Shrinking Battle-Spaces & the Renaissance of Shock

Throughout history, there have been numerous examples of shock tactics, from Alexander the Great to Desert Storm. However, in modern times, shock tactics have undergone significant transformations due to the evolving nature of warfare. 

Today, the aim is still to achieve the same objective: rendering the enemy paralyzed and unable to respond effectively to attacks, thus minimizing casualties and maximizing the ability to achieve campaign objectives. However, the devil is in the details.

Contemporary warfare is rarely decided by close combat with man portable weapons, and when such engagements do occur, they rarely involve running as quickly as possible toward the enemy while screaming your head off. Most armed forces wisely teach their infantry not to do this.

The sheer size of the modern battle-space, resulting from advances in optics and weapon range, has diminished the effectiveness of traditional shock tactics, culminating in their failure during the early and mid stages of World War I. In many cases, soldiers were unable to see the enemy before being engaged and lacked the proximity required to identify important officers or critical defensive positions. Even if a significant number of enemy soldiers were eliminated in a short period, the sheer scale of the armies involved often meant minimal impact on enemy morale and cohesion.

Later in World War I, shock tactics evolved to incorporate stealth and special equipment, exemplified by the famous German storm-troopers and their evolved trench raiding tactics. However, static warfare generally maintained an advantage on the Western front due to deficiencies in intelligence gathering and the accuracy and ammo shortages of artillery in that period.

As technology continued to advance, the emphasis shifted from physical speed to network-centric shock tactics

For instance, in Desert Storm, shock tactics involved extensive intelligence gathering and reconnaissance, followed by pre-planned air, missile, and artillery strikes. These actions were coordinated with high-speed mechanized and airmobile forces, aiming to exploit the degradation of enemy command capacity, organization, logistics, and morale. The objective was to achieve favorable kill ratios and rapidly accomplish campaign goals.

While the battle-space has expanded in physical size, advancements in detection capabilities including drones and satellites, and the ability to mass deploy long range supersonic projectiles with incredible accuracy, have effectively shrunk it. What matters now is the ability to locate the enemy, identify critical weaknesses in their performance, and exert pressure on those weaknesses to degrade their ability to engage friendly forces effectively. This may involve eliminating key enemy personnel, positions, logistics routes, defensive emplacements, equipment, cyber capabilities, targets of propaganda value, and utilizing psychological warfare techniques.

The distinguishing characteristic of shock warfare, as seen in the example of Desert Storm, is its front-loaded and concentrated nature within a short time-frame. Rather than attempting to ration resources and engage in protracted battles, US forces conducted a massive shock and awe campaign, made possible by extensive intelligence gathering and a significant advantage in long-range firepower, maneuverability, and supply lines. Direct attacks on enemy command structures, supply routes, and other crucial performance bottlenecks induced confusion, disorganization, and paralysis among the enemy forces. Those who managed to offer effective resistance found their resupply and relief capabilities hindered, making them vulnerable to being defeated in detail after the initial offensive overwhelmed the majority of Iraqi forces.

Despite being less frequently discussed than the holy trinity of maneuver, firepower, and defense, shock remains a highly relevant factor in modern warfare, experiencing a resurgence in usefulness since the low point of World War I.

As intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, and long-range fire capabilities continue to improve, network-centric shock tactics are likely to become even more significant. The ability to identify and neutralize at range key enemy personnel, supply depots, and headquarters are just a few examples of methods that produce shock and directly benefit from these advancements.

In an ideal scenario, battles would never be fair, and the enemy would never have an opportunity to engage your forces.

That is the essence of shock: To impede the enemy from taking effective action.

Like this article? Support the effort by browsing our online store!

This article originally appeared on my blog and has been lightly edited for publication elsewhere including Medium