The future Soldier in many Western European countries will be predominantly Muslim and will have no problem to shoot on the citizens to keep an authoritarian Government in power.
@@JingleBaza That sounds too fatalistic for me. It is dawning on politicians a wrong sense of morality is not going to get them any plus points with the majority of the citizens who are going to speak their lack of confidence when the next elections come (especially since those politicians aren't as upstanding as they would like to have anyone believe). We already had a right-wing party as a junior partner in government in Austria. That is congruent to the situation developing in other countries (in the Netherlands, in Italy, in Germany, in Poland, and Hungary). Either the moderate parties finally get their shit in order or there is going to be a reckoning. I do not want any extreme parties in charge but if the only ones who take the migration crisis seriously are the right-wing parties that is who the people will vote for following a succession of terrorist attacks, a rise in crime (particularly murders have risen in my home country and most perpetrators happen to have a migration background - a prominent newspaper has the audacity to blame ALL men while saying that it is unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the mistakes of a few). The people here are fed up with this nonsense. Due to that, our current senior coalition partner has adopted a hard stance against illegal migrants (we'll see how serious they are taking it, I see it as nothing more than a cheap trick since they are grossly incompetent). This is again a broader phenomenon occurring in other countries. Germany can't hold the entirety of the EU as a hostage anymore, regardless of their power. It simply has gone too far. If the EU doesn't reform, people are going to abandon the idea. Again, that is not what I want but it is what we are facing if the current political leadership does not recognize that their faulty morality is threatening the entire foundation of the EU and our peace and prosperity. Pff...that was a long one. I am pissed that our entire political caste is too stupid to realize they are sowing off the branch they are sitting on and risking it dropping on the head of the people watching that show. The result is a pretty obvious one. A reform will have to happen, or the EU will fail and countries revert to forming smaller alliances and take care of those issues themselves, and Germany will stand isolated.
Sweden already has re-introduced conscription. We now have a mixed army with both a professional core and a conscript part, filling out units and providing a base for recruitment.
Let's hope, then, that your NCO's and Officers are allowed to fill out their positions for years. Otherwise, it will end up as here in Denmark, where NCO and Officers has been moved from one function to another, not allowing them to sink-in to their function. The consequence of this policy is a reduced level of quality among the conscripts. Don't make the mistake, which our politicians made in 2013-2017. Devastating. An NCO or Officer should be allowed to stay in a function, until a high level of quality for both him or the conscripts has been reached.
Next video: what method its beter to deploy your troops on the moon efectively: 1-Antigrav super carriers like a flying nimitz/Pillar of autumn ship 2-Spontaneous cumbustion rockets from space X 3-Space elevators and shuttle transports between them and moon 4-Giant Trebuchet I think option 4 its the most afforfeable
In the Future, it would be great if Hybrid Engine infantry vehicles were developed. They could advance towards the battlefield on combustion engine and then switch to electric to sneak on the enemy silently. Being Hybrid should also increase their range and storage capacity.
I think that little drones are very useful for spotting and marking enemy forces, especially armored forces have a hard time seeing or hearing little drones
Depends on the unit, giving individual squads drones in Mechanized infantry is useless, they fight so close to each other that a platoon drone would be more useful, maybe just a drone support squad on platoon level with multiple drones. There are so many different infantry units that going in depth in about it in YT-comment section is just silly.
Depends on how far "embedded" is definded. For example, the Bundeswehr uses ALADIN and MIKADO in their recon units and light infantry. MIKADO is very helpful in urban enviroments. I believe that there will be more drones in the future.
As an Argentine, in relation to what you were told about our police officers, I'd say it's not as clear cut. Sure, the police presence has been greatly increased in the past two years, but these new recruits definitely do not make me feel safe. Many of them are, in my opinion, at least, not fit for the job they're doing. They're soft, appeasing, are often distracted by talking with their phones, some are quite obese, and now, after the Chocobar shooting incident (when a cop shot a thief that charged him with a knife, and the officer was convicted for murder), they're afraid to draw weapons or shoot suspects.
I was there in 2006 and 2007, so I guess, you are referring to something completely different with "past two years". Should have added when I was there.
Yes, back in 2006-7 things were somewhat different. The police force overall was better, and most officers were still 'career' officers, with an actual vocation for their job. Now most of those officers are retired, or just a few years away from retirement (or simply dead). Their replacements, those who joined the force in ~2010-14 were brought up in an environment of extreme corruption and laziness, while those recruited from 2015 to the present were, for the most part, recruited out of desperation, given only a year of training and sent out to the streets with a gun and little knowledge of what to do. Granted, at least now their cruisers don't have political party slogans and logos on their liveries.
Funny how low tech ("domestic"items as apposed to "high" or mil-tech") always makes a mark or what's old is new again(conscription).A10 as opposed to turboprop is a good example of modern thinking and In the case of Infantry, the good old home made IED.Naval emphasis seems to be more patrol boat ,surveillance orientated(at least in the indo-pacific.).Good Question ,excellent response.Keep it up.
I mean ieds are just homemade mines Mines have always been good, and yeah when it’s the only thing doing anything, then shock horror it makes a mark since it’s all that’s making any mark
i do appreciate the amount of detail you provide to this subject. I to see the people around me(mostly young people) not paying attention to their society's view on handling certain events. And your way of describing future Doctrine is fascinating. Love from the north
I Think that a decentralised military will probably become more favourable if there should be more internal conflicts or terrorism in the future also local garrisons are less vulnerable to air attacks than large military bases and it's harder for a invading force to whipe out small groups of soldiers that can just go hiding in the local fields without problem.
Small Infantry groups with emphasis on incorporating the knowledge of the local terrain, political and cultural context of Militia Forces and Insurgents. Think where a group of 20 High Tech Infantry goes into an area and finds 500 Insurgents and leads them or acts as the Hammer to their Anvil or the Anvil to their Hammer depending on the Tactical and Strategic Needs. Given the rise of 3D printers which are just in their infancy, populations WILL be armed with guns and bombs, no matter what anyone tries to do about it, so Infantry will no longer just be trained to kill people, they will have to be trained as Specialists that can make friends or allies with or at least impress the locals into cooperation and information. A delicate balance and spectrum of doctrines between the carrot and the stick in doing so to incorporate locals into their armies will of course be built on old school thought and new insight and many horrible and also hilarious mistakes will be made. Ultimately Infantry in a world where almost everyone is an insurgent will HAVE to be able to do more than just kill people for a living. Smart Infantry are the future. Also the fact that small groups of Infantry are a LOT easier to deploy and withdraw and supply and afford and the fact that your political relationship with insurgents and the government (happy, begrudging or afraid or otherwise) is the true linchpin of war ANYWAY and will only continue to be more so.
Most likely how infantry works in future. 1. Never leaves base 2. Sees something in camera 3. Calls Air Force to sort it out 4. Air Force sends drones to bomb whatever it was 5. Lather, rinse, repeat
Infantry Doctrine, for the Future, is, in my opinion, more a question of doctrines, than A Doctrine. My reasons are as follows: Regardless of mission, the infantry will have to cooperate, with an increased amount of support units. Most of these, will be pure military support units, others will be pure civilian units, and lastly, there will be a mixed military-civilian type of unit. This basically means, that the dynamic of warfare, will become even more complex than today. At the same time, the global power trends, point towards a world, dominated by more actors, than just the United States and Russia. This new change, affect your infantry even more. Because, now your infantry may have to fight as part of an international coalition, representing a whole mix of doctrines, weapons, technologies, cultures and educational level. So. The infantry face a future dynamic, where both its organization and technology, can be challenged to its breaking point. For instance, in a situation, where your infantry has become part of an international coalition. For various reasons (military/political/civilian/hybrid), it is in this thought-situation, forced to support another nations' infantry. However, by doing so, it now reduce its own support capability. For instance artillery support, drone support or supply-truck support? In future urban battles, fought by coalition forces, this need for one nation's infantry, to support another nations' infantry, may increase, much more than we can imagine today, in 2021? My short conclusion is that the infantry of the future, will thave to be defined, in a new type of division. I call this type "The Doctrine Division". The Doctrine Division master at least 4 types of missions; 1. Interstate symmetrical warfare 2. Domestic asymmetrical warfare 3. International symmetrical warfare 4. International asymmetrical warfare The Doctrine Division, will therefore have to cover 4 different learning curves. These have to be simplified and standardized as much as possible. Both in terms of organisation, technology and doctrines. Essentially, any infantry unit serving in a Doctrine Division, has to train and understand several types of doctrines, organizations and technologies. This emphasizes a need for more professional soldiers, however, when the cadre is solid enough, it should be possible to implement conscripts as well. Although, their training time, cannot be under 12 months.
Just want to emphasize that all consumer smart phones are extremely open to being hacked - in fact any computer can be hacked or attacked - militaries will need to take this into account - military communications/ computers cannot be safe on commercial networks
You are right, I think the most visible development will be the integration drones on a squad Level, further active protective systems on tanks could be a game changer considering infantry anti-tank capabilities.
Very informative video! Saw this pop up in my subs and immediately sat down to watch it. It seems like a lot of what you covered was a kind of general overview, It would be really cool if you explored the topic a bit more in-depth. That said I’m not sure what sources are available about the potential doctrines of the near future, as these doctrines are being shaped by current events, ongoing development in military thought, technology, and the geopolitical situation. Perhaps you could discuss how modern information systems/logistical infrastructure and transportation methods could play a role in future wars, like your video on the logistical side of war. Or maybe how countries like the United States have evolved their small unit tactics and equipment in response to fighting insurgent groups, and how these would hold up in the event of a new conventional war. But I’m not sure how much of that information is available to the public, since, well, the military doesn’t want to give out ALL their secrets. But whatever you do, I know I’ll have a thoughtful and engaging video to look forward to.
Interesting, I did learn something but now I have more questions than answers. So, more follow up question to this- How would an absolute all out war be like between two major powers? With nuke deployment? Without? What would a total war between two countries with conventional weapons and a standing army in a hypothetical situation be like? Without intervention from other countries? Or if the UN does step in, what can those two countries do to each other before there is an intervention?
Looking at modern conflicts, and the use of triangilation of radio signals, drones, and mlrs (effectively used in that oreder), it is a rough era for conventional or non conventional war. Infantry will always be required, partly due to it's abilty to adapt, but modern conflicts like the Russia Georgia war and the disputes in the Ukraine are indications of the future.
In my opinion, the core indications are as follows: Increase your sensor to shooter loop. Act with humility on the battlefield. Otherwise, you increase the chance of being spotted by enemy drones and then targeted with indirect fire; precision or mass-focused munition. Tech your troops to stay camouflaged. At all time. Decentralize command and control. Add more support fire and reconnaissance to every company.
