What wins Wars?

That's pretty luxurious by mass grave standards. Look at all of that unused real estate.

>>2831755
>What wins Wars?
Logistics

>>2831755
Imposing your political will on the enemy.

File: 1492918472412.png (615KB, 632x1756px)

615KB, 632x1756px

whoever is willing to sacrifice the most.

>>2831761
they probably intended to have more people show up. that guy looks pretty bummed.

File: Don'tDealWithAnything.jpg (4MB, 3200x4000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3200x4000px

>>2831755
nobody

a complete dedication to realism and pragmatism at the expense of yourself and others

File: 1485188419912.jpg (7KB, 154x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 154x200px

>>2831790
Fuck

>>2831790
>This meme
Since the American civil wars war has mostly been decided by GDP per capita and population and territory size

>>2831755
Knowing yourself and knowing the enemy.

Whoever kills enough from the other side.

War is a pretty simple matter tbqh.

>>2831755
Not exlusively focusing on one thing

>>2833455

"No"

Men.

>>2833455
Tell that to the Americans in Vietnam

>>2833565
Enough is the important word there, and evidently a million wasnt

File: Gentlemen_of_France.jpg (303KB, 2701x1409px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 2701x1409px

Clausewitz talks of a triad of war: People/ public sentiment, the government/objectives, and the military/ fog of war/ logistics, operations, and tactics. To win a war you have to unbalance the triad.
>People
If the people hate the war your effective military and objectives are made redundant see the Vietnam war
Simple objective to protect the south.
Vastly better militarily with muh K/D.
But hippies hated that shit and thus public opinion won the NV the war
>Objectives/ Government
Athens in Peloponnese
Public loved Pericles and hated Sparta so would fight on.
Military well equipped and had more men and funding than Sparta.
But Government and objectives confused the war effort with shitty invasions in Sicily so Sparta won. Before Pericles died is was pretty much a stalemate but after Athens democracy lacked a single voice of reason.
>Military
Korean war
Norks believe in communism and liberation of the south
Government has clear objectives and leadership to take the south
But Inchon and a more effective military reverse it all in a single battle. (Note that the UN then fails to the north because of lack of public support so it ends as a draw)
Though this is highly simplified the principles still stand, its like the art of war in that respect.
Terrorism has a similar triad but I can't remember it.

>>2831755
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon Bonaparte

File: bfbd7e021d8cdae15cc49d07eb9413a2.jpg (16KB, 236x272px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x272px

>>2831790

File: 0d99062cfd81c58b9e36bc06ae10d1d9.jpg (40KB, 382x597px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 382x597px

>>2831755
Violence

File: history of war.jpg (123KB, 759x472px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 759x472px

>>2831755
It depends largely on the type of war, the era, and the cultures involved.

Willpower seems to be the one universal. It's true, you can't truly lose until you quit fighting, barring genocide, and removal of an entire population is rarely practical, unless their spirit, and thus willpower, is already broken.

Not that I recommend fighting to the last man, as quite often, admitting defeat is more beneficial, particularly in the modern world.

But, beyond that, as to what wins wars:

MODERN:
The primary limiting factor in modern warfare is economic and political. Superior force generally prevents existential threats, but does not necessarily mean you'll always get your way.

>Superior foreign force vs. Guerrillas
Speed and PR. You must eliminate the threat of the renegade force before you kill so many people that the general populous turns against you and/or you perpetuate animosity in other territories.

>Guerrillas vs. Superior foreign force
See: Willpower. PR helps too - paint the 4U as the BBEG. Also, decentralize everything - a guerrilla force that rests on cult of personality only lives as long as that personality.

>Two culturally similar roughly equal forces
Whoever cripples the enemy's ability to make war and topples their government first wins. Also, alliances. (But do be aware that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' will lead to future conflicts.)

>Radically different cultures with roughly equal forces
The only hope here is to depose the leadership and replace it with one more friendly to you, drawn up from the same population. You will always be seen as "the other" and any other sort of victory will be temporary. Hopefully you don't share a border, or even that sort of victory maybe temporary.

>Two nuclear armed forces
Direct confrontation is out of the question, so economic and political sabotage, sprinkled with some proxy war bait. Alliances are even more important here, but the flaw in Sun Tzu is magnified tenfold, so choose wisely.

...

>>2831755
Money.

File: roman warfare.jpg (1MB, 2999x1414px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2999x1414px

>>2834048
...

CLASSICAL:
The upside to classical warfare is that the bulk of the war is actually decided in battle, rather than by perceived outcome. In longer wars, economics is a factor, but it's more about supply than demand, and generally, conquered territory can be pretty quickly converted into resources, whereas more modern wars depend on the support of the homeland's industry.

>Superior force vs. weaker force
Overwhelming force. War of attrition is an option, but not preferable, as it may leave you destabilized. Focus on strategy over tactics and protect supply lines.

>Weaker force vs. Superior force
Mad tactics, avoid attrition. Strike fast, strike hard, make them realize the fight isn't worth it. The more unconventional you are, the better. Split the enemy force into disorganized manageable units. A focus on disrupting supply lines, so the enemy cannot rely on its superior resources, also seems to help.

