITARY operation most often executed by those who lack more conventional means. That it is a very inexpensive, indefensable and ananymous operation simply makes it more likey to be used by those who lack other means. We are at war with Radical Islam. Radical Islamics, just like us, come from all types of economic backgrounds. Therefore the only solution to the issue of the WOT(a.k.a. WORI, War On Radical Islam), is to hunt down and kill the Radicals before they hunt down and kill us. These Radicals, unlike some of us, believe in what they fight for. The are willing to give everything in pursuit of their goal. That goal is to drive out western influence in the middle east and to reestablish the Greater Islamic State. There can be no negotiation with a Religious Radical. How do you convince a man who believes he will burn in hell if he doesnt wage Jihad to work out compromise? If he really believes it, and I think anyone willing to explode themself is a believer, there is no compromise. What are you going to tell them, "Allah wont mind if we stay in the holy land". Yeah right. He will stick a Kalashnikov in your face and blow your brains out. And even worse, he will send his children to your home to explode your children. And he will do it cheerfully. Thats what these people believe. And just as strongly as you believe you have the right to live. They believe they have the right to kill you and your kids. Now just for a minute, indulge and imagine if I handed you a bomb and told you to explode yourself for your country or God. Even the most nationalistic or Religious among us would probably not be able to do it. It is because it is an inhuman state of mind. Its not natural. Its monstrous. Its just as Alien as any creature from outer space you have ever seen on TV. We are quite literally in a War or The Worlds. For that reason, you may as well be talking in Klingon to try and appease these people. The only compromise these vile creatures will accept is to give them everything they ask for. Something we simply cannot do. Our economy is an oil based economy. And any sudden transsission to a wide spread non-fossile fuel source of energy would absolutely destroy the world economic system. The result of an economic collapse of this magitude would kill millions and millions from the inevitable disease and famine. So even under the most idealistic environmentalist scenario, we lose orders of magnitude more people. So I say with firm conviction what we must do. We must make public that we are at war with radical islam. Allied Nations internal security forces must identify any institution or people that preach Jihad or radical islam. Upon locating them, they must be driven out of our homelands without exception. And when they are found abroad, they must be destroyed with extreme prejudice by our military. Again, no exceptions and this includes the nations that support them. Man, woman and child. No one who is a part of this Alien Ideology must be spared. Its harsh I know. But the women and children are a part of the ideology. If my words sound too harsh, simply watch a video interview of a palestinian suicide bombers mother. They are hardly regretful. Any talk of mercy or rule of law in regard to our methods is frankly, naive and stupid. I understand the politics and such. But these people openly admit that they are trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction for use against us! The most powerful of all weapons. And I dont think anyone doubts that when they get them and the means to deliver, they will use them. This is TOTAL WAR. At least to one side it is. And whats good for the goose is good for the gander. So I say lets burn these monsters to the ground. Just like we would have to the Soviets if they attacked us. Did President Kennedy not tell the Russians we would rather go to nuclear war than live under the unbrella of death? And lets do it preemptively any chance we get. Why? Because when you are dealing with WMD, you may not get a chance to retaliate. At least not in a way that will make much difference to those who will be killed by the thousands or millions if the Radicals are allowed to survive. Infact, key to the survival of this Alien Ideology is us letting them live. They know they could never hope to fight us off if we ever got serious. But they are counting on us not to get serious until its too late. And when its too late, we will have suicide bomber exploding daily in our lands, a mushroom cloud and many other horrors. It will be war without end. Thats why we have to dig these murderous and wicked radicals out while we still can. To Americans: By histories standards. We are a peaceful benevolent people. But there are those who watch with great interest our war on terror. Enemies, some old with debts to settle. And some new, opportunist. All envious of our rapid rise to world dominance. Vultures, waiting to prey on our carcasses. If we dont take steps to quickly end this war. Our swords will become dull and souls weary of battle. They they will come for us in our moment of distress. And we will be swept away just as any great society is when it gets complacent. So we must not hesitate, show mercy or waiver if we hope to preserve our way of life. We are at war. Now lets act like it. Then, we can have peace. Rant Over DA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- link Does morality have a place in war? While that is the general theme of this thread. I will address some specific issues that seem to come up from time to time here. Lets feel everybody out. Lets not waste time with personal insults either. Just address to the best of your ability why you think certain weapons and tactics should or should not be used. If you can provide a historical reference to back up your feelings please do so. If this discussion is too inflamatory for you please dont get involved so we can keep things civil. Now that we got that out of the way... 1. Preemptive Strikes --This is the issue that seems to have caused one of the more recent rifts in US-Euro relations. Its obvious anytime you read most international news stories and even here on SP. IN MY OPINION, it is the only way to fight a war. Striking first gives you the initiative and allows you to resolve conflicts or potential conflicts on your own terms. The thought of defensive wars has always seemed an error to me. You are not guaranteed to survive the initial blow! Some examples of nations that did not survive preemptive attacks are France 1939, Kuwait 1991 and Iraq 2003. Only the sacrafice of other nations saved them in the end. But only after they were conquered. In short I dont see anything wrong with throwing the first punch. It works. 