... their entire officer cadre above the lower grades are basically there on purchased commissions rather than being promoted on any kind of merit.
My wife's cousin is married to a (now former) career military officer... he graduated from a military academy, spent about 20 years in; as far as I can tell he was a competent guy as such things go. On being considered for promotion to - I think it was the equivalent of a Captain but I'm not sure, a command of 100-200 - he was expected to pay a bribe of 1 million RMB to secure the command.
This apparently is completely standard and expected; the military has a reputation of being much more corrupt than government bureaucrats.
So yeah...
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2013, 08:23:23 PM
... their entire officer cadre above the lower grades are basically there on purchased commissions rather than being promoted on any kind of merit.
My wife's cousin is married to a (now former) career military officer... he graduated from a military academy, spent about 20 years in; as far as I can tell he was a competent guy as such things go. On being considered for promotion to - I think it was the equivalent of a Captain but I'm not sure, a command of 100-200 - he was expected to pay a bribe of 1 million RMB to secure the command.
This apparently is completely standard and expected; the military has a reputation of being much more corrupt than government bureaucrats.
So yeah...
:lol: Sounds like 18th century England.
I've met a few Chinese in other fields who've done similar things. The entire society runs on graft and guanxi.
I guess that's the nature of one party states.
In return for bribe, Obama offered me rank of U.S. Army General (4 stars). I refused in order to maintain my honor and integrity.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2013, 09:50:21 PM
I guess that's the nature of one party states.
It's the nature of China. Graft and corruption has been business as usual going back through the dynasties. It's what they do.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2013, 09:50:21 PM
I guess that's the nature of one party states.
It's the nature of authoritarian regimes. The only alternative to the rule of graft and connections is the rule of law, but that's a tricky thing to implement for rulers that rule by fiat.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2013, 08:23:23 PM
... their entire officer cadre above the lower grades are basically there on purchased commissions rather than being promoted on any kind of merit.
My wife's cousin is married to a (now former) career military officer... he graduated from a military academy, spent about 20 years in; as far as I can tell he was a competent guy as such things go. On being considered for promotion to - I think it was the equivalent of a Captain but I'm not sure, a command of 100-200 - he was expected to pay a bribe of 1 million RMB to secure the command.
This apparently is completely standard and expected; the military has a reputation of being much more corrupt than government bureaucrats.
So yeah...
:lol: Sounds like 18th century England.
Yet they managed to kick egalitarian French ass ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:13:52 AM
Yet they managed to kick egalitarian French ass ... :hmm:
When your egalitarian system consists of elevating those who play Versailles political games the best, you may not be selecting for the right skills :P
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:13:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2013, 08:23:23 PM
... their entire officer cadre above the lower grades are basically there on purchased commissions rather than being promoted on any kind of merit.
My wife's cousin is married to a (now former) career military officer... he graduated from a military academy, spent about 20 years in; as far as I can tell he was a competent guy as such things go. On being considered for promotion to - I think it was the equivalent of a Captain but I'm not sure, a command of 100-200 - he was expected to pay a bribe of 1 million RMB to secure the command.
This apparently is completely standard and expected; the military has a reputation of being much more corrupt than government bureaucrats.
So yeah...
:lol: Sounds like 18th century England.
Yet they managed to kick egalitarian French ass ... :hmm:
I think it may also have something to do with having nearly all Europe as allies against them.
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Schwarzkopf?
Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Schwarzkopf?
It's not nice to point out when Ide's talking out of his ass.
Note that this doesn't mean not to do so.
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:13:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2013, 08:23:23 PM
So yeah...
:lol: Sounds like 18th century England.
Yet they managed to kick egalitarian French ass ... :hmm:
The British system was the product of a particular time, place and cultural environment. It isn't something that can likely be transplanted successfully into the modern world - indeed, in Britain itself the purchase system was eventually eliminated when found counter-productive for a modern industrial army in a modern industrial society. Another thing to consider is that even under the purchase system, a commission could be obtained without payment if vacancies arose while campaigning (i.e. casualties) or through brevet promotions, both which I think were relatively common during the Napoleonic Wars.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2013, 12:30:49 PM
It's not nice to point out when Ide's talking out of his ass.
Note that this doesn't mean not to do so.
