Presenting war as isolated engagements

>>2195854

Because most people have never been in a war. Their closest analogue to war is playing first person shooters on video game consoles. So they try to analogize war on the basis of what they're familiar with, and what they're familiar with tends to gloss over those little details.

That being said, I've noticed, at least on here but also a few other online fora, the opposite trend in the past few years. People shouting "LOGISTICS!" (often with only the vaguest idea of what logistics is) as the justification for any crank policy or dumbass idea. A few weeks back, I had a guy vehemently claim that the biggest tactical mistake the IJN made in WW2 was not blowing up an oiler at Pearl Harbor and instead focusing on the battleships. Any objection as to how this would be easily replaced, wouldn't accomplish their short term objectives, or anything else, was brushed aside with

>Logistics wins wars, ur dumb.

There´s a military saying: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"

>>2195864
That sounds way worse. They probably thought the oiler cost as much as the battleship when im sure the battleship was much much more expensive

Way worse because to other people they might seem intellectual

I too prefer to starve the enemy off in grand strategy games.

>>2195868
Didnt it had strategy in the middle?

File: curulium-aedilium-scribae.jpg (79KB, 500x219px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x219px

>>2195854
>Why do people do this? Why are people so obsessed with the combat alone when the biggest ways you win a war is better supply and infrastructure?
Because it's boring. Would you rather read stories about tank maneuvers during the Battle of Kursk or would you rather read stories about the textile mill making uniforms for the soldiers who fought in it, or maybe read quota reports from line operators who assemble the shells being fired?

These are the boring, tedious, technical mundane details which we'd rather not think about it, probably because they remind us too much of our jobs.

A good analogy is science: it's fun to talk about things like black holes, jet propulsion, galaxy clusters, etc, but it's not really that fun to talk about the hard mathematics and physics which make them possible.

And therein lies the point of the old saying that amateurs think of tactics while professionals think of logistics: the thing that makes them professional is that they are paid to understand all of the technical details that exist in the margins and determine whether an army is retreating or advancing.

>>2195983
>he isn't so autistic he loves reading industrial stats
history aint for you senpai