07-10-2004, 12:23 PM
<b>Asymmetric Warfare: An Infantry Perspective!</b>
When exactly did asymmetric warfare start? It is hard to pin point exact date. But it is easy to assume that it was very common for an inferior army (in terms of armament/technology) to have to face a superior army (in terms of armament/technology) in any age or time. Anytime an army introduced a non-conventional tactic to neutralize a superior army and its superior armaments, asymmetric warfare was introduced into the equation. When Alexander faced large army of king Porus backed by battle ready elephants, he ordered his army to shoot the elephants in the eyes. As a result, Porusâ elephants did more damage to Porusâ army than to Alexanderâs army. This example is a textbook example of introduction of asymmetric factor into warfare.
Current world order is filled with uncertainties. Scores of nations often find themselves in situations where they have to face an adversary armed with superior weapons/technology. A country armed with hi-tech weapons of today can render a low-tech country defenseless. Sometimes these low-tech nations have just cause to defend and therefore surrender is not an option for them. Nations have to guard their vital interests with whatever weapons they got. If there was ever an absolute need for asymmetric warfare to confound the superior enemy, it is today. Introduction of asymmetric factor into warfare has saved many a nations.
I am writing this article from a military point of view. During the course of this article it will become necessary for me to cite real examples, meaning examples of actual standoffs or conflicts. This article does not serve to justify the cause of one nation over other. I do not endorse the political philosophy of any nation mentioned in this article. I simply intend to analyze the military tactics used by different nations and if or how they can be categorized as asymmetric warfare.
China gave importance to its development of nuclear-armed ICBMs/IRBMs over its development of conventional weapons such as air superiority fighters or an aircraft carrier for a considerable period of time. It was Chinaâs aim to contain much superior adversaries such as USSR and USA by pointing nuclear weapons at them instead of matching their conventional arsenals of tanks and fighter aircrafts. With this, China introduced asymmetric warfare in its standoff against both USSR (former) and USA. During cold war USA and former USSR were locked in armâs race with each other. USSRâs initial policy was to match USA in terms of technology and number of weapons. But USSR soon realized that due to their inferior economy, they could not continue this approach for too long. This problem for USSR became really clear when USA started deploying its mighty fleets of awesome carriers. Aircraft carriers are mighty force in terms of power they display. They are equipped with submarine scanning helicopters, fighters/bombers, ring of destroyers/frigates, supporting ring of submarines and much more. All this adds up to massive amount of money, which was impossible for ex Soviet empire to come up with. There are only handfuls of nations who have aircraft carriers. A major power like China does not have a single aircraft carrier in its naval fleet. India has only one aircraft carrier. USSR has/had a few carriers in its Navy. So, USSR decided to build fleets of nuclear powered submarines capable of firing nuclear-armed IRBM/ICBM instead of matching USA for carrier for carrier. This was an introduction of asymmetric warfare at a grand scale. This affected the entire sum game for USA and warranted some drastic changes in US strategy towards USSR. This also stresses the point that asymmetric factor can be needed even among more or less technologically matched adversaries. In this case examples were USA and ex USSR.
There is a lot of mention of terrorism in the circle of pundits of asymmetric warfare. It seems like people accept terrorism as one of the tactics of asymmetric warfare. This may be true. But I want to keep the scope of this article limited to military tactics only. I am fully aware of the military implications of terrorism and subjective nature of my decision to term what I call military tactics. I intend to discuss the asymmetric warfare from infantryâs perspective and what war scenario would warrant deployment of infantry in such manner in remainder of this article.
Infantry itself can be introduced as an asymmetric component in a war. To illustrate my point, we will take Gulf War-I as an example. Here we had adversaries very unevenly matched. US had clear air superiority. Although Iraqi air force was not as good as US air force but at this stage it did have some good aircrafts. Iraq had large number of tanks and had indeed very large infantry, if not well equipped and trained. Iraqis clearly faced a situation, which called for introduction of asymmetric warfare. Their failure to do so resulted in a decisive victory for US armed forces over their Iraqi counterparts. Iraqis at that time did have some chemical weapons but they did not use it, although it could have been the easiest asymmetric tactic for Iraqis to deploy. The fact that Iraqis did not use chemical weapons speaks volume for the importance of psychological warfare. Their will to use only effective weapons they could have used was broken even before the war started. Iraqis were reminded, the consequences that would follow if they were to use chemical weapons on US troops. Based on this, one could question Iraqâs will to fight the battle and therefore could conclude that outcome of the Gulf War-I was inevitable. Seems like Iraqis fought on USâ terms. When US was carrying out its carrier born air strikes on Iraq, Iraq decided to intercept US aircrafts using Iraqi air force fleet of Migs and Sukhois. US air force equipped with superior armament and training was able to dominate the sky without much problem.
