AmyL posted:

I'll bring up the Hankow Raid since it deals with an instance of 20th Air Force deviating from their philosophy of strategic bombing

You are not wrong about the US having zero considerations and it doesn't detract about how artillery is "better" but even back then, LeMay was willing to go against doctrine.

Flipping through a bunch of back issues of COMMAND: Military History, Strategy & Analysis atm. I'm surprised that the 20th Air Force went with using China to base the B-29s even when they saw the logistical support required in the European air theatre.

Ardennes posted:

I would argue it wasn’t much of a deviation beyond utilizing strategic bombing at low altitude to support ground operations rather than industrial targets.

In the end it was only possible, if at a high cost, because Japanese AD was so weak.

Danann posted:

https://twitter.com/Ignis_Rex/status/1731171023989661774

china trying to make the ace combat loadouts reality

Frosted Flake posted:

McNair was killed when USAAF strategic bombers, promising they could achieve an operational breakthrough for the ground forces, accidentally bombed American lines on the first day of Operation Cobra.

genericnick posted:

A breakthrough for which side?

Tankbuster posted:

mughals famously let their artillery decay away into nothingness and hired portuguese and italians as artillery officers.

sullat posted:

The Byzantine nobility hated paying taxes and setting aside land to support the army so they eventually said, "screw it, we'll just rely on mercenaries going forward" and, uh, it did not go well.

RaySmuckles posted:

not unheard of

one of my favorite stories is the battle of mohacs in Hungary. Hungarian nobles elected their kings. they wanted to pay less for a standing army against the ottomans so they elected a guy who drastically shrank their forces. the ottomans rolled in and killed the king and obliterated their tiny force and conquered huge swathes of territory. rich people do incredibly stupid poo poo to save a couple bucks.

in terms of imperial scale though I don’t have a great example

Frosted Flake posted:

As others have said, there's an internal tension within states where the same ruling class that benefits most from expansion doesn't like to pay the cost of maintenance, when the borders are stable. This extended way beyond the Romans and the federated tribes, though that's the best known example. The Byzantines contracted European knights to much of their fighting at various times, which led to the escapades of the Catalan Company, the Persian Empire used Greek mercenaries extensively, pretty much any settled people the bordered pastoral/nomadic people employed them, and of course the Carthaginian were almost destroyed by their own mercenaries.

I would say differences here is that, sort of like deindustrialization for spreadsheet capitalism, they're not cutting costs of the military, they are just spending money in ways that serves no purpose other than enriching the ruling class. They would be better off paying mercenaries because they would get actual military forces out of the deal. This is something else.

There's not really historical precedent on the policy side either, because in pre-industrial or industrial societies, military cuts would accompany a swords into ploughshares type thing as the ruling class would still benefit from state spending. So, soldiers into colonists, shipyards turned over to merchant shipping, that sort of thing. That's not really happening here either.

Real hurthling! posted:

the ancient MIC was hiring mercenaries that got paid by their generals from war booty so they constantly needed to be attacking stuff, which included the empires hiring them when there was nothing left to attack

Real hurthling! posted:

it owns that the carthaginian merc war was started because a merc warlord leader named i poo poo you not "spendius" was unhappy with a payment deal.

Real hurthling! posted:

whats up with Guyana and Venezuela?

Real hurthling! posted:

whats up with Guyana and Venezuela?

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/venezuela-gears-up-for-essequibo-referendum-icj-warns-against-changes-to-status-quo/

my understanding is that Venezuela is about to hold a non-binding public referendum to gauge popular support for claiming the Essequibo region as a Venezuelan state

this is a region that is disputed with Guyana, and has for the last 200 years been run as part of/by Guyana

the Maduro government claims that these borders were established via illegitimate colonial claims and that they seek to grant Venezuelan citizenship to the residents of Essequibo.

the underlying geopolitical implication here is that there are substantial oil deposits in the region

the Western (media) position is that Venezuela is gearing up for a Kuwait-esque annexation of Essequibo. Caracas maintains that there is a mechanism of international law that would allow the dispute to be settled diplomatically even if the referendum yields a result in favor of upending the current status quo

Frosted Flake posted:

Well, see that was the problem. The Army asked them to bomb east-west, parallel the line of contact, following a road. The Air Force didn't want to spend all of that time over German flak, as both major roads and the front line had AAA concentrations, so decided on a north-south approach. So when they dropped their bombs prematurely...

