BattleMaster Community
Community => General Talk => Topic started by: Gustav Kuriga on December 19, 2012, 03:19:57 AM
-
Just to point out a point where individual victories in battle matter less than the overall picture, one needs to only look at the American Civil War.
-
Just to point out a point where individual victories in battle matter less than the overall picture, one needs to only look at the American Civil War.
Which war also demonstrates that casualties and soldiers lost in battle don't matter: your ability to replace losses is what matters.
-
Or you could say that even against superior forces, good generalling is what matters.
-
Or you could say that even against superior forces, good generalling is what matters.
Um.
The south lost.
What matters is superior forces.
-
If superior forces are what matters then why'd America lose in Vietnam? Common sense tells me it's a combination of many factors varying from scenario to scenario that determines the outcomes of wars.
In the Marrocidenian War's case I'd predict a stalemate. Terran is unable to mount an offensive by itself and I'd reckon that most of her allies couldn't sustain a campaign far enough South to hit Aurvandil's core. Aurvandil for it's part can only raid the Southern portions of Terran due to logistics and the fact that there are a couple of fortesses blocking off the Northern 2/3rds.
Victories in this war matter insofar as that it's fun to win battles and unfun to lose them.
-
If superior forces are what matters then why'd America lose in Vietnam? Common sense tells me it's a combination of many factors varying from scenario to scenario that determines the outcomes of wars.
Technically America didn't "lose" anything, military-wise. The Tet Offensive wiped out the vietcong, and the NVA was in tatters as well. Unfortunately, this is where civilians began protesting the war, leading to a situation where a military victory strategically was turned into a defeat morale-wise by the sensationalist media and the counter-culture movement. This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.
-
Technically America didn't "lose" anything, military-wise. The Tet Offensive wiped out the vietcong, and the NVA was in tatters as well. Unfortunately, this is where civilians began protesting the war, leading to a situation where a military victory strategically was turned into a defeat morale-wise by the sensationalist media and the counter-culture movement. This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.
Dictatorship FTW?
-
If you honestly can't tell the difference with letting military men make military decisions during times of war, and having them in complete control of a country during peacetime, I'm not going to even bother. Please read with a brain in your head from now on, what I say usually isn't quantum mechanics in difficulty to comprehend.
-
If you honestly can't tell the difference with letting military men make military decisions during times of war, and having them in complete control of a country during peacetime, I'm not going to even bother. Please read with a brain in your head from now on, what I say usually isn't quantum mechanics in difficulty to comprehend.
Do you not see a problem with giving the military full control during war time, while not even giving the civilians the choice of when to go to war or not, when to stop war or not? There are no referendums to start a war. People really don't have a say in them.
Military victory is not primordial.
I'm with Zaki on this one. Democracy isn't something you do part-time.
-
If you honestly can't tell the difference with letting military men make military decisions during times of war, and having them in complete control of a country during peacetime, I'm not going to even bother. Please read with a brain in your head from now on, what I say usually isn't quantum mechanics in difficulty to comprehend.
Military takes military decisions, BUT they MUST be ALWAYS in complete control under the civil government. Churchill and Roosevelt... not Montgomery nor Patton.
-
Because civilians are SUCH capable people when it comes to military decisions. I won't bother citing the mountain of examples, but in war time, let the warriors do the thinking. Its what we get paid to do. I agree though, peace time decisions should be made by those who haven't ever left its comforts.
-
Do you not see a problem with giving the military full control during war time, while not even giving the civilians the choice of when to go to war or not, when to stop war or not? There are no referendums to start a war. People really don't have a say in them.
Military victory is not primordial.
I'm with Zaki on this one. Democracy isn't something you do part-time.
it isn't something you should do at all... its utterly retarded
Because civilians are SUCH capable people when it comes to military decisions. I won't bother citing the mountain of examples, but in war time, let the warriors do the thinking. Its what we get paid to do. I agree though, peace time decisions should be made by those who haven't ever left its comforts.
