Is it better to maximize enemy loses or minimize your own?

>>63968516 (OP)
Ideally both, but if you can only pick one then minimize your losses. It's very likely to lionize your enemy if they think they're all gonna die anyway, but they're also more likely to give up if the effort seems fruitless

>>63968516 (OP)
Depends. Between you and your enemy, who values the lives of their own soldiers more?

>>63968516 (OP)
Minimize your own. Replacing good soldiers is expensive and one of the major problems Germany had was that they let their aces die instead of taking them home to make more aces. Moreover, try explaining to your population that several thousand of their sons died yesterday. Yes they may have killed tens of thousands in exchange but the general public doesn't care, they're pissed their son is coming home in a box

>>63968516 (OP)
Depends on the population size you have at your disposal
However this isn't something you can control anyway
Usually when a technologically superior nation invades a retrograde one they will have max enemies losses and min their own loses so it's combined

>>63968516 (OP)
Maximise enemy losses

minimize when you're dealing with complex machinery and munitions. people are already trained and they can learn from failures.

for offense, you should focus on achieving your military objectives rather than enemy casualty numbers.

>>63968516 (OP)
It's better to win. Sometimes that means maximizing their losses sometimes it means minimizing yours.

However, refusing to minimize your losses is the most common form of mistake. Infantry = die easy so why invest in quality is a classic which even Russian generals were warning about, and getting purged for, back to WW1.

Frog posters are so retarded.

>>63968516 (OP)
>Few people
>Minimize your loses
>Lots of people
>Maximize enemy casualties
simple as