cult of the offensive

>>33603553
"Walk softly and carry a big stick." - Teddy
Now, fuck outta here.

>>33603553
Offensive want the issue, squad level tactics were

>>33603589
That doesn't answer the question. Is offense or defense easier given current technology and roughly equal resources?
>>33603963
Please elaborate.

File: SMRR65.jpg (736KB, 2584x909px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 2584x909px

>>33603963
>squad level tactics were
more like the lack of them, amirite?

t. reading about this right now

>>33603995
>is it easier to launch a few missiles
>-OR-
>mobilize a massive amount of dudes and supply them for an extended period of time
Hmmm got me there bud.

>>33603995
Given equal resources and conventional war, a modern war favors the offensive. SEAD operations can snowball into destruction of C3 and logistics assets that can freeze an enemy in place, allowing for a very quick end to conventional hostilities.

>>33603963
There was no way to take strong trenchworks without massive advantages in infantry and artillery. Attempting to attack without enough advantage led to bleeding white, yet people kept trying it.

>>33604029
Launching missiles is an offensive act. Only a couple countries have missile defense systems, so the only defense for those countries which don't is MAD.

>>33604085
You asked what was easier.
Also
>mad
Fuck outta here fucko

>>33604078
>a modern war favors the offensive.
So why don't we see more pre-emptive wars than we do today? Why aren't we seeing preemptive international wars all over the world?

>>33604094
What's wrong with MAD?

>>33604112
Because wars cost money and fame.

>>33603553
Depends on the level, its easier to defend at a squad v squad level but much harder at a nation v nation level. Especially against a superpower.

>>33604125
Nothing, you're retarded to believe that it's the deciding factor to go to war or not though.

>>33604125
MAD relies on both nations having equal tech. Just look at the Star Wars program to see how MAD fell over.

Not the original anon btw

>>33604112
Well the obvious and immediate reason is the pax atomica. From the mid 20th century the world has been divided into spheres of influence by atomic armed nations that don't care to risk warfare with each-other and the possibility unchecked escalation.

Low intensity and asymmetrical warfare has become the rule of the day. When we do see force on force operations it tends to follow the pattern of offense being favored.

>>33604127
WW1 was tremendously costly to nearly all parties involved, but they did it anyway because the situation was a prisoner's dilemma. If a country decided not to attack another country, they risked being attacked themselves and having the (perceived) disadvantage of being on the defensive.

So why don't we see more of that today if offense really is easier than defense?

>>33604147
Why?

>>33604151
MAD depends on several assumption.

1. That both sides are rational.
2. That they both fear destruction.
3. That either side will destroy the other if attacked.

>>33604112
War's rare.

See the six day war however for a great example of how the offense is favored. IDF tactics are a great showcase of the power of seizing the initiative.

>>33604213
>haha I make 1 offense then the war is over!
That's not how it happens, wars cost money anon.

>>33603589
Its 'Speak Softly' nigger

>>33604234
Counterexample, the six day war.

Sometimes going hard on the offensive really can end a war.

>>33604234
>That's not how it happens
Regardless of whether it is true or not, the fact that it was PERCEIVED to be true by all major parties in WW1 is why they were so eager to jump in the fight.
>>33604224
Did the Israelis win because of their offensive or because they were simply more competent and supported by the USA?
>>33604185
>pax atomica
That depends on MAD, which applies only between nuclear states. There'd be nothing to stop one nonnuclear state from attacking another unless the defending side could reliably count on outside help or was strong enough to begin with to fight off the attacker.

>>33604234
we beat the piss out of the iraqi conventional army in 28 days

>>33604304
>WWI was perceived to be over in a week
Anon there's propaganda, lies, and damn lies.
>don't worry boys, war'll be over by Christmas
Not
>yeah, shits fucked doods, enjoy sitting in your shit for another year while we whittle down the enemy numbers and supplies
Now, what would you rather hear from a SO?

>>33603963
>>33603995
>>33604015
>>33604078
samefagging OP? you're thread sucks let it die.

>>33604690
You don't know how to check? Of course you don't know the difference between your and you're.

>>33604304
Part of being more competent was taking the offensive and staying on the offensive until the fight was over. Egypt had a massive advantage in equipment and personnel that would have crushed them in a longer offensive. The US support mostly came in the form of ending the war when the whole world freaked out about the Suez being threatened.

>>33604310
>>33604234
The only thing more expensive then a short war is a long one. If you can't win fast then don't fight.

The Iran-Iraq war is a great example of how very fucking expensive a war can get between two more or less equally matched sides that fail to push an attack home.

>>33604344
You misunderstood me. I said it was perceived that the attacking side would have an advantage over the defending side.
>>33605773
>The Iran-Iraq war is a great example of how very fucking expensive a war can get between two more or less equally matched sides that fail to push an attack home.
I don't know who the attacking side was. I just know it ending in stalemate.

>>33605962
And? How does that make the war shorter? It's a war. Shit doesn't plan out as predicted. Sometimes you get lucky and catch the enemy off guard and steamroll to their country. Sometimes you don't.
>two sides locked in a battle of attrition hopping back and forth between ditches
>b-b-b-ut we have advantage!
K.

>>33603553
> Is it easier to attack or defend given current military technology?

If the middle east wars of the 1960s and early 1970s show anything then the edge still goes to the attacker. If we take the soviet-afghan and Iraq-Iran war is shows a different math but not that different.

The issue with WW1 is that military leadership had very little to go on as to what top level fully modern peer to peer warfare would look like. The First Balkan War did not have the volume of machine guns or artillery that any of the armies of the great powers fielded. Also there is transportation issue and terrain more harsh then what is in eastern France.

Also the eastern front of WW1 was rather unlike the western front. The front line move a far bit.