The most effective development I can see for infantry are lightly or non armored 4x4 units or utilities that are armed with missiles and heavy machine guns etc. These type of units have proved themselves in the middle East against the conventional weapons platforms. They are highly mobile, hard to detect and cost effective. These types of units in large numbers complimenting the conventional types of units would be very effective. And if adopted by western armies with the right support and tactics a modern warfare game changer. The Russians are adopting large scale units comprised of these utilities after their experience in Syria. I"m Australian and I think Australia should start creating regiments of these utilities , comprised of Toyota's etc our terrain is perfect and if we had around 4000- 5000 of these working around our armour, mech, and air units it would give us a very formidable defence against all comers. So to should the Americans, British and I think that Germany would be well served by these types of infantry units. By not worrying about armour but mobility and fire power allows greater battlefield knowledge and low detectability, ease of supply and maintenance, the ability to flex and also exploit.
Do you think mass conscription would be effective in future (large) wars? How do you think conscripts would compare against proffessional soldiers and would the gap be larger than in WW2?
Viewing drones as miniature bombers and precision guided mortars obscures their real threat. Think swarms of tens of thousands dropped from a transport plane or bomber. These could easily be controlled by a simple AI and will overwhelm anything with human decision making processes. So the counterplay will have to be a defensive AI. These will actually be kind of interesting in a Robot-Overlord kind of way as these may employ a whole range of soft and hard counters against the enemy swarm in parallel. Simultaneously hacking it, jamming it, and targeting it with it's own swarms and any air defense assets that are allocated to it.
The billions dollar question. Also you should read a light novel call “heavy object “, there is anime adaptation of it. It have some interesting idea on what future nation look like.
I would suggest that the current tanks, attack helicopters and air to ground/air to air combat systems would be replaced with unmanned vehicles of similar or smaller size that would be able to launch similar munitions - ie able to launch the required missle type for air combat or ground combat, or to operate a similar caliber weapon. Those unmanned vehicles would be operated by crews at an operating base - and most importantly - only the time in combat would be human-controlled. The vehicles would waypoint to a designated combat box, upon nearing the combat box a human crew would take over to fight the vehicle system. Once the vehicle system is either destroyed/damaged or out of munitions/low fuel the vehicle would be way pointed out of the combat box and a new vehicle - which has been parked outside the combat box ready to go - would then take on the human control and step in. For example, lets say an attack helicopter replaced by an unmanned option that has the ability to launch hellfire missles, use cannon and has optical devices - without pilot and gunner installed in the vehicle perhaps it is a touch smaller, or a touch better armoured. Operating in pairs the first pair launch and move via waypoints to a waiting area. At H hour the pilot/gunner teams back at base link in to take control - enter the battle box and provide infantry support. After 30 mins they are wilco - out of ammo - the vehicles leave and are replaced by 2 waiting vehicles that our now experienced crews take over and CONTINUE to operate in the combat zone. Meaning the humans can spend more time on mission and less moving to and from, the same humans become more experienced with both the battle box and the ground element they are supporting. The base commander keeps tabs on his crews battle boxes to make sure fresh vehicles are ready for each team. For the infantry themselves, smaller units moving clandestine and using overhead or ground based unmanned vehicles to push forward and take out any opposition. The ground troops being closer to special forces, electronically tagging geographical sites for munitions to land. Infantry platoon-sized units would have included a combat support team which directly controls overhead recon and fire support devices and also liaises with larger unmanned vehicle teams operating armour, apc, helo and other vehicles. EMP weapons to bring down or disrupt unmanned vehicles would become prevalent and we could expect an area to be fought over by unmanned devices and the area to be considered cleared or won before human infantry would advance. Infantry would not have an attack role anymore, would be used to hold ground taken by unmanned vehicles. just my thoughts.
war if any sort should never ever be entered into lightly, but to fail to prepare is to prepare to fail. having military might for defence or to help allies is very different from having it as an aggressive force and abusing that power.
I think that infantry formations are gonna be much more spread out dude to the accuracy of arty and drone strikes, meaning I could see one section covering a km or two worth of the front. No more platoon based attacks due to the fact that our rate of fire of one LMG matches that of an entire platoon in ww2 and one guy who can flank and wipe our a section by himself before they find cover. This would include tanks as well, since the killing power of our tech now is so high that the only way to counter it is to spread out. Meaning communication would be needed more secure and necessary on all levels. As for drone type things, that might be in the far future but they're too expensive. At most they might be portioned out to sections that are leading an attack to absorb fire from the enemy position and suppress them. Aircraft is an entire different nightmare/story that is way too long to type out. That's really the best I have, I've been thinking about it for a year or so.
I totally disagree with you I think defensive technology is outpacing offensive tech. Look at missle defensive systems and how far they have came in the last 10 years. Not to mention how effective AAA is now in the modern era. Lazers combined with good targeting AI will be the big game changer that will probably eliminate missiles from military arsenals altogether. I see armies actually getting bigger and almost returning to a more old style of waging war.
Unless a really major war comes along, mass mobilization seems to be a thing of the past in civilized countries. It is expensive (basically every able bodied man has to spend 3-6 months of his life in barracks and likely never be drafted again) and a lot of the troops will end up unmotivated, disillusioned and drunk. Professional army is better at learning to use modern hardware anyway and the current trend seems to be using volunteers and signing them up for a few years long contracts at a time. I guess spamming cheap infantry still works in Africa, though. It is a little questionable if you can still call them infantry, because trucks are so common nowadays, that "infantry" no longer has to walk, they ride, then dismount before combat and some of the heavier vehicles even stay and help.
1Maklak Is 3 to 6 months a European conscription duration? Anything less than 2 years is too short to properly learn the job. Back when the US still had the Draft, the duration was a minimum of 2 years service. Also, truck mounted infantry is called Motorized Infantry. If using Armored Personnel Carriers , they are called Mechanized Infantry.
In Poland the training for draftees was 2 years (3 for navy) before 1989, then from 1989 to 1992 it was 18 months for the army and 2 years for the navy, then 1992 to 1999 it was up to 18 months for all, 1999 to 2004 it was one year, then it got shortened to 9 months and eventually draft was abandoned in 2009 in favor of a professional army. I don't think the point of draft was to "learn to do the job properly" (professional cadre does that), but rather for people to have some familiarity with orders and weapons and already be after basic training if there is ever a mass mobilization. I know the terms motorized / mechanized infantry. My point was that calling infantry "infantry" is somewhat obsolete now, because armies don't really march for days anymore, but use vehicles. Even a poor country would have it's soldiers/militia/revolutionaries use trucks, buses and jeeps with machineguns rather than walk everywhere.
@@1Maklak Whether a troop type is called "infantry" or not is based on how they fight. If they fight on on foot they're still infantry regardless of transport. And in case of major warfare the draft is still needed for sheer numbers. Pure professional armies of today are a result of the post cold war environment where major powers aren't expecting wars among each other. These pros will be spent within the first couple of years in the next world war.
I would imagine more of a "normal" infantry squad like today, with one or even two "heavy" soldiers using exoskeletons to carry small autocannons or big grenade launchers or even such things as anti-tank missiles. They'd be small enough to somewhat fit inside a normal building with enlarged entrences, but big enough to be able to carry such heavy equipment and use it effectively. They'd also be useful for most heavy lifting jobs where a crane or tank would be overkill.
Tokisaki Kurumi: It's more expensive to field human soldiers than it is to field mechanic autmatons. Robots can be easily replaced. Do not sleep. Do not eat. Do not get ptsd or cost a fortune for the state when they are handicapped due to combat injuries. They can be produced on an assembly line, and they don't panic or feel fear in the face of hostile situations.
Tokisaki Kurumi: You should watch the robots developed ny Boston Dynamics. Like the Atlas. The move on two legs, over difficult terrain (even ice). When they're about to slip, they right themselves. They are also able to climb stairs, open doors and if knocked over with a forceful push they can jump up and right themselves again.
I would have concentrated on infantry on a battlefield. To the extent that infantry can know what's ahead of them for, say 10 miles (using drones or satellites), I think armor will lose any advantage it has had. If I know there is armor 10 miles ahead and can call on artillery or air strikes (or launch my own attack targeting the top or engines of the armor) then infantry will again be the queen of the battlefield. This will mean that armies can not advance quickly. It could also lead to the return of mass armies. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if modern technology lead to conscripts again killing each other in trenches with bladed weapons and shovels.
would never happen. the same artillery and air strikes that can destroy tanks can destroy far more infantry. tanks are mobile, armored, armed and they can even defend themself partly with active protection systems. against air strikes tanks can be defended with mobile AA and maybe they produce mobile point defense turrets that can shoot projectiles
At least in Sweden, there was an idea that you should use Japanese Production philosofy to make the defence more efficient. This is called lean manufacturing and means that you tke away everything that is not necessary for the present task. So for example , they disposed every but 48 arlillry pieces. On the information side they ha´d an similar cleaning of the archives called Operation Ice breaker. So the turndown in readiness was basicall an idea from consultants.
I don't know for the "better" part of swiss army training, but our basic boot camp lasts only 18 weeks (25~ for special forces, I think). Austrian soldiers trains 6 months straight. But I guess you're also talking about the reptition courses we have each year, that might make our army somewhat combat ready. Interesting video, even though I don't agree on all the stuff you say; still cool to see a well thought different opinion :)
I don't want to be a future foot soldier. Modern weapon systems like drones are so strong. They are faster, they have more technology like surveillance systems, better weapons like rockets and they can do risky things without risking the life of their operator. Humans can develop technology but they can't beat technology.
Drones are a long ways from being a serious or even really scary threat to the modern infantry. They're good against insurgents and 3rd rate militaries but against someone like the US, China, Russia, or even most of Europe they're that much of game changer, yet. Drones like Predators and Reapers are slow and easy prey to manned fighters and probably just as vulnerable to modern AD systems, MAPADs, and probably even a .50 mounted on a vehicle.
Hardly anyone wants to. But consider that these weapon systems are expensive and take much time and materials to produce. These weapons would dominate the conflict in the first days before either they are destroyed, out of ammunition or maintenance supply. There is no drone production line comparable to the factory output of M4 Shermans in WW2. The same goes for other weapon systems. I mean, ISIS, the Taliban, Al Quaida and so on mainly have foot soldiers, and they lasted decades against modern military technology.
conscription was also discused in the netherlands for a long time now already with people saying they want it as a type of penal unit and some just general conscription for a year for people not on school after they turned 18 like in isreal to have a very big pool of reservist this conscription was in the neterlands from napoleon till 1996 where the last ones
I don't think that robots will come as far as to replace humans the coming decades, but I guess that the infantry will rely more and more on sensors, drones and such. But I still also think that old weapons will continue to be useful in some areas of the frontline / or against low tech enemies. And I also think that IT-security is a pretty safe bet, if I would buy stocks in area of the economy which I think will grow in the future. If you fail on cyber security, then your best weapons can be copied by the enemy, all your battleplans could be stolen, and your electronic weapons can stop functioning. Furthermore can the banking system stop working, the electric grid can be knocked out, and the transportation and healtcare sector will be hard hit as well. So the importance of better IT-security cannot be understated in a world which is starting to doing everything digital nowadays.. everything from self-driving cars to shopping at the grocery store, and not to mention all the internet shopping. On a more general level, I think that the ideal would be to let the country become self-suffiecent in food, energy and do some manufacturing before going to war. And then I think that information and co-ordination among infantry, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, recon and other types of troops will become increasingly more important. And the individual solidier will get more and more firepower in his hands. Some say that teams of snipers is the future, while the historical trend the last 200 years have rather been the opposite; and more about putting up as much lead in the air as possible to win battles. And ammunition consumtion and the cost of killing an enemy solidier have risen. And I would say that I am impressed by weapons like TOS-1 Buratino, and I think they could be very handy in a world war when keeping losses low is having a low priority compared to victory. But the old conventional wars seems rare nowadays so there might be better ways of dealing with junk armies of the middle east than having a rocket artillery piece capable of flattening an entire town. Drones is the western solution since it can deliever firepower without any risk to the lives of our own solidiers. But there is of course a risk that they can be hacked, and used against us. And having the police using them to fight terrorism, could lead to a slippery slope where they then are used to fight violant crime, and then minor crimes... and the police force becomes less interested in negotating and de-escalating situations and become trigger happy instead. And then will personal integrity be totally destroyed by drones, mass surveillance and data gathering. And we can get a 1984 society, like China today with their internet scorepoint system. And this time around there would be no succesful escape attempts from the Gulags, since now there would be drones with heat seeking cameras to seak up fleeing prisoners. And there would be nowhere to escape, since every train ticket and purchase of food will be done electronically and could be traced. And passports contains biometric data and RFID-tags so that the government can track you with a radar.
