SE4 Strategy - An Art or a Science?

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Well, the Boer wars and the Crusades comes down to art, too. Tactics and mobility, with guerilla-like warfare, served to defeat technologically more advanced enemies. Just goes to show that you can win battles with almost anything. And if you can win enough battles, you can probably win a war.

---

The Boer's had comparable equipment to the British. In fact, some of their artillery was technically superior. The British had numbers though.

[Wardad]

I had heard some where that the French tanks were mechanically unreliable. Most likely there also were not enough field repair supplies or trained mechanics. The logistics would definitely be against quiclky bringing a group of these monsters together. Also the French tanks were more vulnerable to German Air power than the German tanks.

The Germans success was based on the Combined Arms doctrine. This advantage in the Art/Science of war would be short lived, due to imitation.

[TerranC]

The reason that America lost in Vietnam was it's pride; still stocked up on their reputation to be a force to be reckoned with, the Americans, in a Vendetta, just shot down into the bushes of Vietnam, while the natives knew what was going on.

The reason that America lost in Mogadishu was it was not a setting they trained in; In an urban setting, the Militia used civilians as human shields, and laid traps in a confusing unplanned Urban landscape. People just lived there, so there wasn't a Main avenue or a specific Landmark. A few houses there, a few temples here and many, many traps and fortifications for the militia. (Now the pentagon is developing Sound weapons and advanced stink bombs to fight urban settings with minimal loss of life and training in an urban landscape.)

The reason America won World War was that the nation became focused on a single goal to drive back the Japanese and the Germans.

Three reasons to still say that it is all Art

[thorfrog]

I totally disagree with you about the Vietnam War. Pride isn't what beat the US. THe US beat the US. This was a Limited war. The US entered the fight half-hearted. We were picking up the pieces from yet another French mistake. The Last thing the US wanted to do was bring Russia and China into the conflict. Something called the "cold war". So the officers in the field had their hands tied when it came to choosing targets because of politics. Not to mention the American people were not in favor of this war. The US was having a civil upheval. We also had politicians directing and changing the strategic focus of this war constantly. Bottom line, if the US wanted to defeat the Viet Cong we could. Just ask the people of Afganistan, Iraq, & Panama. Ok, 5 men with a pellet gun could beat Panama. When we are fully commited we are a juggernaught. Not to mention a little help from our Allies. Even though I question their loyalty at times. Of course there are exceptions: England, Canada, Germany, Austrialia, several former Russian states, ect.

[Mephisto]

The US "conquered" (I know it didn't) Vietnam, but it didn't conquered the heart of enough people to stay there. You cannot stay in a country an unlimited time if you do not have the people of that country follow you on their own will.

[Wardad]

Our biggest mistake was giving Vietnam back to the French, to restore French pride, after WWII.
We should have gave back to the Vietnamese in the first place.

[thorfrog]

Good point.