The Art of War

[skitz]

Why is it that the Americans can't seem to win the war when they are fighting soldiers wearing only pajamas, the Viet Congs in their black pajamas and now the Afghanistans in their white pajamas?

It's called assymetric warfare. This has always been the problem of the USA. Their armed forces are designed to have tanks battle tanks, planes vs planes, ships vs. ships. Anyway, more or less that is the concept (do not mention that helicopters are designed to k*ll tanks -- I know, I am just explaining what is symetric wafare is). Americans do not know how to fight enemies willing to fight tanks with bows and arrows (I exagerate of course). They killed around 70 VCs for every American dead (estimates vary). But they lost that war. The VietCongs have nowhere else to go. That was the simple explanation. The VC strategy was simply to make the war as painful as possible. First one to blink loses. It's like the game I used to play with my brother, we'd interlock our fingers and squeeze, first to cry uncle loses. America lost because they couldn't stand the pain anymore. And they could always end it by simply coming home. The VCs were already home. They were fighting for their homeland.

 

Iraq, might be the same story. All the Americans have to do is go home and the pain will be over. But Afghanistan might be a little different. How long before another attack on US soil will be launched from Afghanistan should they leave that country for the Talibans? Afghanistan has NEVER been conquered. Many have tried. And all have failed. The Americans better make sure they are the first to trully subdue that country. They have no other choice.

 

-------------------

 

But here's the BIGGEST variable to this equation. The Afghans, like the Paletistinians and Israelis, measure wars in generations. Americans (and the West) measure wars in the terms of their presidents. Do the Americans have the stamina to outlast the Talibans?

Edited December 27, 2009 by skitz

[macbolan00]

Feel free to challenge this choice of mine but I think no superpower in the ancient world (pre-gunpowder era) could beat the Mongols. Be it Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Caesar, etc.

the mongols conquered basically a large swath of no-man's-land between the pacific and near east (plus some parts of europe.) the only real power centers they were able to conquer were china and kwaraizem (afghanistan/pakistan to persia.) they wer far from conquering the real power centers in europe. the most powerful center at the time of the mongols was constantinople. they were nowhere near to conquering that. in western europe, they reached poland and parts of germany. but the strongest army was farther to the west --france. across the channel was an even stronger field force.

[macbolan00]

But here's the BIGGEST variable to this equation. The Afghans, like the Paletistinians and Israelis, measure wars in generations. Americans (and the West) measure wars in the terms of their presidents. Do the Americans have the stamina to outlast the Talibans?

the fight between the US-western europe and soviet expansion took more than 70 years.

[skitz]

the fight between the US-western europe and soviet expansion took more than 70 years.

Yes. And that was PRETTY DARNED LONG (by their measure). And it was not a continuous open war. Just minor skirmishes and proxy wars punctuated once in a while by nuclear posturing. The American attention in particular is pretty short. They want results (within a president's term)... so they can start another war. Yes, they have been fighting since the American Revolution (vs. the Brits). But it is always one war, then next, next, next. Never one enemy for very long. No open war vs the Soviets (Russians) ever happened.

 

The Palestinians and Israelis have been at it since Moses. The Afghans (not reallty one people but a collective of tribes) have been fighting continuously since the British Empire. If they are not fighting a foreign power, they are fighting each other. Afghanistan is the Soviet Empire's Vietnam.

 

-----------------

 

BTW, I would really be interested with your opinion (and SmilingBandit's) on how the IJN can push the war to mainland USA had they won the Battle of Midway (with plenty to spare, as they had planned). Is it even possible? IMHO, it is not even possible. A logistical nightmare. Distance being the biggest obstacle. All the Japanese could ever hope for is to negotiate for peace from the position of strength. I'd get the IJN to posture an invasion of Hawai (not even attemt to haul the entire IJN to California), never actually doing it (too much burden to hold), then quickly negotiate a peace. Even if Nagumo had routed the Americans in Midway, the Americans simply can not be defeated in that theater of war. Unless of course, Nazi Germany can keep the Americans tied up in that other theater.

