New Rules of War

[Firn]

I already posted before that I'm troubled by the very (very) broad use of the term swarming. Some tentative tries in the RAND study.

SOME DEFINITIONS

A definition of swarming is necessary before the proper historical
examples can be selected. For the purposes of this monograph, a
swarming case is any historical example in which the scheme of
maneuver involves the convergent attack of five (or more) semi-
autonomous (or autonomous) units on a targeted force in some par-
ticular place.3 “Convergent” implies an attack from most of the
points on the compass.

Admittedly, the phrase “convergent attack” could be stretched to
include every case in history in which an army or unit ended up sur-
rounded by the enemy and attacked from all sides during the course
of a battle. Encircling and surrounding an enemy has always been a
desirable goal: It cuts off the enemy’s supply lines and destroys his
morale by cutting off any possible retreat. The distinction is that
swarming implies a convergent attack by many units as the primary
maneuver from the start of the battle or campaign, not the conver-
gent attacks that result as a matter of course when some unit
becomes isolated and encircled because of some other maneuver.

So there it is. I will comment later on it, as I will try to toss CvC and some other observation into it.


Firn

[William F. Owen]

For the purposes of this monograph, a
swarming case is any historical example in which the scheme of
maneuver involves the convergent attack of five (or more) semi-
autonomous (or autonomous) units on a targeted force in some par-
ticular place.3 “Convergent” implies an attack from most of the
points on the compass.

I think we can all agree that this does not describe swarming, in any way that is useful. Five is a swarm?

[wm]

It may give one pause (not meant as an ad hominem).

NPS Vita information on Arquilla is here and very limited data for Ronfeldt at Rand is here.

[William F. Owen]

It may give one pause (not meant as an ad hominem).

NPS Vita information on Arquilla is here and very limited data for Ronfeldt at Rand is here.

Wow...
John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, Swarming and the Future of Conflict, RAND Corporation, 2000. Good catch that man.

Actually I care very little about folks background. I care a great deal about arguments and rigour.
Some of the stupidest military ideas ever, came from very experience and very decorated soldiers!

[Firn]

I think we can all agree that this does not describe swarming, in any way that is useful. Five is a swarm?

Hard to say. I would not put down a hard and fast rule concerning numbers, especially since also larger formations act through smaller ones which can be also maneuver and fight semi- and independently. If you look at the level of platoons or sections you can easily come up with a lot of swarming units. So if we understand swarming as a form of convergent attack of a large number of independent units then even "standard" western military forces should be able to do it.

Jan Breytenbach has a number of interesting reviews of many actions and operations of the border war. He gives some good insight why units like the 32. Batallion were so successful in the smaller, guerilla and larger, more conventional phases of the war. Almost all of the decisive qualities span over the whole spectrum of the war. The strategy and the METTC force specific adjustments. He stresses the importance of the delegation of leadership (letting the right people leading the fight, no micromanagement from above), the even greater value of personal initiative as well as the careful and responsive coordination and support of the forces at the higher level which enabled the 32. to outguerilla the guerilla.

A lot of small units fought SWAPO in southern Angola alone or coordinated and forced the enemy with their seemingly non-cohesive btn. to show their lack of cohesion and to retreat hundreds of km northwards. In this instance the highly centralized command structure of SWAPO proved to be unable to cope with so many dispersed and far-flung operations.

Western forces have shown that they are able or even especially well suited for such operations if the circumstances make it necessary. The true question is if politics and the higher ranks muster the will to allow and support it.


Firn

[William F. Owen]

Hard to say. I would not put down a hard and fast rule concerning numbers, especially since also larger formations act through smaller ones which can be also maneuver and fight semi- and independently.

Agreed. Five is not a useful number.

If you look at the level of platoons or sections you can easily come up with a lot of swarming units. So if we understand swarming as a form of convergent attack of a large number of independent units then even "standard" western military forces should be able to do it.

The real issue for sections and fire teams in a convergent attack is the de-conflicting manoeuvre, stand-off and indirect fires.

We have to get over this silly view about "western forces" and tactics. There are no special tactics done by some other folks! It's a myth! Western armies are generally the most tactically skilled. There is no great secret to tactics or new tactics or any tactical insight, not already well examined.

Folks who talk about swarming simply do not understand the basics, when it comes to turning cool sounding theories into actual hard practice.