Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Matsimus"
channel.
-
124
-
60
-
18
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
@ineednochannelyoutube5384 US Civil War;
Had trench warfare.
Had underground trench warfare.
Had Landmines.
Hand grenades.
Machine guns.
Submarines.
Iron Warships with turrets.
Torpedoes.
Artillery.
...
An awful lot like WW1. After the Civil War, US leaders realized this was a bad way to fight, but the Europeans, having not fought the battles themselves, learned different lessons, and mimicked what they saw.
WW2 had ALL of the same weapons and tech, plus more, and yet we didn't devolve into trench warfare. also, in WW1, the Europeans wanted the US to fight the same way they had up to that point in WW1, and our leadership was not ok with that. we implemented different strategies that were effective at breaking through trench lines. The US leadership did not view trench warfare as the right approach in WW1. Also, Woodrow Wilson proposed forgiving Germany much the way Lincoln forgave the South in the Civil War, but France/UK were having none of that and desired retribution from Germany...we all know what that led to. In WW2, the US dictated things and finally got to follow in Lincoln's footsteps and worked with Germany and Japan, rather than condemn them the way UK/France had. This is but a minor taste of how the Civil War influenced WW1, both right and wrong influences. Look also at other smaller conflicts post-Civil War, and pre-WW1 (Pancho Villa, Spanish American War, etc. and you will see the shift in doctrine away from trench fighting by the US, despite all these new weapons).
Weapons continue to get more and more deadly ever since WW1, and we haven't yet returned to trench warfare as a dominant strategy since. Your conclusions are fundamentally flawed.
Try applying the "deadly" WW1 tactics against dispersed, smaller, mobile units that are no longer entrenched. How well would those same WW1 tactics work? not so well. If you think trench warfare is the right way to fight in WW1, then you lack understanding of the fundamentals of warfare. I recommend reading, or rereading, the Art of War, slowly and carefully. Learn about "initiative", and the folly of trying to control every inch of ground. you need only control strategic positions, recourses, access points, etc. (bridges, port cities, raw material, production, key terrain...). Mindlessly defending worthless terrain is not the way to win.
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Hellfire platform is becoming the swiss army knife of munitions. Launched from every weapons platform (C-130, AH-64, UH-60, predator, Tanks, Ships, etc....), with a huge multitude of variants and warhead options (even the ninja blade version). Anti-tank, anti-personnel, anti-ship, now anti-aircraft...
3
-
3
-
3
-
I never viewed river crossings being that complex. As a Combat Engineer myself, we would just find a place to cross no one expected, and throw down a bridge and go over. My own company could literally self-support ourselves through a river crossing in probably 20min if we needed to and had the right bridging equipment (sometimes we did, sometimes not). Now, in different combat environments, choke points, enemy numbers and capabilities, etc., this could change. But in many cases a simple crossing isn't that hard. But if you need to build a larger bridge, that takes a bit more time and planning, and would need defense. But it's not likely we'd build the bridge under direct fire either, not with modern weapons and support. If the enemy was that close and fierce directly across the river, we'd probably just secure the river bank until the threat on the opposing side was pushed back with artillery, airpower, etc. But for anyone who's never built a Bailey bridge, they go up surprisingly fast even with just human power. we've put up Bailey bridges in less than 30min with enough manpower and almost no preplanning or practice. Very ingenious design.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rags417 Hypersonic munitions - the US has been developing hypersonic technologies since well before 9/11, and continuing to now. To understand the US perspective on hypersonic weapons, you must understand the tradeoffs and limitations of hypersonic, supersonic, and subsonic weapon systems. US hasn't fielded hypersonics for specific reasons. But they are developing hypersonics anyways. Also, the US has a range of new conventional artillery technologies and weapon systems it has been fielding and testing recently, even setting world records.
The US has restarted heavy investing into a multitude of air defense weapons, but the US sees air power as its primary means of air defense. Not hard to understand why.
US has been developing new tanks for a while now too. Has re-shifted the focus of the Marines back to amphibious warfare and beach landings, island assaults, etc.
The Navy is undergoing massive changes in anticipation of a conventional war. Long list of things going on there.
The USAF has also re-shifted its focus years ago from recent lessons learned. F-35 vs A-10 debate is part of that refocus on conventional war, and the 6th gen fighter development that has been underway for many years now already is also focused on a conventional war.
MRAP development peaked years ago, when it was needed. But not much new has happened since. I was neck deep in testing the MRAPs for the military many years ago. I've driven/tested just about all the major types and variants of MRAP in the US military.
