We Are Learning A Lot From War in Ukraine

We should pay attention to how the war is being fought. For example: day of the tank may be coming to an end. Too vulnerable. Of key importance: having the most ordnance (missiles, rockets, artillery), the best trained/motivated troops, and large numbers of UAV’s. Whoever runs out of ordnance first loses. We need to be careful not to budget too much defense $$ on large high tech weapons and not to forget logistics and ordnance.

This is not a criticism of your curiosity and interest in world affairs, but my opinion on these grand strategic questions is that I don’t have one, because I have no idea what the right thing to do is and I have zero influence over it anyway. I focus my finite attention on my job, relationships, and hobbies. My question for the group is: Am I wrong for this? To be a good citizen should I formulate opinions on issues that are outside my area of expertise and influence? Earnest question that I go back and forth on.

I really doubt being a good citizen has anything to do with your opinions or lack of opinions on a forum such as this.

As to the original question.

Not that I quite understand what the Marines are doing as far as future war fighting but it sounds to me they have been adopting new approaches to meet the changing battle field.. Not always,popular new approaches by those that do have opinions.

In part it sounds like small mobile teams with some high tech weapons and not a traditional USMC infantry approach.

Tanks I believe are no longer a USMC asset if I understood correctly?

Well armed stingray type of teams and drones. Makes me wonder what kind of a career path infantry will be in the future.

VN was the first US war where small teams armed with radios and maybe a sniper played a big part of the combat. Radios and choppers made that possible.

The Marines would dub these recon missions as stingray missions. More aggressive by way of calling in supporting arms less strictly observing.

This link above sounds exactly like that approach taken a bit farther in terms of being lethal.

The military, think tanks, and especially places like Warfighting Labs and Command and Staff (there are tons of schools) are watching , studying, observing. It’s also hard to know what is working or not until we have a more finite outcome. What May have worked in one battle and seemed amazing, doesn’t mean they have won the war. It will be studied greatly and lesson learned discussed. Sand table exercises, papers, thesis, etc will be written about this. Most of the logistics and high tech weapons mentioned, came from us. Just because we do not see it on the nightly news or other forms of media, does not mean the US is not studying this like it’s the final exam to pass Plebe Chemistry. @Kierkegaard, nothing wrong with that. Trying to study and observe the large scale portions of this war make little sense to a JO, sure we can study and observe them. Focus on learning your job and your team. One thing I would suggest… read. Read a lot. You can learn so much. Not just military leader books, but from industry, foreign affairs, economics.

NavyHoops said:

The military, think tanks, and especially places like Warfighting Labs and Command and Staff (there are tons of schools) are watching , studying, observing. It’s also hard to know what is working or not until we have a more finite outcome. What May have worked in one battle and seemed amazing, doesn’t mean they have won the war. It will be studied greatly and lesson learned discussed. Sand table exercises, papers, thesis, etc will be written about this. Most of the logistics and high tech weapons mentioned, came from us. Just because we do not see it on the nightly news or other forms of media, does not mean the US is not studying this like it’s the final exam to pass Plebe Chemistry. @Kierkegaard, nothing wrong with that. Trying to study and observe the large scale portions of this war make little sense to a JO, sure we can study and observe them. Focus on learning your job and your team. One thing I would suggest… read. Read a lot. You can learn so much. Not just military leader books, but from industry, foreign affairs, economics.

Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly my point. We need to study this war and learn from it. And I have no doubt that we will. It is more relevant than any war we have fought in the past.

Kierkegaard said:

Am I wrong for this? To be a good citizen should I formulate opinions on issues that are outside my area of expertise and influence? Earnest question that I go back and forth on.

Click to expand...

Every citizen has influence at the voting booth. I want to vote for representatives who will use our tax money wisely and spend it on weapons systems that will defend our country most effectively. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating a decrease in military spending. To the contrary, I would advocate an increase. But we need to spend the money wisely to prepare us for fighting the next war, not the last war. I am not a military man, I don’t think like a general. But I am highly educated. I think like a congressman. And Congress approves the defense budgets and dictates how they will be spent. Let’s not waste that money.

Kierkegaard said:

This is not a criticism of your curiosity and interest in world affairs, but my opinion on these grand strategic questions is that I don’t have one, because I have no idea what the right thing to do is and I have zero influence over it anyway. I focus my finite attention on my job, relationships, and hobbies. My question for the group is: Am I wrong for this? To be a good citizen should I formulate opinions on issues that are outside my area of expertise and influence? Earnest question that I go back and forth on.