Robots will replace logistics to be sure but there will always need to be some sort of Infantry even if they are just Armoured Diplomats and Monitors who supervise the robots and provide intuition that robots cannot do.
I'm curious as to why you want to send this video to him? Is it that you want him to do a video on infantry? (He has done interstellar and interplanetary warfare and I think he is doing planetary invasions in the future.) Or do you think he did/said something wrong? Not trying to antagonize you, I'm just curious.
I agree with Lucas, and no I don't think it's because Bernhard said anything wrong. Infantry specifically isn't mentioned much in SFIA, even though it's very common in military sci-fi. It'd be great to see Isaac Arthur's take on how infantry may evolve into the future, and if it might even evolve into something completely different, like we've seen with archery and cavalry.
that was an interesting comparison of views on police presence. reminds me a bit of myself and my brother, i respect them and see them as a benefit to society while he sees government fund raising pigs. i suppose it comes down to how people have interacted with them in the past and what they have been taught to believe....though how we have such contrasting views when raised by the same man is a little strange.
I feel like a future conventional war led by western countrys will be another case of U.S. civil war. Armys fighting with modern equipment and old tactics.
I think one major factor in reducing the intensity of future wars, unless they go nuclear, is that there aren't enough young people in many countries anymore. A huge study in 2007 showed that the *single most consistent factor in predicting whether a major war will break out is the proportion of teenagers vs. 35+ year-olds.* The entire West is skewed towards the 35+ year-olds now, China is headed this way, and soon the whole world will be. Quite simply, smaller families mean more stable young people, and an older population is a less violent one, in general. It's hard to radicalize 50-year-olds to the point where they will actually start rioting :) This doesn't mean wars won't happen, or that we don't have to worry about nukes, it just means wars will be smaller and much less bloody.
It's interesting, but I think you drifted a little with your tech presumptions - not quite infantry doctrine as such. We might consider the advent of commonplace cheap drones as a continuation of what was once called the 'revolution in military affairs' ie the increasing use of smart or guided weapons. Will these further erode the survivability of infantry on conventional battlefields? (possibly) What would be the doctrinal response? (better camouflague or protection, counter drone measures, personal armour, entrenchment?) Conventional infantry will still be needed for clearing built up areas, especially populated ones. This might result in greater use of ballistic armour, and consequently penetrating rounds. Another likely tech is the sentry guns deployed in Aliens - partially replacing or complementing human sentries. Contemporary infantry camps now feature substantial walls (Hesco or Bremer structures) Any serious conflict in Europe might involve rapid creation of such structures, possibly with top cover against light bombardment, and, possibly, ground actions against them.
American in France: I think seeing local police is fairly common, in about half the French communities they don't even have firearms. The Gendarmes are the real deal. A squad armed with FAMAS might be a show of force or else something bad is going down.
Infantry doctrine may lose emphasis in an era of low political willpower and consensus. Traditional US military roles seem to be steadily farmed out to private contractors whose success and failure is less politically linked than actual servicemembers. The future of ID is also dependant on the outcome of several major organizational challenges in Nato, Russia and the US. What more can be said.
3:16 Now that I think about it, you add another meaning to the word "intervene" when you pronounce it as "interwean". Not only are you intervening in a conflict to affect its outcome, you could also be _weaning_ the region from conflict...
It's not the internet that is causing polarization to increase, it's that we (the west) lost our rival (the USSR). We won, liberalism, democracy, capitalism. We have no rivals on the global stage. What next? Well, we look for a new rival and since we can't find it in the outside world, we look for it in our own culture.
hmm interesting aspect, in a way that is actually "the same", because having an enemy provided also a "single grand narrative".
6 лет назад
Except Russia is back, having gone fascist under Putin, and the old rivalry is slowly heating back up as Russia becomes more and more agressive. Last year, NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence was practising less than 70 kilometers away from a massive Russia invasion army. It only takes one nutjob dictator to press the button.
I think the best form for a Military Doctrine for the Future will be to have Mandatory Military Training but keeping Military service Voluntary and Professional. Citizens, Men and Women, will be required to complete a basic/Standard military training, 6 to 9 months perhaps. After that, they can choose to join the Armed Forces, or go back to civilian life and be listed as part of a National Militia, that should be activated only in case of invasion. Infantry weapons and Equipment could be either stored in designated Public buildings (like Police stations, Town Halls, Hospitals, etc), or be required to take home 8like in Switzerland).
6 лет назад
Conscription is simply a bad idea. Way too much economic damage as everybody wastes months of their life, and if a war comes, you need to retrain them all over again, because what they learned 5+ years ago is forgotten.
+Jansen Junaedi Singapore faces no credible military threats and as a micro-state doesn't really need a conventional army at all, just a strikeforce to hammer a point or two home if need be. Israel could shorten its 'frontlines' and with that demands on manpower by dozens of kilometers by clearing the settlements deep in the West Bank. Also, you can seriously question if those few extremist settlers being happy, is worth half the population wasting two years of their life, and the other half wasting one year. Also their manpower demands can't be that bad, because ultra-orthodox nutjobs are excempt from military service. If the least productive members of society, priests, are excempt from military service, they can easily shorter the time of conscription; there is evidently no real need for that kind of manpower.
Given that the idea of warfare is to reduce your enemies fighting will while maintaining your own. Warfare will become mainly 3 categories. Asymmetric warfare. Such as Afghanistan and Vietnam. Mainly because if you have few resources and you have to fight, This has often proven successful. However most modern conventional armies have adapted to deal with this kind of warfare. Cyber warfare. Countries like North Korea can engage in the activity and it is hard to prove well enough to the point of gaining a consensus of countries to take aggressive physical action. So it is seen by the main exponents of this type of action, like Russia and China, as safer than physical aggression as posed by Iran. The resources needed are relatively easy to acquire but it is the technical ability that is harder. Your average "Hacker" would be of limited use. While good quality computing Students from a well funded university would be idea for further training and the development of the tools required to achieve the hacks. Proxy war. Why fight your enemy when you can gt someone else to do it for you. Like in the Ukraine with Russia supplying the rebels that want to join the Russian Federation as the Crimea did. Or to fund terrorist activities of groups opposed to your enemy forces. As the USA did in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation of the country and Russia did in Vietnam. While full on World war types of conflict are on the table. The main protagonists are afraid of the consequences, (see my opening line). Open warfare between Russia and NATO would be conventional up to the point of a nuclear armed country being invaded. Then Nuclear options would be considered as possible before the infrastructure needed to launch a nuclear strike could be over run by the invading enemy. Of course this is just my take on it and I am sure many people may disagree.
One objection: Militias are very bad for counterinsurgency, because they are built out of the population itself. But it is very good to provide a fast mass-mobilisation for defence in a large scale war.
AI and robotics will play a huge role. Robotics technology is still primitive and will be for some decades but neural networks can be trained to use even a crude, hamfisted body with agility and cunning. I think allowing a neural network to design its own body might be the best way. Make an extremely realistic simulation that accurately represents physics, terrain, weather, etc, give the neural network some objectives, and let it practice achieving those objectives while having some control over the development of its own body. Once it settles on a framework you could even build a prototype and begin letting the neural network train in real life. You could make tens of thousands of those machines and have the neural network run tens of thousands of training missions in different facilities at the same time. At some point it would be ready to train with / against actual humans as well. That might be extremely dangerous though.
A good starting form I think would be a worm-like construction. Maybe more like a snake since it would have a "backbone." Legs I think would cause more problems than they solve at this point, with robotics being as crude as it is. Maybe for fast travel our worm could bite its tail and form a wheel and use roads, deploying back into slither mode when approaching its target. As for armament, I imagine this machine would carry very little. It would rely on stealth and cunning more than power. A form developed for urban warfare could be designed to use improvised weapons it finds in the battlefield. Maybe an airgun that shoots nails, and it can detect and "eat" nails in the battlefield to reload, and perhaps even cannibalize electricity to recharge in the field. Imagine dumping a thousand of these metal snakes onto rooftops all over a city. Perhaps their first objective would be to burrow to achieve stealth, then to locate access to the electric grid to secure a power source, then "build a nest" in that secure location, and over the course of the next hours, days, even weeks these snakes would venture out from their nests at night and "hunt" enemy combatants. They could be built robust enough to be dropped from a very high altitude too. Even one at a time, by very very small high-altitude drones too small to be detected by radar. You could have these snakes deployed in the enemy capital on day 1 of the war, completely undetected. Other models could be built entirely for digging with no armament at all. Drop them over the enemy's nuclear arsenal, let them dig through the concrete into the facility, and chew wires to disable the nuclear launch. Then you launch your own nuclear first strike.
Why don’t they form two separate forces in armies, I was thinking you could have a mainline traditional army and a much smaller Corp of elite troops for counter interagency. And of course these two forces can and will work together.
This is how most armies work. But there is a limit to how strong capabilities this army will have. You could of course build up two great armies, instead of just one, but then wouldn't the taxpayers like this idea that much when they have to pay for 2 defence budgets instead of just one. So the question then comes down to: which of the two armies should be kept, and which would be thrown into the trash? The mass-army for the defence of the national territory? Or the proffessional army for special operations that could be rapidly deployed in any part of the world?
nattygsbord; The Western Roman Empire did it by splitting their one army into a two types of troops: Limitani to defend the boarders, and Comitutenses who formed the elite mobile armies. So maybe they could do the same with modern militaries with different units specializing in massed warfare and in special operations. (I'd guess the massed army would be 80% and the special forces would be at most 20% as it wouldn't require as many troops)
That is the standard way of doing things for rational nations. Germany got their special forces (KSK), Russia got Spetsnaz, Sweden got SSG, and Denmark got Jaeger Corps. To just take a few examples. And then there is of course men like pilots who tax payers have invested millions into training, so of course would it be both stupid and wasteful to just let go of them. And then western countries usally tries to hold up the regular infantry to a decent standard, while national guard units, garrisons and militia troops with basic units could be left to doing simple tasks and guarding silent parts along the front and the local units can assisting the regular troops by giving them information about the terrain and such. It would not be very cost-effiecent to have special forces for everything. And in major wars proffesional armies usally runs out of manpower pretty fast.. as the British Army did in the first world war, and then they are forced to rebuild their destroyed army in the middle of war - which is not a position one wants to be in.
nattgsbord: I wasn't suggesting that they use special forces for everything. Something I was thinking of was after the U.S. conventional army invaded Iraq a force of troops specially trained for counter insurgent operations would take over the occupation. This would be useful as the conventional army could focus on conventional battles while the special forces could take tasks that would be difficult for a professional army. Or they could just designate existing units for improved training.