>Equal forces
Alliances, charisma, and rapid communication. Whichever side loses cohesion of command first is out.

>>2831755
Moneylenders, they're the only group that profits from it.

>>2833455
It's kind of amazing how rarely this is the case.

It is the case more often for individual battles, but even there, unless the force and kill ratio is overwhelming, it's pretty 50/50.

...and much of the time, any given nation that's goes in with this philosophy, loses their war in the long run.

Works great in vidya games though.

File: Putler-trio.jpg (74KB, 1024x652px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1024x652px

>>2831755
Or just do what you were always going to have to do from the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI

Sit down and talk.

I suppose war is negotiation by other means, but in the end, win or lose, it goes right back to the same place it started.

>>2831755
having support from jews

>>2831755
Logistics my man

>>2834145
Lefti detected. War dictates the conditions under which the talks are held which can be extremely different for both sides from those that were available before war dictated a new reality.

>>2831790
woke af

>>2831773
/thread

>>2831790
A George divided among himself cannot stand

>>2833728

Why the fuck did they go to Sicily instead of taking the LOL NO WALL Sparta city itself ?

>>2834145
some enemies won't sit down and talk

>>2833455
t. Luigi Cadorna

the caliber of bullet your service rifle fires

>>2831755
Destroying the enemy's ability to make war, whether that be by killing his troops, demoralizing them, or destroying his ability to produce weapons.

>>2831755

The horror. The horror.

Morale and strengh in numbers

Look at the chineese, they cool literally just zerg rush europe with millions and we would run out of ammo before they even run out of canno fodder

File: Equal under justice.jpg (64KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 850x400px

>>2834233
Literally the biggest argument against democracy is Athens, the Birthplace of democracy and arguably the only true democracy post Pericles death. They practically forget how to wipe their asses, fucking off and attacking Syracuse which ended in their entire expeditionary force (The best funded and equipped army in the Peloponnese not Sparta) being obliterated. Pretty sure they kept trying and sending reinforcements as well which also got slaughtered. Anyone except an idiot could have won the war for the Athenians, Its like the pacific theater in world war two except unlike the brilliance of Nimitz and the masterful tacticians and strategists of Athens like Miltiades and Themistocles, the Athenians all caught Autism and got royally fucked because of it.
>t. one of the few people on 4chan who thinks democracy is the best form of government not monarchy or dictatorship

>>2833455
have you ever read a history book before?

>>2833728
can somebody give me a quick rundown on clausewitz?

does he rightly deserve his place in the canon of classics?

is he overrated?

do any of his ideas still have merit?

I feel like the fact that he hasn't been appropriated into a business settings like marcus aurelius or sun tzu means that he isn't merely pure ideology

>>2833728
This,
But I would add one more element - resources. You need enough resources supporting your military. Without enough resources, all the civilian sacrifices will not avail. See king Pyrrhus of Epirus,

File: st.jpg (81KB, 800x503px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x503px

>>2831755

All logistics, weapons, and MUH GREATER NUMBERS are all products of a nation's people, and a nation's military is therefore only as good as the nation that supports it.

Therefore it is the collective willpower of a nation in times of peace that ultimately wins wars.

Also, willpower to win != the desire to win

>>2831790
Isn't that kinda psychopathic?

>>2834824

> dae Triumph of the Will

Fight hard, but also fight smart. Will is secondary to both purpose and expertise.

>>2831773
This and manpower

>>2833678

If reading Syrian Civil War twitter feeds has taught me anything, losers talk about Kraft Dinner Horatios, while winners talk about what objectives they've seized.

>>2833494
>>2833565
>>2834089
>>2834261
>>2834555

Enough, you idiots. There's a reason why people don't attack nuclear armed.

War is, at its essence, is about killing. If you kill enough (which is based on a number of factors), you'll win.

Please, read a history book before posting on /his/.

File: Warhammer__.jpg (20KB, 655x352px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 655x352px

Understanding what the actual goals are to win the win, and then bandwagon to get them.
You don't even have to fight proper battles, many wars have been won over sieges and taking over infrastructure.

And I would argue that
Logistics > Infrastructure > Leadership structure > Manpower
And all strategy do, is to reinforce the importance and potency of each type.

>>2834642
Resources would be just a +1 on all sides of the triad.
By itself its not equal to what can be looted. And in case of modern wars: Resources is just Infrastructure + Logistics + Manpower.

>>2831755
those are some weird looking jelly babies

>>2834494
They didn't even manage to take down the northern state in Korea back when Korea was 3.

>>2831773
>>2834876
wars are about competing economies. your physical military is just a value multiplier.

if you can field 10,000 men and the enemy 50,000 men. then your men must be able to kill more than 5.0 men per person in order to win.

reversed. the other nation can lose 5 or fewer men per kill and still win.

>>2831755
what happened here?

>>2835472
Yeah! The Yom Kippur War, the ongoing fights between India and Pakistan, the Falklands war, the fighting between India and China, they were all just mass hallucinations. They didn't happen!

>>2835594
How many men you can mobilize and equip is highly dependent on your development, not just your population though.

