I know that guerrilla is pronounced wrong, realized it after the final stages of editing. I "learned" a lot of words on my own years ago (before the Internet) and used them again and again, thus a lot of them are habitual. So have to retrain some words like comparison/garrison, etc.

@generalamsel4743

7 жыл бұрын

Military History Visualized that's fine. from your accent you don't sound American or English at all. if you don't mind me asking can you do a video on effectively fighting a guerrilla war since I've never read about a truly effective way of a state combating guerrilla troops that doesn't end in them killing there own people on a large scale.

@acedia_14

7 жыл бұрын

Warum hast du gedacht das es ein extra i gibt? Selbst im Deutschen würde man doch kein i rein stecken. Don't worry I just find it witzig :)

@apudharald2435

7 жыл бұрын

General Amsel he is an Austro-Kraut.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

@Amsel: I need to read up on that, but as far as I know there were some successful counter-insurgency operations. @The Nihilist: probably because I was like 15 or something, I had the tendency to voice a word I saw the first time just immediately and often totally wrong.

@PerfectTangent

7 жыл бұрын

The most effective defense against guerrilla combatants is a populace that refuses to support them. Because they typically don't have traditional infrastructure, guerrilla fighters without local support find themselves without bases of safe operation, supply and resupply, and most importantly no sympathy. They can still cause damage, but at this point they have become terrorists. In order to prevail they must hold the zeitgeist of the people and maintain a (at least perceived) moral high ground.

perhaps the distinction between the willingness for soldiers to fight and the willingness of the civilian population to wage war should be made?

@paaatreeeck

7 жыл бұрын

support by the populance is modeled as an influencing factor of willingness to fight.

@kapitankapital6580

7 жыл бұрын

paaatreeeck however surely the willingness of the populace and willingness of the soldiers is two different things and affect how a war is fought differently. It is possible to lose a war with full support of the ordinary people if nobody wants to go and actually die on the front lines, and vice versa you can have full support of your army but if your own people refuse to support the soldiers there's not a lot you can do.

@samswann3727

7 жыл бұрын

Patrick Ellis I do agree with you, however you must bear in mind that all soldiers where civilians, so if all the civilians hate the war you are recruiting soldiers who hate the war. But yes I do agree with you, just pointing out somthing that needs to be considered

@paaatreeeck

7 жыл бұрын

Patrick Ellis I originally agreed with that thought, but after pondering a little i now disagree. The willingness of the soldiers is not something i can see as separate from the overall willingness of a population to fight. By which i mean that those who join the military are generally willing to fight, even in cases where they may not strictly "believe" in a war. I spent some time in the military and no one there thought the war in Afghanistan was a war worth fighting, or which would produce a victory. Nevertheless almost everyone was willing to go there, in fact there was even a "waiting list" for volunteers. Soldiers will generally fight on for as long as they are told to or until crushing military defeat, and they are generally told to fight until the country ceases to support the war or until military victory has been achieved. We are of course discussing at the strategic level here, i believe some of your conclusions may have been reached by considering the tactical level, which is a different thing entirely. I know of no instance in history of a population with a will to fight that couldn't find anyone to fight ;)

@kapitankapital6580

7 жыл бұрын

sam swann yes, but naturally soldiers, especially those whom fight in a nation without conscription, are going to be more willing to fight and more patriotic than the average Joe. Moreover soldiers will be seeing a different side to war than the average bloke, both the horrors of war but also the comradeship, purpose and authority that being in the army gives. So they may have a different opinion. Also for example in the penal battalions of the USSR when soldiers were not "happy" about going to war but due to the fact that their own officers shot those who retreated there would be emulated the effects of having high morale.

When I took classes in intelligence analysis and psychology during my time as a logistics supervisor in the military, my instructor talked about a concept called the "media gauge", which represents the ability of a force to spread either falsehoods or other things about their enemy, thus reducing their recruitment pool. If the willingness to fight is high but all of those willing are eliminated, you have won.

@AndDiracisHisProphet

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe I don't really understand what you want to say, but if everyone who is willing to fight is dead, doesn't that mean the willingness to fight is low? In fact zero?

@PersonifiedMusic

7 жыл бұрын

That's precisely what I'm trying to get at. Willingness to fight isn't a static figure, which is why my instructor told me that the side with the "media gauge", namely control over increasing or decreasing the willingness to fight, has an advantage.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

so "media gauge" is the political correct name for "propaganda" I guess :)

@PersonifiedMusic

7 жыл бұрын

Correct :)

@TheThreatenedSwan

7 жыл бұрын

Military History Visualized More like a practitioner term or a professional term

I think for modern wars also the acceptance of causalities is a factor. The West could easily crush the IS, but nobody wants to get involved into a real ground war. So its delegate parties who carry the burden, e.g. Kurds "supported" by the West but nobody sees their dead and wounded.

@optionski5535

7 жыл бұрын

Also the middle-east is a political minefield which makes a western ground intervention too risky. Since Syria is being supported by Russia/Putin i think many would be surprised to see European or US ground troops intervening in the conflict.

@nattygsbord

7 жыл бұрын

I think warexhaustion + the lack of ideas how to fill the power vacuum are bigger factors than fear of losses in this case. ISIS will continue to do terrorist attacks as long as they exist, so most people are happy to murder those scumbags. But the political elite seems more interested in a regime change in Syria, than solving the ISIS-problem.

@nattygsbord

7 жыл бұрын

I think willingness to fight is still high in the western world. Of course does a human life getting valued differently now when a woman only gets 1-3 kids, rather than a dozen.. and most of them live beyond 50 rather than dying before 30. The point is, westerners want to fight just wars. If ISIS comes rolling with tanks over my countries borders we are willing whatever sacrifice needed to win. A concription army of citizens isn't a bad idea for defensive wars, or for wars where the public knows the goals of the war and agrees with them - like a UN intervention to stop a genocide. But if you plan to attack foreign countries for the sake of the interest of multinational corporations, then a conscription army will lead to making the war extremely unpopular among the population as bodybags filled with the sons of the nation returns home. And people will become angry on the ruling class. So that's why EU now is pushing for an own army, with the object of mobile operations across the globe, instead of a boring army of the masses only suitable for a defensive war against the Russians. If you can have blackwater troops, Gurkhas and foreign legion troops dying instead of your own men, then people will not protest as much about your elites aggressive foreign policy.

@Amadeus8484

7 жыл бұрын

ISIS gets their WEAPONS from the West. ISIS was created by Bush and armed by Obama. Perpetual Warfare is the order of the day and when ISIS is gone, the Shi'ites who stormed Iraq's parliament recently will likely be the new ISIS. As long as there is oil in the middle east, the great powers will continue to support the Three way Triumverate/Cold War of Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia. That said, the Kurds are gaining tens of thousands of experienced guerrilla fighters including 50,000 women. Kurdistan might actually get the political and military momentum it needs to create itself, especially with the likes of Erdogan destroying Turkey from the inside.

@cpob2013

7 жыл бұрын

we could crush them in symmetric warfare easily, but asymmetric warfare would require scorched earth, and thats messy

Romans had a saying: You are never defeated until you say so yourself. This is so true. For example, against Hannibal they lost on their home territory army after army and yet, they had a magickal tool: will. This allowed them to create more and more resistance and ultimately win. Or I can say about another wonderland called USSR and eastern front. Compared to wonders that USSR were doing to stay in the war, entire allies heroism and effort falls severely short.

