Thread 24710786

Do you read military books about strategy?

>>24710786 (OP)
i read maos book on guerilla warfare but honestly it hasnt aged super well, and i would be suprised if any warfare strategy book would age any better

>>24710786 (OP)
Yes.

Let me guess, you need more?

>>24710786 (OP)
indeeeedy
But basically it all boils down to having the best intel, discipline/morale, "the more you use the less you lose" and of course adaptability so youre ready to seize an advantage when it appears

>>24710897
You would be better off reading something intelligible like Clausewitz instrad. Read stuff by pic related as well. A disciple of Clausewitz, whose theory of war was more an effort to grasp its essential nature, rather than of Jomini, who expounded a system of rules, Moltke regarded strategy as a practical art of adapting means to ends, and had developed the methods of Napoleon in accordance with altered conditions of his age

>>24711023
>Moltke
I remember there being a chapter about him the book that brought me this neat graph
Whats his best work if one were to delve deeper?

>The most significant tactical development of the war was Moltke's
masterful demonstration of the validity of his concept of
"strategic offensive, tactical defensive." This was the deciding factor
in the two major battles of the war: Gravelotte-St. Privat and Sedan.
In both of these battles Moltke, assisted by the superb screening
and reconnaissance performance of his cavalry, was able to
swing his major forces behind the opposing French army in a wide
envelopment that placed the Prussians on the French line of communications.
The French had no choice but to attack immediately
to try to escape from the Prussian trap, while the Prussians won
the battles primarily through the superiority of their defensive
firepower.

>>24710786 (OP)
Yeah but mostly if their tied into grand history and state development

Can anyone recommend a good one specifically geared towards modern strategy?

>>24711063
Got this infograph, but can't vouch for the quality of the later half yet. Proceed at your own caution!

>>24710786 (OP)
>Do you read military books about strategy?
A little bit. I've read some Clausewitz. I like travel-ish war journalism from people who know what they're doing and have a understanding of the military side of things, but also write about the people involved and the social context in which the war is happening. At the end of the day it is about people so abstract theories can only go so far.

You should be wary of military "experts." There's a whole industry of people who will tell you about this amazing weapon system and these maneuvering divisions, but they have no idea what they're talking about. Even the senior American and Coalition military leadership during the Persian Gulf War had no idea how it was actually going to proceed when they gave the order to begin the ground campaign. It's not like that stuff isn't important, but I've found that stuff to be more supplementary because I'm not a career military officer which is what that material is written by and for.

This book covered Chechnya, Bougainville, and Sierra Leone where Executive Outcomes / Sandline made an appearance so I'm familiar with Eeben Barlow. It had some typos but I like this guy, Pelton, he's kind of a cult figure among war journalists and is old, and now has a podcast:
https://youtu.be/DOKdi0SoM_M

>>24711045
>Lethality and dispersion
You really see this in Ukraine. Modern weapons are so destructive that there's not really a "line." That's just a loose approximation of small groups holding mutually-supporting strongpoints because the dispersion has increased so much. But you want to hold a position with as few people as possible.

Why would you read that instead of playing strategy games you can fully participate in like chess or checkers? If you have a military bent, does it help you for anything? You can go online and speak fruitlessly with propaganda posters who are just towing their party line? If you play military strategy games, does it really help you at all rather than just learning the game's meta tactics?

>>24711626
>If you play military strategy games, does it really help you at all rather than just learning the game's meta tactics?
A little bit. The U.S. military (and others) play with some commercial wargames. They tend to be specific ones from the Slitherine/Matrix people. What's interesting about them is they have commercial versions and then "professional" versions (which the military plays with) on some of these titles, and the military contracts is where the real money is made. You can see concepts that Clausewitz et al. talked about reflected in some of these games. Like the "culiminating point." I think a lot of it is about seeing conflict as a whole process with several phases. Chess is like that.

>>24711020
>But basically it all boils down to having the best intel, discipline/morale, "the more you use the less you lose" and of course adaptability so youre ready to seize an advantage when it appears
Also yeah. It's a kind of like applied dialectics, really. It's like this in martial arts as well. Dialectics is about the interplay of opposites, in this case, two opposing forces in battle. Both sides aim to assert their will, but the resolution often comes from how one side adapts and reacts to their opponent.

>>24711020
This is the sort of conventional thinking that leads to getting raped by guerillas.

>>24711023
>Read stuff by pic related as well. A disciple of Clausewitz, whose theory of war was more an effort to grasp its essential nature, rather than of Jomini, who expounded a system of rules
Another thing I find interesting is the dictum that the essence of war doesn't change but technology changes the form or character. If you have heard about naval suicide drones being used in the Black Sea, essentially it's the same principle as fireships from the 17th century. I'd note that some of the underlying principles of tactics are different at sea than on land, but at any rate, the same is true of anti-ship missiles which can travel 100 kilometers out to sea from a launcher installed on land. It is historically the case that naval forts (like guarding a harbor) always had a big advantage over wooden sailing ships, because cannons installed behind earthworks could blow those vulnerable ships away and be practically invulnerable unless they could be attacked from behind (on land), which is how we got marines (naval infantry).

Or the drone attacks on Russian bombers hidden inside shipping containers as a modern-day "Trojan horse." These are ancient tactics but they are regularly refreshed or updated because of changes in technology. So some of the interesting things about the "theory of war" from Clausewitz and his disciples is about that relatively unchanging essence across thousands of years. It's almost like thinking of an art. The technology is the science part. So warfare is like a combination of art and science. In reality it's like a head-on car crash but that's the theory anyways.

Can't recommend this one enough.

this is required reading
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lcXMr5hB9I

>>24710786 (OP)
games are good

>>24710866
this one's peak

>>24711995
It's an interesting read but it's not PLA doctrine. It was written by two colonels in the late 1990s to "think outside the box" to find non-military ways of challenging U.S. primacy through other arenas like economics.

I think this book is a more general overview of Chinese military concepts and the theoretical sources the PLA draws on. It's also free, you can look it up online.

>>24712612
Based grognard.

>>24711063
The book in the OP, obviously it's primarily concerned with warfare in Africa and written to beat certain ideas in an African officer's head but it gives a good understanding about how low-scale warfare and guerrilla type stuff. Eeben knows his stuff being a mercenary leader for most of his life by now.

>>24711023
>NOOOOOO, NEVER READ THE ASIAN OPTION!!! ONLY EVER READ EUROPEAN STUFF!!! NOOOOOOO.....
Shut the FUCK up, scum.