2. Terrorism --A little more controversial topic. But no matter how controversial it is a valid military tactic. Its most often practiced when one side doesnt have the means to fight a bigger power. I mean do you expect the Palestinians to wage Manuever Warfare against the Israeli Army? Nations fight with what means the have available. For some that is the Car Bomb. For others its a JDAM. While I find terrorism to be distasteful. I can not in good faith say that I find anything immoral about it considering the nature of war. Before any of you jump down my throat consider this. IF you lived in a third world country. And for some reason, doesnt matter pick one, a more powerful nation overan your nations armed forces and enslaved your people. Would you not take up arms? And if so. Would you chose to honorably face the more powerful foe where he is strongest, on the battlefield? Or would you strike him where he is weak? In his homeland? His rear area? Or, would you accept being dominated by a foreign invader? 3. Targeting Enemy Populations --Dresden, Tokyo, Iraq 1991-1998 immediately come to mind. Plain and simple I'm all for it if their is a military objective to be achieved. I mean honestly. Why should the people of a nation be spared the horrors of a war they support IF that support is key to the success of their campaign? If anyone can make a case on behalf of the people and why they should be spared, I would love to hear it. I bet there isnt a single person who can debate me on why this is an invalid tactic without resorting to insults. Genocide IS NOT THE SAME THING. Futher Genocide is a waste of military resources and morally wrong. Genocide is not a method of war, it is a crime. 4. NBC Weapons Use --I think the time has come to futher integrate Offensive NBC weapons into our(USA) military doctrine. Not only does it make sense, but it may be crucial to our achieving victory in the not to distant future. I agree that in the past, up to about when the USSR fell apart. It was in our(the world) interest to not use NBC weapons if at all possible and then only for retaliation. But contrary to popular belief, I do not feel this was primarily based on morality or MAD policy. I think the reason why we(USA) became so anti-NBC is because we didnt want to face weapons on the battlefield that could give an enemy effective means to fight back. We were so much more advanced in our conventional weapons capability that conventional war was in our interest. Also NBC weapons, especially nuclear, were beyond the means of most of our opponents. The only fear we had was intervention by other nuclear powers. Also in those times. It was still possible to prevent non-nuclear powers from becoming nuclear. Today I think the nature of war has changed. Not only is the list of nuclear powers growing. But some of the defenses of the enemy are only vulnerable to nuclear weapons. Also, nuclear weapons offer efficiency. Compare the destruction of Dresden to the destruction of Hiroshima. Who can argue against the efficiency of the Hiroshima raid? And nuclear weapons, again contrary to popular belief, dont have to be city-busting dirty weapons. Yields and weapons effects are highly controllable. Nuclear weapons represent the future and is a natural progression of things. We should not fear this. Instead, we should use our skills to master it. --Chemical weapons. These weapons would also be of great use to any military that took the time to develop weapons and tactics to use them. Non-lethal weapons like CS or sleep agents could be used as a non lethal means of dealing with civilians if their deaths would be contrary to our interest. Or lethal agents could be used against enemy units concealed in difficult terrain such as caves or cities. OR to deny terrain. Imagine if we could immediately put nerve gas on the beaches of Taiwan in front of invading Chinese. Or what if after we evacutated Fallujah in November 2004. We took the city after using chemicals to kill the insurgents there. They had no defense and would have been ideal targets. Chemical weapons are simply to valuable to be ignored. In a time where a lot of nations are becoming nuclear capable. I think the taboo surrounding chemicals should be removed. In fact the only reason we didnt used chemicals was to deny it to nations who could not get nuclear weapons and saw chemicals as a cheap substitute. Not because of any moral issues. What difference does it make if I kill a grid square with FASCAM or persistent agent? --Bio weapons. Ummm, I like the idea. But a little too dangerous for even me to endorse right now. I admit that I have very limited knowledge of Bio weapons and tactics surrounding their use. I dont see it as a moral limitation but more of a safety issue. If the effects can be reasonably controlled then I say use them. But until then I would hesitate to employ such weapons. 5. Torture --We have been through this before so I'll keep this short and sweet. For me morality comes to play if torture is used just for the sake of using it. If it is administered by professionals in a controlled environment for interrogation purposes. Then I dont have a problem with it. You all know the ticking timebomb analogy. That best explains my position. 6. Proliferation --I see this as a, "At your own risk" activity. I dont blame Iran or NK for trying to get WMD. But dont blame me for stopping them either if I dont like it. 7. Treaty Obligations -Rubbish. Treaty is created by one power to secure an advantage over lesser power. I have no respect whatsoever for any treaty. We should always do what is in our interest. We own nothing to the world community. ONe of the most brilliant moves I have ever seen a poliician make was when GWB withdrew from the silly ABM treaty. 8. P.O.W. rights --P.O.W. are at the mercy of their captors. However we should treat P.O.W.s in a professional manner whenever possible. But we cannot allow the media and the enemy to use enemy P.O.W.s as propaganda weapons against us. P.O.W.s are after all people who would kill you if they could. We must never forget that. 9. Media Censorship --In times of war, the media should be made to understand that they are a possible threat to military operations. There should be a clear line between objective reporting and propaganda. When they cross that line they should be dealt with accordingly. I think Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf dealt very effectively with the media. Perhaps one of his greatest accomplishments! 