@Oliolli3

7 жыл бұрын

Well, the USSR also had more manpower, resources and industry than the Germans, so all their willpower meant was that initially "kicking in the door" didn't cause them to fold.

@REgamesplayer

7 жыл бұрын

Germans had industrial superiority and at the start of operation, Germans did not have problems with resources.

@Amadeus8484

7 жыл бұрын

They actually had a shortage of fuel which was one of the reasons why many Nazis backed Hitler's obsession to destroy Russia. Hitler had a fanatical and unreasonable obsession to destroy Russia but Hitler's backers were more concerned with Communism or felt that they needed the Fuel that the USSR possessed. One of the reasons why they went into Romania first.

@REgamesplayer

7 жыл бұрын

Romania was fueling Reich enough to fuel its operations. Shortage of fuel did not impede Reich significantly until the second half of the war as it could be seen from its rapid advance into USSR. The essential problem for Reich in USSR was never based on resources, but rather different factors. Only in the long run and strategic resource victory of allies had cut supplies of oil from Africa and caused shortages.

@cpob2013

7 жыл бұрын

they werent running out, they just had more engines then they could fuel at once. the oil fields of the caucasus were the material objective, but the invasion of the soviet union was purely political. the axis could have negotiated for fuel with the soviets, they could have gone after africa, trade with south america, etc. invading russia wasnt necessary for resources

Im not a fan of the whole asymmetrical warfare thing. Its adherents often make out its a new mode of war, where both sides want the imbalance and its a total strategy for victory in itself. Asymmetrical warfare is what Gideon released on Jericho, what Scipio would have known as the indirect method, what Liddell-Hart called the economy of effort. So its been around for millennia. Its in vogue at the moment because terrorism falls neatly into that category. But we are minded to remember Mao Tse Tungs writings here, terrorism / guerrilla warfare is too weak a strategy to provide final victory. In revolutionary / insurgency warfare It can deliver decisive attrition against the will of your enemy (vietnam) but cannot deliver knockout blows against the means (Northern Ireland). Will is a flexible, hard to nail down resource, it can swing dramatically with chance. General Lee tried to launch a war on the will of the Federals, but every battle he won shamed his opponents and hardened their will, making little impact on the enemies means while degrading his own. Mao;s first stage of insurgent strategy was to undermine the enemy with guerrilla warfare but ended with classic symmetrical offensives. He eventually had to use the forces, will and means built up during the insurgency, to come out of the shadows and take and hold ground. ISIS is a case in point here. They achieved much in their insurgency, but failed to create the means for conventional symmetrical war or to create enough will in a large enough population to secure those means. Their insurgency created large gains in the short term, and multiple headaches for the long term, but its attempt to create a viable state are now floundering against organised conventional counter attacks. Asymmetric, indirect or economical force is the natural path for the weaker side to follow, but is only really a path to levelling the field so symmetrical force can end the day. The Vietnam war ended with NVA tanks rolling into Saigon as their brigades and divisions came out of the jungle and into the heartlands of the South. The South still had considerable means but had completely lost the will to fight. The guerrilla war was vital to that victory, but without the final conventional offensive they couldn't have taken and consolidated power.

@bf2229

7 жыл бұрын

David Rendall your argumentation is pretty reasoneble

@BelleDividends

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, but in the end, with the VC taking Saigon, they did make a switch to symmetrical warfare. David Rendall's reasoning is sound as long as you don't make the conclusion that asymmetrical warfare is doomed at all times. David Rendall wasn't making this conclusion in his post, but NBC interpreted it this way. Concerning the American Civil war I would primarily take into account the superior industrial, telegraph and railway capabilities of the North as causes as to why they won the war. The will to fight is the most crucial factor, but when the will to fight is evenly matched the other factors gain more prominence. The examples show that each of these factors influence each other differently from case to case and are often already preset before the beginning of conflict. Internal political and sociological processes are very important because they determine for a large part beforehand the will to fight.

@TheFranchiseCA

6 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Asymmetric warfare can eventually work if the enemy's home is distant and they lack motivation to continue indefinitely.

@SamGarcia

5 жыл бұрын

Gideon? Don't you mean Joshua?

@bhangrafan4480

4 жыл бұрын

Asymmetric warfare is usually forced on one party by the lack of conventional military strength. It is resorted to. However it can form part of a 'political' strategy as opposed to a military strategy, where sponsors of a war through proxies wish to avoid a head on conflict which they fear too costly. This is seen all over the world.

anyone else catch the attack helicopter joke at the beginning?

@MediumTim

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you for pointing that out.

@heronmyer3780

7 жыл бұрын

no

@bobthedj6992

7 жыл бұрын

Mi Cu lol it was blocked by the scroll bar

@bobthedj6992

7 жыл бұрын

Heron Myer look at bottom left

@heronmyer3780

7 жыл бұрын

Bobthedj when?

The diagram is good, however I would add "food harvest" pointing towards "Manpower". An example of this is how Britain would have collapsed in ww2 with out Canadian convoys delivering food. Or how Germany was crippled in ww1 by a lack of food, and therefore collapsed. Good video, keep it up!

@user-mi4wr2lw3n

7 жыл бұрын

Not to mention the Grande Armee disintegrating during the winter of 1812.

@G4r0s

7 жыл бұрын

Isn't that covered by the resources part? Running out of food is arguably just as bad as any other kind of supplies. To your troops as well as your population

@graemeedward4456

7 жыл бұрын

G4r0s The food concerns the population, not industry. Yeah the army gets a hold of it, but its through the people, not a bunch of corn factories and milk wells ;-P

@TheFranchiseCA

6 жыл бұрын

But food is still a strategic resource; it's a required input for any manufacturing and for basic upkeep of a military force. In major conflicts, it's as likely to be strictly regulated as fuels or metals, and isolated forces can easily run out of food before fuel or munitions.

Not using Spandaus is also crucial.

@samuelkeller4745

7 жыл бұрын

meme

@JP-rf8rr

7 жыл бұрын

I'm glad its a meme, along with pommels the most deadly weapons a Spandau that shoots pommels

@aethelwyrnblack7016

7 жыл бұрын

Joshua Plyman you misspelt "Bren"

@neilwilson5785

7 жыл бұрын

HeHe

@JP-rf8rr

7 жыл бұрын

Aethelwyrn Black there is no need for accuracy when it comes to the WMD of pommels when your done all that will be left is a new grand canyon

Anyone else thinking of hearts of iron when watching this...

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

yeah, although at first I thought that HOI missed on willingness to fight, but they have national unity.

@manictiger

7 жыл бұрын

They sort of capture it. Poland just won't stop producing rebels.

@mihaiseica3008

3 жыл бұрын

Yup

@morgoth1179

2 жыл бұрын

You seem to think I could ever stop thinking about Hearts of Iron constantly?

Guys like You and Historia Civilis channel are redefining history in media.

*AttackHelicopter power You won my like

@nullmaton5667

7 жыл бұрын

Same

@meh62

5 жыл бұрын

um and my dislike.

