From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: Bush's position on Bosnia
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 11:08:26 GMT

In article <Bt21v7.GJH@rice.edu> billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.084615.15461@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:
>|> Yes but the terrain also,limits the types of weapons that could be used.
>|> To get at the convoys, the attackers would have to get into the same valley
>|> with the convoy to have any chance at getting the vehicles. The attackers
>|> would then have to bug out over the mountain, which is not good when your
>|> opponent is airmobile. 
>
>Woah...sounds like someone needs to go to refresher course in modern history,
>specifically AFGHANISTAN.  The Afghans were quite able to disrupt Soviet 

[much deleted - very good points. I'm just enjoying the argument]

I am aware of Afghanistan. Overall the support for convoy was failry low.
What I am advocating is a much larger support structure per convoy. Is
much harder to attack a convoy protected by a battalion or division than one
protected by a company. I prefer A-10's for ground support as the record of
shoulder SAM's was not good against them in Kuwait. Also spotters could be placed on the ridge lines on both sides of the road. B-52's could also be utilized
in an Arclight scenario.


>perimeter...Bingo, you're hosed.  This is all making a BIG assumption that you
>can actually find them.  Remember: the Balkans aren't quite as arid as 
>Afghanistan.
>
True

>|> The longer range weapons are not as numerous and
>|> the number will be decreased rapidly should adequate air support be availible.
>
>True...on your men.  See above.
>
>|> The idea is to keep the supply lines open. This would be best served by destroying the means cutting the supply line as well as killing anyone with the guts to
>|> attack the lines. Let the enemy come you. You'll have a higher initial loss but
>|> will inflict greater losses on the attackers. Besides, booby traps were one
>|> of the major (if not the major) cause of injury in Viet Nam. By giving the
>|> engineers a specific area to clear and the enemy a specific area that must
>|> attacked, this particular type of attack can be greatly reduced.
>
>Reread that part about pre-sighting a mortar.  If yoo're talking about
>engineer battalions, then you're talking about large-scale involvement.
>This is not desired.  The best way is still with airstrikes.  The SAM threat
>is negligible, then.  Shoulder-fireds have a ceiling of c.17,000', and the 
>emplacements are toast to a well orchestrated Wild Weasel attack.
>
I am talking *very* large scale involvement. The concept of half-way involvement
usually equates to more dead in the long run. I agree that it is not desired.
I personnally do not want us to get dragged into this quagmire. I also do not
want to see men killed because they lacked adequate resources to do the job
right. I am not so sure about airstrikes in this theater. I would use them
to impede movement of the enemy during an engagement, but I think the only
effective way to make sure of the result is by sending in infantry.

>PS: don't re-post someone else's .sig, it wastes bandwidth.  They get proper
>credit, but they aren't sending it.  I defy flames, but sound military 
>arguments are always welcome.
>
Why flame, you had some very good points. My only objective here is to take
the lessons from Afghanistan, Kuwait and Korea (Probably the closest analogy-
international force, terrain, and well defined combat area{last stages}). I
want to come up with a way to sormount the problem that you have outlined.
I do not have a formal military training (I was in the USAF as a Sgt). I
did not attend the Academy (neither did Gen. Colin Powell) so I have to
play what-ifs.

>-- 
[.sig deleted as per SOP]
Charles Buckley


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa