AirLand battle concept

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
US General Bernard W. Rogers in 1983
M1 Abrams tank of the 1st Armored Division / V US Corps
Combat exercise by the US armored forces
Precision ammunition for mortars
Precision ammunition for self-propelled howitzers

The AirLand-Battle-Concept ( German  air-land-battle ), or AirLand-Battle-Doctrine (ALB), was developed by the armed forces of the United States and formed the strategic framework from 1982 to 1990 as a kind of umbrella concept for a possible warfare of NATO in Central Europe . The basis of this doctrine was close coordination between the land and air forces, which, according to the Follow-on-Forces-Attack (FOFA) concept, should primarily fight the attacker's second squadron in the depths of the space, which is the supply for the first squadron ensured. US General Bernard W. Rogers , who has often been associated with the Airland Battle concept, was in charge of the FOFA doctrine (fighting the enemy up to 140 km in the hinterland) and the strikes at depth (Deep Strike). Both the ALB and the Rogers Plan had an aggressive offensive component in order to increase NATO's options for action. The AirLand Battle concept replaced its predecessor “Active Defense” doctrine in 1976 and was in turn replaced by “Full Spectrum Operations”.

history

The AirLand Battle Concept (ALB) developed by the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) under the impact of the Vietnam War was first established in the United States Army in the Field Manual FM 100-5 (Operations) in August 1982 and later for “AirLand Battle Concept 2000”, which was then valid for the period 1995 to 2015, was further developed. The main theater of war for this concept was Central Europe . Through the ALB, conventional warfare was again viewed as an independent instrument and not just as a preliminary stage of the escalation to a global nuclear war . The AirLand Battle concept went beyond the requirement to repel a possible attack by the Warsaw Pact , but to win an armed conflict through one's own initiative. The starting point for these considerations was the high quantitative superiority of the Warsaw Pact in terms of personnel and weapon systems, and that the “Active Defense” doctrine could not prevent a “ blitzkrieg ” from the enemy. Despite this inferiority, an armed conflict with the Warsaw Pact could be won due to higher quality weapons systems and electronic weapons. In this new approach, terms such as “extended battlefield” into the depths of enemy territory, as well as “integrated battlefield” for the use of new types of chemical and electronic weapons and weapon systems appeared. The ALB was documented in the FM 100-5, the US Field Manual, which complied with the German Army Service Regulations (HDv 100/100 leadership in combat). A further development of AirLand Battle was the AirSea Battle concept, which was further developed in the face of the threat to the Navy of the People's Republic of China .

principle

Delimitation lines FEBA and FLOT
AirLand Battle. Delimitation of the battlefield into rear operations zone, main battle zone, delay zone and deep operations zone. FEBA: Front Edge of Battle Area, FLOT: Forward Line of Own Troops

An essential principle of the AirLand Battle concept were both mission tactics of the troop leaders, the tactical movements of their own troops and, above all, the conduct of counter attacks, with the intention of crushing the enemy with lasting effect. The primary goal was to stop the advance of Soviet tank armies into Western Europe by stopping the first wave of attacks and preventing their supply to the front. The attack of NATO is to be worn with force mainly in the hinterland of the enemy ( "Deep Strike") to our own troops on the front of "Front edge of the battle (VRV)" ( English Front Edge of Battle Area (FEBA) to relieve). For these considerations, the battlefield and the scope of action of NATO have been considerably expanded. The destruction of the Warsaw Pact's reserves would lead to a leveling of the forces at the front, and thus to an increased chance of winning the battle. Through the ALB concept, NATO gained a great deal of warfare ability, in contrast to the war avoidance strategy pursued in the past, or defense of its own territory ( forward defense ), against a numerically far superior enemy.

Extended battlefield

F-111 as the main carrier of strategic air strikes
F-111 fighter-bomber releases Mark-82 bombs

The AirLand battle concept takes place at the corps level. The individual battle strips of the divisions are in the “Rear Battle Area”, “Close Battle Area” (brigade / battalion battle strip, the actual battle area between own and enemy troops), “Deep Battle Area” (upstream zone, before the VRV), the security line and the "Forward Line of Own Troops (FLOT)" and the "Strategic Area" (hinterland of enemy territory). With the exception of the Strategic Area, the three zones are the responsibility of the Army and the United States Air Force (USAF). With the ALB, the isolation strategy means premature strikes ("battle in the depths") against infrastructure and supplies of the enemy in the second season ( English echelon ), even before the actual fight with the first season has started. These strikes can be carried out by short- and medium-range missiles (e.g. Pershing II or cruise missiles ), either with conventional or nuclear warheads, or by the Air Force. The v. a. on the pressure and radiation effect of atomic explosives, which should destroy the enemy forces. The use of nuclear weapons, however, would have required the US President's clearance before the start of the fighting, if possible. The second season of the WAPA had the task of completely replacing combat troops worn out at the front as required and played a major role in their planning. The ALB offensive is primarily aimed at key objects of the opponent that are up to 300 km deep in their territory. High-value targets for air strikes are primarily understood to mean command and control posts (command posts), supply facilities (e.g. fuel supply) and nuclear launching devices. By targeted strikes against the second squadron and its facilities, the masses of ROT troops are suppressed, its offensive threatens to collapse and, in addition, the operational prerequisites are created to carry out your own counter-attacks on the ground.