Level headed and extremely well presented. I count this one among your best.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

thank you!

I think the perfect example for a symmetrical warfare turning asymmetrical would be the Israeli-Arab conflict.

@fackrez11

7 жыл бұрын

Or the american war in Iraq

@MesserTAMU

7 жыл бұрын

Very good point.

@kingjor09

7 жыл бұрын

Have you ever heard of Mao Zedong?

@Seth9809

7 жыл бұрын

Ibn is very profound.

@hotsteamypudding

6 жыл бұрын

personally I would suggest that "asymmetrical" strategies and tactics are just how doctrinally standard defense in depth tactics actually pan out in reality.

About the resources and the willingness to fight, how about Winter war? It united the red and the white camp in Finland and despite the clear industrial and man power shortages Finnish troops managed to defend their independence. Just curious about your opinion on the matter.

"There are five fundamental factors in war. Weather, Terrain, Leadership, Military Doctrine and most importantly Moral Influence." -Sun Tzu. Another great video :)

Interesting stuff! Would be cool to see a follow up where you try to apply this model to a specific conflict and watch how the variables shift over the lifespan of a conflict.

@KillaMurda1871

7 жыл бұрын

I second this.

nice analysis. i think it's very applicable to Yugoslav wars. suggestion for difficult topic. conflicts in Afrika?

@chongli8409

7 жыл бұрын

yeah, Angolan civil war for example

@ifo1997

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, and even WW2 in Yugoslavia.

@henrydenis7781

6 жыл бұрын

altair1983 Algerian revolution in 1954 for example.

@yaboi-rx4eq

6 жыл бұрын

1 2 3 viva l'algerie

on the awesome TheGreatWar channel they talked about the difference between the soldiers' will to fight and the civilian population's will back home. They presented the case of Italy in WWI where the civilians were led to believe they're doing very well on the front; this translated to a high opinion of the war and high number of recruits. The soldiers however had a very terrible moral due to command, supplies, poor plans, and fighting conditions failures. This lead to huge losses on the front.

I think this is an amazingly well put video! I really like your argumentation and I have to say that I completely agree with the premise :)

Willingness to Fight = War Exhaustion :p

@EvilGNU

7 жыл бұрын

Willingness to fight = Morale ?

@davidvanau3182

7 жыл бұрын

It's an EU reference, guys.

@CarlosRios1

7 жыл бұрын

David Vanau finally

@davidvanau3182

7 жыл бұрын

Carlos Rios Cheers, conqueror.

@char1ie965

7 жыл бұрын

albert fuckov they are a Ying and yang really. togather they define the length and depth of the conflict.

You know, out of all things that should be praised, I think you should be recognized for being thorough and forth-coming.There are too many times that KZreadrs, ones whom I won't name, will show off a social or political model and then act as if it's the absolute truth or the basis of how things actually go. There are too many times to count when I see mainstream viewers simply accept it as the gospel without questioning. I can't tell you how much I love it how you mentioned potential flaws that may be in the model and how you want us to try to see if we can find flaws! It's also a great way to start intelligent discussions too. Let's not forget that!

@skyden24195

Жыл бұрын

I know your comment came 6 years ago, but it still very much applies. Great comment, and I couldn't agree more.

Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) overall could be a good one to test this on. It's one of the most recent time where both sides fought a largely conventional war.

this video reminds me of something one of my old survival instructors used to say "the art of survival is built on the foundation of the will to survive, next is knowledge which builds confidence and dispels fear, third is training, learning skills and maintaining them, and finally is kit" he used to use it to show how someone with all the training and best equipment still can die on a basic camping trip gone bad if they don't have that will to survive, while someone thrown in the worst conditions with nothing but the clothes on their back and no prior knowledge or training can and often do survive if they are determined enough. the same for anything including war, if your enemy is determined enough they will over come any level of technology you throw at them (just look at the insurgents in iraq)

@cardboardbox191

6 жыл бұрын

It's not separate but not sharing a border with the territory you want to control reduces willingness to fight because you can just give up and go home. If it's your own country thats harder and therefore it;s kind of easier tok keep fightinging. Swell as the smaller supply line.

@aikafuwa7177

Жыл бұрын

No that is utter BS to compare determination to survive for war with survival against nature. Nature is scientifically well defined and it is limited. When other people are just as determined to kill you, it totally does not work. Think of all the dead Germans, Soviets, Japanese in WWII? How many of them fought desperately to live? Some were even killed deliberately by their own commanding officers. And no amount of determination to survive works against a nuke.

Hey manpower is sexist as I identify as a attack heli... oh nevermind.

@acedia_14

7 жыл бұрын

*an

@DylanJo123

7 жыл бұрын

Jihadi Jesus TIL "An" is a gendered term lol

@grifguz2294

7 жыл бұрын

I identify as dead meme.

@blueplankton1779

7 жыл бұрын

schmid1.0 don't you know that attack helicopters are the most privileged military vehicles. I think you must pay reparations to me, an Egyptian chariot.

@KennyHazy97

7 жыл бұрын

The people still unironically using that joke do stand out to me as being the human equivalent of extremely expensive and fragile war machines, so I suppose it works.

Now I can wage war to my neighbor. Thank you for this one.

Excellent presentation - it is amazing that your videos is what seniors officers have to study at the War College (in a much less entertaining way. Thank you again for your research, great illustrations, and delivery, Ciao, L (ME, USA; QC, CAN).

" It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.” - Mark Twain"

As a German he should know how to organise a war. They certainly have the experience. Better listen carefully so that we know what they are doing for the next 'misunderstanding'

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

;)

Another example is Finland during the so called Winter Wars (i.e. WWII).

great video, subscribed!

It's quite similar to Clausewitz, although you do take into consideration industrial capability where as Clausewitz only talked of Logistics and maintaining a supply as far as I recall. You also touched on it with the Cuban Revolution, that weak leadership or an undermined government system are also factors and may require some analysis as to how significant that can be. Certainly between symmetric and asymmetric warfare it could be seen to be a greater factor, although the degree of importance is also something to consider.

I disagree with at least one point here, you say Germany didn't surrender until after Berlin was taken, but it would be more accurate to say that Berlin fell after the Allies had methodically reduced the fighting capability of all the units on the German military -- armies in particular but also divisions and squadrons. Simply capturing Berlin would not have done the trick. I don't know the Battle of France as well as other aspects of WW2, but it is my impression that when the French surrendered they also lacked armies capable of resisting the Germans. Japan is an interesting case as they had lost the war in 1944, but continued fighting because there was no honorable way of stopping. It took something unexpected to allow them to finally surrender before they suffered the same fate as Germany.

@nattygsbord

7 жыл бұрын

The people and the emperor wanted peace, but the military wanted to fight on. And the emperor who was the most popular man in Japan, was afraid that even he would be assasinated if he spoke out his mind in public.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

7 жыл бұрын

There are 2 narratives about what the Emperor was up to -- and I don't think anyone knew or cared what the people wanted. Regardless, the Soviet invasion and the atomic bombs gave the government cover.