Edited December 29, 2009 by skitz

[macbolan00]

there's absolutely no way they can carry the mid-ocean battle all the way to hawaii, even if they had sunk the three american carriers. they simply didn't have enough fuel, spare planes and pilots. the amricans were busy constucting two modern battleships in time for guadalcanal. two fleet carriers were nearing completion, and the eastern shipyards were already gearing to roll out one escort carrier every 2 weeks. the US navy and army air corp can train at least 30 competent pilots every month.

 

so an attack at the mainland, hawaii or even australia is a long shot. to invade continental US, they will have to make a strategic withdrawal, stockpile on fueland muniations, and match the amercans in tersm of arms production. they will have to completely destroy the US' two-ocean fleet. and then, waiting for them on US soil is at least 20 army divisions and more than 1 million reservists willing to fight. tall order for any other country in the world at the time.

 

consider: the US, with its overwhelming productive and human advantage, waited till 1944 to really push towards japan and consider invasion (also, they were forcusing their war efforts on a much more dangerous germany.) before that, the US had to make sure production was rolling continuously, and that the greater part of japanese naval power was no longer a serious factor.

[skitz]

Yes. Yes. My thoughts exactly. The US can NOT be defeated (or invaded). The best that Nagumo can hope for is dig in at Midway, re-supply, and merely POSTURE an impending invasion of Hawaii. Psychologically (because of the hypothetical rout in Midway), this is enough of a leverage to (maybe) negotiate a peace from a position of strength. Problem of the USA is democracy. The US President is not an Emperor who can command his people to die for him, even when he knows he is holding all the aces (and the a-bomb on his backpocket anytime soon).

[TheSmilingBandit]

before may narecieved akong email. about sa surender ng japan. the emperor planned another way to invade. by the use of economic and tecnological strategy. in 40 years they will able to invade not only every country but every households. philippines will be their raw material country. anyway once na nakita ko ulit paste ko dito. good topic anyway.

Actually, I believe that it was the Indochina-Malaysia-Indonesia area that Japan really wanted since they are even more resource rich than the Philippines, that was termed the Southern Resource Zone by the Imperial War Ministry. The Northern Resource Zone being Siberia.

 

The Huks were defeated by the combined efforts of Ramon Magsaysay as the DND secretary and the disciplinarian officer Col Napoleon Valeriano of the famed "Nenita Unit" which went after the the Huks until they captured Huk supremo Luis Taruc. Hindi pa masyadong corrupt and military nuon unlike what they are now.

Well technically, the remnants of the Huks became the CPP-NPA. As far as the Nenita units, they were basically death-squads and sowed more hate towards the government, probably extending the Huk movement by a decade for their indiscriminate actions.

 

Feel free to challenge this choice of mine but I think no superpower in the ancient world (pre-gunpowder era) could beat the Mongols. Be it Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Caesar, etc.

the mongols conquered basically a large swath of no-man's-land between the pacific and near east (plus some parts of europe.) the only real power centers they were able to conquer were china and kwaraizem (afghanistan/pakistan to persia.) they wer far from conquering the real power centers in europe. the most powerful center at the time of the mongols was constantinople. they were nowhere near to conquering that. in western europe, they reached poland and parts of germany. but the strongest army was farther to the west --france. across the channel was an even stronger field force.

The unrivaled (at the time) mobility and coordination of the Mongol Hordes (the term Hordes by the way comes from the Mongolian word Hordu ... basically meaning army corps ... roughly 20,000 to 50,000 soldiers) would have cut a swath against almost any force they came up against in my humble opinion.

 

The empire they built extended from Korea (in the East) to Bulgaria (in the West), by the time their armies were on the way to Europe (circa 1230ad) the three strongest kingdoms would have been the Holy Roman Empire (Frederick II), France (Louis IX aka St. Louis), and England (Henry III).

 

Now Frederick II had won several battles, but at the highest point of his career (the 6th Crusade) was about 40,000 troops (including the contingents of the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Hospitallers, and the Knights Templars), though he did succeed in regaining control of Jerusalem, it was done by diplomatic rather than military means, and within 5 years of the ending of the truce, it was once more lost. The reason that the Sultan of Egypt even agreed to the truce was because he was busy fighting rebellion.

 

Louis IX was a very kind and pious king, that said, he was also an inept military leader, much the same could be said about Henry III.

 

Assuming that the forces of the 3 kingdoms would have even been marshalled together, and that their lack of supplies didn't k*ll them, they could have mustered perhaps some 300,000 troops, most of whom would be serf levies (this was still before the heyday of the English longbowmen) with perhaps some 30,000 well armed and trained knights and some 90,000 armed and trained men-at-arms. Add in the various smaller states such as Spain, Burgundy, the various Italian city-states, Poland, Hungary, and the fighting men of the North (for some reason if they help) and those numbers could be inflated up, with a general arriere-ban (total war footing) and stripping off the peasant levies from the fields, perhaps some 800,000 troops could be generated, of which some 50,000 would be knights (heavy cavalry), some 120,000 would be mounted men-at-arms (including mercenaries), perhaps some 20,000-30,000 light cavalry (various tribes), some 150,000 men-at-arms (crossbowmen/spearmen), and the rest would be about 450,000 barely armored, untrained field levies with makeshift weaponry.

 

Now the Mongols sent in 3 armies into Europe perhaps some 120,000 superbly trained and iron-disciplined troops, well-equipped and armored, with more than adequate supplies with a mobility that would allow them to run rings around the heavy cavalry of Europe. If necessary, Genghis Khan could have sent up to an additional 150,000 men. We can't just compare numbers since in the battle of Mohi (as an example, some 80,000 European knights, mounted men-at-arms, and light cavalry faced up against 70,000 Mongol warriors. By all accounts, it was a massacre, more than half the Europeans died while Mongol casualties numbered under 1,000.

 

The only thing that saved Europe was the death of Gengis Khan.

 

I enjoy reading this thread! Though I am not as astute as you guys are but I am a big "fan" of war history nonetheless (I have old copies of "Armchair General" ). Anyway if I can just challenge you a little with a what if:

 

The Battle of Midway was won by the Japanese (it could have gone either way, luck was simply on the American side). Nagumo conquered Midway with still half his forces intact. And the Americans losing all carriers (they went for it, and lost everything). The only thing standing between the Japanese Navy and the American west coast is the big Pacific Ocean and a few American ships (no carriers).

 

If you are Nagumo, would you go for it? Can you invade mainland USA? It takes around 3-4 years to build a carrier from scratch. Now is the perfect time to strike before the full industrial might of America comes to bear. You hear too that they are trying to develop a bomb that will harness the power of the stars. If you are going to go for it, now is the perfect time! Mainland USA? Total victory or nothing? How would you do it?

 

-----------------

 

Let me fill in some details for the computation OC guys (I say that with affection ). It's one week after the first engagement and you compute that Nagumo lost half his invasion force (just cut it right in the middle, carriers, and support ships). Midway is 100% Japanese controlled. Nimitz's intercepting force is wiped out (completely). All other ships from Japan and the USA (not involved in the battle) is still in play.

