The so-called "try not to fight land wars at close range" does not mean that you will never fight land wars anymore, but that you should try to avoid the traditional face-to-face land war model. Through the ultra-long-range precision-striking firepower in the air, sea, and ground, the opponent's ability to mobilize and all the war's mobilization and material allocation hundreds of kilometers away is completely crushed. To put it bluntly, it is to achieve rapid victory in the land war by completely without contacting precise strikes. Traditional artillery, armored soldiers, and infantry only play the role of cleaning the battlefield, occupying and controlling the newly occupied areas. The essence of not contacting tactics is to give full play to the long-range precise firepower and rely on the absolute advantages of technology and military production capacity to crush the opponent; since a precise firepower strike of 1 meter can be carried out hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away to almost all of the main opponents, why do we still need to fight low-level mutual confrontation between soldiers and generals within a distance of thousands to hundreds of meters?
In fact, as early as the Gulf War more than 30 years ago, and the Iraq War 20 years ago, it showed the basic characteristics of not contacting war; and there were basically no decent formal land wars in the Iraq War. The most direct manifestation of not being exposed to war is completely disproportionate casualties and war losses. During the Gulf War, the coalition forces only "dead" more than 200 people, while the Iraqi killed at least 100,000 people, plus hundreds of thousands of injured people. Among the more than 200 people killed by the coalition forces, more than 100 were caused by a plane crash during the intensive transportation before the war, so the actual combat damage was only more than 100. Among these more than 100 people, nearly one-third were caused by accidental firepower damage from their own side; only seventy or eighty people were actually directly killed by their opponents. In 1999, a certain agreement completely fought with the air force, and intensively bombed for more than 70 days, and the active attacker actually created a record of 0 casualties. It can be seen that as early as twenty or thirty years ago, war without contact actually appeared.
. During the third decade of the 21st century, there was a long and dragging land offensive and defensive battle of World War II . A large number of tank and armored vehicles were destroyed in batches within a few hundred meters to thousands of meters. This is a huge regression in a land warfare mode. It is not worth learning at all, and even systematically summarizing its experiences and lessons is unnecessary. After all, most of these combat scenarios can be completely replaced by drones, precision guided bombs, and precision guided rocket launchers. As for the armored torrent composed of tanks and , it can completely play the role of rushing Baghdad in the Iraq War to harvest the early results; rather than letting the armored torrent itself attack the opponent's land guerrilla line regardless of major casualties. After all, the thickest armor in contemporary times is like paper-patterned in front of the armor-breaking warhead of the advanced anti-tank missile . However, no matter how good a single-soldier anti-tank missile is, its maximum range is not more than 5 kilometers. And modern land warfare, especially armored cluster operations, must be carried out within a visual range within 5 kilometers?
This is a very outrageous manifestation in itself. Some people also say that large-scale land operations will eventually develop into urban battles. How can we not contact the battles of urban battles? In fact, we need to make it clear here: if a large-scale land war develops into a city battle, the opponent will still have the ability to resist; then the early combat mode will definitely be quite failed! If at the beginning of the war, like the Gulf War, it can completely destroy all the power nodes of the opponent's war and completely blow up the city's infrastructure, how can a city without water, electricity, network, and food and ammunition reserves continue to resist? It takes less than a week to surrender immediately. For a city that has no shortage of water, electricity, network, food and bombs in the early stage, of course, it must continue to fight at close range. Therefore, after all, the emergence of urban attacks is a manifestation of insufficient strategic strike capabilities against the ground in the early stage. It is because large-scale field battles are unfavorable and will be dragged into urban attacks, rather than the urban attacks that drag down the land battle itself.
In the next 50 years, the new generation of high-energy weapons such as electromagnetic gun , lasers, microwaves, etc. will gradually move to the actual battlefield, and with more powerful space-based reconnaissance and attack forces, it will cooperate with a large number of precision-guided munitions that continue to play a role. A powerful power can completely fight a better situation than the Gulf War. As for the second and third-rate forces that cannot keep up with the times, they will never be able to catch up with them!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-