@BrorealeK

7 жыл бұрын

It's very iffy that the emperor wanted peace. Members of the imperial family were deeply involved with the conflict, and he gave plenty of lip service to the military government. He was probably naive and uninformed, but he also knew at least SOME of what was going on and when the getting was good, he didn't have much of a problem with Japan's rampant colonialism.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

7 жыл бұрын

Broreale That's my impression as well, but at least he wasn't eager to die for the emperor. He was willing to do what was necessary to save Japan. The state indoctrination program didn't reach quite that high.

@foxymetroid

7 жыл бұрын

France had more and better tanks than Germany. They also had infantry capable of handling Germany's. What happened was France spread their forces out, believing they'd get a repeat of WWI. What Germany did was concentrate their forces (which were technically weaker than France's, but also better organized) in the northern parts of France (bypassing the bulk of France's military) and go to town on France's communications and infrastructure.

It'd be nice if you could boost the audio a bit in your videos, I have a hard time hearing you on my crappy headphones. Better too loud than too quiet anyways IMO. Great vid as per usual btw.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

yeah, lately my recordings are a way to silent, it set the volume from 100 to 200 in editing, I guess some update changed some micro levels *sigh* thank you!

So I really enjoy thr content you are making and I would be delighted to see a video about the Turkish war of independence in my KZread feed in any case keep up the good work

Hi, you are bringing up a very valid subject. Your model is in accordance with the what is/was taught at various western military academies and war colleges. In my experience (three recent wars), the most unpredictable situations take place when dealing with terrorists who depending on their respective causes fight with ever-changing rules. This is one of your best presentations from the "educational perspective". It is not as glamorous as describing famous battles or general/admiral-ship but it is nevertheless an essential determinant of the success (or failure) of a military operation - something that most non-military people do not know about or consider. At the higher level of military training (such as the War College for senior officers), we learn that the interaction and relationship between military forces (training, professionalism, "brute" power, ...), industrial production, "raw" resources (oil, steel, mineral, food...), infrastructure (delivery, transport, logistics, ....), and attitude/willingness to fight are critical and essential to the success of a military campaign. Excellent production, thank you for such a concise, well illustrated, and documented presentation. Ciao, L, Kapitän zu See, US Navy (Ret) Veteran.

Very interesting video. Have you read Endurance and War: National Sources of Military Cohesion? It discusses exactly what you addressed in the video - willingness to fight, using your exact two variables.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

nope, but a lot of people pointed it out that the concepts of the videos are similar to Clauswitz, which I read 15 years ago. (and I can't really remember) Since I also read Art of War and Machiavelli, well, the high level models usually stay quite the same, also Computer Games use similar systems, e.g., Hearts of Iron has National Unity. Some parts were actually directly inspired by the conclusion chapter from Richard Overy's "Why the Allies won", thus I added it to the sources. Since I suspected that it isn't really unique I removed all personal pronouns from the original script before recording.

@dbuyandelger

7 жыл бұрын

The author of the book is actually my professor. He obviously based his work on all the classic readings about war, but what he contributes is a typology of armies based on military relations with the governing regime and the population at large. Those are - messianic, professional, authoritarian and apathetic. The cases he studied include the two world wars and Vietnam War, where he applies his typology to armies fighting these wars. If you get the chance you should definitely read it. His name is Jasen Castillo.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

thx, already checked it on amazon, added to my wishlist, I probably will give it a look in the future, but right now it is way too pricey, also I got a HUGE backlog. This video was basically a "brain dump", because for most of my videos I need to do quite some reading, for this video is was just checking a few values on Tet, Cuba, etc. and wrote the rest out and a rather straight forward fashion.

@dbuyandelger

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah it is a bit pricey. And few have the benefit of having political science libraries around them :))

I think you have left out many factors. Strategy and tactical skill can compensate for limited manpower and industrial capacity... Germany for example managed to defeat a bunch of countries in the west in 1940 that combined had a 80% larger industrial output than Germany. And then this model lacks much for wars in the 1600s. Sweden could not substain a large Army on its own... the country lacked manpower and money for weapons and supplies. So how did Sweden become a great power in the 1600s and have one of the most powerful armies in the world? It was achieved by France giving Sweden money to fight the war against the Holy Roman Emperor. And enemy lands looted was also plundered which helped with the upkeep of a huge army. Sweden lacked manpower but had great commanders and good troops, so when logistics made it impossible for the holy Roman emperor to concentrate his forces to one locatation... the Swedes choose to attack the enemy, when the enemy lacked superior numbers, and the Swedes usally won. Ironically the Swedish army usally became larger after a great battle, since the mercanaries changed side and prefered to fight for the winning side for anyone who could pay them. So the Swedish army could grow from 20.000 something to an army over a hundredthousand soliders.

@cpob2013

7 жыл бұрын

strategy/tactics is a mix of manpower (talent) and will to fight (tenacity) and in sweden's case its france's input that built their army then.

@Trexmaster12

7 жыл бұрын

So... lend-lease?

@nattygsbord

7 жыл бұрын

I think Strategy/tactics include lots of things, to just name a few: 1. How you organize things. By german Auftragstaktik, or more by rigid centralplanning like the Americans and the British? 2. The military doctrine. The british tought that the next war would be won by bombers would turn cities into rubble like in Douhets theories. While the Germans saw mobility and battlegroups as the key to winning against a superior opponent who got time on his side. So they prefered spending more resources on short-range aircraft and tanks. 3. Training of the troops. Where should the focus in the training lay, since your country doesn't have unlimited resources to be best at everything. 4. What is your goal/ and how do you achieve victory? Is it by destruction of the main army of the enemy? Is it by taking his capital? Is it by destruction of his wareconomy? Is it bodycounts? Is it to exhaust his will to fight? 5. How do you plan to use exploit your own strenghts and the weaknesses of your enemy, while you deny him to play the same trick on you?

@nattygsbord

7 жыл бұрын

Nah, the Swedish army was the best in the world back then, but it was too small to play ball with real great powers like France and England. Swedish military tactics and doctrines inspired many countries. And Napoleon was a big admirer of Gustavus Adolphus, and read much about his campaigns. Later on would Swedish tactics also be copied by her enemy Russia, as she then became a great power in the 1700s. And Prussia had Swedish officers as military instructors in the early 1700s before she became a great power. And a victory over the Swedish army, no matter how small, could be seen as a triumph. For example does the battle of Fehrbellin 1675 count as emergence of Brandenburg as a great power, just as the battle of Poltava 1709 is seen as the emergence of Russia as a great power in Russian history. Swedens brutal plundering of Poland have also resulted in their mentioning of Sweden in their national anthem.

@ZORO12ful

7 жыл бұрын

It's not that Germany was too skilled in the art of warfare during 1939, it was that the Allies lacked any motivating force to retaliate before it was too late. The French army could've wiped the floor with the Germans if it coordinated just one good offensive. Seriously, the initial success of the Germans could be attributed more to luck than actual "skill". The Allies needed just one general who could drive the army semi-decently in 1939 and the conflict would've been over in a few weeks.

Applcable not only to modern warfare I think, your model immediately brought to mind the Second Punic War, particularly the willingness to fight.

