Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Has any war ever been won via decapitation?

Persia twice, once when Alexander the Great killed the emperor, once when Muhammad's army did.  The battle of Manzinkert.  The conquest of Constantinople in the 3rd crusade.  Cortez and Pizarro both used it to great effect.  The defeat of the Godwins.  The Peoples Republic of China would have never taken over China if they hadn't kidnapped the Chinese president in 1936.  The battle of San Jacinto won the Texan revolution in one clean sweep.  The German invasion of France in 1940 to a lesser extent.

[Erkki]

France in 1940? Pocketing and cutting off most of the enemy's military might isnt usually count as decapitation. 

[Kot]

But they lost Paris and waved a white flag while places like Maginot Line should have held out waaaaaaay longer.

[RedKing]

Has any war ever been won via decapitation?

The defeat of the Godwins.

And no one was compared to Hitler ever again. 


I'd have to quibble over the Chinese Civil War. The Xi'an Incident gave the CCP some much-needed breathing room, but it didn't win the war. Plus, it was the threat of Imperial Japan as much as anything that led to the truce between the KMT and the CCP.

[mainiac]

France in 1940? Pocketing and cutting off most of the enemy's military might isnt usually count as decapitation. 

"to a lesser extent".  The confusion and inaction of the allies after the German exploitation of their rear areas is what created the channel pocket in the first place.

I'd have to quibble over the Chinese Civil War. The Xi'an Incident gave the CCP some much-needed breathing room, but it didn't win the war.

It prevented defeat.  It wasn't a sufficient condition but it was a necessary condition.

And no one was compared to Hitler ever again. 

Not without the Godwinsons egging them on.

[Erkki]

But they lost Paris and waved a white flag while places like Maginot Line should have held out waaaaaaay longer.

Cant be off topic in AGG: They lost Paris weeks after the British had already evacuated and France's own military was considerably reduced - that time they just didnt lose their army in wounded and killed men. It was a hopeless situation: losing Paris was a result of France already having, for practical purposes, lost the war and being unable to defend the city, not the other way around.

"to a lesser extent".  The confusion and inaction of the allies after the German exploitation of their rear areas is what created the channel pocket in the first place.

It was reacted to, but the Allies were incapable to stop the thrust into their rear and towards the Channel. IMHO decapitation usually refers to elimitation of leadership or absolutely necessary key units leading to victory, not encirclements of entire army groups such as in France 1940 or in operation Barbarossa.

[Tack]

So the original argument was: is massed infantry a dying breed?

To disprove that statement, you'd have to say that on the whole it is more effective than the combination of armor, air, and sea, special forces and other technologies.
I feel like even in the modern military the general infantry are relegated to peacekeeping work. They're there to fortify and staff a base so that other units can deploy from it.
(Or maybe that's just because 'chatting with the locals' is all the media seems to show)

[Erkki]

So the original argument was: is massed infantry a dying breed?

To disprove that statement, you'd have to say that on the whole it is more effective than the combination of armor, air, and sea, special forces and other technologies.
I feel like even in the modern military the general infantry are relegated to peacekeeping work. They're there to fortify and staff a base so that other units can deploy from it.
(Or maybe that's just because 'chatting with the locals' is all the media seems to show)

Most modern conscript armies look nothing alike WW1 era armies - they're not just infantry. There are several conscript armies with more fighters, artillery pieces and tanks per capita than the US even, yet most of their infantry is still mechanized and well equipped. Among the cons is that their immediate round the clock readiness to use the masses of equipment is lower and mobilization takes time.

edit: Hmm, I think you didnt comment on the professional army debate. More on topic, I think infantry is still powerful and cost effective in various environments. Mobility is just so important that they move on wheels these days. It could be a bit of a misconception from movies and other media that infantry has died out somehow; there never was so much of it in the first place in WW1 or 2 either. When the US Army fought in Europe, infantry was in the minority, only 15% or so of men were in it. Maybe its just difficult to make a movie about people who just tow a gun around the countryside and reload it, or cook, or drive a truck, or maintain aircraft. 

[Strife26]

These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure.

*cough* Israel *cough*

Could have a much better military if they went to a volunteer model, but the cultural control is judged worth the inefficiency, apparently.