Also this
-
This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.
The American President is both a civilian and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Also, Sun Tzu was as sincere in his writings as Machiavelli; he was anti-war, and his teachings were meant to lead armies to victory with a minimum of actual battle.
-
Technically America didn't "lose" anything, military-wise. The Tet Offensive wiped out the vietcong, and the NVA was in tatters as well. Unfortunately, this is where civilians began protesting the war, leading to a situation where a military victory strategically was turned into a defeat morale-wise by the sensationalist media and the counter-culture movement. This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.
Correction: people were protesting the war beforehand too. The Tet Offensive served to increase disillusionment in the American government, because previously the American government had made claims that the NVA was incapable of mounting such an operation.
-
Because civilians are SUCH capable people when it comes to military decisions. I won't bother citing the mountain of examples, but in war time, let the warriors do the thinking. Its what we get paid to do. I agree though, peace time decisions should be made by those who haven't ever left its comforts.
Soldiers are paid to obey, not think.
Generals are obsessed with victory.
No, no thank you. Power should never ever be given to the military.
You say that were it not for the civilians, the US army would have defeated the Viet Cong and NVA? Who the hell cares about victory or defeat? What made that war justified to begin with? What hurt Vietnam wasn't the civil war or the government that followed, it was the invading armies with their abusive use of chemicals like Agent Orange. For military leaders, it totally makes sense to dump a ton of herbicides to remove the hideouts of the rebels. The soviets did it too, they cut down all the trees in Afghanistan. Totally makes sense when all you care about is killing the "enemy".
-
Do you not see a problem with giving the military full control during war time, while not even giving the civilians the choice of when to go to war or not, when to stop war or not? There are no referendums to start a war. People really don't have a say in them.
Military victory is not primordial.
I'm with Zaki on this one. Democracy isn't something you do part-time.
Did you not read what I said about letting the civilian government decide when to go to war? You're so worked up by me talking about military having control of strategies and objectives that you believe I'm saying they should decide when to go to war or when to end a war. I never said that. And democracy does have to take a back seat sometimes, if the situation warrants it. Do you really think the US was democratic at all during WWII? !@#$ no. Anyone who spoke out against the war was probably jailed.
As for civilian heads of government controlling the military, we only have to look at the African campaign of WWII to see what happens as a result. The British army denuded of troops when they were about to push the Axis altogether following Operation Compass. Multiple changes in leadership that possibly lengthened the time the campaign in Africa took. Yes they eventually got Montgomery in, but one could say that he was fighting Rommel when his Africa Korps. was at its weakest. Personally, I think Ancient Rome (the republic, not the eventual empire) had the best system for wartime. Someone who was selected to fight the war for its duration. Yes, the position was called dictator, but it is not the same as the modern use of the word.
-
Soldiers are paid to obey, not think.
Generals are obsessed with victory.
No, no thank you. Power should never ever be given to the military.
You say that were it not for the civilians, the US army would have defeated the Viet Cong and NVA? Who the hell cares about victory or defeat? What made that war justified to begin with? What hurt Vietnam wasn't the civil war or the government that followed, it was the invading armies with their abusive use of chemicals like Agent Orange. For military leaders, it totally makes sense to dump a ton of herbicides to remove the hideouts of the rebels. The soviets did it too, they cut down all the trees in Afghanistan. Totally makes sense when all you care about is killing the "enemy".
A quick, decisive victory, with a minimal amount of civillian collateral damage is FAR less damaging than a prolonged war where the military who sees the REALITY on the ground as opposed to some spoiled college brat who has never set foot on foreign soil watching on CNN from thousands of miles away. When you start to question the men on the ground, people die. I've seen it time and time again. 1993, Somalia. Rather than give the troops on the ground armor and proper air support, the Ranger/Delta detachment didn't even get doors on their HUMVEEs until the day of the Battle of the Black Sea (more commonly known as Black Hawk Down). That was because the one person who could have approved it didn't think it was best that the most elite special operations forces in the world being sent into the middle of hostile territory to hunt down a wanted war criminal guilty of genocide and starving his own people to portray a military presence. Agent Orange is a form of chemical warfare, and only the Commander in Chief can approve such a thing. Guess who approved it? Yep, that civilian who put us in Vietnam in the first place (not the military). The military doesn't start wars, we just bleed for the idiots who get put into power who start them. If a military man was in control, you'd see fewer wars.