File: charlie-white-champion-2005.jpg (159KB, 957x1100px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 957x1100px

>>2831790
ok easy please

>>2831755
Production and bodies.
You must have the manufacturing or capital to arm your military or hire another, and you must have bodies to carry those arms or produce that capital.

Russia and the US became superpowers purely off of their manufacturing, while Europe had no superpowers because the size of its nations prohibited them from growing enough to match continent-sized nations.

>>2831773
>>2835594
This basically.

>>2835472
Clearly you're well read on Hannibal then?

>>2835619
Vietnam had neither, Mongols didn't have those, Greeks didn't have those. Normans didn't have those. American revolutionaries didn't have those. Typical naive new world viewpoint.

File: aerial_view_of_stalingrad_1943.jpg (195KB, 1006x700px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1006x700px

>>2834859

Willpower in war isn't just physical combat, it encompasses the boring tedious shit like logistics and planning. It's just like how proper diet + exercise is what determines how fit you will become, both of which require le triumph of will.

le truimph of will inevitably leads to fighting smart, but fighting smart doesn't mean shit if you don't have le truimph of will.

>>2835594

>wars are about competing economies.
>your physical military is just a value multiplier.

Well thank fucking god that real life wars aren't a game of starcraft.

>>2831755
unrelenting destruction.
destroy everything your enemy has, no matter what
burn down buildings
bomb towns
shoot civilians
kill soldiers
just make sure nothing is left until they submit

>>2834563

I mean I can't give you a quick rundown but I'd say his reputation revolves around coming up with a real philosophy of war.

He's not pure ideology but his ideas relate to the objectives of war and how the military operates as an apparatus of the state.

>>2835472
It's funny how people can speak with such confidence while being so plainly wrong.

>>2831755
NCO's & Logistics.

>>2835594
Yeah Vietnam and Afghanistan had a crushingly powerful economy

>>2835472

No, what you mean to say is, "there's a reason why arab sand people haven't tried attacking Israeli sand people again post Yom Kuppir War."

>mossad hints to arab neighbors that it has nukes and to not fuck with israel anymore
>arab sand people attack anyways
>Yom Kuppir War ensues, Israel nearly gets BTFO
>1986 Mordechai Vanunu provides pictures and details of israeli nuke program in the negev desert
>mfw arabs thought israel having nukes was a jewish trick
>tfw krauts thought nuclear weapons was a jewish trick

t. another butt hurt arab telling other people to go read a book.

Serving the true God.

>>2835594
It's a bit more complicated than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore

80,000 men captured by a Japanese force less than half that size, because the Japanese had better strategy/logistics.

>>2834563
>can somebody give me a quick rundown on clausewitz?
>War is really fucked up, guys, so these are all just rules of thumb
>Understand that your actions have consequences
>It's easier to defend than attack because you can better infer an offensive plan than a defensive one
>You can't fight a War without a Nation

His work wasn't completed before his death, so some of his ideas aren't quite all there. The majority of them not only still hold merit but are broadly applicable to any kind of political scenario, as well. The only reason why they haven't been appropriated yet is because they're presented as a scholarly dissertation and not as a bunch of proverbs and maxims.

>>2833455
No, you just need to annihilate their army at the right moment.

>>2831755
Cascading alliances.

>>2831755
Logistics?

Whoever doesn't kill their enemy.

If you kill your enemies, they win.

Better logistics, better equipment, better strategy, better leadership, well-trained soldiers and an abundance of resources.

File: I hope my eyes deceive me.jpg (44KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x300px

>>2838095

>>2831818
Ireland
Vietnam
Iraq

truth

>>2839243
I thought we were talking about proper wars not guerrilla wars. America beat the Iraq army in like a month

File: The_Thin_Red_Line.jpg (324KB, 1920x952px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1920x952px

>>2834642 its >>2833728 here
Resources are included in the triad in all three sides.
>People
Lack of resources can lead to public discontent see Germany 1918 with food blockade
>Objective/Gov might be for resources
See Nazi invasion of Russia/ 1st Gulf War
>Military
Logistics obviously Napoleon but also like arms manufacturing and equipment seen in lend lease program and USN during ww2 which was more able to make more ships than the Japs and replace losses
In regards to what You are saying Clausewitz talks about the Fog of War and that lots of fighting is up to chance with unforeseeable outcomes (he references the smoke of muskets blinding generals visibility hence fog of war), however to minimize the risk of Chance Governments should give armies flexibility which would include ample resources.
Also >>2837886 Bring up something very important which is:
>War is really fucked up
Clausewitz is very against pussy footing around and notes that war is bloody as fuck so trying to not hurt your enemy too badly is fucking stupid, go hard or go home, war is fucking hell.

>>2833728
Found the terrorism triad if anyone gives a shit, not sure who made this one but terrorism Triad is:
>Capabilities
>Support
>Objectives
which translates as:
>Military
>Public
>Government
respectively. Same principles still apply but with minor differences.

>>2834145
is this what britbongs call acting?

>>2839404

Television acting

>>2839380
The thing is, that modern states are funded on the idea of not budging on principle.
So it still works outside of West.

>>2831755
People.