War in Ukraine proves that tactics and Strategy are bullshit bluepill tropes

[disillusioned]

"Muh strategy muh military geniuses"

After doing my own research into the history of wars I've come to the conclusion that this meme about brilliant leaders winning or losing wars is nothing more than propaganda that is perpetrated for political or ego reasons. Normies love the idea of overcoming great odds through share brilliance because it lines up with their fair world fallacy (get what you put in) and also because it creates heroes that governments can use for propaganda purposes.

But if you look at actual military history, it quickly comes clear that the outcome of wars are overwhelmingly determined by factors that have almost nothing to do with strategy:

-The quality of equipment/weapons
-Soldier training
-Quality of supply lines
-Terrain (even this is an overrated factor)
-Troop motivation (if the soldiers just don't give af they're much less likely to fight properly or might even flee/surrender)
-Numbers
-Inherent physical characteristics like IQ (there's a reason higher IQ countries nearly always have the most powerful militaries and history of conquest)

Most wars are won or lost before they even started. The role played by generals is overrated bullshit.

Consider the current clusterfuck in Ukraine. Russia is much larger but its troops are supplied worse, have shittier morale compared to the enemy since the latter is defending its homeland, garbage supply lines from what I hear, weak training, etc. Despite what you're told, the Russian invasion wasn't actually planned poorly and its generals aren't stupid. It just so happens that almost every other factor is working against them so their 'planning' literally doesn't even fucking matter.

Strategy and tactics are bluepill tropes. A high-high IQ giga-chad with superior weapons and training will manhandle any enemy army no matter how 'disadvantaged' he in tactical terms.

 

[Deleted member 16474]

 

[CurrycelDestroyer98]

This is unironically one of the worst takes on this shitty incel website; the amount of cope is unreal. I doubt your research included anything beyond playing unrealistic video games where tactics play little to no effect on the outcome of the battle, because there's literally no way you can be this delusional.

Firstly, it's proven that some generals were simply more effective than others due to their field decisions e.g Napoleon Bonaparte. Every historian who knows his worth would tell you that Napoleon's great decision-making is the reason he was a great general. I have researched his battles and the reason he won is clearly because of his superior thinking. Take the battle of Austerlitz for example, where he relied on the fog to outflank his enemy. There's no historian who ever attributed the success of Napoleon to external factors exclusively e.g equipment. If you actually paid more attention to battles where tactics were employed and the outcome of the aforementioned battles, you would certainly realize tactics played a major role. What about Gustavus Adolphus? Do you not know about his great victory in the battle of Breitenfield, where both armies wielded equal advantage? How do you explain his victory? History is filled with battles where a commander emerged successful in battles where there was no clear advantage except by tactics, and I have given a few examples. I could go on and on, rambling about Napoleon's tactics, but enough is enough.
Secondly, IQ tests are the biggest cope of all time. Here is a good explanation I found on the internet as to why they're unreliable:
Most have deficiencies in one or more component skills that are part of the tests (such as word attack) and may lead to underestimating the real intelligence of that person. The IQ score may be lower than someone who doesn't have these problems, even though they have identical reasoning and problem-solving skills. End quote.
Thus, it's very clear that they aren't a proper measurement of one's intellect. Now, someone might object to what I said, citing this:
"Reliability
Edit
Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[15][83] Reliability represents the measurement consistency of a test."
My response is that statistical reliability merely refers to consistency of the results. Check the Wikipedia article about statistical reliability for more information. Therefore, IQ tests are "reliable" in the sense that they are fairly consistent, not in the sense that they are a good measurement of intellect. The methodology itself is flawed, so it doesn't matter whether it produces the same results or not most of the time.
Thirdly, I'm very sure that in virtually every era, supposed "low IQ" civilizations had massive and large armies no one dared to touch. For instance, Alexander the Great once defeated the Indians in a battle, despite nearly losing. The fact that he nearly lost the battle motivated his soldiers to mutiny because they didn't want to fight Indian kingdoms stronger than the ones he had already defeated. Consider this: the Indians whom Alexander defeated were much weaker than those in Other kingdoms, so, since Alexander nearly lost to the inferior Indians in a battle, does that not indicate that there was a good chance he would have lost against the superior ones? Europeans weren't always the strongest in history. That's why the crusades failed miserably. Only one of the first crusades was successful, and the rest were humiliating for the Europeans. The French King Louis the ninth (Sorry, can't bother to use retarded Latin numerals) was literally taken prisoner even though he was fighting against a Femoid AKA Shajar ad-Durr, which adds insult to the injury. It's very ironic how you mention that propaganda is the reason generals were overrated even though you yourself fell for the propaganda scheme which portrays Europeans as high IQ Chads and non-Aryans as inferior. You have fallen for Nazi propaganda, regardless of whether you admit it or not.

