|
|
Enemy at the Vanni`s Gates
Full News Article
Shakti
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3757
Member Profile
|
 11 Feb 2008 03:08:17 GMT Report for Abuse
|
This is a sensible response from a sensible Tamil.
Sri
The'weather and lack of supplies defeated the Germans.
The SLA has continuous supply from the south. The weather is not extreme. On the contrary the tigers have lost the shoreline and their supplies are limited. Just pointing out the differences:))
I can add one more. Soviets did win the battle for Stalingrad, but for a cost. Do you have any idea how many millions they lost in the battle?
. |
Sritharan
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4249
Member Profile
|
11 Feb 2008 03:32:04 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shakti,
Soviets disproportionately had lost lives in Second World War, especially in the Battle of Stalingrad. The main reason, at initial stage of the War, for Soviets sustained such a heavy losses was due to its inferior weaponry and under-preparation.
At the end of war, Soviets had adopted the strategy, like United States, of quantity in weaponry rather than quality. Germany had superior and more complex weaponry systems. Germans had a such hard time for a mass production due to her (his) limited resources.
|
Spetsnaz1
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 88
Member Profile
|
11 Feb 2008 04:36:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
The snipers role has always been limited, but when called for there is no better weapon, the sniper is the general's scalpel as some have termed it. Besides the sniper's cover and concealment expertise gives them more scope than just reaching out and touching someone, they also server as important recce units.
I partially disagree with this statement, for the whole fact of that, the sniper cannot do maximum damage to an enemy. Especially when there are so many modern weapons available in any war zone in the world currently. A true Generals scalpel should be a mix of everything. Not one infantry unit. When given the opportunity to use his or her full power a general should use a mix of everything what he has in order to defeat the enemy. Also when it comes to recon, in the modern war zone where countries use satellites and UAV s, dependence of getting sniper recon is a 4th party confirmation. They were useful in World War II and wars before that and little bit further ahead maybe till the late 70 s. But now as I have stated before the tide of war has changed. Snipers do take part in battle but depending on them to win the war is a obsolete technique.
|
Shankaran
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 94
Member Profile
|
11 Feb 2008 14:46:48 GMT Report for Abuse
|
The SLA strategy in Wanni front is based on 2 ideas,
1. minimize own casulaties using small groups
2. Maximise enemy casualties by broad and depth barrages
To counter this tigers have to
1. use few number of personnel per unit are
2. fortified defences
3. Avoid close encounters
4. streched defences since small groups can come from anywhere
5. Demoralize the groups and compell them to Jayasikuru ops
snipers fit for above all 5
Edited By - Shankaran - 11 Feb 2008 14:49:03 GMT |
Revy
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 11816
Member Profile
|
 18 Feb 2008 05:35:49 GMT Report for Abuse
|
A true Generals scalpel should be a mix of everything.
I think you are missing the point a scalpel is a precision instrument, used for specific goals, that is why the sniper is called such in some circles.
Of course a general has to use all tools available to them, but I am just pointing out that your contention that snipers are no longer relevant is not correct, they are still very much relevant and useful, when employed properly. |
RealKaruna
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 46
Member Profile
|
 16 Mar 2008 16:41:44 GMT Report for Abuse
|
The SLA strategy in Wanni front is based on 2 ideas,
1. minimize own casulaties using small groups
2. Maximise enemy casualties by broad and depth barrages
This does appear to be SLA strategy. I can't understand it because, by operating in small groups, they appear to be giving up the advantage they have of overwhelming numerical superiority.
One of the main factors which will determine the outcome is 'morale', which is an euphemism for 'willingness to die'. The government and Fonseka appear to have made a mistake by predicting that the war would be over by August 2008. This would have the effect of making the average Sinhala soldier think, 'All I have to do is to survive until August, then I will be safe'. Now the deadline has been extended to August 2009. That also could have a bad effect on the morale of the Sinhala soldier.
There is of course the possibility, rather unlikely, that Fonseka is bluffing, and that he may launch a massive attack in the next month or two. |
|
