The Art of War

[entropy]

Machiavelli shows you how to win a war without having to fight it, Sun Tzo shows you how to prepare a for war and then win it, while Von Clausewitz...

well, he's a German, WTF would he know about winning wars?


sorry to intrude in a thread of learning, but its a very old BA joke that just has to dragged up at any opportunity...

of the two named options my preference is Sun Tzo, he talks of warfighting in all its forms as opposed to Von Clausewitz who - for me at least - is much more a "here's a war, fight it" kind of thinker.

my personal preference is Machiavelli, on a personal level because i'm a complete siht of a human being so i think we'd get on well, and professionally because i like to win my wars without having to go to the inconvenience of rousing myself from my pit.

Machiavelli is the one whose ideas can be applied the most in real life. They make you an apathetic, calculating bastard, but a very good one!

[deadkenny]

Machiavelli shows you how to win a war without having to fight it, Sun Tzo shows you how to prepare a for war and then win it, while Von Clausewitz...

well, he's a German, WTF would he know about winning wars?


sorry to intrude in a thread of learning, but its a very old BA joke that just has to dragged up at any opportunity...

I appreciate that you were 'just joking',however, von Clausewitz was actually a Prussian, and I would say they knew a great deal about winning wars. In fact, arguably they only lost one war, which was WWI. Unfortunately for Prussia that was all it took. The Kaiser's '2nd Reich' was very much Prussia with control of the 'German states' outside Austria. The '3rd Reich' was no longer Prussia with control of other German states, but very much a 'new' unitary state. Although Prussians still dominated the army at the start, Hitler even broke that bastion of Prussian dominance by the end of the war.

[Cactus]

Look at their careers....

(and old Nick's too!)

Not terribly succcessful fellows, were they? And that too, as advisors! Let us charitably say they suffered from bad luck (more than they would do for us). Let us also say they salvaged their lives' works into their "lessons learnt" pieces - thats still not very reassuring as far as structural integrity goes.

[entropy]

(and old Nick's too!)

Not terribly succcessful fellows, were they? And that too, as advisors! Let us charitably say they suffered from bad luck (more than they would do for us). Let us also say they salvaged their lives' works into their "lessons learnt" pieces - thats still not very reassuring as far as structural integrity goes.

Out of experience, I can tell that some people only are able to make correct decisions for other people, and not for themselves. This has to do with the inability of clearly see one's own situation and abilities.

[deadkenny]

...Stalingrad was in fact fought from the second half of August '42 to Feb. 1 '43, or just about 5.5 months. So, two years is rather an exaggeration.

I so stand corrected but I was actually thinking the entire front.

If by 'the entire front' you're referring to the entire campaign, starting with Operation Blue, then that started in June 1942 (May 1942 if you want to start from the failed Soviet attack on Kharkov and the resulting German operations to cut off and defeat the Soviets there) through to von Manstein's 'backhand blow' back at Kharkov in Feb. 1943 is is still only 8 (or 9) months, not 2 years.

[Guest]

Were the Mongols the only ones in history that had the most effective solution to insurrgency ??

.... or are they the only ones that are most remembered like that. I would think other kingdoms and empire atleast in Asia and Europe carried out their own genocides against insurrgents. In case of Mongol, I would say it was their combined atrocities coast to coast that labeled them as such.

Were the Japanese equally brutal?? if we go back to the ancient time the Achmenides under Daruis and Xerxes were mericless toward rebellious satraps, and so were the Romans. The tartars under Timurlang. In medival times, the Ottoman Turks and Russians.

But to quote Edward Gibbons, the Mongols did a service to mankind by eradicating the Assassins and the Old Man of the Mountain.

[Kansas Bear]

Were the Mongols the only ones in history that had the most effective solution to insurrgency ??

They did catapult plague bodies into cities they had under siege. Does that qualify??

[Guest]

Yes, it does. But I was more thinking on the line of their terrorizing erdication of the town population as their main weapon to spread fear, strategically.

[lastdingo]

Clausewitz is more applicable simply because his work is more comprehensive and less prone to free interpretation.

Sun Tzu offers some insights as well.

I feel that a new, really comprehensive work is overdue. Something that includes all still relevant art of war that was developed so far.

[Officer of Engineers]

Ask and you shall find

FM3-0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Operations

[Shek]

Clausewitz is more applicable simply because his work is more comprehensive and less prone to free interpretation.

Clausewitz has seen plenty of free interpretation. The whole concept of the politicians make the decision to start a war and then it should be handed over completely to those in uniform stems was a common initial misinterpretation of Clausewitz.

[lastdingo]

Ask and you shall find

FM3-0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Operations

That's not even nearly as comprehensive as what I missed.
The most important matters are not even mentioned in that FM.

[bolo121]

still reading through it but it seems pretty damn comprehensive to me.

OOE sir as im a jargon challenged civvie could you recommend any book on logistics that explains things in more simple terms?

[Officer of Engineers]

That's not even nearly as comprehensive as what I missed.
The most important matters are not even mentioned in that FM.

I really doubt that you have read it. It took me a year to go through that and it is far more detailed and insightful than you're implying that it is not.

[Shek]

still reading through it but it seems pretty damn comprehensive to me.

OOE sir as im a jargon challenged civvie could you recommend any book on logistics that explains things in more simple terms?

I don't know if this might be along the lines of what you're looking for, but here's a historical survey of modern logistics: Supplying War: Logistics from ... - Google Book Search