10. Space War --We should establish a military presence in space. Space is now key terrain in war and as such must be secured by any means necessary. The only people bitching otherwise are those who cant secure it. These are my posisions. I would love to read anyone elses opinions. I am also open to debate anyone who disagrees or agrees. BUt if you disagree. Be civil and take the time to explain why without making this personal. Thanks DA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- link How do we do this? It is clear that there needs to be a response to the London bombing beyond rhetoric. The response has to go far beyond a sybolic target as well. The response must strike directly at what remains of Al-Qaeda and not just one of the branch elements. The purpose must be to make it known that anytime we are hit, there will be hell to pay. And also to send the message of superiority and fear into the Radical Islamic world. The operation must also directly humiliate those who enable and support these actions. That is because without the support of state actors, Al-Qaeda and other groups could not carry out these actions. We must neither hesitate or show mercy in our action. And we must be prepared to pay the cost as well as act alone if this is absolutely necessary. TO be truly effective, there can be no European styled debate or delay in action. Having said that, lets get down to business. In my opinion, Al-Qaeda must be directly engaged. There can be no sanctuary for this organization. Getting right to the point, this means we have to confront Pakistan and Saudi Arabia directly. Those two nations, from what I can tell, are most responsible for the existance of Al-Qaeda. And since the early days of the WOT, both nations have been given ample opportunity to riegn in their more radical elements. Now let me say that I understand the posisition of both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Both regimes are full of radical elements and are struggling to hold on to power. ANd while they would like normal relations and trade with the west. The elements within their societies who support terror simply arent interested and their governments are powerless to resist them effectively. Saudi Arabia: This nation is key because of the financial and manpower support it provides to the enemy. Also it provides a safe haven for the ideology of hatred. Now I am under no illusion about the political challenges of facing Saudi Arabia. Their importance to the world economy makes an invasion and overt military force a very unattractive option. But if we allow that to deter us from acting. Al-Qaeda is already achieving one of its chief objectives. We must use our huge political clout, backed by our superb strategic position in Iraq. To pressure the Saudis into transperent anti-terror operations. In addition to transperent, they must work jointly with the coalition within their land to kill the terrorist. The catch is that this operation must be subtle enough to not upset the oil markets or topple the Saudi Government. But it must be overt enough to get the job done and send the message that we are going to kill the Saudi Al-Qaeda branch COMPLETELY and destroy the finacial and logistical network that exist there in support of Al-Qaeda abroad. This is a mission more suitable for Special Operations Forces and Intelligence Agencies supported as needed by conventional forces. And it has to go far beyond anything we have ever seen before. Whats the difference between this and what we and the Saudis have pretended to be doing since 2001? Well this time we do it for real. Things like killing the clerics and destroying the schools and Mosque that create the manpower. Assassinating Saudi Government Officials who are in collution with the terrorist. Killing or capturing the individuals who provide the financial support. Also hunting down and killing the individual cells and terrorist as we find them. The Saudis have to be made to understand that they either help with this. Or we will do it for them. Contigency plans and forces also have to be made available in the event it is necessary to seize Saudi Arabia's oil fields. If an insurgency breaks out. So long as it is unorganized and doesnt threaten our strategic energy supply, it is a Saudi problem. Where it is a threat to our interest or becomes organized it must be eliminated without mercy or hesistation. There will be no Fallujahs. Saudi citizens must learn to fear any action against us for fear of retaliation. Pakistan: It is obvious that Pakistan is not serious, or able to be serious, in their actions against Al-Qaeda. So long as we do not enter Pak territory. Al-Qaeda will have a secure place to live. In the same manner as we drove them out of Afghanistan. We must drive them out of Pakistan. Pakistan must also be disarmed of nuclear weapons. Either through diplomacy or counterforce strikes. There can be no negotiation in this. A government supportive of Al-Qaeda cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Those tribal regions where Al-Qaeda seeks refuge must be cordoned off and cleared of all Al-Qaeda and any supporters. If Pakistan does not allow this, then we must be prepared to do it without their consent. If that becomes necessary, the Pakistani regime must be removed and replaced by a government with similar interest like Afghanistan. Another Question: Assume my strategy is carried out. How does the rest of the world react -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Braddock, Lets try these. You can pick one or if we have time, we can do all three. Thanks DA P.S. THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK THREAD. If you can show me to be in error. I will admit it and we can move on. If we disagree, then unless one of us can disprove the other, we should agree to disagree. I say this to you not because I think you will take anything I say personal. But based on past experience, these issues can get a little heated. I offer in return the same respect I am asking from you. One thing I will concede immediately is that I am no grammar or spelling expert. So you win in that category by default...;)