Did you get some inspiration from William S. Lind's model of the four generations of modern war? I'm not accusing you of plagiarism but I'm asking just because your view on warfare is very similar in its basis.
I don't know him, well, maybe if he wrote some articles in Brassey's Encyclopedia on Land Warfare with that book I usually don't know the authors. I think this is actually a rather simple basic assessment for everything: threat - trends - missions. I think I derived it probably mostly from the US Navy Strategy that I read for this video: ruclips.net/video/429Pu5342I4a/видео.htmlre there any "different" views?
Öhm am I the only one who is missing kind of the answers in this video? There were certainly a lot of interesting questions presented, but at the end no answers whatsoever. Was it not the question how such an infantry-doctrine might be established?
As I understand it, the implicit answer, is, that there will no such thing as A Doctrine. We face a more complex dynamic, where change will be the only constant factor. And so, the explicit answer, will be - doctrines, requiring a significantly more flexible organization, training, culture and levels of technology.
You know, it's a pity you left the US Marine Corps out of the discussion. They're doing a lot on the cutting edge, and are, to say the least, obsessed, with their infantry. Their new variation on their vertical envelopment doctrine utilizing tilt rotor aircraft for example. I think their doctrine of the Strategic Sergeant, or Strategic Corporal, devolving battlefield decision making, and authority to lower tactical levels where NCOs have more tools available to them than ever, be it weapons, communications and on call ANGLICO support in it's various flavors, but also more local items, not just drones, but drones that one of your troops can carry in a bag and deploy when it's needed without adding much weight to his kit. These changes in flexibility, both in tactical decision making, weapons, battlefield recon tools, and mobility mean you, as a infantry leader, can do more with less. This has mostly been applied to COIN during the Marine Corps commitments to OIF and OEF, but I think it's outright silly to deny that such tactics can have application to more conventional warfare. Then again, it can be argued, as I seem to recall Jane's does, and the Marines themselves certainly do, that the Marine Corps really shouldn't be counted as a conventional military force. Even if you don't want to make your troops Marines, Marine task force integration, of how the different parts of the ground combat force work together, supported by a committed, native aviation combat element can be very instructional in developing conventional forces. 1 MEF's movement during the drive to Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq in '03 shows that this concept scales quite well from the Marine Corps MEU, which is a reinforced battalion supported by an aviation combat element. As communications get better, smaller, cheaper and more secure, this type of force integration will only become more effective.
There's going to be a lot more robots and drones. Robots of all sorts are cheaper and if a remote operator gets a drone shot out from underneath him, he gets a new drone in a few hours. Since there are no actual casualties in the nation using mostly robots, politically speaking wars can last a long time.
I suspect it's similar to small countries disliking their big neighbour or smaller cities disliking big ones. For example, in many countries there's a rivalry between the second biggest city and the capital.
Almost a third of Austria's population lives in Vienna and its surrounding area so national politics are oftern very Vienna centered. Vienna's tourist slogan is "Wien ist anders" (Vienna is different). So they know that none likes them ;) .
While I hesitate to say we'll limit ourselves to small, elite armies in the future; I definitely think the future infantryman will be defined by a lot higher technical competence and skill. The tools with which we make war are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the future soldier will be expected to deal with a vast array of highly sophisticated weapon systems, both to use them and defend against. The future soldier will still be a man with a rifle, but it'll also be a man with a rifle with many years of technical experience & education, operating advanced technical systems almost as much as his own rifle, or even more. In conventional wars, those that rely on mass scale WW2 style armies will most likely find themselves defeated by the growing lethality of modern weapon systems employed by more sophisticated enemies. In addition, wars will be highly asymmetrical due to how resource and technologically intensive they will be; often featuring a great, highly-advanced army vs a small, backwater force. Wars between great powers(China, the US) will be unlikely due to the sheer destructiveness of the weapon systems, and will likely only occur in case of extreme desperation(I.E. a global resource shortage that leaves actors no other choice)
Around the 7 minute mark you say something like drones wouldn't be an issue for the larger conventional armys, Which in my opinion is only partially correct now and I expect it to be almost completely false in the future (within a year or so). We've seen swarms attack fixed positions in syria (fsa or PKK if im not mistaken). While these are certainly not the technological best in the area they seam to be mostly defenceless minus some very expensive radio rifles.
the population follows a normal distribrutiotion, so if you want to conscript a large part of each year group you have to decide what is good enough. So you don´t have soldiers that is more of a burden and danger for your own army then they are to the enemy.
ThroatSore the problem is in modern war what would mass troops do? I am assuming they’re poorly trained? What exactly would they even be good at given how sophisticated modern military equipment has become.
What about space warfare? I dont think that its too far fetch that when space travel to mars and moons becomes easily accessible, nations would fight for unclaimed territory in space and especially for a piece of the moon as launch base to mars or even site of a super weapon.
MJY in 20 years? Any space combat is not going to involve *infantry* or infantry doctrine. Period. Not until there is a reason and means to deploy infantry, which for 20 years is almost certainly not going to happen unless a literal miracle of technology happens. Just having a Mars colony by 2038 would be impressive, one that's _so valuable_ that somebody is going to throw a one-way expeditionary force at it? No, no fucking way.
Watching this, in late 2020, after Azerbaijan successfully demonstrated how to overcome a determined defender with technology... Armenia allegedly always enjoyed better training, motivation, leadership and simple soldiering skills... But they had no chance in passive defense, their positions were isolated, bombarded and taken in piecemeal fashion... Kinda makes you think 🤔
Same. Future wars between nations with conventional armies are just going to devolve into massive “artillery” duels. The “artillery” being drones, planes, smart artillery, and guided missles of all sizes, arnt they?
the donbass war as a conventional war? but it had many aspects that were different from regular warfare, for example russia concealing its troops as donbass soldiers
richard scales Good point on terminology -- I guess we're both old enough to have lived in the Cold War ... the first one :( . Anyway, I figure they mean 'regular' versus 'irregular'.
I watch your videos for at least half a year or so and i always assumed that you are from germany haha silly me. You lack that cute austrian accent. I feel similar when i see police. WOuld be interesting if thats the case in countries that are relatively safe
Investigative journalism is basically dead and defamation campaigns are blossoming; Every source that contradicts the current opinion will be ostracized. The public has already been conditioned to help this process and defend its credibility (I've first hand experience of that).
If I would defeat Austria, then I would take Vienna. Simple as that. The city is huge compared to the country. Its like taking Paris, if you take Paris then you have conquered France. But if you take a small capitol, then I think that the country will just keep on fighting.
Defending the low lands to the east and the area near vienna is almost impossible if you have a larger enemy moving in. The nearest border is less than an hour drive from vienna. If our capital was in the middle of the alps than that'd be different. It's all theory anyway because you don't know what the next conflict will bring.
@@nattygsbord It depends on who you are fighting, for example the english would not care that you have conqured London, for London is not and english city anymore there would not be a moral drop. Yes you can get recources from London but morale wise the people would not care because to them the city has fallen long ago, only the UK government would care since it only cares about recources and the fact in now needs to move.
It's because that's the viewpoint that preserves most of the Austrian military. The assumption is basically that at least Germany would come to the defense of Austria, so that preserving the army for a successful counterattack is the most important objective.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w7Wf0h1Q8a4/mqdefault.jpg)
Did you say "kraut control"? Bismark is going to be pissed!
The future Soldier in many Western European countries will be predominantly Muslim and will have no problem to shoot on the citizens to keep an authoritarian Government in power.
Astuga Inshallah brother. We will save you from 10,000 genders.
@@Astuga No, it won't. There is a severe push-back in progress. People are not rewarding parties for the immigration madness.
@@Astuga inshaIIa brother. we must also establish sharia in space.
@@JingleBaza That sounds too fatalistic for me. It is dawning on politicians a wrong sense of morality is not going to get them any plus points with the majority of the citizens who are going to speak their lack of confidence when the next elections come (especially since those politicians aren't as upstanding as they would like to have anyone believe).
We already had a right-wing party as a junior partner in government in Austria. That is congruent to the situation developing in other countries (in the Netherlands, in Italy, in Germany, in Poland, and Hungary). Either the moderate parties finally get their shit in order or there is going to be a reckoning. I do not want any extreme parties in charge but if the only ones who take the migration crisis seriously are the right-wing parties that is who the people will vote for following a succession of terrorist attacks, a rise in crime (particularly murders have risen in my home country and most perpetrators happen to have a migration background - a prominent newspaper has the audacity to blame ALL men while saying that it is unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the mistakes of a few). The people here are fed up with this nonsense.
Due to that, our current senior coalition partner has adopted a hard stance against illegal migrants (we'll see how serious they are taking it, I see it as nothing more than a cheap trick since they are grossly incompetent). This is again a broader phenomenon occurring in other countries. Germany can't hold the entirety of the EU as a hostage anymore, regardless of their power. It simply has gone too far. If the EU doesn't reform, people are going to abandon the idea. Again, that is not what I want but it is what we are facing if the current political leadership does not recognize that their faulty morality is threatening the entire foundation of the EU and our peace and prosperity.
Pff...that was a long one. I am pissed that our entire political caste is too stupid to realize they are sowing off the branch they are sitting on and risking it dropping on the head of the people watching that show. The result is a pretty obvious one. A reform will have to happen, or the EU will fail and countries revert to forming smaller alliances and take care of those issues themselves, and Germany will stand isolated.
Sweden already has re-introduced conscription. We now have a mixed army with both a professional core and a conscript part, filling out units and providing a base for recruitment.
Let's hope, then, that your NCO's and Officers are allowed to fill out their positions for years. Otherwise, it will end up as here in Denmark, where NCO and Officers has been moved from one function to another, not allowing them to sink-in to their function. The consequence of this policy is a reduced level of quality among the conscripts. Don't make the mistake, which our politicians made in 2013-2017. Devastating. An NCO or Officer should be allowed to stay in a function, until a high level of quality for both him or the conscripts has been reached.
Next video: what method its beter to deploy your troops on the moon efectively:
1-Antigrav super carriers like a flying nimitz/Pillar of autumn ship
2-Spontaneous cumbustion rockets from space X
3-Space elevators and shuttle transports between them and moon
4-Giant Trebuchet
I think option 4 its the most afforfeable
Halo player here, That pillar of autumn ship would be amazing.
a giant trebuchet in space is what is known as a skyhook
Low voice level. Can you boost microphone sensitivity? But as usual always.