Lastly, Russia doesn't seem like it's getting defeated. You're so close-minded that you think that Russia simply has to capture the capital and call it a day. Several armies have captured capitals and still lost the war, see Napoleon's invasion of Russia and conquest of Egypt and the Levant. You must destroy the resistance, which is what Russia is doing. Ukraine became a living hell, can you say the same about Russia? I wouldn't be surprised if you believed that Russia's living conditions for the Rus are terrible. After all, you've fallen for stupider propaganda schemes.

Edit: Also, don't you forget that there are times in history where Europeans were very weak

 

[Deleted member 15338]

For modern war doctrine yeah it is cope,

Germans defeated Britain and France with an unreal strategy during ww2 tho, in 4 weeks they took over France completly, couldn't do the same in 4 years during ww1

 

[youngmax]

"Muh strategy muh military geniuses"

After doing my own research into the history of wars I've come to the conclusion that this meme about brilliant leaders winning or losing wars is nothing more than propaganda that is perpetrated for political or ego reasons. Normies love the idea of overcoming great odds through share brilliance because it lines up with their fair world fallacy (get what you put in) and also because it creates heroes that governments can use for propaganda purposes.

But if you look at actual military history, it quickly comes clear that the outcome of wars are overwhelmingly determined by factors that have almost nothing to do with strategy:

-The quality of equipment/weapons
-Soldier training
-Quality of supply lines
-Terrain (even this is an overrated factor)
-Troop motivation (if the soldiers just don't give af they're much less likely to fight properly or might even flee/surrender)
-Numbers
-Inherent physical characteristics like IQ (there's a reason higher IQ countries nearly always have the most powerful militaries and history of conquest)

Most wars are won or lost before they even started. The role played by generals is overrated bullshit.

Consider the current clusterfuck in Ukraine. Russia is much larger but its troops are supplied worse, have shittier morale compared to the enemy since the latter is defending its homeland, garbage supply lines from what I hear, weak training, etc. Despite what you're told, the Russian invasion wasn't actually planned poorly and its generals aren't stupid. It just so happens that almost every other factor is working against them so their 'planning' literally doesn't even fucking matter.

Strategy and tactics are bluepill tropes. A high-high IQ giga-chad with superior weapons and training will manhandle any enemy army no matter how 'disadvantaged' he in tactical terms.

This is unironically one of the worst takes on this shitty incel website; the amount of cope is unreal. I doubt your research included anything beyond playing unrealistic video games where tactics play little to no effect on the outcome of the battle, because there's literally no way you can be this delusional.

Firstly, it's proven that some generals were simply more effective than others due to their field decisions e.g Napoleon Bonaparte. Every historian who knows his worth would tell you that Napoleon's great decision-making is the reason he was a great general. I have researched his battles and the reason he won is clearly because of his superior thinking. Take the battle of Austerlitz for example, where he relied on the fog to outflank his enemy. There's no historian who ever attributed the success of Napoleon to external factors exclusively e.g equipment. If you actually paid more attention to battles where tactics were employed and the outcome of the aforementioned battles, you would certainly realize tactics played a major role. What about Gustavus Adolphus? Do you not know about his great victory in the battle of Breitenfield, where both armies wielded equal advantage? How do you explain his victory? History is filled with battles where a commander emerged successful in battles where there was no clear advantage except by tactics, and I have given a few examples. I could go on and on, rambling about Napoleon's tactics, but enough is enough.
Secondly, IQ tests are the biggest cope of all time. Here is a good explanation I found on the internet as to why they're unreliable:
Most have deficiencies in one or more component skills that are part of the tests (such as word attack) and may lead to underestimating the real intelligence of that person. The IQ score may be lower than someone who doesn't have these problems, even though they have identical reasoning and problem-solving skills. End quote.
Thus, it's very clear that they aren't a proper measurement of one's intellect. Now, someone might object to what I said, citing this:
"Reliability
Edit
Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[15][83] Reliability represents the measurement consistency of a test."
My response is that statistical reliability merely refers to consistency of the results. Check the Wikipedia article about statistical reliability for more information. Therefore, IQ tests are "reliable" in the sense that they are fairly consistent, not in the sense that they are a good measurement of intellect. The methodology itself is flawed, so it doesn't matter whether it produces the same results or not most of the time.
Thirdly, I'm very sure that in virtually every era other than the current one, supposed "low IQ" civilizations had massive and large armies no one dared to touch. For instance, Alexander the Great once defeated the Indians in a battle, despite nearly losing. The fact that he nearly lost the battle motivated his soldiers to mutiny because they didn't want to fight Indian kingdoms stronger than the ones he had already defeated. Consider this: the Indians whom Alexander defeated were much weaker than those in Other kingdoms, so, since Alexander nearly lost to the inferior Indians in a battle, does that not indicate that there was a good chance he would have lost against the superior ones? Europeans weren't always the strongest in history. That's why the crusades failed miserably. Only one of the first crusades was successful, and the rest were humiliating for the Europeans. The French King Louis the ninth (Sorry, can't bother to use retarded Latin numerals) was literally taken prisoner even though he was fighting against a Femoid AKA Shajar ad-Durr, which adds insult to the injury. It's very ironic how you mention that propaganda is the reason generals were overrated even though you yourself fell for the propaganda scheme which portrays Europeans as high IQ Chads and non-Aryans as inferior. You have fallen for Nazi propaganda, regardless of whether you admit it or not.