Yeah, Ide's just a bit wide of the mark there, but I think we can forgive him, what with his insistence on reviewing shit movies.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Anyone who hasn't read
Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics. No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 25, 2013, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 25, 2013, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Schwarzkopf?
It's not nice to point out when Ide's talking out of his ass.
Note that this doesn't mean not to do so.
We had such fun winning we had to do it again in 2003.
Also clearly everyone missed the significance of the year I mentioned. That's when MacArthur was pulled from command over the U.S. forces in Korea. And, yes, MacArthur could put his ego above rational strategy (Cartwheel! yay! let's waste lives and materiel on this shit when only the central Pacific matters!) and was politically a doofus, but he knew how to win a war: destruction of the enemy government and long-term occupation aimed at changing the cultural roots of its aggression and dysfunction.
When was the last time America fully dismantled an enemy and turned them into a prosperous, free, and loyal friend? 1945.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 10:09:04 PM
When was the last time America fully dismantled an enemy and turned them into a prosperous, free, and loyal friend? 1945.
When was the previous time?
Heck we failed to do that with ourselves once.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2013, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 (http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533) needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics. No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.
What a strange and absurd thing to say.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2013, 02:58:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2013, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 (http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533) needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics. No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.
What a strange and absurd thing to say.
I gotta say this sounds pretty strange to me as well, since the only real place to show skills is in real war grumblers statement becomes a tautology. Basically the only significant consequence here is that the US rarely fights more than one war per generation.
Might this not be a reason why we should in fact fear it?
Rather than intelligent professionals who are the best people for the job we instead have whoever could afford it and felt like being a military commander in charge. Sounds like a recipe for instability and stupid mistakes
Quote from: Tyr on July 26, 2013, 05:47:50 AM
Might this not be a reason why we should in fact fear it?
Rather than intelligent professionals who are the best people for the job we instead have whoever could afford it and felt like being a military commander in charge. Sounds like a recipe for instability and stupid mistakes
The argument for purchasing comissions is that the only people to bother purchasing them will be people able to get the resources as well as wanting to be officers as well as believing they will be successes as officers. Having money meant you had a place in society, that you got an education could read and write, had the authority granted by the lower classes to the upper classes.
In the british system the alternative to purchasing comissions was to hand them out as synecures as political favors (which is the system the napoleonic officer system replaced in france).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2013, 02:52:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2013, 11:13:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2013, 08:23:23 PM
So yeah...
:lol: Sounds like 18th century England.
Yet they managed to kick egalitarian French ass ... :hmm:
The British system was the product of a particular time, place and cultural environment. It isn't something that can likely be transplanted successfully into the modern world - indeed, in Britain itself the purchase system was eventually eliminated when found counter-productive for a modern industrial army in a modern industrial society. Another thing to consider is that even under the purchase system, a commission could be obtained without payment if vacancies arose while campaigning (i.e. casualties) or through brevet promotions, both which I think were relatively common during the Napoleonic Wars.
I'm not actually arguing for the introduction of the purchase system. :lol:
Just pointing out that, just because the system of selecting officers is absurd, doesn't mean that the army is not to be feared.
The author of the Flashman books makes a good point: the purchase system produced officers and generals who hardly knew which end of the sword to hold, and made a balls-up of the Crimeran War; then they got rid of it, and produced such masterpieces of good soldiership as ... the Boer War and WW1.
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2013, 08:06:17 AM
made a balls-up of the Crimeran War
:huh: I thought the expedition force routed the Russians rather comprehensively?
Quote from: DGuller on July 26, 2013, 08:22:42 AM
:huh: I thought the expedition force routed the Russians rather comprehensively?
That was because of the awesome work of their glorious allies :frog:
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2013, 08:06:17 AM
The author of the Flashman books makes a good point: the purchase system produced officers and generals who hardly knew which end of the sword to hold, and made a balls-up of the Crimeran War; then they got rid of it, and produced such masterpieces of good soldiership as ... the Boer War and WW1.
In WW1 you could be a five star military genius and still look like an idiot.
Quote from: DGuller on July 26, 2013, 08:22:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2013, 08:06:17 AM
made a balls-up of the Crimeran War
:huh: I thought the expedition force routed the Russians rather comprehensively?
