Do you know anything about military strategy? Where did you learn it from
>>29344227
I read Sun Tzu masterpiece.
>btw, it was a first read in Red Army and KGB
>>29344227
I've read Clausewitz's Vom Kriege and studied the guerilla tactics of anarchist revolutionaries like Nestor Makhno and Buenaventura Durruti, who defeated much, much larger and more powerful military forces using untrained people with minimal equipment.
>>29344252
Vom Kriege and Art of War represent, respectively, the military philosophes of West and East. I think history has shown that Clausewitz's extremely practical doctrine of total war is what allowed the West to conquer the world.
>>29344227
Military strategy demands proper fashion sense.
>>29344227
You can find official studies done by governments, think tanks, and journalists/scholars on the internet. I don't like the formal documents because they usually focus on nation-nation combat like WW2, the primary purpose of this is to generate more defense spending. The most interesting stuff to me is counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism practices.
Look up anything you can find on the second Chechen war. Russia was humiliated in the first war but they changed their tactics and were able to wipe them off the map in a very brutal and effective manner.
>>29344227
art of war and reading on different tactics used in 80s-90s warfare
I don't know anything but i bet i could beat anyone here in Starcraft
I know my fair share. About to be year 3 in Marine Corps infantry
>>29344227
I did cadets as a kid, we learned infantry tactics and conventional warfare up to platoon level. Most of the syllabus was written in the early 1900's, so it's mostly redundant in the world of jets, helicopters and asymmetrical warfare.
>>29344227
I'll have you know I've played over 500 hours of age of empires in my time.
the coming wars in europe will not be fought at all like conventional ones
I think i would be a fairly good strategist for those asymmetric times
t. beta uprising professional
no i dont really
>spam the ranged units
t. every video game
>>29344227
Video games, the virtues of war and multiple history books
>never understood why everyone used to fight as a kid
>open european history book
>everyone is a traitor
Sad world
>>29344662
I've read the classics such as Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, and the Chinese strategems are nice. I got the book "How wars are won" by Bevin Alexander.
WW2 intelligence bullitins were a nice read and so was the tactics of the Germans in WWI. I used to read a lot of articles about insurgent in Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Erwin Rommel had some nice tactics also.
But it is kinda pointless for someone like me. Only psychological warfare is practical.
If anyone know a good book on psychological warfare or some documents on it, please do share.
>>29344227
Video games.
adafhfasfkea
plenty about pre-firearm warfare. next to nothing (but way more than the average normie) about modern warfare.
i really don't understand how modern armies work. how do armies invade? do the soldiers linger behind armored vehicles? what if there is an enemy army on the other side? is it then based entirely on tank/artillery performace?
how much damage can a tank sustain? how can you tell the differences between a tank that will be incapaciated from a molotov and a tank that is invincible to rpg missles?
how decisive can nukes be? can they wipe out an area with 10 divisions? if so, can the target country do anything other than pray that their anti-balistic system is effective?
how submarines even work? why are they not the most efficient naval unit? they can shoot at literally any target it detects with an explosive missle under the sea. how can modern ships intercept those missles? if they detect a submarine, how can they destroy it?
what's up with naval mines? how to anti-mine ships work? how can they detect and disable those mines?
just how important is air superiority in land combat? are helicopters just a cheap alternative to jets? can a jet wing of 20 modern aircraft change the tide of a huge (200,000 soldiers + involved) battle?
what's up with anti-air weapons? could a country with a strong airforce be stumped by a country with an overwhelming investment to anti-air weapons? historically, it constantly appears that planes>>aa.
>>29348623
>how submarines even work? why are they not the most efficient naval unit?
Because aircraft carriers have more versatility and discretion over targeting land-based targets
I know some about current modern military strategy/tactics from reading a lot, and watching combat footage.
>>29348623
Most of this is bullshit conjecture.
Historically, when combined arms type tactics were used, soldiers would advance with/behind armored vehicles. Nowadays I think most troops stay in armored vehicles until they're close to entering combat, or if they're out on a patrol.
And yeah, I think a whole shitload of an invasion boils down to indirect fire weapons. Shock and awe, like during the invasion of Iraq. If the US army had to pull off a real invasion against a legitimate opponent, they would probably absolutely wreck everything with planes, drones, missiles, artillery, etc.
Modern armored vehicles are tough as fuck. I don't know a whole lot about armored vehicles, but modern troop transport vehicles can drive over a 155 m artillery shell turned into a mine, get sent shooting up into the air, and land back on the ground while retaining complete structural integrity. So I think modern tanks can probably take a shitload of damage.
Nukes are basically why we haven't had WW3. They're completely decisive. If you bring out nukes against an opponent without them, you're going to win. And unless they have nukes too, they're just fucked.
Submarines are good, but I know a lot of lighter ships are very, very good at hunting them down and nailing them. And also, they're actually very vulnerable to planes if they're anywhere near the surface.
I don't know jack shit about navel mines.
I'm pretty sure air superiority is hugely important. As long as you're capable of hurling loads of air support into the area, you'll probably be okay. Helicopters are really mainly for ground attack and troop transport, though I do believe some are capable of engaging planes to some degree.
I have no idea what the answers to your last few questions are, and I think part of that is that we don't really know. I don't think we really know for sure what would happen if a strong, modern air force went after a region with large amounts of AA.
Yes, lots of british military tactics.
>>29344227
>Do you know anything about military strategy?
Yes
>Where did you learn it from
Doing my masters degree in Classics & Ancient History with a focus on ancient military history, I plan to teach ancient history and ancient military history. A lot has changed since then but all the basics stay the same. Commanders and generals are still reading the art of war now.
>>29348623
Just drew this up based on what you wrote, I don't know if this is even possible to counter
>>>/tv/70932794
>this thread
>>29349013
>I'm pretty sure air superiority is hugely important. As long as you're capable of hurling loads of air support into the area, you'll probably be okay.
Not always. Saudi Arabia has been combating a Yemeni revolt (they control the government but the tribes have taken over most of the country) for about a year now. Saudi Arabia and their coalition have many of the most advanced planes in the world, sold to them by NATO countries, and well trained pilots. The Yemenis don't even have SAM's so the coalition is uncontested in the air. After a year of bombing the Yemenis control the same amount of territory they did one year ago. Things have gotten so bad for the Saudis that their foreign (mostly Australian) mercenaries have left and their Sunni militia proxies have started attacking their Yemeni government proxies.
>>29344227
>Do you know anything about military strategy?
no
>Where did you learn it from
sun tzu, machiavelli, starcraft, civ 5