[Culise]

These days, a conscript army is literally more trouble than it's worth, just in straight dollar expenditure.

*cough* Israel *cough*

The problem is that people somehow think a conscript army *must* be worse in training than a professional army simply because most examples of conscription in public parlance include the Vietnam War draft (the unwilling led by the unqualified commanded by the unknowing to "protect" the ungrateful), as well as various African, Latin American, and Arab countries, none of which inspire thoughts of military competence.  Israel is a valid demonstration of the counterexample.  Hopefully, South Korea will never need to prove likewise as well, but it is another potential counterexample with a professional core to be bolstered by mass conscription.  The Swiss are yet another. 

Basically, if the relative quality of two armies is anything approaching equivalent, Lancaster laws start to apply - the effectiveness of force A against B is approximately the square of the numeric ratio between the two.  In other words, if you have twice the numbers, you'll have around four times the effectiveness; three times the numbers, nine times the effectiveness.  Cases like Rorke's Drift tend to be rather exceptional; when one cheap one-person weapon such as a MANPAD can take out your fancy multi-million fighter jet, conscription gives you quick hands.  One of the chief weaknesses of Israel's strategic position has always been that its opponents outnumber it to a significant degree, as well as surrounding it in a position with no strategic depth.  Conscription is a viable answer to this issue - if the Arab armies had ever managed to get their collective heads out of their rears, a purely-professional army would have been run dry, and few strategic planners worth their salt should advocate a policy that not only assumes, but also relies upon the incompetence of their enemies.  The Yom Kippur war, for instance, would not have ended in an Israeli victory if not for the manpower reserves of the well-trained reservist force (the "conscripts") that could be called up quickly. 

[Strife26]

Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number  of tasks possible.

You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.

[Parsely]

That isn't the issue Amp is suggesting though, as far as I can tell. A better trained force can be overwhelmed with numbers, because the trained soldiers are irreplaceable. A better equipped army is much harder, since not only are they presumably running a better casualty ratio, their casualties are as replaceable as the enemy's.

And quite aside from that, I am skeptical that we will see total war until a nation develops a near-perfect missile shield.

And if we do, I still don't see huge numbers of infantry being deployed because of massively superior force multipliers. WWI was a century ago - it's difficult to quantify how relevant data from that era is to the current era, but it's probably safe to say that it's nowhere near a perfect comparison.

That's true. The better equipped force is going to win. There are exceptions, but they are certainly not the rule.

Agreed (not that the chances of there being a world war have anything to do with whether or not conscription is worth doing) but I don't think it's far off with the way laser technology is flying forwards. A missile shield would only need to make nuclear war ineffective, I think. It's not worth pushing the button if you're only going to take out one or two major cities. Maybe World War 3 will be a land war with short range tactical nukes. Take out the enemy's local anti-missile defenses then nuke them to finish them off.

Only if it is a very short war. A World War is a battle between first world countries so for the most part it can be assumed that there will be few to no equipment gaps for the most part, thus the point illustrated by my quote still stands, I think. Here's why: The whole point of conscription is that there are no professional forces left to draw on, or not enough of them to cover the front(s). There were millions of men fighting in 1914 and it still wasn't enough for either side. Earth is big. You can't fight everywhere at once, but if you have more men, you can fight in more places or outnumber your enemy in a few. Everyone wanted more men. If an urgent war happens, then the vets of Arab conflicts will do battle (Russian veterans of Syria, American and European veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan) and deplete one another. They will need to be replaced by men who haven't been training or fighting their entire career. Even better than waiting for them to die, augment them with untrained soldiers and outnumber your enemy from the outset. There are no two ways about it. If there is another war on the scale and length of the previous World Wars, conscription will happen.

-snip-

^^This. Motivation is another factor that's hard to quantify, but a proud force is a tough force. I'm not saying it's a replacement for training though.

Hmm, I think you didnt comment on the professional army debate. More on topic, I think infantry is still powerful and cost effective in various environments. Mobility is just so important that they move on wheels these days. It could be a bit of a misconception from movies and other media that infantry has died out somehow; there never was so much of it in the first place in WW1 or 2 either. When the US Army fought in Europe, infantry was in the minority, only 15% or so of men were in it. Maybe its just difficult to make a movie about people who just tow a gun around the countryside and reload it, or cook, or drive a truck, or maintain aircraft. 