Another aspect worthy of consideration in your model is effective strategy. To use the example of the Vietnam War the US imposed a huge handicap on it's war effort by adopting a position that prevented them from conducting ground operations in Cambodia where their opponents were able to operate lines of communication and seek sanctuary. Great video as always, thanks!

@Warsie

6 жыл бұрын

leakycheese that would be political will I guess, because expanding the war to risk involving China and the USSR was a bad idea

Do you have any set date for the combat medic interview because i'm really looking forward to it? (nice and informative video as always!)

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

not yet, but yesterday I copy pasted all question. Took 2 hours, now we need to decide how to proceed and then record, then - if the recording is ok, because lately I had to ditch 2 recordings - edit it. So I guess at least 2 more weeks. Doesn't help that I am a bit under the weather.

@ThewalkingboxChannel

7 жыл бұрын

Get some rest if you need to dude. You've got plenty of other videos for us to watch.

Why the heck do I get spanish/portuguese ads, when I am watching from germany and ever have?

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

no lo se (Spanish: for I don't know) ;)

@imperatorodaenathus9329

7 жыл бұрын

Omg, Spanish II is actually paying off. I knew what that meant!

@donerkebab97

7 жыл бұрын

Military History Visualized Actually its no lo sé :D

@donerkebab97

7 жыл бұрын

Romeball So those two years werent wasted after all!

@imperatorodaenathus9329

7 жыл бұрын

donerkebab97 I'm currently taking Spanish II

As usual, authoritative and top notch. Thank you

great work as per usual

Will you do some WW1 based videos when you are out of things to talk about on WW2?

@Altrantis

7 жыл бұрын

WW1 is popular right now. There's been no better time to talk about WW1 than now.

@gamermoment4327

7 жыл бұрын

Altrantis yeah ww1 is popular because remembrance day and the recent release of bf1

@Altrantis

7 жыл бұрын

jord3444 Also 100 years since it happened. Which is why they chose to do a WW1 game.

@gamermoment4327

7 жыл бұрын

Altrantis yeah to bring awareness of the horrors of war and hope nothing on a greater scale happens agian

@BigBoss-sm9xj

7 жыл бұрын

Altrantis do you have bf1?

it is quite orthodox, really. And I love this explanation. Good stuff!

Nice video. This channel is many times better at teaching military history than some textbooks and documentaries are.

I think this is a great baseline for gathering statistics on a particular war/conflict in greater detail. Others here have mentioned that they feel like topics such as available workforce, tactics of the soilders etc. I believe all of these to be broadly catagorized under the terms you've listed already. Even topics such as media and propaganda will come under the category of "williness to fight". But in regards to the universal concept of warefare from past to present, they can all be well analysied and correlations be drawn from the format used in the video, I have no doubt. Thank you.

It seems to me that this model only works for modern wars, were there is conscription and the population believes in the cause. For early wars when armies were smaller (and rely on mercenaries), main rule was to achieve decisive victory (because to siege was too hard and there was no industrial structure to rebuild a destroyed army)... From Boudika to Napoleon, once the core army was destroyed, what could be done...? Of course, there was exceptions like the second punic war and peloponnesian war, when the warring nations keep on fighting for a long time...

In my opinion also very important is geography , for example does country have seashore, is that country flat or has it mountains and also how the border with the enemy looks(i.e. Polish border with Germany in 1939)

@edi9892

7 жыл бұрын

I would rank logistics higher, but yes.

@vax_gax_lax_bax_max_vax2578

7 жыл бұрын

Eh in todays war nobody cares about geography, Just fly in shoot and bomb everything, then send troops. if you own the sky you win the war in todays war

@edi9892

7 жыл бұрын

Vaxo Gakh Cough Vietnam cough

@vax_gax_lax_bax_max_vax2578

7 жыл бұрын

edi No need to "cough cough", I said what I thought was true and you can say out loud and explain better why I'm wrong. Non american so don't know anything big about vietwar, but I do know that back in the day there weren't this powerful planes like today and btw were there bioweapons back then? or the govt didn't want to use it?

@edi9892

7 жыл бұрын

Vaxo Gakh Their planes were devastating since WWII and their clusterbombs and napalm could do even more damage. I don't know why you mention biological weapons since they didn't improve much since WWII to 1970. They weren't used, but chemical weapons were, however they refrained themselves from using VX.

this is actually a really nice simple way to explain it. it misses so much about how Vietnam was fought and how political and military thought and ideas of the day can affect it all but its a really good spot for someone new to the study. I think I will direct anyone who askes for an introduction from me to this vid

I love your videos mate, and I believe you are spot on, cheers.

Love your videos and really liked the chat, simple and understandable. It would be cool to see some _Hypothetical_ War sometime. Maybe a China vs. US one using this chart as a back drop, since applying this chart to that Hypothetical war the Chinese would over power the US. But the US's experience and Veteran soldiers/commanders know HOW to fight a war. China has never been in a war that required logistical creativity based on it's challenges like we have. They may have superior man power and industry, but our capability overshadows theirs tremendously. But that is only an opinion of an Armchair General. Bravo for the Video and keep up the great work.

@samwolfenstein5239

7 жыл бұрын

Another major factor is that the US has a much larger economy, a much more powerful investment in information technology, and much more control over world politics.

@AdobadoFantastico

7 жыл бұрын

I feel like it would be hard to measure willingness to fight, though. That can make or break, but when it's all hypothetical....it basically gives you leeway on a variable that allows you to almost pick the outcome. Especially with China/USA, where there is no recent armed conflict, nor any current talk of impending conflict. So it would be onerous to try to give a measure of national psychology that isn't super questionable. It's further exacerbated by the fact that we can't easily survey the current attitudes of the different segments of the Chinese populace. We have a somewhat limited access to them(by design).

@duane8620

7 жыл бұрын

Sam Wolfenstein Why I agree 100% with your statement at the end -having more worldwide political control and pull. The economic part is hazy for me. We have a larger economy within the US as a "Service" sector and Banking, the manufacturing powerhouse is China. While also lending the US $ and selling us cheaper goods to help bolster our economy. In theoretical talking here I could _"assume"_ that China may/could have "Called our debt" and did a mass sell off of US Treasury bonds thus crushing the US Dollar (in theory only). That is the only thing on my mind in reflection of your statement. Even tho I am by NO means an economist, so anything is possible in this form of thinking and it could be plausible you are correct too. Anguel Roumenov Bogoev You make another great point, Chinese sentiment to a conflict with America. How would they react? Would they support their Communist Party or attempt a revolt while their Gov's attention is focused outward. That definitely would be an area of US Special Forces to try and expand that anti-communist party sentiment and create disruptions internally and sabotage at high volume/value military/financial etc. institutions. Great point! Thanks to you both for feedback on my Hypothetical question. Either way lets hope for peace and diplomatic solutions in any international situation, like the Russian one we see unfolding now.

