3 ms·

> Weapon systems are not obsolete just because they can be defeated--warfare is not a case where one weapon system just totally creams everything else, but clos

> Weapon systems are not obsolete just because they can be defeated--warfare is not a case where one weapon system just totally creams everything else, but closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where nothing is truly dominant. Not really. War is unbalanced and the metagame is strict. Weapon systems do get obsoleted if they can be defeated cheaply and easily. But, when you have weapons, you tend to use them. The Russian meta is to hide behind a wall of meat shields and blow shit up with artillery from further back. The Ukranian meta is to... blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery. In this war long range artillery is the thing that matters. In a war against the US, you would see a lot of elements downplayed simply due to a capable airforce. Also I think you meant Kharkiv

jcranmer 4y ago
> Also I think you meant Kharkiv Ah yes, I did mix up Kherson and Kharkiv.
rmah 4y ago
"Blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery" That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. In fairness it started with "rush them with infantry", but that was countered with static defenses. Which was then countered with tanks (your statement). Which was countered with anti-tank weaponry. Which was countered with infantry. Which was countered with mechanized infantry. Which was countered with mobile artillery. Which was countered by aircraft. Which was countered with.. Seeing a pattern here?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. As I understand it, this is not quite accurate. Trenches are pretty resilient to artillery fire. Especially shitty WWI artillery. Trench rushes tended to be pretty effective, but it was very difficult to solidify any gains because the enemy would always have a second line of trenches to quickly counterattack while you were inevitably overextended. The modern precise artillery and intel of the west at least is effective on an entirely different level where supply lines far behind the front are in danger. > Seeing a pattern here? That military tech evolves? I mean, yeah, obviously. The claim being addressed here is that things don't become obsolete. Many things do.

jcranmer 4y ago

> Also I think you meant Kharkiv Ah yes, I did mix up Kherson and Kharkiv.

rmah 4y ago

"Blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery" That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. In fairness it started with "rush them with infantry", but that was countered with static defenses. Which was then countered with tanks (your statement). Which was countered with anti-tank weaponry. Which was countered with infantry. Which was countered with mechanized infantry. Which was countered with mobile artillery. Which was countered by aircraft. Which was countered with.. Seeing a pattern here?

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. As I understand it, this is not quite accurate. Trenches are pretty resilient to artillery fire. Especially shitty WWI artillery. Trench rushes tended to be pretty effective, but it was very difficult to solidify any gains because the enemy would always have a second line of trenches to quickly counterattack while you were inevitably overextended. The modern precise artillery and intel of the west at least is effective on an entirely different level where supply lines far behind the front are in danger. > Seeing a pattern here? That military tech evolves? I mean, yeah, obviously. The claim being addressed here is that things don't become obsolete. Many things do.