Never knew i would be this interested in miltiary theory.
In the Future, it would be great if Hybrid Engine infantry vehicles were developed. They could advance towards the battlefield on combustion engine and then switch to electric to sneak on the enemy silently. Being Hybrid should also increase their range and storage capacity.
your hands are italian your accent is german and your ears are british.... that said love the content
If his cooking is French he might just be the ideal person...
That there's an Austrian accent.
No other channel on RUclips applies logic, sources and analysis of the greater picture like you do on these topics. Good job!
Austria will be defended by America without question, we will not allow the security of Kommisaar Rex to be jeopardized.
In that case, i'm sure Italy has a whole army at the ready. "Divisione Commissario Rex"
i wonder if you'll talk about drones - could small drones ever become embedded in typical infantry squads?
MrGuySnailz: They already are. At least small flying RC drones with cameras that helps infantry scout potentially hostile areas.
I think that little drones are very useful for spotting and marking enemy forces, especially armored forces have a hard time seeing or hearing little drones
www.c4isrnet.com/newsletters/unmanned-systems/2018/03/09/training-with-squadrones-its-happening-for-the-marines/
Depends on the unit, giving individual squads drones in Mechanized infantry is useless, they fight so close to each other that a platoon drone would be more useful, maybe just a drone support squad on platoon level with multiple drones.
There are so many different infantry units that going in depth in about it in YT-comment section is just silly.
Depends on how far "embedded" is definded. For example, the Bundeswehr uses ALADIN and MIKADO in their recon units and light infantry. MIKADO is very helpful in urban enviroments.
I believe that there will be more drones in the future.
As an Argentine, in relation to what you were told about our police officers, I'd say it's not as clear cut. Sure, the police presence has been greatly increased in the past two years, but these new recruits definitely do not make me feel safe. Many of them are, in my opinion, at least, not fit for the job they're doing. They're soft, appeasing, are often distracted by talking with their phones, some are quite obese, and now, after the Chocobar shooting incident (when a cop shot a thief that charged him with a knife, and the officer was convicted for murder), they're afraid to draw weapons or shoot suspects.
I was there in 2006 and 2007, so I guess, you are referring to something completely different with "past two years". Should have added when I was there.
Yes, back in 2006-7 things were somewhat different. The police force overall was better, and most officers were still 'career' officers, with an actual vocation for their job. Now most of those officers are retired, or just a few years away from retirement (or simply dead). Their replacements, those who joined the force in ~2010-14 were brought up in an environment of extreme corruption and laziness, while those recruited from 2015 to the present were, for the most part, recruited out of desperation, given only a year of training and sent out to the streets with a gun and little knowledge of what to do.
Granted, at least now their cruisers don't have political party slogans and logos on their liveries.
Funny how low tech ("domestic"items as apposed to "high" or mil-tech") always makes a mark or what's old is new again(conscription).A10 as opposed to turboprop is a good example of modern thinking and In the case of Infantry, the good old home made IED.Naval emphasis seems to be more patrol boat ,surveillance orientated(at least in the indo-pacific.).Good Question ,excellent response.Keep it up.
I mean ieds are just homemade mines
Mines have always been good, and yeah when it’s the only thing doing anything, then shock horror it makes a mark since it’s all that’s making any mark
i do appreciate the amount of detail you provide to this subject. I to see the people around me(mostly young people) not paying attention to their society's view on handling certain events. And your way of describing future Doctrine is fascinating. Love from the north
Herr Rommel, will you be utilizing drones in your tank brigades?
I Think that a decentralised military will probably become more favourable if there should be more internal conflicts or terrorism in the future also local garrisons are less vulnerable to air attacks than large military bases and it's harder for a invading force to whipe out small groups of soldiers that can just go hiding in the local fields without problem.
Small Infantry groups with emphasis on incorporating the knowledge of the local terrain, political and cultural context of Militia Forces and Insurgents.
Think where a group of 20 High Tech Infantry goes into an area and finds 500 Insurgents and leads them or acts as the Hammer to their Anvil or the Anvil to their Hammer depending on the Tactical and Strategic Needs.
Given the rise of 3D printers which are just in their infancy, populations WILL be armed with guns and bombs, no matter what anyone tries to do about it, so Infantry will no longer just be trained to kill people, they will have to be trained as Specialists that can make friends or allies with or at least impress the locals into cooperation and information.
A delicate balance and spectrum of doctrines between the carrot and the stick in doing so to incorporate locals into their armies will of course be built on old school thought and new insight and many horrible and also hilarious mistakes will be made.
Ultimately Infantry in a world where almost everyone is an insurgent will HAVE to be able to do more than just kill people for a living. Smart Infantry are the future.
Also the fact that small groups of Infantry are a LOT easier to deploy and withdraw and supply and afford and the fact that your political relationship with insurgents and the government (happy, begrudging or afraid or otherwise) is the true linchpin of war ANYWAY and will only continue to be more so.
Most likely how infantry works in future.
1. Never leaves base
2. Sees something in camera
3. Calls Air Force to sort it out
4. Air Force sends drones to bomb whatever it was
5. Lather, rinse, repeat
That’s what they thought in the 30s, how’d that work out?
@@looinrims They had no cameras allowing remote observation. They also had no drones. So far it seems to work fine.
@@vksasdgaming9472 that’s what they all say “this time for sure air power only”
Infantry Doctrine, for the Future, is, in my opinion, more a question of doctrines, than A Doctrine.
My reasons are as follows:
Regardless of mission, the infantry will have to cooperate, with an increased amount of support units. Most of these, will be pure military support units, others will be pure civilian units, and lastly, there will be a mixed military-civilian type of unit. This basically means, that the dynamic of warfare, will become even more complex than today.
At the same time, the global power trends, point towards a world, dominated by more actors, than just the United States and Russia. This new change, affect your infantry even more. Because, now your infantry may have to fight as part of an international coalition, representing a whole mix of doctrines, weapons, technologies, cultures and educational level.
So. The infantry face a future dynamic, where both its organization and technology, can be challenged to its breaking point. For instance, in a situation, where your infantry has become part of an international coalition. For various reasons (military/political/civilian/hybrid), it is in this thought-situation, forced to support another nations' infantry. However, by doing so, it now reduce its own support capability. For instance artillery support, drone support or supply-truck support?
In future urban battles, fought by coalition forces, this need for one nation's infantry, to support another nations' infantry, may increase, much more than we can imagine today, in 2021?
My short conclusion is that the infantry of the future, will thave to be defined, in a new type of division. I call this type "The Doctrine Division".
The Doctrine Division master at least 4 types of missions;
1. Interstate symmetrical warfare
2. Domestic asymmetrical warfare
3. International symmetrical warfare
4. International asymmetrical warfare
The Doctrine Division, will therefore have to cover 4 different learning curves. These have to be simplified and standardized as much as possible. Both in terms of organisation, technology and doctrines.
Essentially, any infantry unit serving in a Doctrine Division, has to train and understand several types of doctrines, organizations and technologies. This emphasizes a need for more professional soldiers, however, when the cadre is solid enough, it should be possible to implement conscripts as well. Although, their training time, cannot be under 12 months.
Just want to emphasize that all consumer smart phones are extremely open to being hacked - in fact any computer can be hacked or attacked - militaries will need to take this into account - military communications/ computers cannot be safe on commercial networks
You are right, I think the most visible development will be the integration drones on a squad Level, further active protective systems on tanks could be a game changer considering infantry anti-tank capabilities.
Very informative video! Saw this pop up in my subs and immediately sat down to watch it. It seems like a lot of what you covered was a kind of general overview, It would be really cool if you explored the topic a bit more in-depth. That said I’m not sure what sources are available about the potential doctrines of the near future, as these doctrines are being shaped by current events, ongoing development in military thought, technology, and the geopolitical situation. Perhaps you could discuss how modern information systems/logistical infrastructure and transportation methods could play a role in future wars, like your video on the logistical side of war. Or maybe how countries like the United States have evolved their small unit tactics and equipment in response to fighting insurgent groups, and how these would hold up in the event of a new conventional war. But I’m not sure how much of that information is available to the public, since, well, the military doesn’t want to give out ALL their secrets. But whatever you do, I know I’ll have a thoughtful and engaging video to look forward to.
Interesting, I did learn something but now I have more questions than answers.
So, more follow up question to this- How would an absolute all out war be like between two major powers? With nuke deployment? Without? What would a total war between two countries with conventional weapons and a standing army in a hypothetical situation be like? Without intervention from other countries? Or if the UN does step in, what can those two countries do to each other before there is an intervention?
Looking at modern conflicts, and the use of triangilation of radio signals, drones, and mlrs (effectively used in that oreder), it is a rough era for conventional or non conventional war. Infantry will always be required, partly due to it's abilty to adapt, but modern conflicts like the Russia Georgia war and the disputes in the Ukraine are indications of the future.
In my opinion, the core indications are as follows:
Increase your sensor to shooter loop.
Act with humility on the battlefield. Otherwise, you increase the chance of being spotted by enemy drones and then targeted with indirect fire; precision or mass-focused munition.
Tech your troops to stay camouflaged. At all time.
Decentralize command and control.
Add more support fire and reconnaissance to every company.
@@ThePRCommander As a former recce guy, and a former TOW guy, I do by in large agree. Still, nasty new world for conflicts as a gruntm
The most effective development I can see for infantry are lightly or non armored 4x4 units or utilities that are armed with missiles and heavy machine guns etc. These type of units have proved themselves in the middle East against the conventional weapons platforms. They are highly mobile, hard to detect and cost effective. These types of units in large numbers complimenting the conventional types of units would be very effective. And if adopted by western armies with the right support and tactics a modern warfare game changer. The Russians are adopting large scale units comprised of these utilities after their experience in Syria. I"m Australian and I think Australia should start creating regiments of these utilities , comprised of Toyota's etc our terrain is perfect and if we had around 4000- 5000 of these working around our armour, mech, and air units it would give us a very formidable defence against all comers. So to should the Americans, British and I think that Germany would be well served by these types of infantry units. By not worrying about armour but mobility and fire power allows greater battlefield knowledge and low detectability, ease of supply and maintenance, the ability to flex and also exploit.
*complementing
The fact that you only have 36k subscribers is criminal!
Do you think mass conscription would be effective in future (large) wars? How do you think conscripts would compare against proffessional soldiers and would the gap be larger than in WW2?
There are a lot of things that conscripts do better than mercenaries.
@@gunarsmiezis9321 like?
@@jacopofolin6400 Bravery.
How prescient was this video from three years ago
Viewing drones as miniature bombers and precision guided mortars obscures their real threat. Think swarms of tens of thousands dropped from a transport plane or bomber. These could easily be controlled by a simple AI and will overwhelm anything with human decision making processes.
So the counterplay will have to be a defensive AI. These will actually be kind of interesting in a Robot-Overlord kind of way as these may employ a whole range of soft and hard counters against the enemy swarm in parallel. Simultaneously hacking it, jamming it, and targeting it with it's own swarms and any air defense assets that are allocated to it.