Quote Reply

WinsettZ RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 2:57:01 PM

So basically sfbattler is looking for stuff on contemporary military practices. Vietnam Studies might be a bit old but it's fairly in depth. There isn't much that goes over things at the "operational" level. It's either high-up in distant-command-post-land or in-the-dirt with little material about the in-between area. Is there anything specific you're looking for?

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 5:19:06 PM

Darth America "Allied Nations internal security forces must identify any institution or people that preach Jihad or radical islam." Darth America Islamic scholars(those who subscribe to medhabs(The 4 schools of thought)consider Jihad the 6th pillar of Islam. These scholars represent over 80% of muslims who follow medhabs. How will you articulate your thoughts to these muslims. I would also like you to go more in depth about this statement. I think because of the depth and relevance of your argument, you should state your real name and rank if necessary in stead of making this statement behind the cover of a pseudonym. Once you do this, I can assist you further, as I agree that radical Islam is a serious threat to global peace, although, I do not agree with your approach, as that can do more damage than good if make statements out of ignorance. I think that once you start articulating your thoughts on this matter without the cover of a pseudonym you will find that you make decisions that display your intellect and the discipline that is required to help others benefit from the topic you choose to talk about. Sgt. Jones

Quote Reply

Braddock RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 5:20:22 PM

Darth America "Allied Nations internal security forces must identify any institution or people that preach Jihad or radical islam." Darth America Islamic scholars(those who subscribe to medhabs(The 4 schools of thought)consider Jihad the 6th pillar of Islam.) These scholars represent over 80% of muslims who follow medhabs. How will you articulate your thoughts to these muslims. I would also like you to go more in depth about this statement. I think because of the depth and relevance of your argument, you should state your real name and rank if necessary in stead of making this statement behind the cover of a pseudonym. Once you do this, I can assist you further, as I agree that radical Islam is a serious threat to global peace, although, I do not agree with your approach, as that can do more damage than good if make statements out of ignorance. I think that once you start articulating your thoughts on this matter without the cover of a pseudonym you will find that you make decisions that display your intellect and the discipline that is required to help others benefit from the topic you choose to talk about. Sgt. Jones

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica RE:need book list on tactics 7/18/2005 7:55:44 PM

Braddock, Thank you for taking the time to read my post. Your disagreement is noted. I would love to not have to use a pseudonym when having these discussions. Unfortunately I am under an agreement that prevents me from doing so. However, I am willing to accept any criticisms or comments you may have so that we may reach a consensus on the issue. It seems that we both agree that the threat is Radical Islam. The question is. Is Radical Islam simply the tool of a more powerful but very subtle long term threat? But even if it is. It still has to be dealt with. Because a hatred that runs so deep and pure will not simply go away. It wont surrender. It wont negotiate with us. And that much anger is easily manipulated by others who would use Radical Islam as a means to strike at us in ways that give the true enemy plausible deniability to prevent effective counter action.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

	News As History - December 4, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us