@samwolfenstein5239

7 жыл бұрын

Duane Ransom While China does have a reasonable amount of power over the US dollar, considering how much the world depends on it for trade, I seriously doubt they'd allow it's collapse. Furthermore, the Chinese currency is extremely weak, and in wartime would likely fall apart near immediately. Also, the US economy doesn't solely rely on China for manufacturing. India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America are all major sources of basic manufactured goods. In war, what matters more than total economy is GDP per capita, anyway, for funding per soldier. And the US has a larger total GDP, and GDP per capita, as well as a much more diverse economy, and higher international trade. The idea of US special forces supplanting anti-communists is interesting, and a factor in actually never took into account in the past... yes, without a doubt the United States would win a war against China. They have every advantage other than sheer manpower, and that can be cut down by the lack of money China has to actually arm and train large quantities. The Chinese navy would never come near the US coast, and the United States Navy is much larger and better equipped. Landings would be a very reasonable possibility, and once the US would gain a foothold, it would simply be a matter of blockading China, taking out their air force and causing havoc on cities and villages, and slowly advancing to Beijing.

@AdobadoFantastico

7 жыл бұрын

Blah b Even if you take off the billionaires, US is still at the top. US wealth is huge. Those health problems aren't that big of an issue. The US gets a lot of its soldiers enlisting from poorer areas where obesity rates are higher. Eating a lot isn't a problem if you're forced to run with 60lbs of kit. It's more a long term health problem once they aren't exercising, anymore. A soldier's good for around 200 days of active, consecutive combat. As long as you can keep him fit enough for that time frame, you've got what you need. Skill, training, and discipline are far more important than minutia of physical fitness. War is increasingly mechanized, as well. Making the current 7% of the US combat assigned forces that are overweight pretty insignificant. I'm sure the Dutch are capable of extending trousers. Guns and bullets aren't going to need to change size to account for an extra 2" of height. Similarly, you'd be very surprised how much chain smokers can do. It's really not the short term impediment you may think. I'm Bulgarian and we're known for fielding very competitive wrestlers. Many of them are chain smokers and they hold up just fine. When has the Russian population proven too limited in effectiveness of individual troops? Most of their issues in the two world wars were logistics, tactics, and strategy. When has the drinking cost them a war?

This is just a synopsis of the "official story." To truly understand these events as the really happened, the subtext and underlying issues must be addressed.

@orion3253

7 жыл бұрын

Could the war in Vietnam be seen as an example of a war not worth fighting compared to the second World War?

@ernstschmidt4725

7 жыл бұрын

then please, feel free to address the subtext and underlying issues for all us.

Hey loving your videos. Could you make a video about the Six Day War of 1967? Really remarkable one, thanks and keep it up!

I'm curious if you could do something on the sige of Tobruk mostly held but Australian forces Rommel had a huge respect for the Australia forces and they were famous for being massively motivated despite being surrounded.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

Tobruk is very certain: kzread.info/dash/bejne/YpuDvNtuqMrfYZs.html

Blind luck had an influence in locating the Japanese fleet in WW2. Is luck always irrelevant.

@SinerAthin

7 жыл бұрын

It's a wildcard. All the best general can do is to try to minimize their reliance on luck.

@nikolatasev4948

7 жыл бұрын

Luck tends to even out in long and massive conflicts.

@Neuttah

7 жыл бұрын

Assuming the original comment was refering to the Battle of Midway, which was a a clockwork disaster from the very conceptual phase, with pretty much no leeway in its schedule: Even if the naval engagement was a sucesss and the Americans somehow lost the place without sinking or even damaging some IJN carriers, they had more than enough industrial capacity to replace their own lost ships, much like everything else*. On the other hand, Japan simply wouldn't have had the capacity to replace its handful of proper carriers on time, so once those are out, they're _out_, and barring a somewhat implausible series of crippling USN defeats without a slip up on part of the Japanese, they would, eventually, via disaster or atrition, lose their carrier force. And once that happened, the Empire of Japan would be left hanging with an ever tighter naval noose around their necks. Sure, the turning point wouldn't be Midway, and the Pacific war would be slightly to somewhat longer, but it probably wouldn't have as drastic a bearing on Europe, and Manhattan would likely remain on schedule. * This is *not* a "Ronsons!" statement.

An important part about wars is the manpower working in the industry. As you have not enough working class left than your war will also be doomed. The stabability of a nation and it working class form an important layer of the nations warmachine, while they do are often forgotten.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

correct, just read this weekend about how many miners in WW2 were sent to the coal mines.

Well done and to the point!!!!!!!

The part that strikes me as overly simplified is the terrorism part. While it is a tool available in asymmetrical warfare, like any tool it is more readily available, and often used more, by the powerful. Too often we think of terrorists as the little guys. However, any brutal crackdown on civilians, be it from the weak side or the powerful side, can be terrorism. Other than that, it sounded like an excellent model.

I'm loving the puns man!

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

thx!

A lot of hay is made over the People's willingness to fight, but what about the willingness of leaders, or the State? I think a case could be made that wars like Vietnam or Algeria were lost because they were bad investments. What good is a colony that instead of generating profit, is an endless sink of blood and treasure?

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

look at the first minute again, willingness to fight is made up of public and political support, which means "the people" and "political leadership".

looks good to me. i think you've boiled it down to the most essential commonalities between armed conflicts and given a logical qualitative measurement of its value.

This was good! Not stupid or biased, may be one of the best videos in youtube

Your model is a complete over simplification of an extremely complex process. You are missing some integral aspects of war, particularly modern war. The best contemporary example to illustrate this was the Russian 2008 invasion of Georgia. This combined domain attack was preceded by heavy cyber operations to take down Georgian communications. Then a heavy misinformation campaign to deny external intervention. For example, in the town of Gori, Russians disabled government and news websites with distributed denial-of-service attacks just prior to an air attack. When the actual shooting started, they used long range weapons to target key infrastructure. The Russians were very sophisticated in their target selection. For example, Russians refrained from attacking Georgia’s most important asset, the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline and associated infrastructure. By holding this target in reserve, the Russians gave Georgian policymakers an incentive to quickly end the war. Faced by overwhelming Russian air power, armored attacks on several fronts, an amphibious assault on its Black Sea coastline, and devastating cyber-attacks, Georgia had little capability of kinetic resistance. Its best hope lay with strategic communications: transmitting to the world a sympathetic message of rough treatment at the hands of Russian military aggression. But Russia effectively used cyberspace operations to disrupt the Georgian government’s ability to assemble and transmit such a plea thus removing Georgia’s last hope for international support. The point is that wars are fought for many reasons and the world is far too interwoven for your model to be meaningful. The Clauswitzian center of gravity does not have to involve the facets of military power you have identified if a nation is part of a coalition or alliance. For example, many nations worldwide depend on foreign military equipment instead of producing their own allowing a nation without the economic ability to wage modern war the ability to do so. The example above gets at the fact that national will and political will do not need to be broken for a nation to be defeated. They merely have to lose the capacity to continue. But in the modern world nations rarely go it alone, and the interconnectedness of our world makes your simplistic model at best outdated, at worst inaccurate. May I recommend On War by Clausewitz. It's standard Army War College required reading. If you are going to come up with theories of armed conflict you should start by knowing what has already been said.

This partly explain why ISIS are able to expand so rapidly during 2014 and 2015.

@JourneyToTheCage

7 жыл бұрын

Barry Soetorro I don't think Obama invaded anyone, that was bush. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

@julianmelillo

7 жыл бұрын

Barry Soetorro they supported Isis at the begging because the western world needs a Sunni Syria while today it's not Isis wants a Sunni Syria but then they where corrupted and planned for a world invasion which is bad because they where supported. They stopped supplying weapons after they invaded Iraq.

