Print

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

[Duke 2.0]

 I don't think guerilla warfare would play a part in such a hypothetical conflict, at least not at first. N Korea is a country, not a faction, and as such makes it much harder to utilize the strengths of a guerilla faction. Sure later on in such a conflict they could be reduced to such warfare, but being a country means your leadership is a lot more at risk than a faction fighting within a country. Not to mention there are industrial sectors that they would depend heavily upon.

 But what the fuck am I talking about here. Why are we talking about hypothetical wars here? As entertaining as it sounds, all this will lead to is somebody claiming how advanced some military system is, somebody else showing the flaws in that claim in a rather ham-handed way that insults the entire country spoken of, fights break out and crap gets ugly.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

But what the fuck am I talking about here. Why are we talking about hypothetical wars here? As entertaining as it sounds, all this will lead to is somebody claiming how advanced some military system is, somebody else showing the flaws in that claim in a rather ham-handed way that insults the entire country spoken of, fights break out and crap gets ugly.

Welcome to internet! Please enjoy visit!

[Grakelin]

Napoleon was one of the first to stuff his soldiers into houses and let them snipe them enemy from there as well, so I don't think he was defeated because of his inability to cope with Guerilla tactics.

Wasn't his climactic finish a straight-up fight, anyways?

[smjjames]

I think the US's inability to win the Vietnam war was because of more than just the media. Implying that you didn't lose the war but the media made you quit is a bit simplistic. The point I'm making is that it seems to be an American cultural thing to assume your military is nigh undefeatable, the single greatest fighting force to ever grace the earth... when it really isn't.

The politics of  the time also had alot to do with it.

I watch history channel alot, so yea.

So do I. And while I wouldn't pretend watching documentaries on the history channel make me any kind of expert, I'm fairly confident it had a lot to do with the inexperience of the drafted soldiers, problems with morale, the enemy being on their own turf, etc...

That too, yea, and I never claimed to be an expert on it.

The USA may have the greatest conventional army ever - but today's wars no longer work like that.
Guerilla defeated Napolean, it defeated the USA in Vietnam, it defeated the Russians in Afghanistan - that shows that being a superpower means jack shit.
Except for literally killing the entire population, there are no viable ways to combat guerilla yet.

That being said, Guerilla wars are political clusterfucks. This faction receives support by the USA, whilst it is being combated by the China supporters who are allied by the autonomous fascist nationalistic group, which is combating the die-hard socialist party…

I'd point out that during the American Revolutionary War, the smaller American forces fought as guerillas against the British. They even complained about how we weren't following the proper rules of war (lining up across the battlefield, etc). Unless I'm just misremembering the quote. But the guerilla part I'm solid on. It's pretty much why we won many of our battles.

Yea, you're correct. At that time, Europe fought mainly feild battles and had a 'gentelmanly' way of doing war. Or something like that.

I wouldn't say that the American Revolution invented guerrila tactics, but that was certainly the beginning of the end of traditional gunfights.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I wouldn't say that the American Revolution invented guerrila tactics, but that was certainly the beginning of the end of traditional gunfights.

I think that had to do mainly with the invention of guns capable of hitting the broad side of a barn.

Of course, they kept on truckin' up through WWI, making guns ever more accurate and batshit insane, then the Nazis kind of said "fuck that" and just ran over them with tanks, like a small child playing GTA. The US then said "lol n00b" and just carpet bombed them. Then they got to vietnam and came to the realization that old-school strategies are kind of shit when the terrain's so dense that you can't just rake the enemy lines with a machine gun, you can't just roll tanks over them, and you don't know which stretch of trees to carpet bomb, so they just dicked around for a decade before giving up and going home to invent some hax to deal with that problem. This amounted to giving a bunch of nerds a huge budget and free reign to fuck around and make horrific doomsday devices that they can play around with under the guise of "testing". And so now we have neat little toys like cluster bombs that can annihilate an entire tank column and little remote controlled planes with cameras and bombs.

[Dwarf]

Napoleon was one of the first to stuff his soldiers into houses and let them snipe them enemy from there as well, so I don't think he was defeated because of his inability to cope with Guerilla tactics.

Wasn't his climactic finish a straight-up fight, anyways?

Look at Spain - Napoleon tried to invade it but eventually failed at defeating ramshackle, poorly armed, badly trained pseudo-civilization.

[Josephus]

Napoleon was one of the first to stuff his soldiers into houses and let them snipe them enemy from there as well, so I don't think he was defeated because of his inability to cope with Guerilla tactics.

Wasn't his climactic finish a straight-up fight, anyways?

Look at Spain - Napoleon tried to invade it but eventually failed at defeating ramshackle, poorly armed, badly trained pseudo-civilization.

He could not defeat their passion, is what it was.

[Dwarf]

That's what I tried to say.

Now consider that Kim-Jong Il or his son or whatever is basically God in the Korean's eyes.

[sonerohi]

Napoleon failed to conquer Spain because, after eating a spicy meatball, he could not personally lead his troops.

[Jackrabbit]

I think that if your army is so reliant upon your leadership that if you aren't around they lose to a

ramshackle, poorly armed, badly trained pseudo-civilization.

then something is wrong.

[Josephus]

I think that if your army is so reliant upon your leadership that if you aren't around they lose to a

ramshackle, poorly armed, badly trained pseudo-civilization.

then something is wrong.

I repeat: PASSION.

[Dwarf]

Did I actually write pseudo-civilization?

Oh damn. I did not actually mean to diffamate any spainsmen or so. I guess I meant pseudo-army.

[Jackrabbit]

I think that if your army is so reliant upon your leadership that if you aren't around they lose to a

ramshackle, poorly armed, badly trained pseudo-civilization.

then something is wrong.

I repeat: PASSION.

What if the French army was passionate too? Would the world have imploded?

[Josephus]

I think that if your army is so reliant upon your leadership that if you aren't around they lose to a

ramshackle, poorly armed, badly trained pseudo-civilization.

then something is wrong.

I repeat: PASSION.

What if the French army was passionate too? Would the world have imploded?

No. The history books would just have needed a lot more censoring.

[Dwarf]

They were passionate.

But, to stress that again:
The French fought gentlemany, which means you stand on a field, make rows and hope to hit something. They were completely unprepared and untrained for other kinds of combat.
Hell, even sea fights were fought in rows.