BTW, I would really be interested with your opinion (and SmilingBandit's) on how the IJN can push the war to mainland USA had they won the Battle of Midway (with plenty to spare, as they had planned). Is it even possible? IMHO, it is not even possible. A logistical nightmare. Distance being the biggest obstacle. All the Japanese could ever hope for is to negotiate for peace from the position of strength. I'd get the IJN to posture an invasion of Hawai (not even attemt to haul the entire IJN to California), never actually doing it (too much burden to hold), then quickly negotiate a peace. Even if Nagumo had routed the Americans in Midway, the Americans simply can not be defeated in that theater of war. Unless of course, Nazi Germany can keep the Americans tied up in that other theater.

there's absolutely no way they can carry the mid-ocean battle all the way to hawaii, even if they had sunk the three american carriers. they simply didn't have enough fuel, spare planes and pilots. the amricans were busy constucting two modern battleships in time for guadalcanal. two fleet carriers were nearing completion, and the eastern shipyards were already gearing to roll out one escort carrier every 2 weeks. the US navy and army air corp can train at least 30 competent pilots every month.

 

so an attack at the mainland, hawaii or even australia is a long shot. to invade continental US, they will have to make a strategic withdrawal, stockpile on fueland muniations, and match the amercans in tersm of arms production. they will have to completely destroy the US' two-ocean fleet. and then, waiting for them on US soil is at least 20 army divisions and more than 1 million reservists willing to fight. tall order for any other country in the world at the time.

 

consider: the US, with its overwhelming productive and human advantage, waited till 1944 to really push towards japan and consider invasion (also, they were forcusing their war efforts on a much more dangerous germany.) before that, the US had to make sure production was rolling continuously, and that the greater part of japanese naval power was no longer a serious factor.

Yes. Yes. My thoughts exactly. The US can NOT be defeated (or invaded). The best that Nagumo can hope for is dig in at Midway, re-supply, and merely POSTURE an impending invasion of Hawaii. Psychologically (because of the hypothetical rout in Midway), this is enough of a leverage to (maybe) negotiate a peace from a position of strength. Problem of the USA is democracy. The US President is not an Emperor who can command his people to die for him, even when he knows he is holding all the aces (and the a-bomb on his backpocket anytime soon).

An interesting conundrum, I don't think that even Yamamoto believed that Japan could win the war against the US, in fact, all he was after is a short 1 or 2 year war, concluding in a truce that would allow Japan to retain the Southern Resource Zone. If they had won at Midway, the US would have been reduced to only the Wasp (basically a baby carrier) and the Saratoga. Japan should have immediately aimed for Hawaii, using off-shore bombardment they could have had the military governor of the islands surrender (much as like what happened in the Philippines), cutting of supplies to MacArthur's southern line. Using such a victory, they could "threaten" much of the West Coast with attacks via naval bombardment or carrier planes, without actually doing so, while their diplomats in Mexico could arrange for a truce. With the need to rebuild the Pacific Fleet, many of the lend-lease ships ferrying supplies to battered England would have to be put on hold. Perhaps, a victory at Midway would have been enough to drive the US into signing a truce, on the other hand, the Americans at the time still had a fierce patriotism not commonly found today.

 

The US could have abandoned the various territories of the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, Midway, and Guam, as none of them were states. With the use of the naval facilities of Pearl Harbor, the IJN would have had a lock on the mid-Pacific area.

 

Still, in my opinion, America would have sued for peace had they lost Midway and Hawaii.

 

As an aside, Harry Turtledove wrote a couple of books about this called the Days of Infamy series, pretty much posturing a total defeat for the US Pacific Fleet and an invasion of Hawaii.

Edited December 30, 2009 by TheSmilingBandit

[Guest megalodon]

@smilingbandit

 

The Mongols didn't need to bring supplies. They drank blood from their horses and ate them if need be. At the same time, they toyed with their opponents by sometimes sending them on a wild goose chase then after days of pursuit by their enemies, they would turn back to face them and annihilate them. In terms of cavalry tactics, the Mongols were the best at that point in time. They would have routed any European power. I believe Genghis Khan's cavalry tactics are taught in prestigious military schools like Westpoint and Sandhurst.

[TheSmilingBandit]

The Mongols didn't need to bring supplies. They drank blood from their horses and ate them if need be.