Also, DON'T EVER presume that we are paid to follow orders like mindless robots and not think. If it weren't for the thinking soldier on the battlefield, we could all be goose stepping right now. Don't ever, ever presume !@#$ like that. You haven't been there, and those are fighting words.
Those who have been to war are the least eager to return. If you look at modern history and the wars started, its because some pinhead civilian thought it would be a good idea, the majority of the time. The military doesn't pick our fights, we just bleed for those who did.
-
Um.
The south lost.
What matters is superior forces.
The north was losing until they had a put a compitent general in place. They were losing to a less advanced numerically inferior, factional force. Gettysburg and Grant saved the union as we know it.
Also: Alexander at Issus.
The german defeat in their russian campaign in WW2. (the russians had superior numbers obviously, but they didnt even have enough weapons to equip there men.) (this is an example of bad strategy by german command.)
-
The north was losing until they had a put a compitent general in place. They were losing to a less advanced numerically inferior, factional force. Gettysburg and Grant saved the union as we know it.
Also: Alexander at Issus.
The german defeat in their russian campaign in WW2. (the russians had superior numbers obviously, but they didnt even have enough weapons to equip there men.) (this is an example of bad strategy by german command.)
Not to mention the Romanian forces holding the Northern flank broke due to poor leadership, which essentially handed Russia the victory. Then Hitler's stand or die orders, stifling his generals, did a lot to ruin the military. The German forces in the 1940s were arguably better at counter attacking than attacking.
-
Did you not read what I said about letting the civilian government decide when to go to war? You're so worked up by me talking about military having control of strategies and objectives that you believe I'm saying they should decide when to go to war or when to end a war. I never said that. And democracy does have to take a back seat sometimes, if the situation warrants it. Do you really think the US was democratic at all during WWII? !@#$ no. Anyone who spoke out against the war was probably jailed.
As for civilian heads of government controlling the military, we only have to look at the African campaign of WWII to see what happens as a result. The British army denuded of troops when they were about to push the Axis altogether following Operation Compass. Multiple changes in leadership that possibly lengthened the time the campaign in Africa took. Yes they eventually got Montgomery in, but one could say that he was fighting Rommel when his Africa Korps. was at its weakest. Personally, I think Ancient Rome (the republic, not the eventual empire) had the best system for wartime. Someone who was selected to fight the war for its duration. Yes, the position was called dictator, but it is not the same as the modern use of the word.
Do I think the US was democratic during WWII? How does the US doing something make it in any way right, legitimate, or acceptable? The fact that others did the same, such as Canada, changes nothing to this.
A quick, decisive victory, with a minimal amount of civillian collateral damage is FAR less damaging than a prolonged war where the military who sees the REALITY on the ground as opposed to some spoiled college brat who has never set foot on foreign soil watching on CNN from thousands of miles away. When you start to question the men on the ground, people die. I've seen it time and time again. 1993, Somalia. Rather than give the troops on the ground armor and proper air support, the Ranger/Delta detachment didn't even get doors on their HUMVEEs until the day of the Battle of the Black Sea (more commonly known as Black Hawk Down). That was because the one person who could have approved it didn't think it was best that the most elite special operations forces in the world being sent into the middle of hostile territory to hunt down a wanted war criminal guilty of genocide and starving his own people to portray a military presence. Agent Orange is a form of chemical warfare, and only the Commander in Chief can approve such a thing. Guess who approved it? Yep, that civilian who put us in Vietnam in the first place (not the military). The military doesn't start wars, we just bleed for the idiots who get put into power who start them. If a military man was in control, you'd see fewer wars.