Lastly, Russia doesn't seem like it's getting defeated. You're so close-minded that you think that Russia simply has to capture the capital and call it a day. Several armies have captured capitals and still lost the war, see Napoleon's invasion of Russia and conquest of Egypt and the Levant. You must destroy the resistance, which is what Russia is doing. Ukraine became a living hell, can you say the same about Russia? I wouldn't be surprised if you believed that Russia's living conditions for the Rus are terrible. After all, you've fallen for stupider propaganda schemes.

 

[MoggerGaston]

@disillusioned one of ur worst topics

Germany vs France(+allies) :

1)France had better equipment and weapons.
2)France had better supply lines.
3)France had better soldier training.
4)France had better terrain (defender advantage).
5)France had better numbers

 

[MoggerGaston]

Strategy is actually the most important element of war, because strategy involves all of these aspects you mention.

-The quality of equipment/weapons
-Soldier training
-Quality of supply lines
-Terrain (even this is an overrated factor)
-Troop motivation (if the soldiers just don't give af they're much less likely to fight properly or might even flee/surrender)
-Numbers
-Inherent physical characteristics like IQ (there's a reason higher IQ countries nearly always have the most powerful militaries and history of conquest)

A general that doesn't take all of these things into account when he makes decisions, is an utter shit general.

 

[CurrycelDestroyer98]

For modern war doctrine yeah it is cope,

Germans defeated Britain and France with an unreal strategy during ww2 tho, in 4 weeks they took over France completly, couldn't do the same in 4 years during ww1

I'm not sure if it's cope in modern war doctrine. Notice that my argument addressed wars outside of this era, hence I cited Napoleon and Gustavus, so whether it's cope in modern war or not is besides the point. The OP makes it seem as if tactics were never important.

 

[CurrycelDestroyer98]

Strategy is actually the most important element of war, because strategy involves all of these aspects you mention.



A general that doesn't take all of these things into account when he makes decisions, is an utter shit general.

I think that what he meant is that tactics don't matter and that only the factors he mentioned matter, which is false. Outflanking an enemy has always been a great way of finishing them off.

 

[Deleted member 15338]

I'm not sure if it's cope in modern war doctrine. Notice that my argument addressed wars outside of this era, hence I cited Napoleon and Gustavus, so whether it's cope in modern war or not is besides the point. The OP makes it seem as if tactics were never important.

For modern war highest tech weapons win always, we have computers and shit anyways, strategy is not so important

Importance of war strategy peaked around Napoleonic era to 1945

 

[TsarTsar444]

Lol how do you fail this hard?

Alexander the great defeated the most powerful empire of its day time after time again, with mediocre supply lines, army size 2-3 times smaller and super far away from his home

Napoleon went againts the whole of Europe and we know how that went until winter raped him in Russia. All of the European powers in 1800 had the same tech, defensive terrain advantage, supply lines in their own lands etc.

Hannibal (no comment here)

Khalid ibn Walid, look up the battle of Yarmouk jfl

 

[CurrycelDestroyer98]

For modern war highest tech weapons win always, we have computers and shit anyways, strategy is not so important

Importance of war strategy peaked around Napoleonic era to 1945

Perhaps what you said about modern war is true. That's not my field of expertise. However, I know for a fact that war tactics were very essential in the Napoleonic era, or the medieval age for that matter, yes.

 

[TsarTsar444]

For modern war highest tech weapons win always, we have computers and shit anyways, strategy is not so important

Importance of war strategy peaked around Napoleonic era to 1945

Not really, guerilla strategy is the new meta. Reminder the USA wasted 2 trillion in Afghanistan for zero gains

 

[hebbewem]

Not really, guerilla strategy is the new meta. Reminder the USA wasted 2 trillion in Afghanistan for zero gains

They hold it for 20 years and could have hold it for longer

 

[Deleted member 15338]

Not really, guerilla strategy is the new meta. Reminder the USA wasted 2 trillion in Afghanistan for zero gains

It is meta for proxy wars tho, not for real wars like Russia-Ukraine

 

[CurrycelDestroyer98]

They hold it for 20 years and could have hold it for longer

Why didn't they hold it for longer then?

