2. Although the Gulf War can be regarded as bullying by multinational forces, it marks the beginning of a new military revolution. Although the number of the multinational force slightly exceeds that of the Iraqi army, its advantage is not too great, and it will never cause a one-sided war situation. The rapid progress of the war and the disparity in the proportion of casualties between the two sides are mainly due to the absolute superiority of the multinational forces headed by the US military in military technology. This is manifested in the following aspects: first, the multinational forces have achieved one-way transparency on the battlefield, if the discerning and the blind fight. Secondly, precision-guided weapons and weapons of mass destruction of multinational forces began to be widely used. Third, the air-ground integrated combat tactics of the multinational force are obviously more advanced than the traditional tactics of the Iraqi army. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Gulf War is the beginning of a new military revolution.
3. The power of information warfare = conventional combat power x information level. The level of informatization is just to enlarge the conventional combat power represented by mechanization by n times. If the base of mechanization is zero, then how many times the informationization is magnified, the combat effectiveness is still zero. For example, even if you can rely on information superiority to find the enemy in time, it is futile if you can't reach and fight with it. The us military's mechanized conventional combat power is already very strong. Of course, it is enough to pay attention to informatization. However, the conventional combat power of our army's mechanization is still low, and the multiplication effect of informationization alone is not obvious. Therefore, both ends of the multiplication symbol must develop at the same time, so as to maximize the power of information warfare. Therefore, our army must be both mechanized and informationized, and walk on two legs. This is not only the helplessness of our army's weak mechanization level, but also the inevitable requirement that informatization itself should be supported by a strong hardware platform.
No army is invincible, it can only lead temporarily. Although the US military seems invincible, it is because it has not met an opponent with strong mechanization and informationization, and has not fought a symmetrical information war with others, so its weakness or fate has not been exposed. In recent years, the mechanization level of our army has improved rapidly, and there is no obvious generation difference with the United States. If the informatization level of conventional forces is improved and the information warfare capability is developed in the future, such as destroying enemy satellites, developing electromagnetic pulse bombs, and improving the electronic countermeasures capability, once the US military, which is highly dependent on informatization support, loses this information support, it will fall into chaos and the invincible myth will be broken. I sat in an air-conditioned room, facing the laser holographic multimedia display and control platform, snapping my fingers, and the clone soldiers killed the enemy and wiped out all suspicious targets on the route. If you like, you can also directly control a clone soldier through the chip and play a CS game. I'm not the one who died anyway ... Hey, hey, what is information warfare? Not flying is to use reconnaissance means such as satellites and planes to collect intelligence, instead of artificial intelligence in the past, such as replacing scouts or spies in the past to collect intelligence, and then communication means. Wired phones used to be wireless. The Gulf War is no different from the Korean War and Vietnam War, except that Iraq's strength is too weak. Why do you say that? First, in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the United Nations forces fought against China and the Soviet Union with a military strength of 50% to 80%. In the Gulf War, United Nations troops fought against a small Iraq, which could be leveled with shotguns and explosives without using planes and tanks. Second, the tactics of the Gulf War, like the Korean War, are to seize air superiority first. The United States invested 1700 combat aircraft in the Korean battlefield. More than 3000 combat aircraft 10000 were put into operation in Vietnam battlefield. On the Korean battlefield, China and the Soviet Union put in as many combat planes as the United States, with better performance. The blue MIG 65,438+05 is better than the American one, and only a few F-86s can compete with MIG 65,438+05. F-84 and F- 102 are no match for MIG 15, so after several big air battles, the MIG corridor from Yalu River to Pyongyang was formed and the air superiority in this area was seized. The American plane didn't dare to come, and it didn't come back. Later, there were only 100 planes left in the United States, which did not give much support to the army. Moreover, the Soviet Air Force could not support the frontline operations of the volunteers, and neither side could seize the air superiority of the other. Later declassified, on the Korean battlefield, American planes were shot down by the Soviet Air Force 1097, 222 by anti-aircraft fire and 332 by the China Air Force. The same is true in Vietnam, where China sent anti-aircraft artillery units and engineers to defend the rear area of North Vietnam. The performance of MIG -2 1 aided by the Soviet Union is better than that of F-4/ 105/ 105, and the Soviet Union assisted a large number of surface-to-air missiles. The United States not only failed to seize air superiority, but also lost more than 8,000 fighter planes. The Gulf War is different. The multinational force dispatched 1300 fighters and 150 helicopters. There are more than 4000 tanks and armored vehicles. The multinational forces still use the old methods of fighting in the battlefields of Korea and Vietnam to seize the air superiority first. With those Iraqi fighters, that is, the rivals of American fighters, the multinational forces seized the air superiority without fighting a few battles. The Iraqi army was completely exposed to the attack of 1300 American fighter planes and 1500 helicopters. How can we be invincible One of the most famous is that more than 2,800 Iraqi tanks were bombed by American warplanes and helicopters on their way back, and all of them were reimbursed, which is called "the road to death". The essence of modern war is that whoever seizes the air superiority will win the war. Russia fought a typical information war during the Second Chechen War. Russia's A-50 early warning aircraft intercepted a continuously transmitted radio signal. The early warning aircraft transmits the radio signal to the reconnaissance satellite for positioning, and the satellite returns the positioning and locking information to the early warning aircraft. The early warning aircraft transmitted the information to a standby Su -25 attack aircraft. Su -25 launched two air-to-surface missiles according to the target locked by the satellite, destroying the village that transmitted the radio signal. It was later confirmed that it was Chechen President dudayev who transmitted the radio signal. I was killed by a missile when I was communicating