Also, DON'T EVER presume that we are paid to follow orders like mindless robots and not think. If it weren't for the thinking soldier on the battlefield, we could all be goose stepping right now. Don't ever, ever presume !@#$ like that. You haven't been there, and those are fighting words.
Those who have been to war are the least eager to return. If you look at modern history and the wars started, its because some pinhead civilian thought it would be a good idea, the majority of the time. The military doesn't pick our fights, we just bleed for those who did.
I never said in any way that I approve of a government, elected or not, being able to unilaterally engage the entire country in war.
As for military men being in control, that's a funny thing you say there. Because from where I stand, a ton of violent dictatorships are precisely that: military putsches where the generals in charge repress their own citizen to maintain control. Or are you going to tell me that Pinochet and Péron, just to name two, were swell lads that'd you love to have tea with? Heck, even in the example that you gave: Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a Somalian general.
-
Do I think the US was democratic during WWII? How does the US doing something make it in any way right, legitimate, or acceptable? The fact that others did the same, such as Canada, changes nothing to this.
I never said in any way that I approve of a government, elected or not, being able to unilaterally engage the entire country in war.
As for military men being in control, that's a funny thing you say there. Because from where I stand, a ton of violent dictatorships are precisely that: military putsches where the generals in charge repress their own citizen to maintain control. Or are you going to tell me that Pinochet and Péron, just to name two, were swell lads that'd you love to have tea with? Heck, even in the example that you gave: Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a Somalian general.
The US, never has been, and never will be a Democracy. We are a Republic. For starters.
Now, the issues you have brought up:
Military men from civilizied countries where politicians do not hold military rank is ideal, however, when the kid gloves come off and its wartime, step back and let the people trained to do it handle their business. That being said, many, many countries, especially Africa, and any two bit military dictatorship you can think of have zero separation of government and military and any two bit worthless politician can call himself a General. No actual army of a civilized nation recognized Mohamad Farah Aidid as a General, and he does not meet the requirements of being an actual General. To be a General Officer for starters, you need to have a nation and a government that appointed you the comission. Aidid was from SOMALIA, that place that hasn't had a functioning government for longer than I've been alive, you know? Really, Africa has no place in this debate. The vast majority of that continent is not even close to being considered civil society. Frankly, you make a case for my argument. Let the military do their thing, and let the politicians do theirs. Those of us who have been to war don't want to return unless the need is dire. When the need arises, we will rise to the occasion. Don't accuse us of wanting it. The military dictators you point out fall into two categories: Officers who have never seen a real day's fighting, never lost friends, never been in the dust and the dirt and the grime, shed sweat and blood and tears. Or number two, they are sociopaths, and frankly don't care.
Peron was quite popular among many circles. Will of the masses you know. He was ELECTED after all.
Pinochet was an officer who never set foot on a battlefield. Fancy uniforms and officer schools don't make a soldier. He also ended up handing control over to a democratically elected government in 1990.
-
The north was losing until they had a put a compitent general in place. They were losing to a less advanced numerically inferior, factional force. Gettysburg and Grant saved the union as we know it.
The Union was never losing, only at risk of losing. The odds were on their side the whole time.
The german defeat in their russian campaign in WW2. (the russians had superior numbers obviously, but they didnt even have enough weapons to equip there men.) (this is an example of bad strategy by german command.)
Not true for WW1 and definitely not true for WW2. If soldiers ever lacked for weapons it was due to logistical problems in getting the weapons to them NOT because they didn't have enough weapons to begin with.
USSR had superior manufacturing capabilities as well major support from USA. They also had superior numbers and as the war progressed the technological edge of either powers' armaments swung back and forth, always in contention. One thing that remained stable though is that German engineering tended towards more extravagant weaponry and that's what's earned them the myth that they totally had the Soviets outclassed techwise. Soviet weaponry for it's part was robust, easy to repair and easy to manufacture.