While the allies won, it was a war famously rife with disaster and idiocy on the part of the officers in charge, leading to loud and long condemnation in England.
Things were so bungled logistically in the British Army that they regularly would go over to the French soldiers and beg rations from them.
Quote from: Valmy on July 26, 2013, 08:28:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2013, 08:06:17 AM
The author of the Flashman books makes a good point: the purchase system produced officers and generals who hardly knew which end of the sword to hold, and made a balls-up of the Crimeran War; then they got rid of it, and produced such masterpieces of good soldiership as ... the Boer War and WW1.
In WW1 you could be a five star military genius and still look like an idiot.
Name one
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2013, 09:28:39 AM
Name one
Name one what? An innovative and excellent military mind who never-the-less often came off as an idiot? Ferdinand Foch.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2013, 06:07:22 PM
Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics. No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.
Winfield Scott?
So. How would you guys have made a success of the Somme? Or Verdun? Or someplace else? How could you improve on the historical results?
I mean, the British army went from a small professional army to a mass army in 4 years and in the end they kicked some serious German ass. The French stood up to the Germans for four years and carried the brunt of the war almost for the duration. In my eyes the leadership did fairly good, sure a lot of mistakes, but all in all a good effort.
How would you guys have solved the logistical nightmare of trench warfare better?
In hindsight? Dig in, never attack and use the time and resources to invent everything necessary for a Blitzkrieg to break through the trench line.
Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 10:32:48 AM
In hindsight? Dig in, never attack and use the time and resources to invent everything necessary for a Blitzkrieg to break through the trench line.
Well yeah am I supreme dictator of my country here? If I am being put in the position of an army commander and told to take Verdun I am not sure I could do much better even knowing what I know now....I mean in addition to being completely unqualified and unsuited to the job.
Quote from: Threviel on July 26, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
How would you guys have solved the logistical nightmare of trench warfare better?
Strosstruppen.
Quote from: Threviel on July 26, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
So. How would you guys have made a success of the Somme? Or Verdun? Or someplace else? How could you improve on the historical results?
I mean, the British army went from a small professional army to a mass army in 4 years and in the end they kicked some serious German ass. The French stood up to the Germans for four years and carried the brunt of the war almost for the duration. In my eyes the leadership did fairly good, sure a lot of mistakes, but all in all a good effort.
How would you guys have solved the logistical nightmare of trench warfare better?
Flaming pigs.
Quote from: Threviel on July 26, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
So. How would you guys have made a success of the Somme? Or Verdun? Or someplace else? How could you improve on the historical results?
I mean, the British army went from a small professional army to a mass army in 4 years and in the end they kicked some serious German ass. The French stood up to the Germans for four years and carried the brunt of the war almost for the duration. In my eyes the leadership did fairly good, sure a lot of mistakes, but all in all a good effort.
How would you guys have solved the logistical nightmare of trench warfare better?
Poison gas against population centers.
Quote from: Valmy on July 26, 2013, 09:22:12 AM
Things were so bungled logistically in the British Army that they regularly would go over to the French soldiers and beg rations from them.
have you tried English food?If I were an English soldier I'd be begging the French for food too, stocked with rations or no :P
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2013, 04:25:16 PM
Quote from: Threviel on July 26, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
So. How would you guys have made a success of the Somme? Or Verdun? Or someplace else? How could you improve on the historical results?
I mean, the British army went from a small professional army to a mass army in 4 years and in the end they kicked some serious German ass. The French stood up to the Germans for four years and carried the brunt of the war almost for the duration. In my eyes the leadership did fairly good, sure a lot of mistakes, but all in all a good effort.
How would you guys have solved the logistical nightmare of trench warfare better?
Poison gas against population centers.
Ohio is still around. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2013, 10:19:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2013, 06:07:22 PM
Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics. No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.
Winfield Scott?
While I think Scott demonstrated great ability in the War of 1812, I don't think it was necessarily great command ability. I'll give you that he did so as much as Bobby Lee did in the Mexican-American War, though, so your point is accepted.
Quote from: Threviel on July 26, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
So. How would you guys have made a success of the Somme?
If I had absolute control and authority? Assuming I lacked both perfect foresight and the iron will of Haig (yet was somehow still in unchallenged command?)
Well, I like to think of myself as more of a Plumer than a Rawlinson, so...