Click to expand...

Piling on the pro reading.
Follow Naval Institute and the many other military and non-profits focused on this.
Subscribe to defense.com Early Bird.

Check out DoD Reads - started by a USNA grad - for the reading lists they have gathered from various services and leaders. Listen to their podcasts.

And thank you for budgeting a bit of time for Big Picture stuff.

Kierkegaard said:

This is not a criticism of your curiosity and interest in world affairs, but my opinion on these grand strategic questions is that I don’t have one, because I have no idea what the right thing to do is and I have zero influence over it anyway. I focus my finite attention on my job, relationships, and hobbies. My question for the group is: Am I wrong for this? To be a good citizen should I formulate opinions on issues that are outside my area of expertise and influence? Earnest question that I go back and forth on.

Click to expand...

From a personal aspect, prioritize what you need to prioritize and do what you enjoy doing. Nothing wrong with that.

From a professional aspect, it's fine to dig deep into the tactical level until you're a senior O3 or O4. Become an expert in your designator and your platform. You get the operational and strategic level thinking during JPME and MSOC, and follow-on tours on a 3/4-star staff. You're at the beginning of a long professional development pipeline.

I don’t know that the day of the tank has passed. I think the day of tanks led by poor leaders has passed. Ukrainians seem to be dusting off the Russian ones they capture and using them fairly effectively.
As pointed out, this war has put a huge spotlight on the effectiveness of lower level leadership, junior officers and NCOs.
The Russians are still using a “Napoleonic era” model of leadership, where regimental and brigade commanders issue orders and lower level leaders do nothing more than execute these orders with little room for initiative. Officers and NCOs who show initiative can be dangerous.
The Western model has evolved with weapons systems to push initiative down to the lowest level. One of the classic examples of this was the German attack on Eban Emael in 1940. The senior German Fallshirmjaeger’s glider was accidentally released early, so he was a no show. The senior NCO on the scene assessed the situation, took charge, and led a successful assault on the defenses. The Russians can’t really do this.
The Russian Air Force doctrine has also not evolved since WWII. The American Air Force has run air campaigns since WWII. We can criticize their effectiveness at times, but the Air Force doctrine and weapons systems have evolved over time. The classic example of this was Desert Storm. The Allied air forces spent 42 days destroying the Iraqi Air Force and air defenses and softening up ground targets. My DW tells the story of an Iraqi prisoner asking her in perfect English, “What took you so long?”
The Russian Air Force, in comparison, is considered nothing more than aerial field artillery designed to support the ground commander. They don’t seem to have a clue about SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense). Precision munitions are limited.
Finally, the Russians don’t know how to train. Their “war exercises” don’t really test their capabilities and weaknesses, so they don’t learn and evolve. We often hear about “so and so submarine sank a carrier during an exercise”, or “such and such unit beat an American unit.” Well, yeah. It’s a war game. You don’t scrimmage the Washington Generals and hope to learn something. You scrimmage a team that will test you, explore your weaknesses. Knock out your leaders and see how the junior personnel perform. See above example of the Germans in WWII. I recall a brigade commander telling me a story about a training exercise. Engineers were to breach an obstacle for the infantry who would then push through. They decided to “kill” the engineer leadership just to see what would happen. Their commander did a good job of communicating his intent and higher command’s intent. A new private stepped forward and directed the breaching and the mission succeeded, Again, the Russian military doesn’t do this.
Reference logistics. Again, the west is pretty good about this. I remember getting frustrated with some “peacetime” CSMs (command sergeants major), in Iraq. The US supply system was very good at recognizing equipment issues and giving troops new kit. So good, in fact, that AR 670-1, the Army regulation covering the wear and appearance of uniforms, couldn’t keep up. So on the one hand you had the Army issuing us new kit, and on the other hand you had some senior NCOs saying we couldn’t wear it. “Umm… why would the Army give it to me if they didn’t want me to wear it?” They REALLY hated the ballistic glasses we were issued, but they saved the eyes of many soldiers.
Just a brief remark on some weapons systems. Civilians often don’t understand why we continue to produce a weapon system when the military has enough of them. Why do we still build tanks when we have tanks parked in the desert? Well, once you close down a production line it’s gone. The dies, tooling, and expertise is gone. You don’t just open it back up. We saw this with the F-22, from all accounts an excellent fighter. But you will NEVER see another one made. This is why we still build air craft carriers. Once we stop making them, that expertise will be lost very quickly and it will be difficult to make another one.