Frosted Flake posted:

Well, see that was the problem. The Army asked them to bomb east-west, parallel the line of contact, following a road. The Air Force didn't want to spend all of that time over German flak, as both major roads and the front line had AAA concentrations, so decided on a north-south approach. So when they dropped their bombs prematurely...

quote:

Executive Summary

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has sparked the most serious crisis in Europe since World War II and shattered the post-Cold War international order. It underscored that deterrence failed in the European theater, and the US-led alliance in Europe is now facing unprecedented concurrent threats from Russian imperialism and China’s rise.

However, out of crisis comes opportunity. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has unified the transatlantic alliance and its partners — the transatlantic community is stronger than ever, and NATO’s core mission is, and remains, collective defense in Europe. The war has revolutionized NATO’s military strategy, moving the organization to a more capable war-fighting alliance and toward deterrence by denial. It has also shifted the balance of power in Europe to the east, ushering in the beginning of a strategic realignment.

A simple truth has emerged since February 2022: the future of the transatlantic alliance rests on the future of Ukraine. The equation is simple. Europe is not secure if Ukraine is not secure, and the United States is not secure if Europe is not secure. Failure in Ukraine is not an option for the United States and its allies. As the United States and Ukraine’s allies and partners contemplate options for Ukraine’s long-term security, however, the bottom line is that the only lasting security guarantee for Ukraine and Europe is Ukraine’s membership in NATO. It will strengthen the alliance, improve deterrence, and boost capabilities.

This yearlong study lays out a comprehensive vision and blueprint for Europe’s security architecture anchored in eight core strategic tenets and dozens of specific and concrete recommendations.

Eight core strategic tenets:

1. Ukraine’s long-term security is the lynchpin of transatlantic security.
   
2. Europe’s security architecture will not be complete without the integration of so-called gray zones in Europe.
   
3. The power balance in Europe has shifted east, which will require modernization of NATO’s defense posture, including a permanent presence on the eastern flank.
   
4. NATO’s commitment to deterrence by denial requires a sustained and coordinated defense industrial revolution among its members.
   
5. Failure in Ukraine will signal the end of US global leadership with profound and disastrous implications for US deterrence of China: the best way to deter China is by defeating Russia in Ukraine.
   
6. Russia’s strategic posture of aggression is unlikely to change in the near or long term: postwar Russian leadership would not rule out military confrontation with NATO.
   
7. NATO’s core mission must be to deter Russia in Europe.
   
8. Countries of the so-called Global South will play a key role in determining the future of geostrategic competition: the United States and its allies must form a strategic and targeted approach to key partners in the region.
   

Specific Recommendations:

On securing Ukraine and the world order:

• Ukraine’s promise of NATO membership must be honored speedily and effectively.
  
• In the interim period prior to Ukraine’s NATO accession, the United States must institutionalize its security assistance to Ukraine, safeguarding aid from changing and uncertain domestic political dynamics.
  
• The United States, NATO, and the European Union (EU) should launch a coordinated diplomatic and soft-power offensive in the Global South, identifying the sources of Russian and Chinese popularity and leverage, and seeing how its members can compete in countering them.
  
• Winning hearts and minds in the Global South through the best overall offering in terms of partnership and prosperity will require greater engagement, investment, and imagination by the United States, Europe, and other key Western allies and partners than has yet been shown, and a vision of the West which fully includes key leaders in the 21st century, such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia.
  
• The United States and its allies should concentrate on improving and promoting democratic governance within the West, increasing support to partners, and collectively meeting universal challenges such as accelerating climate change, food insecurity, public health, and managing migration.
  

