Military debate - winning wars, winning battles

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't think there was anything unexpected about the outcome of WW2, except some surprisingly dumb decisions by the Germans. And the problem with asymmetric warfare isn't the warfare, it's the political calculations that go into it. Like we try to nation build a country whose culture we know almost nothing about, let alone understand.

[Walsingham]

I think winning wars is like building a house when someone is working against you, whilst at the same time they are trying to build a house which you're trying to impede.

 

Initially and ideally you have a plan and resources, with the amount of available resources you must make the best house possible and that's where the logistics begin. Then comes all the building, setting up a foundation, posts, hammering in the nails. Throughout each section you must make sure that you do your best so that your house holds up and its habitable. 

 

Now you can come up with a particular reason why you won or lost (e.g: making sure that your enemy's foundation was weak so the house crumbled, or that the nails weren't hammered well so everything was wobbly) But you can't come up with a wining strategy since every project is different, it takes an analysis of what the resources are that both parties have available and what the final goal is. Or as Sun Tzu said "The winning army realizes the conditions for victory first, and then fights. The losing army fights first, then seeks victory."

 

 

The problem with modern warfare is that wars are not fought for the benefit of the state and that the state seeks not the benefit of its people, rather they are fought for profit and restructure for the benefit of those who initiated the conflict. "All wars in history have begun because of economic reasons" that's something my philosophy teacher once said and upon some review I agreed with him. The common man is no longer seeing any benefit from war as it doesn't make him safer or richer and so no matter who wins in a modern conflict the common man loses.

 

This sounds sensible, but I'm too drunk to understand just now.

[Orogun01]

That better be Scotch you're drinking.

[Meshugger]

Gary moore actually asks very interesting and poignant questions on man's nature, relationship to war and its corresponding consequences in a veeery catching way.

 

Edited May 5, 2013 by Meshugger

[Gorth]

My question is: would the forum agree that wars are won when battles defy the outcome dictated by calculable strength?

I think you can find anecdotal cases that points in either direction. E.g. the Hundred Years war. The English always point out all the glorious battles they won against overwhelming French numbers, yet always leave out the fact that the French actually did win the war.

 

Yet, it only took a few hundred Spanish Conguistadores to conquer a continent.

 

You would probably have to do some serious research and start gathering empirical evidence for or against to get closer to a real answer

 

Unless you are just looking for moral support for an idea?

[Walsingham]

Well, obviously I'm interested in whether you agree. It would be baffling (to me) if I wasn't. The simple fact that it's excited such a range of comments illustrates that the forum has some thinkers in this area.

 

Elitists might criticise that I should go to talk to respected academics. But academics are either too nice or too busy to talk about these things, in my experience.

 

Re-reading the comments I suggest two alternative rejoinders forming:

 

1) The results are calculable, we just aren't trying hard enough

1b) The calculations have to take into account activity and strength before, during AND after the battle

 

2) No-one wins wars in the classic tidy sense.

 

Fair?

[Orogun01]

Fair point, I would like to point out that IMO those calculations would have to be extensive enough that they include the economical, political, and legislative state of a country as well as it's esprit de corps (whether the public believes they've won or not) There are bound to be some interesting discrepancies there.

[Jarmo]

There's just not enough of tidy & neat wars these days.

Where an army meets another in a field and the outcome determines the outcome.

The war is concluded, the issue out of the table, everybody's happy again.

 

Not only these days either, there never was, but still!

 

And yea, the nations willingness to continue fighting is important. 

Not important enough if the other side rolls you over like a wet pancake, but important anyway.

 

Bit stunning, how Soviets in WW2 had an army of about 5 million, and took about 20 million casualties, killed or wounded.

Basically losing the whole army every year and then some! Still kept going and won. Much the same as Romans vs Hannibal.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Jarmo

[Gorth]

Well, obviously I'm interested in whether you agree. It would be baffling (to me) if I wasn't. The simple fact that it's excited such a range of comments illustrates that the forum has some thinkers in this area.

 

Elitists might criticise that I should go to talk to respected academics. But academics are either too nice or too busy to talk about these things, in my experience.

 

Re-reading the comments I suggest two alternative rejoinders forming:

 

1) The results are calculable, we just aren't trying hard enough

1b) The calculations have to take into account activity and strength before, during AND after the battle

 

2) No-one wins wars in the classic tidy sense.

 

Fair?

Fair.

 

Personally, I believe it comes down to motivation. If you are motivated, setbacks will only be that, setbacks (no such thing as a defeat). If you are not properly motivated, a setback can lead to fracturing and erodes support for the effort. Nobody to my knowledge wins anything of the kind without popular support.

 

E.g. The Vietnam war? VC and North Vietnamese casualties were astronomical, but surrendering was never really considered. The Falklands War? Military juntas are just not good at the popular support thing. Once things started going sideways, war capacity went downwards. Taliban? You can keep catching and disposing of insurgents, but as long as the general idea of a theocracy in the mountain valleys persists, it will drag out and outlast many Kabul governments.

 

Etc.

 

Not sure if that gets my general idea across?

 

Kill peoples desire to support a war and you have a chance of winning it, regardless of odds and resources and numbers and what have you. Oh, and support is not just undermined by brutality, sometimes offering a better deal is more effective.

 

Battles and their outcomes are only a small part of the puzzle. Might sway opinions a bit hither and dither, but are rarely decisive (won't say never, because it does happen).