Integrated battlefield

The battle on the integrated battlefield is to be fought according to the ALB's approach with newly developed chemical, nuclear and electronic weapons systems and ordnance. In many areas, the US has a technological edge over the Soviet Union . Among the new weapons technologies, among other early warning systems as part Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and precision-guided munitions ( English Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) ) with greatly improved accuracy. Furthermore, further technical developments for computer-aided data processing, data transmission, system control, electronic reconnaissance and new types of target acquisition devices that allow operation in real time. One of the associations in which the latest combat system technologies were tested or used was primarily the 9th US Infantry Division ("Old Reliables") from Fort Lewis , which in the V case was called the "NATO Fire Brigade." “Would probably be used in LANDJUT's area of ​​responsibility. The 9th US Infantry Division was at the end of the 1980s "High Technology Test Bed (HTTB)", was reclassified to a "High Technology Light Division (HTLD)" and at the end to a "High Technology Motorized Division (HTMD)" three motorized brigades and one cavalry / airborne brigade.

Reception and criticism

According to some military officials, the AirLand Battle concept would make an armed conflict in Central Europe much more likely. In the opinion of many American officers in particular, more offensive warfare would manifest the belief in a victory over the Soviet Union . This was expressed primarily through terms such as “keep initiative”, “strike deeply” and “react faster than the enemy”. According to the ALB doctrine, a US tank brigade would not only destroy an association of the Warsaw Pact, but then pursue it, pursue retreating enemy sections and directly destroy their deployment area on the territory of the GDR or the ČSSR . In this thrust weaker enemy formations would fight, but stronger tactically bypassed to avoid a lossy meeting engagement and attack swing of the "surge into the deep" ( English deep attack not to reduce).

DSACEUR General Hans-Joachim Mack saw conventional weapons systems as the weakest link in the NATO triad (conventional weapons, nuclear short- and medium-range missiles, as well as nuclear long-range missiles / ICBMs), both in terms of their equipment and their durability. In the context of a flexible defense, counter-attacks are, in his opinion, "an indispensable element for maintaining or regaining freedom of action". However, this would not include “a strategic offensive beyond the borders” and, in his opinion, would not be anchored in the ALB concept. But the "sealing off of the battlefield" and the fight against enemy reserves and reinforcement forces. According to Mack, the second season of the WAPA must be fought in three stages:

  1. Effective use of own associations by preventing the 2nd season from being brought up by locking them down. This includes a "rapid availability of reconnaissance and target location equipment for airborne weapon systems with the appropriate penetration capability"
  2. Use of modern weapon systems such as homing ammunition, stand-off weapons and conventional rocket ammunition
  3. Use of modern weapon systems for tracking down and fighting hidden and moving targets

General John W. Woodmansee, commander of the 2nd US Armored Division, compared the AirLand Battle concept with the lightning wars of the Wehrmacht at the time, based on the interaction between the air force and ground troops : 1940 against France and 1941 against the USSR. In his view, like the Blitzkrieg, ALB would "paralyze and defeat a numerically superior force by the rapid and surgical use of movement and firepower". General Otis even understood ALB "as an attack of a war of movement, which must not be confused with counter-attacks or mobile defense". At the United States Army War College in Carlisle , Pennsylvania , the view was expressed that the armed forces of the German Armed Forces, “in terms of equipment and armament, are already better suited for offensive combat than the US Army may ever be”. However, according to the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr , Wolfgang Altenburg , there is “no plan by NATO to react across borders”. In the opinion of the SPD MP Hermann Scheer , ALB would be synonymous with "an aggressive concept that turns the forward defense into a forward defense". In July 1984, members of the Greens asked the Bundestag critical questions about the AirLand Battle.

literature

Web links

Notes and individual references

  1. ↑ Kurt Becker: How offensive can defense be? In: The time . November 23, 1984. Retrieved April 22, 2017 .
  2. ↑ Bernard W. Rogers , not to be confused with the Rogers Plan of 1969. NATO's Rogers Plan dates from 1982 and also emphasizes the fight against the 2nd season of the Warsaw Pact
  3. ^ A b c Douglas W. Skinner: AirLand Battle Doctrin , Center for Naval Analyzes , Alexandria, Virginia, September 1988
  4. ↑ a b Markus Becker: Power struggle in the Pacific. China's gun show provokes Pentagon strategists. In: Spiegel Online . January 6, 2011, accessed April 19, 2017 .
  5. ^ CSI Report, Sixty Years of Reorganizing for Combat: A Historical Trend Analysis. (PDF) In: Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College , Fort Leavenworth , Kansas. December 1999, accessed April 22, 2017 .
  6. ↑ a b c d e f g h Wilhelm Bittorf : Blessed like Hitler . In: Der Spiegel . No.  20 , 1985 ( online - SPIEGEL author Wilhelm Bittorf on the “AirLand Battle” in the minds of American officers).
  7. ↑ Deputy SACEUR, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO Deputy Commander in Chief
  8. ↑ a b c d e f g h Romain Leick, Siegesmund von Ilsemann: "We can withstand an attack" . In: Der Spiegel . No. 41 , 1984 ( online - The Deputy Commander in Chief of NATO in Europe, General Hans-Joachim Mack , on his new role).
  9. ↑ Aggressive concept . In: Der Spiegel . No.  34 , 1983 ( online ).
  10. ↑ Jürgen Reents , Antje Vollmer , Waltraud Schoppe : Small question from the Greens in the Bundestag on the topic of Air Land Battle and Air Land Battle 2000. (PDF; 225 kB) In: German Bundestag . 10th legislative term. June 2, 1984. Retrieved April 22, 2017 .