Comments by "the truth hurts" (@thetruthhurts7675) on "British military urged to modernise 'out of kilter' training" video.

  1. Individualss win wars, groups are predictable! the main difference in the war of independence was that despite the American leadership a couple of their military leaders were very capable, whilst the Uk hoped to hold onto the American colonies whilst they beat France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic at the same time (next 3 biggest powers in the world then). Patton or Bradley? Patton was such an individual, whereas Bradley was a coward, who ran from the front at the Battle of bulge, Monty, (mainly) and Patton had to shore up his mistakes, and predictable moves. For which Monty, and Patton recieve very little praise!!
    1
  2.  @danielkrcmar5395  Ok I will name two who were defeated, but ultimately ended with their prize. The first individual who even had to fight just to stay alive after his father was killed by the Tartars was one Genghis Khan. He lost a few of his early battles, but had bright idividual generals who turned the tide in his early years. Then when Genghis went on his domination of. Asia he was the individual with the ideas. He fought a constant war on 3 fronts, was never in a position where any of his armys were greater in number than his enemy, and with his unique individual style which was able to totally adapt to not only numbers of enemy, but also to how they fought. Then the next individual on whom British France was based Richrd the Lionheart. He was also individual in his outlook on battles. He started early fighting his father, the English king, he even with his elder Brother burned Le Mans because his father was holding out there. He won most of his battles on campaign including swinging the tide in the middle east for the Christians, He beat the Muslims in the middle east from which he learnt much of the things he did when fighting the French. He built the most imposing Chateau in France called Gaillard based on what he learned about seiges in the midlle east. In fact it was Richard's idea to ally with the mongols in the first instance to beat the Muslims of the middle east, and make Christian areas much safer!! Those are just two individual leaders. Whereas Richard's Brother John (who relied on his organisation called the Army) LOST France, and after Kublai Khan the empire split into the Hordes, and was never the same again. You see organisations are slow to react, slow to change, where as individuals in a war always make the major difference. See Sun Tsu on the effectiveness of individuals in war. or Von Clausewitz. Sun Tzu : “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” This is about the individual NOT the collective organisation. Von Clausewitz : "He argues that war is “subjective,”[IV] “an act of policy,”[V] and “a pulsation of violence.”[VI] Put another way, the nature of war is chaotic, inherently political, and violent. Clausewitz then states that despite war’s “colorful resemblance to a game of chance, all the vicissitudes of its passion, courage, imagination, and enthusiasm it includes are merely its special characteristics.”[VII] In other words, all changes in warfare are those smaller pieces that evolve and interact to make up the character of war." This is also a necessart thought on individuals. What both are in fact stating is that only the brilliant individual leader can apparently "see through the fog of war," and react as is Necesary, and win through!
    1