with various units on my mobile phone. It took less than a few minutes from the discovery of the radio signal to the hunting of the target. This is the so-called information warfare. How long does it take for human investigation, confirmation, pursuit and killing? And there is still the possibility of escape or rescue. I also agree with upstairs that the Russian assassination of Chechen President dudayev was a beautiful information decapitation. Why did the United States fail to behead Saddam Hussein and bin Laden hundreds of times? The mystery was solved by consulting the information. It turns out that the early warning aircraft in the United States, including the E-3C "Watchtower", do not enjoy the function of information networking with satellites like the A-50 early warning aircraft, so it is impossible to capture the whereabouts of Saddam and bin Laden with the help of air and space information like Russia and lock their headquarters or hiding places. Therefore, if the United States wants to fight a real high-tech information war like Russia, it needs to upgrade its information equipment and information system. The Gulf War is no different from traditional wars or even World War II. First, air combat, seizing air superiority, then aircraft bombing, and then ground troops attacking. The difference is that the air forces of the Axis and the Allies are evenly matched, and no one can win the air superiority, so they can only fight in air. In the Gulf War, the air strength of the multinational force was far from that of the Iraqi air force, and it was completely controlled by the multinational force without a big air battle. The Iraqi air force has no strength to fight back, and its troops are ravaged by American planes. The tactics and tactics of the United States in the Gulf War are exactly the same as Germany's attack on Britain and the Soviet Union in the British air war, and there are also similarities with the Korean War and the Vietnam War. We didn't see any new moves, but we didn't meet our opponents easily, which has nothing to do with tactics. If the multinational forces adopt the tactics and tactics like the Gulf War and fight Russia with comparable strength, the result will be absolutely different and may be disastrous. I wonder if the US military has ever used information warfare in Afghanistan? If you describe it, it is a failure. According to reports, before the US military entered Afghanistan last year, Soviet veterans were specially invited to teach tactical tactics such as reconnaissance and targeted strikes. Reconnaissance and fixed-point strike are the core contents of using information warfare means. Such as reconnaissance satellites, electronic reconnaissance planes, drones, etc. It is used to collect intelligence of the other side and military targets, not to collect intelligence manually. Fixed-point strikes include decapitation and surgical strikes. Targeted attacks are based on timely and accurate information. The U.S. military also demanded that veterans of the former Soviet Union be taught such tactical tactics, explaining that the previous tactical tactics or information warfare of the U.S. military in Afghanistan were useless at all, and it was not allowed to adopt only the tactical tactics of the former Soviet Union. The US military is at its wit's end on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the United States began to attack Iraq, it took more than 10 days to be captured by a division garrison in an Iraqi city, and more than 330 people were killed. Later, fearing confrontation with the Iraqi regular army and national guard, he paid a huge sum of money to buy off the chief of staff of the Iraqi army and dissolved them. The United States only occupied Iraq when there was no resistance. To put it bluntly, American silver defeated the Iraqi army. However, the United States has not solved the Iraq problem. In recent years, under the attack of the Iraqi people, the US military has killed 4,400 people and lost more than 80 helicopters, nearly 100 tanks and various military vehicles. At the beginning of the war, an F-65,438+05e was shot down over Baghdad. So far, the war damage consumption has reached more than 700 billion US dollars. On the battlefield in Afghanistan, multinational forces were killed 1300 people, including more than 800 American troops, lost more than 30 helicopters and hundreds of military vehicles, and the war loss reached 300 billion US dollars. There is no sign of winning yet, so we have to ask veterans of the former Soviet Union to teach us tactical tactics. However, the U.S. military failed to learn the essence of the tactics and tactics of the former Soviet Union and could not get a true biography. The battlefield situation in Afghanistan has not fundamentally improved, and it has also suffered defeat. Flash Point Operation+Battlefield 2, tactical operation is supported by UAV reconnaissance, and C4I system reaches tactical units at squad level. Individual combat system can share information and transmit and process it quickly, that is, air force or artillery support can support the front line of the battlefield quickly and accurately, and the front-line combat headquarters can grasp the information of its own combat strength and reserve energy, and investigate and obtain part of the enemy's information, and report the relevant information to the superior headquarters in time to help the general staff make correct actions in line with the battlefield situation.
As for the operational tasks at the level of strategic action, information hardware+software+people who can adapt to information thinking and general staff officers ~ ~ What the specific "information warfare" is like can only be understood through the TV series "Big Food". Say something casually.
Mechanization: the mobility of troops on the battlefield will undergo qualitative changes. The United States is developing a strategy of air control over land (sea). In the future war, the protagonist will be the Air Force, and the ground troops will gradually become vassals of the Air Force.
Informatization: Information, as its name implies, is intelligence. The information war emphasizes to occupy the intelligence advantage first, strive for victory on the intelligence battlefield, and then carry out the final fire attack. (The information is relatively narrow, and it should cover all stages of information collection, analysis, decision-making, and instruction issuance before fire attack. )
The relationship between mechanization and informatization is complementary and cannot be neglected. At present, China's mechanization level is very low, but it can be used for national defense. Defense, after all, belongs to interior operations, and the requirements for mobility are not very high. The informationization level of China's army will be tested by the war, but personally, it should not be much lower than that of the United States.
If China is on the defensive against the United States, the United States will have no obvious advantage in information warfare. The victory or defeat of the United States and China will depend on the purpose of the war. The United States must have the determination to fight back against China before liberation, otherwise it will always pursue precision strikes in information warfare, and the United States will be dragged down by China.