3 ms·
I'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept. If all you have left to fight with
by eloff 6y ago
I'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept.
If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that.
I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank defeated 50 Russian tanks in the battle of Kursk, if I remember correctly.
But the cheaper, mass produced tanks of the allies won out because they could be fielded in much greater numbers.
- chii 6y ago> If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that. and see how well (or poorly) that work. Look at afganistan. Look at iraq. Insurgents continue to fight, and the usa just cannot completely win. A war is won on ideology, not weapons.
- WalterBright 6y ago> Insurgents continue to fight, and the usa just cannot completely win. The US cannot win those because it is unwilling to do what is necessary (indiscriminate killing) to win. > A war is won on ideology, not weapons. I don't see much evidence for that in the history of warfare. For example, during WW1, the fortunes of the armies ebbed and flowed with the ebb and flow of who had the technical advantage in the air war.