On strengthening NATO and European security:

• “Strategic autonomy” is dead: Russia’s war in Ukraine has underscored Europe’s humbling dependence on the United States for defense and security. In its place, Europe must continue to shift toward “strategic responsibility,” marked by a close but more equal partnership with the United States, prioritization of defense spending and capabilities, and playing to the EU’s nonmilitary strengths.
  
• NATO and the EU need better coordination, not necessarily increased cooperation. They are sometimes stronger when they “stick to their own swim lanes.” The EU should play to its nonmilitary strengths, including by enabling capabilities, financial support, energy system integration, and economic sanctions.
  
• For NATO, the full implementation of the Deterrence and Defense Concept is paramount. This involves executable regional plans, domain plans, and the Area-of-Responsibility-wide plan, with a full assessment of gaps, and a clear strategy to fill those gaps.
  
• A combat-credible Allied Response Force, rapidly deployable and employable with the right enablers and capabilities, organized, trained, equipped, and sustained to deter and defend in the 21st century security environment is critical.
  
• To provide for deterrence by denial, NATO must strike a balance between a permanent presence that provides a constant deterrence value and persistent, rotational forces that provide for readiness and lethality.
  
• A modern Integrated Air and Missile Defense capacity and capability with networked sensors to counter modern threat systems at all altitudes and in multi-domain operations is critical.
  
• Invest in a strengthened, robust indicators and warnings system. Additional resources should be specifically allocated to develop indicators and warnings capabilities in the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, the NATO Command Structure, and in national agencies.
  
• NATO allies should work to better align their visions and policies to emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs). NATO should also build an interoperable digital backbone, the true “glue” of 21st century deterrence.
  
• NATO member nations should prioritize investments and technology collaboration in EDTs to bridge defense innovation gaps.
  

On safeguarding alliance cohesion:

• Better internal messaging across the alliance would address a major concern for the future cohesion of NATO.
  
• Member states should ramp up efforts to convince domestic populations of the need to invest in security. European countries are not evenly affected by the economic impact of this new threat environment, which may lead to increased frictions in the coming years.
  
• Boosting domestic support for efforts to adapt to this new threat environment may help mitigate the unpredictability of the elections taking place in 2024 in European countries and in the United States and increase domestic resilience.
  

On addressing Russia and China:

• The United States and its allies should undertake a strategic assessment of the challenge presented by the relationship between Russia and China, of its possible trajectories, and of the scope for joint and separate policy approaches to them.
  
• To address the “two-front” issue between Moscow and Beijing, NATO must clearly outline its role and presence in the Indo-Pacific region as well as deepen relations with the EU.
  
• Responses to Sino-Russian gambits should be concrete and issue-specific, commensurate with the level of threat. Countering Russian and Chinese malign influence will involve better defense (resilience) and offense.
  

Blockade posted:

lol check out the new super soldier grift

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVO4SJqIIIw

Frosted Flake posted:

This ties into my favourite subject: liberal states hate that soldiers require social relations, they can't be motivated by the market, and they're not machines. Of course they want to privatize via PMC and automatic via unmanned systems everything they can, but it's proven, repeatedly to be impossible.

So, a soldier is not a "combat unit mk 1", they're a person, right? So assuming they do all of this poo poo they're talking about, what happens when they discharge that person into civilian life? I mean, because the military sucks (for aforementioned liberal states not understanding human relations), the average western soldier barely manages a 3 year hitch these days. They will spend, by far, the majority of their lives on civvy street.

What are the impacts on our society of soldiers who have those qualities? Does it effect the civilian labour market? What are the long term problems and effects of these treatments? They hate it, but they have a lifelong responsibility to veterans. So, growing super-tumours, obviously, that cuts into your recruiting, and that's a VA cost.

Idk, it's very funny that we're teetering on this edge and they really still think they have perfect control and can push things as far as they want, but - not an endorsement but a historical perspective - the point where those soldiers kill you for how you're treating them (or what you're doing to society) comes long before the point where you turn them into automatons that behave exactly how you wish and who you have perfect control over.