I could go on and on, and would even forget things from years ago. Most people don't pay close enough attention, and even fewer understand warfare and all that it entails. So it's understandable that people can't see what's going on, especially not be able to see the big picture.
1
-
@rags417 "China, Russia and the like never had to orient their military towards winning an endless series of guerilla wars like the US, which means that they have spent much more time focusing on building up to defeat their likely peer opponents, they also have a lot less to "unlearn" in terms of doctrine and training."
This I agree with, except for the last bit about unlearning. Some aspects of warfare are universal, no matter what. I think the notion of stable supply lines and static warfare might be a mentality weakness. But keep in mind, Most guys who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, are no longer in the US military either. I see almost no one these days with combat patches and such. The turnover is such that it's easy to shift gears fast. Also, the US soldiers are very good at adapting on-the-fly, regardless of the higher-up's decisions.
"Let's agree to disagree", that' the American way, and perfectly ok. However, I do not disagree with you entirely. Just that I have seen a lot of decisions in the past 10yrs alone that shows me they are shifting gears. I agree the US military is still on the backfoot on some shifts, but they are making them. Also, when I got out of the military years ago, lots of us were already talking about the issue of historically always fighting the last war. Lots of people back then knew of this issue. And so as people have risen in the ranks, this has been on their minds.
The fighting men I served with overseas were hands down the single most educated military fighting force the world has ever seen in recorded history. a huge number of our enlisted had college degrees, qualified for Warrant, OCS, etc. We had NCOs with multiple Masters degrees, etc. People of all different backgrounds and skills, and we cross trained each other on the skills we brought to the table. We developed tactics daily. Literally every day we were changing and evolving, deliberately. If the threat and type of warfare changed overnight, we'd change overnight too.
Myself and others have spent more time studying conventional warfare than guerilla warfare. I develop tactics for conventional fights, and adjust them to guerilla style. But guerilla wars typically only happen where total war is not enacted. Political wars, with no intention of winning. Had the political forces in office desired a proper victory in Afghanistan or Iraq, we could have delivered it. But they need to stop restricting the military. And no, what I am suggesting is not let the military shoot more people. The fact is, politicians don't know how to win wars, and the military can't win their either with their hands tied behind their back and not doing what should have been done that would have been better for everyone overall. Shorter wars, fewer casualties overall on both sides, better outcomes for us and the locals of those nations.
1
-
@rags417 Well, there is a huge gap between video games and eh real deal. I play video games too, but I've fought in multiple wars, and learned from guys who fought in even more wars/conflicts (Vietnam, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada...).
I have also personally developed and tested my ideas in actual combat, and tested prototype equipment in combat, and modified and designed our own equipment in combat. I've trained people in many aspects of warfare and combat leadership for almost 2 decades now.
I too read a lot, but I don't focus on individual unit and military tactics. I started with the Art of War and defensive fortifications when I was a kid. Then studied general military history. From there moving into all aspects of overall theory (tanks, scouting, artillery, submarine warfare in different eras, air combat in different eras, combined arms, infantry, anti-tank, trench warfare, urban warfare, guerilla warfare, underground warfare, naval surface warfare in many eras, etc). Then I advanced to strategic level warfare, and finally logistical warfare. I also study the true origins of conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, Mexican American, Spanish American, 1812, WW0, etc.
" I am always fascinated at how easy it is for militaries to either forget the lessons from the last war or to misapply them to the new environment," That is because gov are not fighting themselves. And high ranking officers (above about O-4) are politicians more than they are military leaders and strategic thinkers. They think very short sighted these days. If you study WW2 enough, you'll find much of the war was anticipated by the Generals and Admirals, and the US started taking action in anticipation of the war years before it actually started. They even predicted the battle of Midway and its outcome years prior. The war in the Pacific played out largely the way they anticipated many years prior.
"Korea (just bomb their infrastructure and they will collapse in 6 months like last time right ?), Vietnam (body counts ftw !)" These are massive over simplifications of what happened. You have a lot to learn. You can learn it, but you have a lot more to understand to fully appreciate what happened and why. Wars are rarely so simple. The US military had a plan to win Vietnam inside 6 months. Great strategic level thinking. But it was a political war only, which US politicians had no intention of winning, so the plan was denied and shelved. US involvement in the Vietnam war wasn't supposed to happen, and the reason it did happen had nothing to do with helping South Vietnam. The real reason is infuriating. And then after that it took on a life of its own. Vietnam was not about body counts. That is a politician's view of warfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1