The Chinese were swarming in Korea in 1950 and 51...
A lot of folks have swarmed over the years. That article is not on the cutting edge of anything as a lot of folks pointed out above...
NOTE: Thread merged to preclude redundancy.
Obviously you're confusing
'recognizing an old tactic being used currently as something that should not be a surprise...' with 'Failure to recognize a tactic.'
The two are not the same thing. :eek:
You might also search the Threads here before criticizing. John Robb and Arquila, swarming and open source warfare, generational warfare or not, have all been cussed and discussed here a good many times over the last few years. Nothing you have posted to date is particularly revelatory or new to most here. It's not that we aren't aware, it is simply that we don't agree. That should be acceptable. :cool:
Well if we were to actually treat this as a theory being discussed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The irritating thing about swarms is the manoeuvre à priori approach instead of manoeuvre à posteriori. This simply doesn't fit well to a new tactical fashion.
Why are swarms supposed to attack from multiple directions at once, again and again?
This adds predictability, synchronization challenges (high demand for communication) and includes multiple attacks on strong points (instead of only weak spots).
It made sense with sub wolfpacks, but it doesn't in general.
Why not all-round probing coupled with exploitation of opportunities instead? Too slow?
IMH Unedumacated Opine ion
Simplest answer to that is sorta what Ken said earlier in this thread in response to one of my posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
That's not to say that swarms won't work, just that the fates must be kind and the reliability of effective action is unlikely to be adequate to satisfy most commanders or politicians -- the human factor (on the part of the Swarmers, the Swarmees and their respective bosses... ).
Ill add to that that to me the probing you speak of vs. swarming in at least the full blown do it right kinda thing would be like the difference in a blind man finding the cracks through touch vs someone with sight seeking the signs of weathering which might lead to cracks.
Both very well could find,fix,and finish the key would be how to recognize which one you were doing and when.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Btw. I still don't think that swarming theory is nothing new. The stuff has been done at times, but swarming is NOT covered by orthodox military theory. Even corps-level military theory is at most about relatively few units/formations converging - and march divided, fight united isn't a good enough match. Even the termination of pockets is no good match.
There's nothing wrong with developing some new military theories even if there's almost no historical example. It's a good idea to develop theory first before testing something in practice. The mere thought about a new theory is a worthy exercise in a time of very outdated or very limited full out modern war experiences.
On the other hand I wouldn't call every terrorist attack with more than one strike in a time window of a few minutes "swarming".
The nothing new is true; however there is the context that no one ever has been where and in the circumstances of what they are now.(not exactly:D)
I might however be so bold as to suggest that a certain form of swarming in a somewhat germane to the discussion form has been seen recently in some of natures big blows.
Try comparing those oranges and pears
(Disasters / Wars)(recovery/response/prosecution,etc)