Blockade posted:

lol check out the new super soldier grift

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVO4SJqIIIw

FuzzySlippers posted:

Actually I should amend that the US hasn't far surpassed everyone in this department because the imperial Japanese military did impressive work in constructing absurd bureaucracy around their military branches which worked overtime to justify their funding and fight with each other. Maybe the US integrated some of them into the military post WW2 as advisors. The Nazis had a lot to teach the US about reframing defeats as victories and the Japanese really knew how to fatten up branches of a military. The US has done a great job at both since WW2!

skooma512 posted:

Lol America would never stoop so low as to take any advice from non-whites, especially in the 40s

Frosted Flake posted:

This ties into my favourite subject: liberal states hate that soldiers require social relations, they can't be motivated by the market, and they're not machines. Of course they want to privatize via PMC and automatic via unmanned systems everything they can, but it's proven, repeatedly to be impossible.

So, a soldier is not a "combat unit mk 1", they're a person, right? So assuming they do all of this poo poo they're talking about, what happens when they discharge that person into civilian life? I mean, because the military sucks (for aforementioned liberal states not understanding human relations), the average western soldier barely manages a 3 year hitch these days. They will spend, by far, the majority of their lives on civvy street.

What are the impacts on our society of soldiers who have those qualities? Does it effect the civilian labour market? What are the long term problems and effects of these treatments? They hate it, but they have a lifelong responsibility to veterans. So, growing super-tumours, obviously, that cuts into your recruiting, and that's a VA cost.

Idk, it's very funny that we're teetering on this edge and they really still think they have perfect control and can push things as far as they want, but - not an endorsement but a historical perspective - the point where those soldiers kill you for how you're treating them (or what you're doing to society) comes long before the point where you turn them into automatons that behave exactly how you wish and who you have perfect control over.

Frosted Flake posted:

Since the 2000's, I'm not sure about earlier.

FuzzySlippers posted:

so does Venezuela have an actual military or did Iran sneak over and destroy most of it in the last few years? I'm still not sure about the Gulf War potential brewing in South America with the US going around hat in hand begging for munitions as it is. Are there regional US allies willing to do the bulk of the fighting vs Venezuela? US is always setting up pet leaders but getting them to fight a war for us would be a big ask.

It is possible a tripwire force of Americans will be enough to deter Venezuela if they don't want an actual military confrontation, but the empire has never been weaker if someone wants to prove they can stand up to the Northern bully.

AmyL posted:

I actually found a publication that sheds a bit of light about it. Didn't screenshot everything but you can read the publication at https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/59.4AmericanMilitary.pdf













Bonus:
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/25/2002162334/-1/-1/0/AH198001.PDF

Frosted Flake posted:

Nonsense posted:

Now that Kissinger, like Bismarck, has passed, war can begin!

quote:

I. Role, Composition, Missions, and Principles of Artillery's
Combat Employment in Front Offensive Operations
Contemporary artillery troops have the following capabilities:
-enormous firepower;
-longer range;
-accuracy of fire;
-high maneuverability;
-capability to launch massive, concentrated fires quickly to
great depths;
-capability to destroy various targets with a high rate of fire
resulting in a high density of fire;
-quick initiation of fire on targets;
-high maneuverability provides for concentration of the bulk
of the artillery on decisive directions quickly and
discretely.
The role and significance of artillery will change according
to characteristics of combat actions and conditions of the

quote:

I. Role, Composition, Missions, and Principles of Artillery's Combat Employment in Front Offensive Operations

Contemporary artillery troops have the following capabilities:

-enormous firepower;
-longer range;
-accuracy of fire;
-high maneuverability;
-capability to launch massive, concentrated fires quickly to great depths;
-capability to destroy various targets with a high rate of fire resulting in a high density of fire;
-quick initiation of fire on targets;
-high maneuverability provides for concentration of the bulk of the artillery on decisive directions quickly and discretely.

The role and significance of artillery will change according to characteristics of combat actions and conditions of the

Blockade posted:

lol check out the new super soldier grift

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVO4SJqIIIw