I think this is indeed an insightful analysis that could be applied to any war, ancient or modern.

Most interesting lecture. Thankyou

I'm using this model to analyse the Ukrainian War.

I think the only thing you didn't touch on was international support(non-military). Such as, US support of Taliban. Russian/Chinese support of Viet Cong. US logistical support of the allies before involvement in WW2.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

yeah, good point, which is really important, because low-intensity wars don't burn out due to external support, even it is not from "majors".

@miwi9883

7 жыл бұрын

Ian Sero US never supported the Talliban. They supported the afghans against the soviets.

Technology plays as huge a part as any of those, for example bronze versus iron, iron versus steel, bow and arrow versus gunpowder, propeller plane versus jet, etc.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

Technology is basically the state of the industry. Real Life is not Civilization where you can tech like crazy, but never build something. Technology & Science is always derived from "existing technology", which has to be built beforehand. If this wasn't the case, everybody could build nuclear bombs, tanks, etc.

@Champion_14

7 жыл бұрын

This is true. However, i would argue that throughout human history wars have been won and lost off the back of innovations, just as they have with the things you have brought up in this video. I think it could deserve its own slot due to this.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

well, it is a simple model. Technology is an element of industry, as is strategy & tactics to the armed forces, which also won quite some wars.

Something that isn't discussed is the difficulty of bringing two different kinds of armies against one another. An army designed to fight other armies in open combat with tanks and missiles and jets has a really hard time dealing with guerilla forces. What do you do with your tanks. Where do your fire your missiles? How do you even identify who the adversary is, since they're often indistinguishable from putative allies. What often happens is that one ends up fighting a war of attrition -- you just keep killing and killing and killing and hope to bleed the other side dry. It's not that that can't work -- in our wars with Native American tribes, they often turned to what amounted to guerrilla warfare and we responded with scorched earth. But that's ultimately a war of decimation, not just a war against the war fighters.

This is one of the problems with the US today. Industry has shrunk a lot from WWII levels, particularly heavy industry, and most of the electronic components are imported, usually from countries near China or China itself. As I understand it, certain weapon components, like the propellants for Hellfire and other missiles, are made in China as well. Not the best idea to have one of the most likely future enemies making your weapons for you.

@cpob2013

7 жыл бұрын

no, the defense industry is all american. theres clauses that require it for exactly that reason. you can get mundane things like a hammer from another country, and you can buy weapons from them too, but basic supply has to be strategically secure.

@FarmingtonS9

7 жыл бұрын

Also, are we fighting a World War? No, so we don't need that much heavy industry for economical and political reasons. It is not a problem, it is the solution. Secondly, as it seems you have forgotten the trend in the world, welcome to the world of globalisation, where everyone is interconnected in some way or form - in order to survive we need to trade resources for resources to supply our needs [and wants]. If a country cannot accept this, then they will lose out on potential gains in the future. Lastly, blame China for being the smarter country and understanding that a Capitalist society wants to buy things for a lower price and sell it for a higher price to the consumer.

@Thane36425

7 жыл бұрын

It is a problem and it is nothing new. The economy was actually quite globalized prior to WWII, and WWI, and the US Revolution, etc. There has always been trade. What made some nations rich was manufacturing. It made the West rich and powerful, and throwing it away is making them poor and China rich. Heavy industry isn't just for war. Industry is what adds value to raw materials. This is why those nations got rich, by taking raw materials and making things with them and selling those things. Heavy industry can't just be rebuilt overnight either. It is a complex process and also there is an institutional memory of how things are done that gets lost if it isn't maintained. This is why industry could not be expanded as quickly as it was in WWII because the know how just isn't there anymore. As for cheap products, there is a point there. However, most of the disparity comes from government policy and also standard of living. The Chinese can be paid a lot less because of fewer regulations across the board and lower standard of living. This is cute and boosts profit margins to run up stock prices, but when more people are service sector workers or on the dole in the home country, they can't afford to buy as much stuff, and certainly less quality stuff, and the economy grinds slower and slower and will eventually crash. It is only the fact that government can still get loans that tipping over hasn't happened yet. But it will. Lastly, it is foolish to think that trade ends war. It doesn't. Wars have regularly happened between trade partners and nations that were once allies. There will be more war and the West doesn't have the strong hand that it used to, so it might not end in our favor this time. Economics is fine art, but it really doesn't understand human behavior or history.

@FarmingtonS9

7 жыл бұрын

I never said anything about "trade ends war" (even though it looks like I am saying that), but some good points have been made. I still do not agree that you should blame the US for letting their industry go, because it is still cheaper to import goods from where it is cheaper on the logistics scale (basically, US: materials--->goods--->consumer is more expensive than buying abroad which will less hassle as it is already "pre-built"). Economics doesn't explain human behavior because human behavior is influenced by many different factors, however you are talking about heavy industry. Heavy industry is expensive and hard to maintain because you have to supply the demand, which means logistics comes into play (which in itself is already difficult to master due to cost-effectiveness). Thus economics plays a large part in human behavior as it decides "is it worth it to keep a expensive and hassle-full industry, or could we perhaps buy from another country where it is already done for us?" Do see where I am coming from? And lastly, (and I know you didn't say this) I never said it was a good thing to the economy, it is happening here in Australia as well.

@BrorealeK

7 жыл бұрын

The US is never getting its industrial jobs back, sorry. We are part of a complex international trade and diplomatic network that would be far more expensive to leave than to stay in. To think that the US needs its mid-20th Century MIC back is pure fantasy because our nation has moved on, information systems and service are what drive our economy. Going back means decreasing the standard of living to an unacceptable level, not to mention wasting billions of dollars. Heavy industry is only worth it in the 21st Century by paying your workers an unlivable wage, and that's far more important than where our missiles come from.

i identify as a light scout helicopter and i found this video offensive

Hi I think you doing very good videos! On this topic I think you just just reached the surface. Because every war is combination of those what you show in this video the life and wars are much more complex.

This was a beautifully accurate description of the mechanics of war. Also your pronunciation was more accurate than most americans. : )

Long live Poland!

Or "attack helicopter power" if you identify appropriately. 😂😂😂 Small print bottom left within first 40 seconds.

I think you covered it well, the outcome of any war is a complicated culmination of a lot of different aspects and factors. The human aspect being the most important and enigmatic.

when reading about guerrilla wars there seems to be a pattern that around halfway through the war if the guerrillas are winning, they start to adopt more conventional tactics and the wars starts to look like a symmetrical conflict, like in the last year of the Vietnam War and the Chinese Civil war. Anyone else notice this pattern?

@Harrrry12.

2 жыл бұрын

I think its becuase the guerillas get more confident and more bold

America should not have fought Germany in WWI.

@benito9635

7 жыл бұрын

They didn't do that much damage to Germany anyway.

@roboticrebel8153

7 жыл бұрын

nononono havent you watched the video? when the americans came is when the war ended the germans FEARED that day and thats why THEY threw men at british/french

@roboticrebel8153

7 жыл бұрын

we are talking about WW1 here...