On the ground Iraqis decided to match US army for tank for tanks. Advancing Iraqi columns of tanks and armored vehicles were tracked by US radars and were taken out effectively by air strikes. Even in tank-to-tank battles odds were in favor of US due to superior armor and firepower. This was proven when Iraqi armored divisions collided with US armored divisions. US armored divisions supported with Apache destroyed whatever Iraqi tanks, which survived the air strikes. Iraqi aircrafts were loosing to US aircrafts in the air. Iraqi tanks were loosing to US tanks on the ground. Since Iraqis were maintaining large concentrations of troops and materials such as military trucks, artillery and APC, it was easier for US military to track their movement by radar and safely take them out from the air in many cases. Even after all this, Iraq did not use single tactic, which could be categorized as asymmetric warfare even though the situation desperately warranted it.
There are many factors that play vital role in determining the outcome of a war. Asymmetric component is not a guarantee to successfully defeat an adversary. Iraq seemed to have hoped that they would bleed US forces long enough to force domestic opinion in US to pull out of Iraq. For this policy to work, it was vital for Iraq to be able to hold the ground. But they did not and thus the outcome of the war was one-sided. In the air Iraq had no chance. Even Iraqi SAMs were easy kill for highly skilled USAF pilots. USAF had spent a lot of time and effort in training its pilots against SAM batteries going back to Vietnam. US pilots are undoubtedly one of the best SAM killers in the world.
Giving this scenario, Iraqis should have concentrated on the ground. Even on the ground, US had decisive superiority over Iraqis. But Iraqis could have used their infantry in an asymmetric role. Professional armies in the world spend great deal of effort on their infantry. This holds true for considerably advanced nations such as Russia and USA. Need for a highly trained and tactically armed infantry becomes indispensable for nations who will be facing much more powerful enemies and who are likely to fight a battle on their territory. In this case example is Iraq. To use infantry in an asymmetric role it has to have two things, training and a few key weapons. Instead of taking on superior US tanks, Iraqis should have introduced anti tank missiles. Anti-tank missile has a range of about 9km and can be hidden in the bushes or desert camouflage. Chances of Iraqis taking out US tanks by anti-tank missiles were much higher than by tank-to-tank battles. Similarly, there was a good chance of neutralizing Apache using SA-7 or its more modern variants. A sizable infantry force armed with anti tank missiles and shoulder fired SA missiles dispersed in their hidings would have been much tougher force to reckon with. A force, which cannot be tracked by radar unlike advancing, armored columns. This force coupled with hidden and dispersed artillery would have confounded US army units significantly if not decisively. Ironically protected by infantry, the tanks could have been used against US forces under more opportune conditions.
A well-trained and equipped infantry in an asymmetric role was their best chance against a powerful adversary.
Author: Arun K Pandey
When exactly did asymmetric warfare start? It is hard to pin point exact date. But it is easy to assume that it was very common for an inferior army (in terms of armament/technology) to have to face a superior army (in terms of armament/technology) in any age or time. Anytime an army introduced a non-conventional tactic to neutralize a superior army and its superior armaments, asymmetric warfare was introduced into the equation. When Alexander faced large army of king Porus backed by battle ready elephants, he ordered his army to shoot the elephants in the eyes. As a result, Porusâ elephants did more damage to Porusâ army than to Alexanderâs army. This example is a textbook example of introduction of asymmetric factor into warfare.
Current world order is filled with uncertainties. Scores of nations often find themselves in situations where they have to face an adversary armed with superior weapons/technology. A country armed with hi-tech weapons of today can render a low-tech country defenseless. Sometimes these low-tech nations have just cause to defend and therefore surrender is not an option for them. Nations have to guard their vital interests with whatever weapons they got. If there was ever an absolute need for asymmetric warfare to confound the superior enemy, it is today. Introduction of asymmetric factor into warfare has saved many a nations.
I am writing this article from a military point of view. During the course of this article it will become necessary for me to cite real examples, meaning examples of actual standoffs or conflicts. This article does not serve to justify the cause of one nation over other. I do not endorse the political philosophy of any nation mentioned in this article. I simply intend to analyze the military tactics used by different nations and if or how they can be categorized as asymmetric warfare.
China gave importance to its development of nuclear-armed ICBMs/IRBMs over its development of conventional weapons such as air superiority fighters or an aircraft carrier for a considerable period of time. It was Chinaâs aim to contain much superior adversaries such as USSR and USA by pointing nuclear weapons at them instead of matching their conventional arsenals of tanks and fighter aircrafts. With this, China introduced asymmetric warfare in its standoff against both USSR (former) and USA. During cold war USA and former USSR were locked in armâs race with each other. USSRâs initial policy was to match USA in terms of technology and number of weapons. But USSR soon realized that due to their inferior economy, they could not continue this approach for too long. This problem for USSR became really clear when USA started deploying its mighty fleets of awesome carriers. Aircraft carriers are mighty force in terms of power they display. They are equipped with submarine scanning helicopters, fighters/bombers, ring of destroyers/frigates, supporting ring of submarines and much more. All this adds up to massive amount of money, which was impossible for ex Soviet empire to come up with. There are only handfuls of nations who have aircraft carriers. A major power like China does not have a single aircraft carrier in its naval fleet. India has only one aircraft carrier. USSR has/had a few carriers in its Navy. So, USSR decided to build fleets of nuclear powered submarines capable of firing nuclear-armed IRBM/ICBM instead of matching USA for carrier for carrier. This was an introduction of asymmetric warfare at a grand scale. This affected the entire sum game for USA and warranted some drastic changes in US strategy towards USSR. This also stresses the point that asymmetric factor can be needed even among more or less technologically matched adversaries. In this case examples were USA and ex USSR.