The billions dollar question. Also you should read a light novel call “heavy object “, there is anime adaptation of it. It have some interesting idea on what future nation look like.
Do you mean "Heavy Object"?
Tmw no Battleship duels and Super-Heavy Tanks :'(
2049 the return of Yamato
I'll say it again: I really prefer this format over the graphical "visualized" stuff. They're all interesting though.
We are already re-introducing conception in Sweden. So it is even a bit beyond just talking about it.
I think you will always need a certain degree of infantry for base protection.
How missed this a mystery. Been following almost 4 yrs.
I would suggest that the current tanks, attack helicopters and air to ground/air to air combat systems would be replaced with unmanned vehicles of similar or smaller size that would be able to launch similar munitions - ie able to launch the required missle type for air combat or ground combat, or to operate a similar caliber weapon.
Those unmanned vehicles would be operated by crews at an operating base - and most importantly - only the time in combat would be human-controlled. The vehicles would waypoint to a designated combat box, upon nearing the combat box a human crew would take over to fight the vehicle system. Once the vehicle system is either destroyed/damaged or out of munitions/low fuel the vehicle would be way pointed out of the combat box and a new vehicle - which has been parked outside the combat box ready to go - would then take on the human control and step in.
For example, lets say an attack helicopter replaced by an unmanned option that has the ability to launch hellfire missles, use cannon and has optical devices - without pilot and gunner installed in the vehicle perhaps it is a touch smaller, or a touch better armoured. Operating in pairs the first pair launch and move via waypoints to a waiting area. At H hour the pilot/gunner teams back at base link in to take control - enter the battle box and provide infantry support. After 30 mins they are wilco - out of ammo - the vehicles leave and are replaced by 2 waiting vehicles that our now experienced crews take over and CONTINUE to operate in the combat zone. Meaning the humans can spend more time on mission and less moving to and from, the same humans become more experienced with both the battle box and the ground element they are supporting. The base commander keeps tabs on his crews battle boxes to make sure fresh vehicles are ready for each team.
For the infantry themselves, smaller units moving clandestine and using overhead or ground based unmanned vehicles to push forward and take out any opposition. The ground troops being closer to special forces, electronically tagging geographical sites for munitions to land. Infantry platoon-sized units would have included a combat support team which directly controls overhead recon and fire support devices and also liaises with larger unmanned vehicle teams operating armour, apc, helo and other vehicles.
EMP weapons to bring down or disrupt unmanned vehicles would become prevalent and we could expect an area to be fought over by unmanned devices and the area to be considered cleared or won before human infantry would advance. Infantry would not have an attack role anymore, would be used to hold ground taken by unmanned vehicles.
just my thoughts.
war if any sort should never ever be entered into lightly, but to fail to prepare is to prepare to fail. having military might for defence or to help allies is very different from having it as an aggressive force and abusing that power.
I think that infantry formations are gonna be much more spread out dude to the accuracy of arty and drone strikes, meaning I could see one section covering a km or two worth of the front. No more platoon based attacks due to the fact that our rate of fire of one LMG matches that of an entire platoon in ww2 and one guy who can flank and wipe our a section by himself before they find cover.
This would include tanks as well, since the killing power of our tech now is so high that the only way to counter it is to spread out. Meaning communication would be needed more secure and necessary on all levels. As for drone type things, that might be in the far future but they're too expensive. At most they might be portioned out to sections that are leading an attack to absorb fire from the enemy position and suppress them.
Aircraft is an entire different nightmare/story that is way too long to type out.
That's really the best I have, I've been thinking about it for a year or so.
I totally disagree with you I think defensive technology is outpacing offensive tech. Look at missle defensive systems and how far they have came in the last 10 years. Not to mention how effective AAA is now in the modern era. Lazers combined with good targeting AI will be the big game changer that will probably eliminate missiles from military arsenals altogether. I see armies actually getting bigger and almost returning to a more old style of waging war.
This Chanel make me intellectually happy...
Thanks for mentioning Operátion Sentínal we never here about it in the UK news for some reason. 🤔
about the use of military force in patrol action: in Italy we have "operazione strade sicure" (operation safe street) since 2008. Geez...
Unless a really major war comes along, mass mobilization seems to be a thing of the past in civilized countries. It is expensive (basically every able bodied man has to spend 3-6 months of his life in barracks and likely never be drafted again) and a lot of the troops will end up unmotivated, disillusioned and drunk. Professional army is better at learning to use modern hardware anyway and the current trend seems to be using volunteers and signing them up for a few years long contracts at a time. I guess spamming cheap infantry still works in Africa, though.
It is a little questionable if you can still call them infantry, because trucks are so common nowadays, that "infantry" no longer has to walk, they ride, then dismount before combat and some of the heavier vehicles even stay and help.
1Maklak Is 3 to 6 months a European conscription duration? Anything less than 2 years is too short to properly learn the job. Back when the US still had the Draft, the duration was a minimum of 2 years service. Also, truck mounted infantry is called Motorized Infantry. If using Armored Personnel Carriers , they are called Mechanized Infantry.
In Poland the training for draftees was 2 years (3 for navy) before 1989, then from 1989 to 1992 it was 18 months for the army and 2 years for the navy, then 1992 to 1999 it was up to 18 months for all, 1999 to 2004 it was one year, then it got shortened to 9 months and eventually draft was abandoned in 2009 in favor of a professional army.
I don't think the point of draft was to "learn to do the job properly" (professional cadre does that), but rather for people to have some familiarity with orders and weapons and already be after basic training if there is ever a mass mobilization.
I know the terms motorized / mechanized infantry. My point was that calling infantry "infantry" is somewhat obsolete now, because armies don't really march for days anymore, but use vehicles. Even a poor country would have it's soldiers/militia/revolutionaries use trucks, buses and jeeps with machineguns rather than walk everywhere.
@@1Maklak Whether a troop type is called "infantry" or not is based on how they fight. If they fight on on foot they're still infantry regardless of transport. And in case of major warfare the draft is still needed for sheer numbers. Pure professional armies of today are a result of the post cold war environment where major powers aren't expecting wars among each other. These pros will be spent within the first couple of years in the next world war.
I foresee power armoured infantry, commanding ground based drones armed with machineguns and grenade launchers.
I would imagine more of a "normal" infantry squad like today, with one or even two "heavy" soldiers using exoskeletons to carry small autocannons or big grenade launchers or even such things as anti-tank missiles. They'd be small enough to somewhat fit inside a normal building with enlarged entrences, but big enough to be able to carry such heavy equipment and use it effectively. They'd also be useful for most heavy lifting jobs where a crane or tank would be overkill.
Tokisaki Kurumi: It's more expensive to field human soldiers than it is to field mechanic autmatons.
Robots can be easily replaced. Do not sleep. Do not eat. Do not get ptsd or cost a fortune for the state when they are handicapped due to combat injuries.
They can be produced on an assembly line, and they don't panic or feel fear in the face of hostile situations.
While taht is all true, they are also stopped by doorsteps and other easy to stop errors for humans.
Tokisaki Kurumi: You should watch the robots developed ny Boston Dynamics. Like the Atlas.
The move on two legs, over difficult terrain (even ice). When they're about to slip, they right themselves. They are also able to climb stairs, open doors and if knocked over with a forceful push they can jump up and right themselves again.
Yes, but as soon as one of it's legs is disabeled by, for example, getting stuck in a hole, they're dead metal.
I would have concentrated on infantry on a battlefield. To the extent that infantry can know what's ahead of them for, say 10 miles (using drones or satellites), I think armor will lose any advantage it has had. If I know there is armor 10 miles ahead and can call on artillery or air strikes (or launch my own attack targeting the top or engines of the armor) then infantry will again be the queen of the battlefield. This will mean that armies can not advance quickly. It could also lead to the return of mass armies. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if modern technology lead to conscripts again killing each other in trenches with bladed weapons and shovels.
would never happen. the same artillery and air strikes that can destroy tanks can destroy far more infantry. tanks are mobile, armored, armed and they can even defend themself partly with active protection systems. against air strikes tanks can be defended with mobile AA and maybe they produce mobile point defense turrets that can shoot projectiles
6:08 also operation “strade sicure” in Italy is the same
At least in Sweden, there was an idea that you should use Japanese Production philosofy to make the defence more efficient. This is called lean manufacturing and means that you tke away everything that is not necessary for the present task. So for example , they disposed every but 48 arlillry pieces. On the information side they ha´d an similar cleaning of the archives called Operation Ice breaker. So the turndown in readiness was basicall an idea from consultants.
I don't know for the "better" part of swiss army training, but our basic boot camp lasts only 18 weeks (25~ for special forces, I think). Austrian soldiers trains 6 months straight. But I guess you're also talking about the reptition courses we have each year, that might make our army somewhat combat ready.
Interesting video, even though I don't agree on all the stuff you say; still cool to see a well thought different opinion :)
I don't want to be a future foot soldier. Modern weapon systems like drones are so strong. They are faster, they have more technology like surveillance systems, better weapons like rockets and they can do risky things without risking the life of their operator. Humans can develop technology but they can't beat technology.
I wouldn't be surprised that there are countermeasures against drones in the pipes.
You will never beat boots on the ground
Drones are a long ways from being a serious or even really scary threat to the modern infantry. They're good against insurgents and 3rd rate militaries but against someone like the US, China, Russia, or even most of Europe they're that much of game changer, yet. Drones like Predators and Reapers are slow and easy prey to manned fighters and probably just as vulnerable to modern AD systems, MAPADs, and probably even a .50 mounted on a vehicle.
Still better than being a foot soldier in WW1.....
Hardly anyone wants to. But consider that these weapon systems are expensive and take much time and materials to produce. These weapons would dominate the conflict in the first days before either they are destroyed, out of ammunition or maintenance supply. There is no drone production line comparable to the factory output of M4 Shermans in WW2. The same goes for other weapon systems.
I mean, ISIS, the Taliban, Al Quaida and so on mainly have foot soldiers, and they lasted decades against modern military technology.
conscription was also discused in the netherlands for a long time now already with people saying they want it as a type of penal unit and some just general conscription for a year for people not on school after they turned 18 like in isreal to have a very big pool of reservist
this conscription was in the neterlands from napoleon till 1996 where the last ones
I don't think that robots will come as far as to replace humans the coming decades, but I guess that the infantry will rely more and more on sensors, drones and such. But I still also think that old weapons will continue to be useful in some areas of the frontline / or against low tech enemies.
And I also think that IT-security is a pretty safe bet, if I would buy stocks in area of the economy which I think will grow in the future. If you fail on cyber security, then your best weapons can be copied by the enemy, all your battleplans could be stolen, and your electronic weapons can stop functioning. Furthermore can the banking system stop working, the electric grid can be knocked out, and the transportation and healtcare sector will be hard hit as well.
So the importance of better IT-security cannot be understated in a world which is starting to doing everything digital nowadays.. everything from self-driving cars to shopping at the grocery store, and not to mention all the internet shopping.
On a more general level, I think that the ideal would be to let the country become self-suffiecent in food, energy and do some manufacturing before going to war. And then I think that information and co-ordination among infantry, attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, recon and other types of troops will become increasingly more important. And the individual solidier will get more and more firepower in his hands.