Actually they normally drank the milk that the mares produce. Each trooper would have up to 4 or 5 remounts, all of which were mares, thus they could milk the mares for milk which is kept in horsehide bags and tied to the saddle to ferment resulting in a slightly sour drink that is lightly alcoholic and has a high nutritional value. In addition they lived off the land, collecting all animals in the area, they prize killing cattle since they slice the meat into fairly thick chunks that they then put under their saddle, the meat is tenderized by the bouncing of the trooper during the day's travels, an Arban (10 soldiers) could live off 1 cattle for the entire week, supplemented by the Kumiss (the fermented mares milk), if necessary, the Mongol troopers could even live entirely off Kumiss for a week.

 

However, as a general rule, each Tumen (10,000 troopers) would have their families traveling with them, even during times of invasion (that is when the Mongols were invading others.) The families would often be in the rear, or in cases of a Hordu (2 to 5 tumens operating together), then the families move combined. This helps inspire morale since the troopers can't just break ranks and flee, not with their families in much slower wagons. The other thing about having families is that most of the time, these non-combatants would be the ones gathering grains and livestock, killing them and turning them into usable items. A cow for example has the hide stripped off to help make saddles or boots or pants or tents. The hooves are melted and used as a glue to help make arrows. The softer cuts of meat is smoked and sent with the troopers, made more tender by the pounding of the hooves of the mares as they sit under the saddle and above the saddle blanket. The tougher cuts of meat is dried and ground up, then packaged into long lasting rations that just need to be added to boiling water, sort of a primitive version of instant soups.

 

So yes, while the Mongol trooper can indeed live without supplies, for a longer period than his European or even Middle Eastern counterparts, he still relies on a very well organized, traveling supply chain.

 

At the same time, they toyed with their opponents by sometimes sending them on a wild goose chase then after days of pursuit by their enemies, they would turn back to face them and annihilate them.

This mobility and long-distance coordination was unparalleled at the time, causing most of their foes to assume that Mongol armies were anywhere from 3x to 10x bigger than they actually were which is why the term Hordes means vast number in English.

 

In terms of cavalry tactics, the Mongols were the best at that point in time. They would have routed any European power. I believe Genghis Khan's cavalry tactics are taught in prestigious military schools like Westpoint and Sandhurst.

I agree, they would have routed any European power they faced at the time. However, in a straight out head on battle (something they avoided, preferring to attack from flanks and the rears of the enemies, or even bypassing them entirely), the heavier armored knights with their massive war destriers would have made mincemeat of any Mongol trooper dumb enough to stand in their way (not that they would have.)

[bekim]

Well technically, the remnants of the Huks became the CPP-NPA. As far as the Nenita units, they were basically death-squads and sowed more hate towards the government, probably extending the Huk movement by a decade for their indiscriminate actions.

 

[/color][/size][/font][/i]

 

 

This is the first time I heard somebody call the "Nenita Unit" as a death squad, they were so far the most disciplined unit created within the AFP after the war. For a starter ,no one is accepted or kept in the unit if his waistline is more than 34". The name of the unit was taken after the name of a woman who was rape tortured and killed by the Huks. If you are talking of death squads in the Central Luzon baka you are talking of the "Monkeys" and the "Beatles" (one is pro government and the other one is leftist, I just can't remember which is which), but they operated in the 60's and not in the 50's during the time of the Nenita Unit. As for the Huks turning into the CPP NPA mukhang hindi ganuon iyon. Luis Taruc of the Huks was never a fan of "Amado Guerrero" who started the CPP NPA movement. The Huks were originally a guerilla movement against the Japanese kaya nga ang pangalan eh.."Hukbalahap or Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Japones" but started to fight the government when their demand for payment for their services against the Japanese was not met by the government after the war.

