3 ms·

If you think asymmetric warfare applied to any war where it was the us vs germany you do not understand asymmetric warfare

• astrodust 10y ago
  It's a sliding scale from perfectly matched sides (equal numbers of troops, equal training, equally good equipment) to completely mismatched. It's often implied to mean a small group of people that are hopelessly outnumbered fighting a much larger, well equipped force (à la Lawrence of Arabia) but insurgent groups are much larger than back then. I'm just talking about the equipment and training angle, where humble, practical weapons can prevail against sophisticated, expensive ones if the right strategy is employed. Sometimes the shitty, cheap thing can be pounded out in such numbers that the expensive counter is no longer practical or effective. American tanks were toys compared to the German top-tier ones, but they were also made in such massive numbers they couldn't be stopped. So the America that prevailed by coming up with humble, practical, cost-effective solutions to fighting a war is now under seige by adversaries fighting them with the same approach: Cheap, practical, easily mass-produced weapons. While you're right that America vs. Germany wasn't asymmetric, these crazy expensive weapon platforms are making modern asymmetric engagements way harder to win. Hell, at $3M a pop, simply getting that weapons platform to fire is a victory of sorts.