| || |
Learning when to fight and when not to.
1) Superior numbers are better. Unless one side has a staggering technological advantage that allows their numbers to be force multiplied (fight like greater numbers).
2) In general, surprise is one of the best ways to win a war.
3) Dictatorships do a better job preparing for war. But the more democratic a nation is it tends to do better as the fighting goes on.
4) Good tactics can save bad strategy but good strategy can't save bad tactics.
5). Tactics are all well and good but almost all wars are decided on logistics. Getting there first with the most.
Something I notice.. a LOT of wars really have some odd quirks. WWI? It had updated tech and outdated strategy. WWII? Japan was done once the US had the sea and skies. Japan had scattered garrisons on islands.. and plan A was ..everyone dies, They had no plan B. Germany......Hitler was a major dumbfuck who made WAY too many enemies. His out of control ego.. doomed Germany.
The USA easily thumped Saddam's military.. but....bad choices by political guys.. led to a long.futile war against hit and run terrorist types. We were outsiders who never understood a thing about the culture.
Isreal vs whatever? Isreal is damn efficient. They..AIM. You need to aim to hit anyone. They don't quit. It's worked well. The LAST war...with Hamas.. Hamas seemed to have a strategy based on getting their OWN people killed. Hamas barely killed ANY Israelis. Isreal.. could have killed as many people as they wanted. Being NASTY... is not a big plus if you are stupid.
you need logistics, supplies. N Korea makes noise.. but without food and fuel.. they can't sustain any assault. You need leadership. Isreal beat superior numbers, several times. Home field advantage sure helps. The Vietnamese only had to be PERSISTANT. They beat the French..and we stepped in as "more outsiders" ... and no matter what.. they never quit. It was not worth it to the US to fight a 10 year war. The US Civil War? The South eventually..was running out of everything. Early.. the North lacked the good generals.. but figured that out. Then...the south had no economy..worthless money. They had an Army that was short on everything.
US Revolution? Sort of like Vietnam. LONG distances and a war of attrition. England.. had other stuff..enemies, other Empire. A few setbacks and the Redcoats were ready to bail.
The Decline+ Fall of the Roman Empire? By the end...Romans were lazy, decadent and expected mercenaries to do the fighting..and slaves to do the work. the quality of leadership? It got UGLY. For awhile Rome bribed potential enemies.. but then that failed.
Napoleon? Pretty clever but... he failed to see his limitations. Like McArthur in Korea.. he wanted MORE.. overestimated himself.. and undersetimated the effects of a brutally cold winter. At least MANY Americans escaped the cold hell of Chosin... almost NONE of Napoleon's once great army escaped Russia,many starved..froze, got clubbed to death by local peasents. Napoleon? He abandoned them and fled.
Murphy's law? Maybe don't invade Russia if you can't handle the winter, can't supply the army? OFTEN.....a war..or major battle.. has a lot to do with logistics..supplies. Don't get over-extended. You want to be aggressive.. but realistic. For Lee.. Gettysburg was a sink or swim. He'd been on a roll, but lost..and that ended the Rebels.
The Nazis took an even more desperate move..the Battle of The Bulge. They had surprise at first. They wanted to punch a hole, blitz to Antwerp and take that important port. The 101 Airborne.. held Bastogne.. a company of Engineers blocked the run to Antwerp...then.. the skies cleared and Allied fighters slammed the Nazis Desperate move but it started well..then failed.
Last edited by Redwood; 29th August 2015 at 07:35 PM.