I'd not fight it. I'd spend 1916 working on small scale attacks to give my divisions and, as importantly, my brigadiers and higher ranks experience (something both the "Kitchener Divisions" and the newly raised Territorial formations badly needed.) And to experiment with the tactics needed to break into the German lines, of course.
In 1916 just about every element of the Army was only about half-ready considering the performance improvement shown in 1917 by all arms. Getting the army ready for 1917 without going through a meat-grinder would be the goal.
Then in 1917 I'd try and grind the German Army down with a broad front application of "bite and hold" as soon as the weather broke and the ground dried in the Spring. As broad a front and attacking as often as my artillery numbers would allow.
Of course, I wouldn't get the chance to do this because in reality just like Douglas Haig I'd be tied to what the French did and wanted in 1916.
And even if I did get the chance I'd still fail in 1917 due to the weather across too large a section of my front*.
So maybe as people have said very little could have been done to improve things.
*even if the absence of the Somme offensive had butterflied away the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg line in the winter of 1916-17 I'd probably have launched my offensive in the northern sector of my line given the important targets not that far behind the German front. And because if I unhinged the German line sufficiently in Flanders they'd probably withdraw from the bulge/salient to the south anyway.
And if you were in charge of ze Germans?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2013, 09:44:59 AM
And if you were in charge of ze Germans?
Offer status quo ante bellum and the head of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
So. No one really has a better solution than the generals of the time, and still they are known as, at the least, incompetent. I sure as hell have no better solution than what they did.
France has to fight and attack the Germans to get then out of France.
British actions are in a large measure decided by their French allies and the quality of their army.
Austria and Germany have to attack in order to win the war before the blockade decides it.
Italy has to attack a very small front in order to do anything.
The Russians kicked Austrian ass, but couldn't really contend with Germany.
And all this with new technology and on a far larger scale than any previous war. In my mind the leadership in most places did very well and doesn't really deserve the scorn it gets.
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
Quote from: Zanza on July 26, 2013, 10:32:48 AM
In hindsight? Dig in, never attack and use the time and resources to invent everything necessary for a Blitzkrieg to break through the trench line.
Did belligerents lose substantially more in offensive operations then defensive operations? I was under the impression that loses were massive on both sides in most actions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
Yes they could, but the entente being democracies that strategy had one significant proviso. The waiting, if it was going to happen at all, was going to happen on the franco-german border.
As for top level leadership of quality...
Kemal, Foch, Haig, Ludendorff, Hindeburg, Petain and Allenby are excellent examples of quality leadership. Germany had the dynamic duo, France had the lethal weapon buddy-cop style pairing and the british had.. well, I've got nothing clever to say comparing haig to allenby.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
So long as Russia doesn't collapse.
Quote from: Viking on July 27, 2013, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
Yes they could, but the entente being democracies that strategy had one significant proviso. The waiting, if it was going to happen at all, was going to happen on the franco-german border.
As for top level leadership of quality...
Kemal, Foch, Haig, Ludendorff, Hindeburg, Petain and Allenby are excellent examples of quality leadership. Germany had the dynamic duo, France had the lethal weapon buddy-cop style pairing and the british had.. well, I've got nothing clever to say comparing haig to allenby.
I disagree that this is a workable strategy. Surrendering the initiative means the enemy can pick the time and place of battles vastly increasing their chances of winning any given battle and achieving a breakthrough.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Surrendering the initiative means the enemy can pick the time and place of battles vastly increasing their chances of winning any given battle and achieving a breakthrough.
In WWI this was of very little value, as things turned out.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 27, 2013, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
Yes they could, but the entente being democracies that strategy had one significant proviso. The waiting, if it was going to happen at all, was going to happen on the franco-german border.
As for top level leadership of quality...
Kemal, Foch, Haig, Ludendorff, Hindeburg, Petain and Allenby are excellent examples of quality leadership. Germany had the dynamic duo, France had the lethal weapon buddy-cop style pairing and the british had.. well, I've got nothing clever to say comparing haig to allenby.
I disagree that this is a workable strategy. Surrendering the initiative means the enemy can pick the time and place of battles vastly increasing their chances of winning any given battle and achieving a breakthrough.