@benito9635

7 жыл бұрын

Богдан Роман Oh, my mistake then, but even if US didn't join, the Entente would win, just way later.

@roboticrebel8153

7 жыл бұрын

thats the point the americans HAVE done a lot they have quite literally cut the war in half

the willingness to fight is the real reason israel cannot be defeated in a war

@apudharald2435

7 жыл бұрын

David Lisovtsev Not really. Israel and its precursor the Yishuv have done an excellent job of forging the totality into one integrated tool. And that is even more impressive! had will been enough, Metsada would never have fallen.

@acedia_14

7 жыл бұрын

just wait until Hillary arms Iraq and Iran with nuclear weapons. Let's see how long Israel lasts then.

@MikhaelAhava

7 жыл бұрын

Indeed, remember that this 1 day old state was invaded back in 1948, by multiple Arab nations, but the Israelis held on, until now.

@CarlXVIGustafBernadotte420

7 жыл бұрын

No american dollars are

@acedia_14

7 жыл бұрын

As soon as other belligerent nations in that region have nukes, Israel will not have the means to employ ground units to defend their borders, as this could escalate to a nuclear confrontation. Hillary's election will either mean the destruction of Israel, or nuclear war.

This is excellent and well done but I will say that pre-Napoleonic wars it's a lot harder to gauge since limited warfare was so common and in ancient and classical warfare it was based a lot on who threw the first knockout punch (Except for the Romans who could get beaten over and over and still manage to win somehow.) Then it was just a series of seiges to gain territory. This is generally speaking so there are exceptions to this but further back in history a whole series of complex issues come into play.

Excellent Video, the only missing piece not mentioned (other than external support) is nuclear weapons. Not sure how easy that would be to fit in the model though, and it covers all conventional wars pretty well.

i hate when people say the united states lost vietnam. they won every battle and inflicted casualties at over a 5 to 1 ratio. public opinion ended our involvement and then the south fell, but while we were there, we won.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

well, if you listening closely, this is pretty much what I said.

@tomsterino7011

7 жыл бұрын

Schau auf die Uhr. Schlafenszeit is!

@JASHVEER22

7 жыл бұрын

Connor O'Brien you lost

@1N73RC3P7OR

7 жыл бұрын

It does not matter what you won when you were there. Ultimately you lost the war.

@polymphus

7 жыл бұрын

You killed a lot of people, but totally failed to achieve your objectives. You lost.

I have a model of the topic, "How Wars are Lost" that examines two major flaws in post war analysis that lead to defeat in the next war. One is the fact that officers draw the wrong conclusions about the effectiveness of leadership in combat because they are biased to seek command authentication. The other factor is a failure to properly assess the cost of war and the conduct of war by the winning government (and the losing side, if they survived). The tendency is to seek justifications of policy that led to the outcome and to soothe the population with simplistic platitudes that make them feel better about the government and themselves.

I think for the most part this makes perfect sense. I would add in lesser fields like Leadership (That is a strong factor period, and I don't mean political, I mean leadership within the army) and maybe to a greater degree I would add in the "Rightness" of the war. Mostly ties in with Willingness to fight, just goes into a little more depth as both sides need to have convinced themselves they're doing this for the best of reasons. If the army or the people start to think that their side is wrong, or the other side is more right (Don't know how to phrase it better) they'll start to lose the will to fight. Also, I would like you to maybe look into earlier wars with this model? And find a way to factor your manpower part into this because there is need for a balance between the fighting man, the farming man, and the building man. Ya know?

Would love to see a clip of yours on the independence war of Bangladesh in 1971.

Could add to the manpower part; food is very important as you need to feed soldiers. Most of us know the famous saying "An Army marches on its stomach". A reason that it wouldn't come under resources (in this case) is because food is needed for the population whereas resources (by implication) are used to create supplies (as in weapons, ammunition, etc) for the armed forces. The population is a direct link to the manpower pool.

Wow! i regret late to find out this channel!

@thureintun1687

5 жыл бұрын

I'm in need of these kinda infos for a long time, for my modern armed revolution story (which will escalate into global conflict between East vs West)!

Good analysis. I would mention technology in the model (I asume its under "Industry" in your video).

You should add these to your model. Manpower requires an important resource, food. "An army marches on its stomach," said Bonaparte. Manpower also needs clothing and shelter. When manpower's needs are not met, the willingness to fight decreases.

Add the following- under industry is innovation technology, production efficiency and wealth; under manpower is continuing training, size, and existing skills, under willingness is initiative, leadership, loyalty, tactics, learning, sacrifice; under action is timing, terrain or location, surprise, good fortune, and less critical errors

@MHV, on the topic of language, you should also use the adjective 'ineptitude', rather than 'ineptness'. However I was very impressed by 'psychological criterion.' Most people always say 'criteria.'

I would think the persistence of the Austral Empire (Holy Roman Empire) to fight the Revolutionary & Napoleaonic French again and again after repeated defeats is an interesting example of the willingness to fight. Especially the popular support for the 1809 war, were the outnumbers Austrians (imperian) troops fought with such determination. As you are an Austrian I have been hoping that some part of the remarkable military history of the Imperial Austrlan Army would be mentioned sometime. Good work!!!

another interesting episode

"The chief incalculable in war is the human will." (- B.H. Liddell Hart.)

This is how little Johnny imagines real world functions. A model consisting of three arrows and couple of pictograms cannot be wrong!

I think this was a pretty accurate assessment. A couple of things that it didn't address: 1) Technological comparison. 2) Leadership. 3) Intelligence 1) Technology: In WW2 it definitely played a part. As an example, in the Battle of Britain, radar technology gave Britain an advantage of giving warning that a raid was coming. There wasn't a surprise. 2) Leadership: There are many examples, but I will pick a few. Perhaps this should be called Generalship. One example is von Manstein, with his design of the Battle of France, as well as his Kharkov counterstroke. In both instances he defeated numerically superior enemies by design of when and where to hit. It also helped having proven leaders at the tactical level who would exploit the advantage gained by the strategic design. Another example is Robert E. Lee during the American Civil War. In spite of facing a numerically superior foe who had a larger population base as well as a larger industrial base from which to draw, by great generalship, he was able to hold off the Union Army for years when under normal circumstances it probably should have only lasted months. Another example is Julius Caesar at the Battle of Pharsilus. Pompei had Caesar outnumbered more than 2-1. Caesar, however, out generaled Pompei, and won the day even though Caesar was at a large numerical disadvantage. 3) Intelligence. This revolves around spycraft, gaining information of your enemy's intentions. Prime example is Rommel's Signal's officer, Capt. Seebohm. Capt. Seebohm during the African campaigns provided timely information to Rommel who was then able to prepare for a British attack and frequent counter-offensives. Another example is the Battle of Midway. US Naval decipher experts broke the Japanese Naval code, and had forewarning of the attack at Midway, that Admiral Nimitz was then able to prepare for. A third example is Enigma. The British broke Enigma, and by doing so, was able to anticipate German moves and plan countermeasures. An excellent clip. I like.

But I believe is that timing and length of time a war is fought is also a factor but great job. Sun Tzu has a lot of great incite on this thanks for putting some other wars into this perspective.