The US and our Allies are studying this war intensely, and so is the PRC, of course. For those who are interested in a career in the military or intelligence community this presents a good opportunity to study a number of tactics, weapon systems, campaign strategies, diplomacy, and statecraft.

I really like the Institute for the Study of War's daily reports and analysis. They draw heavily on primary, battlefield-level sources to get the soldier and commander perspective. They make excellent use of Telegram Channels and Twitter feeds from both sides. Best of all, the maps are world-class!

.
War-Gaming Models are changing “Fast” …
.

NJROTC-CC said:

Every citizen has influence at the voting booth. I want to vote for representatives who will use our tax money wisely and spend it on weapons systems that will defend our country most effectively. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating a decrease in military spending. To the contrary, I would advocate an increase. But we need to spend the money wisely to prepare us for fighting the next war, not the last war. I am not a military man, I don’t think like a general. But I am highly educated. I think like a congressman. And Congress approves the defense budgets and dictates how they will be spent. Let’s not waste that money.

Click to expand...

.
We have the best “Eyes in the Skies” and “Ears on the Ground” ….
.

Dr. Strange Love said:

.
War-Gaming Models are changing “Fast” …
.

Click to expand...

Not as much as you think.

I spent my final years in the Navy at the War College's War Gaming Center and the games are very different from what the public/non involved folks tend to think.

I don't think the tank is doomed any time soon. There isn't anything else doing it's job. Until you figure out how not to need a tank, you still need tanks.
Now, that doesn't mean the tank is the neigh-indestructable behemoth that some thought, due to modern AT weapons.


It is always good to think about the strategic level. It can inform your thinking and let you make tactical level adjustments to aid at higher levels.

OldRetSWO said:

Not as much as you think.

I spent my final years in the Navy at the War College's War Gaming Center and the games are very different from what the public/non involved folks tend to think.

Click to expand...

.
Last year’s 2021 ground breaking of the Quantico Wargaming Center … integrating all the latest 4D computer modeling, visualization and virtualization at all levels …

.

raimius said:

I don't think the tank is doomed any time soon. There isn't anything else doing it's job. Until you figure out how not to need a tank, you still need tanks.
Now, that doesn't mean the tank is the neigh-indestructable behemoth that some thought, due to modern AT weapons.

It is always good to think about the strategic level. It can inform your thinking and let you make tactical level adjustments to aid at higher levels.

Click to expand...

The commandant USMC thinks Ukraine has vindicated his decision to get rid of USMC tanks. Time will tell.

Small Team Bacsi said:

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/03/28/the_marines_got_rid_of_their_tanks_is_ukraine_making_them_look_smart_or_too_smart_for_their_own_good_823985.html

The commandant USMC thinks Ukraine has vindicated his decision to get rid of USMC tanks. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking the same... plus the Army has tanks if tanks are needed.

Recycling an infomercial from wayyyy back in the 1970's "Reading Is Fundamental"

As for Russia and Ukraine, studying is good, but we need to ensure there is enough distance from current events to reduce the political gamesmanship. If I asked someone if Javelins are really as good as reported, of course everyone will say yes. And maybe they are. Or maybe they aren't.

Russia, I believe, assumed the US was war-weary and just wouldn't care about Ukraine. And they assumed NATO would gripe but not really act. And they assumed Germany would gripe but would continue to buy their natural gas. Russia made lots of assumptions. Russia made bad assumptions.

The main danger now is that Putin is a maniacal loon, and his personality is that of a caged lion. He does not swallow the bile of defeat very well, and so I am concerned he will manipulate and twist things to a point where he convinces himself and the Russian people that a nuclear option in Ukraine is the only way to save the dignity of Mother Russia. Does he need to launch a nuclear missile for this? Nope......he just needs to launch a standard missile or artillery round and hit a nuclear power plant........think on that for a moment, and the fact that Ukraine and Russia share many weapon systems. Hard to say who lobbed what at whom for what reason, especially in a separatist region.

Add to that a severely divided population here in the US, and there are all sorts of opportunities for trolls and facebook "experts" to convince the American people of all sorts of things.

Another view...