There is a lot of mention of terrorism in the circle of pundits of asymmetric warfare. It seems like people accept terrorism as one of the tactics of asymmetric warfare. This may be true. But I want to keep the scope of this article limited to military tactics only. I am fully aware of the military implications of terrorism and subjective nature of my decision to term what I call military tactics. I intend to discuss the asymmetric warfare from infantryâs perspective and what war scenario would warrant deployment of infantry in such manner in remainder of this article.
Infantry itself can be introduced as an asymmetric component in a war. To illustrate my point, we will take Gulf War-I as an example. Here we had adversaries very unevenly matched. US had clear air superiority. Although Iraqi air force was not as good as US air force but at this stage it did have some good aircrafts. Iraq had large number of tanks and had indeed very large infantry, if not well equipped and trained. Iraqis clearly faced a situation, which called for introduction of asymmetric warfare. Their failure to do so resulted in a decisive victory for US armed forces over their Iraqi counterparts. Iraqis at that time did have some chemical weapons but they did not use it, although it could have been the easiest asymmetric tactic for Iraqis to deploy. The fact that Iraqis did not use chemical weapons speaks volume for the importance of psychological warfare. Their will to use only effective weapons they could have used was broken even before the war started. Iraqis were reminded, the consequences that would follow if they were to use chemical weapons on US troops. Based on this, one could question Iraqâs will to fight the battle and therefore could conclude that outcome of the Gulf War-I was inevitable. Seems like Iraqis fought on USâ terms. When US was carrying out its carrier born air strikes on Iraq, Iraq decided to intercept US aircrafts using Iraqi air force fleet of Migs and Sukhois. US air force equipped with superior armament and training was able to dominate the sky without much problem.
On the ground Iraqis decided to match US army for tank for tanks. Advancing Iraqi columns of tanks and armored vehicles were tracked by US radars and were taken out effectively by air strikes. Even in tank-to-tank battles odds were in favor of US due to superior armor and firepower. This was proven when Iraqi armored divisions collided with US armored divisions. US armored divisions supported with Apache destroyed whatever Iraqi tanks, which survived the air strikes. Iraqi aircrafts were loosing to US aircrafts in the air. Iraqi tanks were loosing to US tanks on the ground. Since Iraqis were maintaining large concentrations of troops and materials such as military trucks, artillery and APC, it was easier for US military to track their movement by radar and safely take them out from the air in many cases. Even after all this, Iraq did not use single tactic, which could be categorized as asymmetric warfare even though the situation desperately warranted it.
There are many factors that play vital role in determining the outcome of a war. Asymmetric component is not a guarantee to successfully defeat an adversary. Iraq seemed to have hoped that they would bleed US forces long enough to force domestic opinion in US to pull out of Iraq. For this policy to work, it was vital for Iraq to be able to hold the ground. But they did not and thus the outcome of the war was one-sided. In the air Iraq had no chance. Even Iraqi SAMs were easy kill for highly skilled USAF pilots. USAF had spent a lot of time and effort in training its pilots against SAM batteries going back to Vietnam. US pilots are undoubtedly one of the best SAM killers in the world.
Giving this scenario, Iraqis should have concentrated on the ground. Even on the ground, US had decisive superiority over Iraqis. But Iraqis could have used their infantry in an asymmetric role. Professional armies in the world spend great deal of effort on their infantry. This holds true for considerably advanced nations such as Russia and USA. Need for a highly trained and tactically armed infantry becomes indispensable for nations who will be facing much more powerful enemies and who are likely to fight a battle on their territory. In this case example is Iraq. To use infantry in an asymmetric role it has to have two things, training and a few key weapons. Instead of taking on superior US tanks, Iraqis should have introduced anti tank missiles. Anti-tank missile has a range of about 9km and can be hidden in the bushes or desert camouflage. Chances of Iraqis taking out US tanks by anti-tank missiles were much higher than by tank-to-tank battles. Similarly, there was a good chance of neutralizing Apache using SA-7 or its more modern variants. A sizable infantry force armed with anti tank missiles and shoulder fired SA missiles dispersed in their hidings would have been much tougher force to reckon with. A force, which cannot be tracked by radar unlike advancing, armored columns. This force coupled with hidden and dispersed artillery would have confounded US army units significantly if not decisively. Ironically protected by infantry, the tanks could have been used against US forces under more opportune conditions.
A well-trained and equipped infantry in an asymmetric role was their best chance against a powerful adversary.
Author: Arun K Pandey
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->}I strongly believe Google has potential to be exploited for political purposes.