You really are stupid. Verdun, Somme, Ypres, Marne, Passchendale etc. etc. are all deep in france, well to the west of the franco-german border.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the relative equality of casualties on attacker and defender sides due to endless counterattacks to retake any lost ground?
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2013, 03:43:45 AM
Ypres, ... Passchendale ... are all deep in france
:P
Quote from: derspiess on July 28, 2013, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Surrendering the initiative means the enemy can pick the time and place of battles vastly increasing their chances of winning any given battle and achieving a breakthrough.
In WWI this was of very little value, as things turned out.
Seemed to be have value in 1918.
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2013, 03:43:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 27, 2013, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
Yes they could, but the entente being democracies that strategy had one significant proviso. The waiting, if it was going to happen at all, was going to happen on the franco-german border.
As for top level leadership of quality...
Kemal, Foch, Haig, Ludendorff, Hindeburg, Petain and Allenby are excellent examples of quality leadership. Germany had the dynamic duo, France had the lethal weapon buddy-cop style pairing and the british had.. well, I've got nothing clever to say comparing haig to allenby.
I disagree that this is a workable strategy. Surrendering the initiative means the enemy can pick the time and place of battles vastly increasing their chances of winning any given battle and achieving a breakthrough.
You really are stupid. Verdun, Somme, Ypres, Marne, Passchendale etc. etc. are all deep in france, well to the west of the franco-german border.
Besides your questionable geography what is your point?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2013, 05:23:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2013, 03:43:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 27, 2013, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2013, 05:36:20 PM
Disagree. The Entente could sit and wait for the blockade to starve the Germans into surrender.
Yes they could, but the entente being democracies that strategy had one significant proviso. The waiting, if it was going to happen at all, was going to happen on the franco-german border.
As for top level leadership of quality...
Kemal, Foch, Haig, Ludendorff, Hindeburg, Petain and Allenby are excellent examples of quality leadership. Germany had the dynamic duo, France had the lethal weapon buddy-cop style pairing and the british had.. well, I've got nothing clever to say comparing haig to allenby.
I disagree that this is a workable strategy. Surrendering the initiative means the enemy can pick the time and place of battles vastly increasing their chances of winning any given battle and achieving a breakthrough.
You really are stupid. Verdun, Somme, Ypres, Marne, Passchendale etc. etc. are all deep in france, well to the west of the franco-german border.
Besides your questionable geography what is your point?
It's Viking, sometimes he's a bit of a tool, he wanted to insult someone and he pick on you, which conforms to the hole bully meme that sometimes afflicts this place. <_<
How long would the Russians last if France and the UK were quiet on the western front?
Quote from: mongers on July 28, 2013, 08:22:31 AM
It's Viking, sometimes he's a bit of a tool, he wanted to insult someone and he pick on you, which conforms to the hole bully meme that sometimes afflicts this place. <_<
That's just his way of saying hello. Still he may have a point since I'm not seeing the connection the importance of initiative in combat and Ypres being in France.
Quote from: mongers on July 28, 2013, 08:22:31 AM
It's Viking, sometimes he's a bit of a tool, he wanted to insult someone and he pick on you, which conforms to the hole bully meme that sometimes afflicts this place. <_<
It's more like when I see raz I want to insult him.
The point I was making, however, was that france, being a democracy, had to recover it's occupied territory before it could even consider letting the blockade work. Remember, Fabius Maximus' "fabian" strategy was working perfectly well but was abandoned due to Hannibal being in Italy.
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2013, 08:27:12 AM
How long would the Russians last if France and the UK were quiet on the western front?
That depends, is Brusilov in charge?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Are you talking about General Officers?
They are administrators more than anything. They allocate resources.
American junior, company, and field grade officers are at least average.
Though I have noticed in the last couple years an unwillingness to take risks to accomplish the mission.
This is hardly their fault. Senior officers are the ones that define the working environment, and since these days losing soldiers means getting passed over for promotion...
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2013, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war. Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.
Are you talking about General Officers?
They are administrators more than anything. They allocate resources.
American junior, company, and field grade officers are at least average.
Though I have noticed in the last couple years an unwillingness to take risks to accomplish the mission.
This is hardly their fault. Senior officers are the ones that define the working environment, and since these days losing soldiers means getting passed over for promotion...
Nobody wants to be the last guy to die in Afghanistan.