[Orogun01]

Your post made me think an interesting thought. Both examples that you provide (Taliban,VC) fought guerrilla style warfare without actually holding up ground, setting up defenses, and bases. It made wonder whether this has a positive psychological effect on the ground troops, as they cannot be demoralized by the loss of territory. Plus it becomes harder to disrupt the chain of command since their operations are not based on a single facility.

[Walsingham]

1. I like the notion of the psychological dimension as a kind of force in depth. Or to put it another way, it's how many quarters you brought to the arcade.

 

2. Classically, giving ground is surely a big no no. I'm fairly certain Wellington said something about retreat being the hardest thing for a soldier.  But I instantly see your perspective which is that this can be excised provided the framing of the fighting is about something else. I don't know much about the Mongols, but wouldn't they be an example of a conventional force that didn't care much about ground?

[JFSOCC]

I wonder what you guys think about the long-term consequences of war, even when it's finished.

 

Also there is this lovely book named "All the countries we've invaded" which shows that the British Empire has invaded every country but about 30.

[Nepenthe]

It is a truism of military science that success in battle depends on calculable strengths such as mass and firepower.

 

My observations is that for this reason strategy plans around this truism, anticipating success. However, this is not always the case.

 

My question is: would the forum agree that wars are won when battles defy the outcome dictated by calculable strength?

 

Who won is YMMV, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

[obyknven]

Your post made me think an interesting thought. Both examples that you provide (Taliban,VC) fought guerrilla style warfare without actually holding up ground, setting up defenses, and bases. It made wonder whether this has a positive psychological effect on the ground troops, as they cannot be demoralized by the loss of territory. Plus it becomes harder to disrupt the chain of command since their operations are not based on a single facility.

This thread is too "professional" for me, but such nonsense make me laugh. 

Just try read classical works about guerrilla warfare firstly.

 

On Guerrilla Warfare by Mao Tse-tung:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/

 

Guerrilla warfare: A method by Che Guevara

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1963/09/guerrilla-warfare.htm

 

Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla by Carlos Marighella

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/

 

The Urban Guerilla Concept by RAF

http://www.germanguerilla.com/red-army-faction/documents/71_04.html

 

Guerrilla warfare it's about control of territory. Brave NATO troops IRL sit in the bases and control nothing in Afghanistan.

http://youtu.be/wjborJIjDYk

[Walsingham]

Brave obyknven is example to all heroic forces of former Soviet Union.

 

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/5lIdPR5tXXs

 

 

To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson—that there are things in this world worth defending.

 

To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=41078

[Gfted1]

That picture brings a question to mind. Since that looks like a Bobby police helmet I will assume the picture is from England. Do they sell toy guns in England?

[Walsingham]

That picture brings a question to mind. Since that looks like a Bobby police helmet I will assume the picture is from England. Do they sell toy guns in England?

 

Actually he's some Ukrainian kid pictured in RFE's website.

 

But yes, they do sell toy guns. Everywhere. But that kid has the best collection I've ever seen. I'm very jealous.

[Gfted1]

That's really surprising to me. Considering England's gun laws and laws on "weapons" in general (cant even carry a pocket knife), I would have expected them to also outlaw toy weapons so as not to encourage children to "play" with guns.

[Walsingham]

That's really surprising to me. Considering England's gun laws and laws on "weapons" in general (cant even carry a pocket knife), I would have expected them to also outlaw toy weapons so as not to encourage children to "play" with guns.

 

I see what you mean, but that's just not how kids work. I was banned from having toy guns as a kid. For about three years.

 

I have an imagination. When they took away the toy guns I had to use my mind. I had an arsenal of treebranch guns, a cardboard tank, and a whole command post dugout in the garden. Of course by the time they let me have proper toys it was too late.

 

Family history claims that I was conducting Find, Fix, Flank operations playing Army aged 7. I can still remember the hill, with the drystone wall at the top. Machine gun chattering... we lost a lot of imaginary good men taking that hill. Although we'd have lost a lot more if we hadn't found that ditch full of nettles through the killing zone.

 

Ah. Good times.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A bit OT, but interesting. WW2's strangest battle: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/12/world-war-ii-s-strangest-battle-when-americans-and-germans-fought-together.html

[Orogun01]

"Steven Spielberg, how did you miss this story?"  

 

 

I think I can answer that one: because he's a Jew.

Nevertheless, good article. It kind of reminds me of that story of German and Allied soldiers playing football on Christmas day. 

[Agiel]

"Steven Spielberg, how did you miss this story?"  

 

 

I think I can answer that one: because he's a Jew.

Nevertheless, good article. It kind of reminds me of that story of German and Allied soldiers playing football on Christmas day. 

 

I remember reading an interview with the director of Das Boot that in its first screening in Hollywood, the audience clapped when the intro said "Of the 40,000 men who served on U-Boats, 30,000 would lose their lives," despite the film having a decidedly anti-Nazi tone throughout.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Agiel

[obyknven]

Alternative point of view.

 

 

http://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmikle1.livejournal.com%2F3315872.html

 

 

http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcasatic.livejournal.com%2F1159124.html%23cutid1

 

 

http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.odnako.org%2Fblogs%2Fshow_25566%2F

[Walsingham]

A bit OT, but interesting. WW2's strangest battle: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/12/world-war-ii-s-strangest-battle-when-americans-and-germans-fought-together.html

 

Well, it's interesting, anyway.