Well I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.

To disprove that statement, you'd have to say that on the whole it is more effective than the combination of armor, air, and sea, special forces and other technologies.

Is armor more effective on its own than a combination of air, sea, and infantry forces? No, because no one leaves behind their air/sea/armor/infantry assets when they fight a war.

Persia twice, once when Alexander the Great killed the emperor, once when Muhammad's army did.  The battle of Manzinkert.  The conquest of Constantinople in the 3rd crusade.  Cortez and Pizarro both used it to great effect.  The defeat of the Godwins.  The Peoples Republic of China would have never taken over China if they hadn't kidnapped the Chinese president in 1936.  The battle of San Jacinto won the Texan revolution in one clean sweep.  The German invasion of France in 1940 to a lesser extent.

Good examples.

Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number  of tasks possible.

You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.

Related: I saw a nice video on British PMCs in Afghanistan. The Ghurkas who were training Afghan recruits had been working for a few weeks and were very, very frustrated with their progress.

[Erkki]

Well I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.

Out of how many deployed in total? What are the requirements for that badge? Any way, Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly kind of "peacekeeping" operations with a much weaker, guerrilla enemy(after the first weeks in Iraq) and relatively little heavy equipment used. The sides were asymmetric; they were completely different kind of conflicts than, say, the one US and NATO prepared to fight in Europe for half a decade.

Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number  of tasks possible.

You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.

It doesn't take quite a full year for the Joe Average to become an adequate(standards may very?) infantryman or some non super difficult support role man? A year for leaders and more advanced stuff perhaps.

Yeah you cant just quickly train conscripts when they're about to be needed, they need that 6 months to a year or more. Just learning to live in a military takes several weeks, two months for some. Some never get used to it. Better have men continually trained and in put to reserve and back to exercises before things get hot, and that keeps the entire training system and command chain up as well, ready to be expanded.

[Parsely]

Well I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.

Out of how many deployed in total?

What are the requirements for that badge?

Any way, Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly kind of "peacekeeping" operations with a much weaker, guerrilla enemy(after the first weeks in Iraq) and relatively little heavy equipment used. The sides were asymmetric; they were completely different kind of conflicts than, say, the one US and NATO prepared to fight in Europe for half a decade.

About 2.5 million over the course of more than 10 years. Not a lot of them saw action, but they were line infantry and they were there in great numbers.

The badge is awarded to infantrymen and Special Forces soldiers in the rank of Colonel and below, who personally fought in active ground combat while assigned as members of either an infantry, ranger or Special Forces unit, of brigade size or smaller, any time after 6 December 1941.

People say "it was a peacekeeping operation" like folks didn't suffer, fight, and die in that war. Forget the politics. To me the phrase belittles the actions of those men who did their best to keep one another alive out there.

[Strife26]

Well I wouldn't necessarily say that. Most soldiers in any military are rear echelon troops, but there were (and still are) lots and lots of line infantry. 36,518 Combat Infantry Badges have been awarded to American soldiers who participated in the war in Afghanistan.

Out of how many deployed in total? What are the requirements for that badge? Any way, Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly kind of "peacekeeping" operations with a much weaker, guerrilla enemy(after the first weeks in Iraq) and relatively little heavy equipment used. The sides were asymmetric; they were completely different kind of conflicts than, say, the one US and NATO prepared to fight in Europe for half a decade.

Turning someone into a professional soldier that can operate modern weapons is *not* something that you can do with a standard conscription length of service. Believe me, I've spent more than one month trying to get South Korean conscripts to a level of baseline competence, and I eventually had to settle for baseline competence in the minimum number  of tasks possible.

You want a good soldier, you need at an absolute minimum, a solid year, and that's cutting it so short that there's going to be serious repercussions down the line. If you're running a standard 2 year conscription model, half your conscripts are going to need even more babysitting than the average Joe.

It doesn't take quite a full year for the Joe Average to become an adequate(standards may very?) infantryman or some non super difficult support role man? A year for leaders and more advanced stuff perhaps.

No. Not just no, but hell no. Joe shows up out if OSUT and he's still pretty much completely useless. If you're *really* lucky, he might have learned enough to learn, but that's questionable, especially these days.