 

[hebbewem]

Why didn't they hold it for longer then?

Usa public wanted to leave

 

[TsarTsar444]

They hold it for 20 years and could have hold it for longer

Okay, they could have held it for 10-20-40 more years true, this would have meant a few trillions of dollars more. And what would have they gained in the end? Literally not even particles of dust, the US threw away 2 trillion dollars in the garbage, this is almost Germany economy level money, they got a huge L

 

[MoggerGaston]

Okay, they could have held it for 10-20-40 more years true, this would have meant a few trillions of dollars more. And what would have they gained in the end? Literally not even particles of dust, the US threw away 2 trillion dollars in the garbage, this is almost Germany economy level money, they got a huge L

I mean it's not that simple.

Just because a war costs 2 trillion, doesn't mean that some ppl didn't get very very rich off of it. Most of the 2 trillion comes from taxpayer money which nobody cares about. It's just filthy civilian money, wageslave money. They can lose all the money they have, ppl in power don't care.
The industry of war and the few people that benefit from it made a shitton of money from the war in Afghanistan.

 

[CurrycelDestroyer98]

Unironically I'm very new to this forum and I can already tell some users are based. @TsarTsar444

 

[hebbewem]

Okay, they could have held it for 10-20-40 more years true, this would have meant a few trillions of dollars more. And what would have they gained in the end? Literally not even particles of dust, the US threw away 2 trillion dollars in the garbage, this is almost Germany economy level money, they got a huge L

They could test new weapons. If they stayed longer i guessed they take resources. If talibans hold their bargain they wont hold terroist that wanna destroy the usa. So thats a win. And a moral argument.

But you are correct

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Theatre of war

 

[Deleted member 16833]

It's not a legit 1v1. Western power are in the shadows

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

"Muh strategy muh military geniuses"

After doing my own research into the history of wars I've come to the conclusion that this meme about brilliant leaders winning or losing wars is nothing more than propaganda that is perpetrated for political or ego reasons. Normies love the idea of overcoming great odds through share brilliance because it lines up with their fair world fallacy (get what you put in) and also because it creates heroes that governments can use for propaganda purposes.

But if you look at actual military history, it quickly comes clear that the outcome of wars are overwhelmingly determined by factors that have almost nothing to do with strategy:

-The quality of equipment/weapons
-Soldier training
-Quality of supply lines
-Terrain (even this is an overrated factor)
-Troop motivation (if the soldiers just don't give af they're much less likely to fight properly or might even flee/surrender)
-Numbers
-Inherent physical characteristics like IQ (there's a reason higher IQ countries nearly always have the most powerful militaries and history of conquest)

Most wars are won or lost before they even started. The role played by generals is overrated bullshit.

Consider the current clusterfuck in Ukraine. Russia is much larger but its troops are supplied worse, have shittier morale compared to the enemy since the latter is defending its homeland, garbage supply lines from what I hear, weak training, etc. Despite what you're told, the Russian invasion wasn't actually planned poorly and its generals aren't stupid. It just so happens that almost every other factor is working against them so their 'planning' literally doesn't even fucking matter.

Strategy and tactics are bluepill tropes. A high-high IQ giga-chad with superior weapons and training will manhandle any enemy army no matter how 'disadvantaged' he in tactical terms.

Modern wars use guns… gun warfare changed the importance of tactics and leadership especially automatic rifles missiles bombs etc. tactics are useful but not very much now wars are more based on which side has better manpower and higher tech as well as which side has a better strategy to capture strategic locations that’s it

In the past this was not the case though these things all mattered and were legit.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Strategy is actually the most important element of war, because strategy involves all of these aspects you mention.



A general that doesn't take all of these things into account when he makes decisions, is an utter shit general.

You forgot the most important thing. Provisions

There’s so many stories of armies running away due to lack of food. The Ottomans suffers most of their losses in battles due to Shitty provisioning and logistics. Timur literally forced the thirsty starving ottomans to attack him on his own terms. Julius Caesar’s battles mostly came down to starving people into attacking him out of desperation and cutting off their supplies.

An army marches on its stomach. This is why tribal armies do so poorly against civilised ones as tribal armies focus on raiding the territory even their own for supplies which can lead them to getting picked off. Turks and mongols were fortunate in that they were cavalry based so they could always run away during foraging. Tribes have one advantage though and it’s that every man is a warrior h like civilised or caste based societies which only have a segment of their population dedicated to war