Some say that teams of snipers is the future, while the historical trend the last 200 years have rather been the opposite; and more about putting up as much lead in the air as possible to win battles. And ammunition consumtion and the cost of killing an enemy solidier have risen.
And I would say that I am impressed by weapons like TOS-1 Buratino, and I think they could be very handy in a world war when keeping losses low is having a low priority compared to victory. But the old conventional wars seems rare nowadays so there might be better ways of dealing with junk armies of the middle east than having a rocket artillery piece capable of flattening an entire town.
Drones is the western solution since it can deliever firepower without any risk to the lives of our own solidiers. But there is of course a risk that they can be hacked, and used against us. And having the police using them to fight terrorism, could lead to a slippery slope where they then are used to fight violant crime, and then minor crimes... and the police force becomes less interested in negotating and de-escalating situations and become trigger happy instead. And then will personal integrity be totally destroyed by drones, mass surveillance and data gathering. And we can get a 1984 society, like China today with their internet scorepoint system.
And this time around there would be no succesful escape attempts from the Gulags, since now there would be drones with heat seeking cameras to seak up fleeing prisoners. And there would be nowhere to escape, since every train ticket and purchase of food will be done electronically and could be traced. And passports contains biometric data and RFID-tags so that the government can track you with a radar.
Robots will replace logistics to be sure but there will always need to be some sort of Infantry even if they are just Armoured Diplomats and Monitors who supervise the robots and provide intuition that robots cannot do.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Unless the afterlife is Valhalla.
Lich: "Hold my Cauldron of Mead!"
You should do a show based on Switzerlands 🇨🇭 military doctrine....especially on its anti tank doctrine. 1950-1990s....
Please send this to Isaac Aurthur!
I'm curious as to why you want to send this video to him?
Is it that you want him to do a video on infantry? (He has done interstellar and interplanetary warfare and I think he is doing planetary invasions in the future.)
Or do you think he did/said something wrong?
Not trying to antagonize you, I'm just curious.
I agree with Lucas, and no I don't think it's because Bernhard said anything wrong. Infantry specifically isn't mentioned much in SFIA, even though it's very common in military sci-fi. It'd be great to see Isaac Arthur's take on how infantry may evolve into the future, and if it might even evolve into something completely different, like we've seen with archery and cavalry.
Nice reflected Analyse.
that was an interesting comparison of views on police presence. reminds me a bit of myself and my brother, i respect them and see them as a benefit to society while he sees government fund raising pigs. i suppose it comes down to how people have interacted with them in the past and what they have been taught to believe....though how we have such contrasting views when raised by the same man is a little strange.
Fantastic shouts out to Canada (who you don't often mention). Best call out of neo-Liberalism I've heard in years.
Independent Self-Aware AI is something very few software engineers believe to be possible.
Not possible. It would require abstract thinking, which a computer cannot perform; regardless of software.
I feel like a future conventional war led by western countrys will be another case of U.S. civil war. Armys fighting with modern equipment and old tactics.
I think one major factor in reducing the intensity of future wars, unless they go nuclear, is that there aren't enough young people in many countries anymore.
A huge study in 2007 showed that the *single most consistent factor in predicting whether a major war will break out is the proportion of teenagers vs. 35+ year-olds.* The entire West is skewed towards the 35+ year-olds now, China is headed this way, and soon the whole world will be. Quite simply, smaller families mean more stable young people, and an older population is a less violent one, in general. It's hard to radicalize 50-year-olds to the point where they will actually start rioting :)
This doesn't mean wars won't happen, or that we don't have to worry about nukes, it just means wars will be smaller and much less bloody.
It's interesting, but I think you drifted a little with your tech presumptions - not quite infantry doctrine as such. We might consider the advent of commonplace cheap drones as a continuation of what was once called the 'revolution in military affairs' ie the increasing use of smart or guided weapons. Will these further erode the survivability of infantry on conventional battlefields? (possibly) What would be the doctrinal response? (better camouflague or protection, counter drone measures, personal armour, entrenchment?) Conventional infantry will still be needed for clearing built up areas, especially populated ones. This might result in greater use of ballistic armour, and consequently penetrating rounds. Another likely tech is the sentry guns deployed in Aliens - partially replacing or complementing human sentries. Contemporary infantry camps now feature substantial walls (Hesco or Bremer structures) Any serious conflict in Europe might involve rapid creation of such structures, possibly with top cover against light bombardment, and, possibly, ground actions against them.
you are very good at talking with your hands.
I'm thinking that a team will become one man and as many drones as he can control.
I think a self aware AI that has goals that are not aligned or inverse our goals, isn't simply a "problem" for us. But a BIG FREAKING PROBLEM.
American in France: I think seeing local police is fairly common, in about half the French communities they don't even have firearms. The Gendarmes are the real deal. A squad armed with FAMAS might be a show of force or else something bad is going down.
I would really enjoy your videos if I could understand half the stuff you say.
Actual subtitles (not the yt created one) would be lovely.
He makes some stupid mistakes but he is more understandable than many native english speakers.
Infantry doctrine may lose emphasis in an era of low political willpower and consensus. Traditional US military roles seem to be steadily farmed out to private contractors whose success and failure is less politically linked than actual servicemembers. The future of ID is also dependant on the outcome of several major organizational challenges in Nato, Russia and the US. What more can be said.
3:16 Now that I think about it, you add another meaning to the word "intervene" when you pronounce it as "interwean". Not only are you intervening in a conflict to affect its outcome, you could also be _weaning_ the region from conflict...
It's not the internet that is causing polarization to increase, it's that we (the west) lost our rival (the USSR). We won, liberalism, democracy, capitalism. We have no rivals on the global stage. What next?
Well, we look for a new rival and since we can't find it in the outside world, we look for it in our own culture.
hmm interesting aspect, in a way that is actually "the same", because having an enemy provided also a "single grand narrative".
Except Russia is back, having gone fascist under Putin, and the old rivalry is slowly heating back up as Russia becomes more and more agressive.
Last year, NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence was practising less than 70 kilometers away from a massive Russia invasion army. It only takes one nutjob dictator to press the button.
A perfect satellite, a dozen drones, and two tablets.
Belgium also has it, soldiers in the street.
I think the best form for a Military Doctrine for the Future will be to have Mandatory Military Training but keeping Military service Voluntary and Professional. Citizens, Men and Women, will be required to complete a basic/Standard military training, 6 to 9 months perhaps. After that, they can choose to join the Armed Forces, or go back to civilian life and be listed as part of a National Militia, that should be activated only in case of invasion. Infantry weapons and Equipment could be either stored in designated Public buildings (like Police stations, Town Halls, Hospitals, etc), or be required to take home 8like in Switzerland).
Conscription is simply a bad idea. Way too much economic damage as everybody wastes months of their life, and if a war comes, you need to retrain them all over again, because what they learned 5+ years ago is forgotten.
Blah b umm how about singapore or even israel?
+Jansen Junaedi
Singapore faces no credible military threats and as a micro-state doesn't really need a conventional army at all, just a strikeforce to hammer a point or two home if need be.
Israel could shorten its 'frontlines' and with that demands on manpower by dozens of kilometers by clearing the settlements deep in the West Bank. Also, you can seriously question if those few extremist settlers being happy, is worth half the population wasting two years of their life, and the other half wasting one year.
Also their manpower demands can't be that bad, because ultra-orthodox nutjobs are excempt from military service. If the least productive members of society, priests, are excempt from military service, they can easily shorter the time of conscription; there is evidently no real need for that kind of manpower.
Given that the idea of warfare is to reduce your enemies fighting will while maintaining your own. Warfare will become mainly 3 categories.
Asymmetric warfare. Such as Afghanistan and Vietnam. Mainly because if you have few resources and you have to fight, This has often proven successful. However most modern conventional armies have adapted to deal with this kind of warfare.
Cyber warfare. Countries like North Korea can engage in the activity and it is hard to prove well enough to the point of gaining a consensus of countries to take aggressive physical action. So it is seen by the main exponents of this type of action, like Russia and China, as safer than physical aggression as posed by Iran. The resources needed are relatively easy to acquire but it is the technical ability that is harder. Your average "Hacker" would be of limited use. While good quality computing Students from a well funded university would be idea for further training and the development of the tools required to achieve the hacks.
Proxy war. Why fight your enemy when you can gt someone else to do it for you. Like in the Ukraine with Russia supplying the rebels that want to join the Russian Federation as the Crimea did. Or to fund terrorist activities of groups opposed to your enemy forces. As the USA did in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation of the country and Russia did in Vietnam.
While full on World war types of conflict are on the table. The main protagonists are afraid of the consequences, (see my opening line). Open warfare between Russia and NATO would be conventional up to the point of a nuclear armed country being invaded. Then Nuclear options would be considered as possible before the infrastructure needed to launch a nuclear strike could be over run by the invading enemy.
Of course this is just my take on it and I am sure many people may disagree.
One objection: Militias are very bad for counterinsurgency, because they are built out of the population itself. But it is very good to provide a fast mass-mobilisation for defence in a large scale war.
AI and robotics will play a huge role. Robotics technology is still primitive and will be for some decades but neural networks can be trained to use even a crude, hamfisted body with agility and cunning.
I think allowing a neural network to design its own body might be the best way. Make an extremely realistic simulation that accurately represents physics, terrain, weather, etc, give the neural network some objectives, and let it practice achieving those objectives while having some control over the development of its own body.
Once it settles on a framework you could even build a prototype and begin letting the neural network train in real life.
You could make tens of thousands of those machines and have the neural network run tens of thousands of training missions in different facilities at the same time.
At some point it would be ready to train with / against actual humans as well. That might be extremely dangerous though.
A good starting form I think would be a worm-like construction. Maybe more like a snake since it would have a "backbone." Legs I think would cause more problems than they solve at this point, with robotics being as crude as it is. Maybe for fast travel our worm could bite its tail and form a wheel and use roads, deploying back into slither mode when approaching its target.
As for armament, I imagine this machine would carry very little. It would rely on stealth and cunning more than power. A form developed for urban warfare could be designed to use improvised weapons it finds in the battlefield. Maybe an airgun that shoots nails, and it can detect and "eat" nails in the battlefield to reload, and perhaps even cannibalize electricity to recharge in the field.
Imagine dumping a thousand of these metal snakes onto rooftops all over a city. Perhaps their first objective would be to burrow to achieve stealth, then to locate access to the electric grid to secure a power source, then "build a nest" in that secure location, and over the course of the next hours, days, even weeks these snakes would venture out from their nests at night and "hunt" enemy combatants.
They could be built robust enough to be dropped from a very high altitude too. Even one at a time, by very very small high-altitude drones too small to be detected by radar.
You could have these snakes deployed in the enemy capital on day 1 of the war, completely undetected.
Other models could be built entirely for digging with no armament at all. Drop them over the enemy's nuclear arsenal, let them dig through the concrete into the facility, and chew wires to disable the nuclear launch. Then you launch your own nuclear first strike.