[TheSmilingBandit]

This is the first time I heard somebody call the "Nenita Unit" as a death squad, they were so far the most disciplined unit created within the AFP after the war. For a starter ,no one is accepted or kept in the unit if his waistline is more than 34". The name of the unit was taken after the name of a woman who was rape tortured and killed by the Huks. If you are talking of death squads in the Central Luzon baka you are talking of the "Monkeys" and the "Beatles" (one is pro government and the other one is leftist, I just can't remember which is which), but they operated in the 60's and not in the 50's during the time of the Nenita Unit. As for the Huks turning into the CPP NPA mukhang hindi ganuon iyon. Luis Taruc of the Huks was never a fan of "Amado Guerrero" who started the CPP NPA movement. The Huks were originally a guerilla movement against the Japanese kaya nga ang pangalan eh.."Hukbalahap or Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Japones" but started to fight the government when their demand for payment for their services against the Japanese was not met by the government after the war.

You do realize that the Huks were the fighting arm of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (a Marxist-Lenist group), an organization Taruc joined in 1935. The PKP is the forerunner of the CPP (which were Maoists) while the Huks were the forerunners of the NPA.

 

As for the Nenitas, they operated from mid 1946 to late 1949 as the local version of the death squads of South America. I think you are probably referring to the multiple Army units that operated in the 50s with a "hearts and minds" campaign as the disciplined units.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Its a new year, so let's see if we can refresh this thread a little.

 

In a what-if scenario, let's say that the British crown never lost their North American colonies (i.e. that the 13 colonies did not go into revolt), how would that have impacted in the major wars following that era, let's say the Napoleonic Wars and the Crimean War?

 

Assuming that the butterfly effect did not wipe out the renowned officers and generals of the colonies and that with the expansion into Amerindian territories proceeding forthwith, and that the British crown would recognize and ennoble those who have distinguished themselves in the Vice-Royalty of the North Americas.

 

With the assistance of the manpower of the North Americas and access to minds and generalship of General Sir Winfield Scott and General Sir Andrew Jackson and their like, could the British have defeated Napoleon faster and perhaps imposed their control over the French?

 

With the aid of General Sir Robert Lee, General Sir James Ewell Brown Stuart, and their like how would the Crimean War have been different?

[macbolan00]

your scenario does not have much variance on production and logistics as today. as for US-UK relations, it has never been seriously threatened since WW1.

 

what i do know is that in the years before august 1914, west europeand countries, along with the US and commonwealth nations were close to entering a one-on-one war many times. the span-am war was just one "hot example."

[TheSmilingBandit]

your scenario does not have much variance on production and logistics as today. as for US-UK relations, it has never been seriously threatened since WW1.

 

what i do know is that in the years before august 1914, west europeand countries, along with the US and commonwealth nations were close to entering a one-on-one war many times. the span-am war was just one "hot example."

I meant that for example, if the American Revolution never occurred and that instead King George III had been a more reasonable man who turned his North American possessions into the Vice-Royalty of North America. The spread to the west from the Eastern seaboard occurs on time, and that the vitality of the colonialists would be harnessed by the English Commonwealth.

 

That instead of sapping English strength from the Napoleonic Wars with the War of 1812, the Americans would and could instead have sent their own reinforcements, most likely under Winfield Scott.

[macbolan00]

hmmm... spent time thinking of that. first, it doesn't make much sense to regret not having a historical figure at your side. any developed country has its fair share of "geniuses-in-waiting." in many cases, countries have too many talents elbowing each other at the top, often with negative results. the three russian top commanders during the final drive to berlin is one example. the western command with the likes of ike, monty, brad and george is probably the best example of what i'm saying. over at the pacific, all roosevelt had to do was toss a coin: will it be nimitz or macarthur who will lead the drive?

 

with regard to logistic support, we've seen how solid the commonwealth and even the allied coalition can be, so having a contiguous political influence over all territories isn't much of an advantage (think russia during world war 1.) what's important is you have the major industrial and population centers on your side. you'll be hard to beat in such as case.

 

lastly, the UK was as rich as a superpower can be going into world war 1. but see how the war bled it dry.