WW2 Poison Dart

There has been a warped impression that wars can be fought with hardly any civilian casualties if the boots on the ground would just exercise ever-greater restraint circulating lately. Oversimplification. There are many combat strategies that exploit different strengths and take different paths to victory. For instance, the US Army's approach since ACW has been war by attrition (i.e., use overwhelming force and wear the opponent down); while the USMC's approach has been maneuver warfare (i.e., respond quickly, travel light). Maneuver warfare requires better trained troops -- especially the officer corps, but the result is lower casualties all around. In the ACW, Robert E. Lee practiced maneuver warfare; Ulysses Grant practiced attrition. In ww2, the blitzkreig was maneuver warfare and the soviets implemented attrition warfare on the eastern front where it was a particularly brutal and inefficient, though ultimately effective. Both Gulf Wars were exercises in maneuver warfare. There are legitimate differences in combat approach and these differences have significant influence on the duration of the conflict, the casualty rates (both military and civilian), and outcome.

I'm speaking of civilian impressions, not strategy, which none-the-less doesn't apply to tactics. Maneuver or attrition doesn't matter in the example at all, as either way you're still under fire from a target you're not allowed to reply to.

The point wasn't that it has to be maneuver or attrition -- those are just the two endpoints on a spectrum of methods; the point is that there are a variety of ways to engage the enemy. Some rely on pressuring the civilian population (bombing civilian populations, raping and pillaging, etc.), some rely on avoiding the civilian population (precision bombing, surgical special ops strikes, etc.). There are rules; there are limits; there are consequences. The reason you're not allowed to fire into a mosque/school is because the point of warfare is to break the enemies will to fight, not to stoke their resolve to continue. War is an extension of policy and is not an end unto itself ... if you want perpetual war, if you are conducting war for war's sake, go ahead and attack the mosque/school. If you want the war to end and for your side to be victorious, limits are a necessity.

Spoken like a true armchair general.

Spoken like someone who knows more than I do. Fixed that for you.

Spoken like someone who knows more than I do. Of course, I'm an arrogant ass. Likewise.

Spoken like someone who knows more than I do. Of course, I'm an arrogant ass. Likewise. I've noticed you get insulting and abusive every time someone points out that you're wrong. It's like a 'tell' in poker ... you instantly let your opponent know he's won.

Mirror mirror on the wall...

I've noticed you make narrow-minded observations based on your own prejudices and have little to no idea what you're talking about most of the time, hence you're not worth a real opinion. Hands up, who's been there? :hi: Hands up, who's seen first hand how these guys fight? :hi: Hands up, who's ever been in a firefight at all? :hi:

View Full Version: WW2 Poison Dart