Wow, you are Austrian! If you come to Wien I will totally get you a few rounds of beer!
He is douch
Why don’t they form two separate forces in armies, I was thinking you could have a mainline traditional army and a much smaller Corp of elite troops for counter interagency. And of course these two forces can and will work together.
well, to certain degree this is there already, special forces. For Austria that is the Jagdkommando.
This is how most armies work.
But there is a limit to how strong capabilities this army will have. You could of course build up two great armies, instead of just one, but then wouldn't the taxpayers like this idea that much when they have to pay for 2 defence budgets instead of just one.
So the question then comes down to: which of the two armies should be kept, and which would be thrown into the trash?
The mass-army for the defence of the national territory?
Or the proffessional army for special operations that could be rapidly deployed in any part of the world?
nattygsbord;
The Western Roman Empire did it by splitting their one army into a two types of troops: Limitani to defend the boarders, and Comitutenses who formed the elite mobile armies. So maybe they could do the same with modern militaries with different units specializing in massed warfare and in special operations. (I'd guess the massed army would be 80% and the special forces would be at most 20% as it wouldn't require as many troops)
That is the standard way of doing things for rational nations.
Germany got their special forces (KSK), Russia got Spetsnaz, Sweden got SSG, and Denmark got Jaeger Corps. To just take a few examples.
And then there is of course men like pilots who tax payers have invested millions into training, so of course would it be both stupid and wasteful to just let go of them.
And then western countries usally tries to hold up the regular infantry to a decent standard, while national guard units, garrisons and militia troops with basic units could be left to doing simple tasks and guarding silent parts along the front and the local units can assisting the regular troops by giving them information about the terrain and such.
It would not be very cost-effiecent to have special forces for everything. And in major wars proffesional armies usally runs out of manpower pretty fast.. as the British Army did in the first world war, and then they are forced to rebuild their destroyed army in the middle of war - which is not a position one wants to be in.
nattgsbord:
I wasn't suggesting that they use special forces for everything. Something I was thinking of was after the U.S. conventional army invaded Iraq a force of troops specially trained for counter insurgent operations would take over the occupation. This would be useful as the conventional army could focus on conventional battles while the special forces could take tasks that would be difficult for a professional army. Or they could just designate existing units for improved training.
Did you get some inspiration from William S. Lind's model of the four generations of modern war?
I'm not accusing you of plagiarism but I'm asking just because your view on warfare is very similar in its basis.
I don't know him, well, maybe if he wrote some articles in Brassey's Encyclopedia on Land Warfare with that book I usually don't know the authors. I think this is actually a rather simple basic assessment for everything: threat - trends - missions. I think I derived it probably mostly from the US Navy Strategy that I read for this video:
ruclips.net/video/429Pu5342I4a/видео.htmlre there any "different" views?
Google Col. John Boyd, Chet Richards, Lind et al 4th gen warfare
Öhm am I the only one who is missing kind of the answers in this video? There were certainly a lot of interesting questions presented, but at the end no answers whatsoever. Was it not the question how such an infantry-doctrine might be established?
I saw various options given and explained when to pick each. I found that quite satisfactory.
As I understand it, the implicit answer, is, that there will no such thing as A Doctrine. We face a more complex dynamic, where change will be the only constant factor. And so, the explicit answer, will be - doctrines, requiring a significantly more flexible organization, training, culture and levels of technology.
You know, it's a pity you left the US Marine Corps out of the discussion. They're doing a lot on the cutting edge, and are, to say the least, obsessed, with their infantry. Their new variation on their vertical envelopment doctrine utilizing tilt rotor aircraft for example. I think their doctrine of the Strategic Sergeant, or Strategic Corporal, devolving battlefield decision making, and authority to lower tactical levels where NCOs have more tools available to them than ever, be it weapons, communications and on call ANGLICO support in it's various flavors, but also more local items, not just drones, but drones that one of your troops can carry in a bag and deploy when it's needed without adding much weight to his kit. These changes in flexibility, both in tactical decision making, weapons, battlefield recon tools, and mobility mean you, as a infantry leader, can do more with less. This has mostly been applied to COIN during the Marine Corps commitments to OIF and OEF, but I think it's outright silly to deny that such tactics can have application to more conventional warfare.
Then again, it can be argued, as I seem to recall Jane's does, and the Marines themselves certainly do, that the Marine Corps really shouldn't be counted as a conventional military force. Even if you don't want to make your troops Marines, Marine task force integration, of how the different parts of the ground combat force work together, supported by a committed, native aviation combat element can be very instructional in developing conventional forces. 1 MEF's movement during the drive to Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq in '03 shows that this concept scales quite well from the Marine Corps MEU, which is a reinforced battalion supported by an aviation combat element. As communications get better, smaller, cheaper and more secure, this type of force integration will only become more effective.
There's going to be a lot more robots and drones. Robots of all sorts are cheaper and if a remote operator gets a drone shot out from underneath him, he gets a new drone in a few hours. Since there are no actual casualties in the nation using mostly robots, politically speaking wars can last a long time.
As a ignorant foreigner, what is up the "dislike" of Vienna ?
Krista Dís Guðmundsdóttir Austria is very rural exept for Vienna, so many Austrian frown upon the extravagant and degenerate Citys.
uhm I live in Linz, which is clearly not rural.
I suspect it's similar to small countries disliking their big neighbour or smaller cities disliking big ones. For example, in many countries there's a rivalry between the second biggest city and the capital.
Almost a third of Austria's population lives in Vienna and its surrounding area so national politics are oftern very Vienna centered.
Vienna's tourist slogan is "Wien ist anders" (Vienna is different). So they know that none likes them ;) .
Sonic Goo I confirme for France, inhabitant from Marseille(an other big city) and from the rural part seem to really hate the "arrogant Parisians"
I will never understand what you have against Vienna. It is the heart of Austria and a great, historic, wonderful city.
Operation sentinel at first was useful then after the first year it became less and less profitable, now it is near useless.
While I hesitate to say we'll limit ourselves to small, elite armies in the future; I definitely think the future infantryman will be defined by a lot higher technical competence and skill.
The tools with which we make war are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the future soldier will be expected to deal with a vast array of highly sophisticated weapon systems, both to use them and defend against.
The future soldier will still be a man with a rifle, but it'll also be a man with a rifle with many years of technical experience & education, operating advanced technical systems almost as much as his own rifle, or even more.
In conventional wars, those that rely on mass scale WW2 style armies will most likely find themselves defeated by the growing lethality of modern weapon systems employed by more sophisticated enemies.
In addition, wars will be highly asymmetrical due to how resource and technologically intensive they will be; often featuring a great, highly-advanced army vs a small, backwater force.
Wars between great powers(China, the US) will be unlikely due to the sheer destructiveness of the weapon systems, and will likely only occur in case of extreme desperation(I.E. a global resource shortage that leaves actors no other choice)
Around the 7 minute mark you say something like drones wouldn't be an issue for the larger conventional armys, Which in my opinion is only partially correct now and I expect it to be almost completely false in the future (within a year or so). We've seen swarms attack fixed positions in syria (fsa or PKK if im not mistaken). While these are certainly not the technological best in the area they seam to be mostly defenceless minus some very expensive radio rifles.
the population follows a normal distribrutiotion, so if you want to conscript a large part of each year group you have to decide what is good enough. So you don´t have soldiers that is more of a burden and danger for your own army then they are to the enemy.
Mass or elite troops. What about a mixture of these?
ThroatSore the problem is in modern war what would mass troops do? I am assuming they’re poorly trained? What exactly would they even be good at given how sophisticated modern military equipment has become.
What about space warfare? I dont think that its too far fetch that when space travel to mars and moons becomes easily accessible, nations would fight for unclaimed territory in space and especially for a piece of the moon as launch base to mars or even site of a super weapon.
MJY in 20 years? Any space combat is not going to involve *infantry* or infantry doctrine. Period. Not until there is a reason and means to deploy infantry, which for 20 years is almost certainly not going to happen unless a literal miracle of technology happens.
Just having a Mars colony by 2038 would be impressive, one that's _so valuable_ that somebody is going to throw a one-way expeditionary force at it? No, no fucking way.
Watching this, in late 2020, after Azerbaijan successfully demonstrated how to overcome a determined defender with technology... Armenia allegedly always enjoyed better training, motivation, leadership and simple soldiering skills... But they had no chance in passive defense, their positions were isolated, bombarded and taken in piecemeal fashion... Kinda makes you think 🤔
Same. Future wars between nations with conventional armies are just going to devolve into massive “artillery” duels. The “artillery” being drones, planes, smart artillery, and guided missles of all sizes, arnt they?
I care about Vienna because I am living there
Irondevil34 Better move ASAP
"To a certain degree"
It's important before you plan the how , It's critical to decide the why. If a country decided to not exist anymore, why bother.
the donbass war as a conventional war?
but it had many aspects that were different from regular warfare, for example russia concealing its troops as donbass soldiers
Also, using lower tech than what they would in Syria
Conventional as in non nuke?
Not so much hide more volunteer to fight for the various rebel factions, for instance, Motorola was an RO with the Russian Marines.
Yes, but Russian troops fighting as conventional fighting force.
richard scales Good point on terminology -- I guess we're both old enough to have lived in the Cold War ... the first one :( . Anyway, I figure they mean 'regular' versus 'irregular'.
11:23 To be fair, the military is well-equipped for population control too...
I watch your videos for at least half a year or so and i always assumed that you are from germany haha silly me. You lack that cute austrian accent.
I feel similar when i see police. WOuld be interesting if thats the case in countries that are relatively safe
Focus.
i see sword and shield making a comeback.
Investigative journalism is basically dead and defamation campaigns are blossoming; Every source that contradicts the current opinion will be ostracized. The public has already been conditioned to help this process and defend its credibility (I've first hand experience of that).
Drones would be in an open classic Conflict useless.
leoo buche How is that? The militaries are gearing up for using them if need be.
Sweden has reintroduced conscription, atleast to a limited degree.
At least in Europe, Future infantry will be equipped with a machete, sandals and a Quran.
By concentrating on the US Army you are basically leaving out everything that works. Semper fi
"Who cares about vienna"
hahahahaha. How a military viewpoint that so easily abondons its capital can form out of that country?
If I would defeat Austria, then I would take Vienna. Simple as that. The city is huge compared to the country.
Its like taking Paris, if you take Paris then you have conquered France. But if you take a small capitol, then I think that the country will just keep on fighting.
Defending the low lands to the east and the area near vienna is almost impossible if you have a larger enemy moving in. The nearest border is less than an hour drive from vienna. If our capital was in the middle of the alps than that'd be different. It's all theory anyway because you don't know what the next conflict will bring.
@@nattygsbord It depends on who you are fighting, for example the english would not care that you have conqured London, for London is not and english city anymore there would not be a moral drop. Yes you can get recources from London but morale wise the people would not care because to them the city has fallen long ago, only the UK government would care since it only cares about recources and the fact in now needs to move.
It's because that's the viewpoint that preserves most of the Austrian military. The assumption is basically that at least Germany would come to the defense of Austria, so that preserving the army for a successful counterattack is the most important objective.