Matrix Games Forums

Just thought to share this very interesting read.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

Interesting, but seems hyperbolic.

I'll hve to object to he oblique order and Epaminondas being thrown in the same box as "hooking around", because the purpose of the former is to turn a flank by means of a "frontal" attack, not starting the battle on the enemy's flank (though obviously, if possible, this is an added advantage..)... totally different concepts, for totally different types of troops.

Similarly (and from someone who talks about "networking" so much, and should be aware of the impact of means of communication, this is huge a let-down), early modern massed close-order formations must be viewed from a point of communication, command and control, and not just massed firepower output.

Other than these objections to some of the historical analysis, it reads a bit too much like a Mr.-I-know-it-all-and-I-told-you-so rant... interesting, but probably ruining the good points it might be making with the attitude in which they're presented.

That said, to me the greatest challenge facing "western" militaries is regaining the required ruthlessness to expend lives as necessary to achieve goals, and give destruction of the enemy priority again over preservation of force.
Not going to be an easy, or popular, process, though...

ORIGINAL: jackx


That said, to me the greatest challenge facing "western" militaries is regaining the required ruthlessness to expend lives as necessary to achieve goals, and give destruction of the enemy priority again over preservation of force.
Not going to be an easy, or popular, process, though...

Totally agree....every KIA is reported on the main news in the UK. Not sure how this will go down but myself and others I've spoken to believe when you sign up you know that you may have to put your life on the line. Thats what being a soldier is all about...thats what your trained for...combat. I reckon more lorry drivers have died on the road than the amount of UK soldiers killed over the period of time they've been in Afganistan.

That's the political side of things, which is a huge factor, but also a can of worms I didn't want to open...

What I meant is the purely military/combat side of things... casualty prevention should be a secondary goal, not the main one. I'm not sure that that's still the case even before you add the political pressure to do the impossible - i.e. fight successfully without any casualties.

It'd be interesting to compile casualty statistics and averages for current engagements, and compare them to similar actions from earlier periods, along with how contemporaries rated the results...

it reads a bit too much like a Mr.-I-know-it-all-and-I-told-you-so rant... interesting, but probably ruining the good points it might be making with the attitude in which they're presented.

I had the exact same reaction.