With the price of modern weapons, like Tanks and Jets, doesn't it make more sense to use more economical useful tech.
For example, it takes one anti tank missile to take down the more expensive tank, so wouldn't it be better to far more effective to have a shit load of anti tank missiles, than high number of tanks.
Similarly, an offensive missiles and jets are quite expensive, so it would make more sense to use more defensive weapons to shoot things down.
This also includes radar, cyber warfare, drones etc.
>wouldn't it be better to far more effective to have a shit load of anti tank missiles, than high number of tanks. There are far more atgms than tanks.
Eli Rivera
I meant more about philosophy. In the sense of trying to go for decisive victories, just grind the fight down and tire them out.
I think this a more effective way to fight.
Hunter Long
Well this is exactly what the Finnish army does for example. It's a defensive army in its mission and has to deal with a limited budget and a large land area to defend. Small number of jets and relatively small number of tanks that it can't just spam into every battle. DESU it could use more defensive weapons still.
But you need those more expensive weapon systems also to get decisive wins locally. Obviously you'd like to have more tanks and fighters and whatnot but when money is an issue, that's what you'll do: use cheaper weapons to wear down and guide the enemy into areas and positions that are disadvantageous to them and where they can be defeated by the advanced weapon systems that have to be used selectively.
How the discussion goes changes a bit on how low-level you're talking about and which exact scenarios you're thinking of.
Ethan Sanders
Because the price for fucking up isnt just cash
Brandon Thomas
Some people want to do offense, some don't For instance, Japan isn't planning any reinvasions of China so their military is based on defense, whereas Russia loves to invade tiny bordering shitholes so they need an offensive army. They can't "wear down" the Chechens since they have no incentive to attack
Nathan Clark
>I meant more about philosophy. In the sense of trying to go for decisive victories, just grind the fight down and tire them out.
Back to the Finnish military, that used to be the strategy but it has now been changed in favor of a more layered and dynamic system.
Cameron Rivera
Unless your enemy isn't retarded and exploits the fact that your forces are permanently stuck on the defensive.
Logan Campbell
This works if your only objective is to cause inconvenience to an enemy who is undetermined in their objectives.
But if you have goals of your own and need the ability to take the initiative in the war, you need to have offensive capabilities. Maybe you're making it inconvenient and expensive for an enemy to invade your areas, but you're not driving them out.
Kevin Wright
Interesting. What about jamming tech and fucking around with the enemies reconnaissance, it kinda seems like modern guerilla warfare.
Xavier Carter
>Interesting. What about jamming tech and fucking around with the enemies reconnaissance, it kinda seems like modern guerilla warfare. Sure, you have to do all of it. The point is that there is a counter strategy and counter weapon to everything, and the enemy will use them. You need diverse strategies and the ability to exploit whatever gaps you can create with your defensive weapon systems.
I know my terminology is all over the place but that's the gist of it in pleb language.
Jack Ramirez
>Leo2 the worst tank in the world >Most still buy it Why not buy the superior Abrams?
Owen Hughes
But they can't keep fighting you forever, so you effectively "win" through this technicality.
The US upped their arsenal and bankrupted the USSR who tried to keep up. This is also a win, without having to actually invade them.
You see you can just beat people through weird ways, which is what's happening with cyber warfare nowadays. These highly computerised expensive weapons are going to be shown to be obsolete if a major war happens.
Hell, those recent allied attacks on Syria's chemical labs, where shot down by cheap rusty Soviet tech. That MOAB too, couldn't even do that much damage to the Syrian air bases.
Nicholas Richardson
>But they can't keep fighting you forever, so you effectively "win" through this technicality.
And how long does that take? What is the effect of a prolonged conflict where you are always on the receiving end on your own population and economy? What's gonna be your position on the negotiation table when you have no capabilities for winning battles on the ground? Are the enemy's objectives to only send fighters for you to shoot down, or do they actually want to achieve a political or a territorial goal something you can't prevent by just static defences?
Parker Campbell
I'm not saying to have no offensive capability, just having a more defensive minded mentality.
Defensive warfare can sink bigger powers down to your level.
Unless of course the other side is better than you in every way.
If you want an example, how about all the countries that wanted to invade Afghanistan. They managed to remove outside forces without actually fighting offensively.
Christian Gomez
>If you want an example, how about all the countries that wanted to invade Afghanistan. They managed to remove outside forces without actually fighting offensively.
What the hell do you mean? They have been continuously invaded for who knows how long, and the country is an utter shithole completely devastated by war. How do you consider in any way something to advocate?
I think you can't find a better example than Finland of what defensive minded mentality means when implemented well. I don't understand what your problem is with the FDF's system.
Jonathan Bell
is op implying that the chinese are smarter than the amerifats?
The answer is our adversaries are too poor and stupid to make anti-tank missiles, and those that are intelligent enough to make anti-tank missiles can just use nuclear missiles instead.
Grayson Perez
because they aren't allowed to buy the good packages that's American only, and German Marketers are exceedingly skilled at tricking gullible nations into buying that perforated metal is more effective than actual ceramics despite never showing any evidence for the armor of the leo2
Oliver Edwards
Bad idea. Missiles are sitting ducks until they're launched, and if you're defending a static area, the enemy WILL eventually scope it out and blow it up with a farther ranged missile. Likewise, any existing AA measure can be circumvented by flying out of altitude range and bombing it indirectly: it might take more bombs, but we've got bombs to spare, and so does China. On the modern battlefield, the first strike is king, and you don't get that playing defensive.
Jaxon Taylor
>offensive army >tiny bordering shitholes it's like you forget that Russia's main rival is the largest military on the planet, and also, funds and arms those tiny bordering shit holes, as well threatens Russia regularly.
>But they can't keep fighting you forever The reverse applies as well.
How long can your defences hold out for? Do you have the logistics to support it? Sure missiles are cheaper than tanks and jets, but you know what is cheaper and easier to make than missiles, and is unavoidable? Good ol' flying lead and explosives. Put artillery guns down, prepare steady supply of rounds, get some spotters in, keep firing from beyond the horizon. Your missiles can't do shit against them, and you simply get shelled till your defences are obliterated.
Benjamin Bell
Defensive battle is mostly useful to induce more favourable conditions for concurrent or following offensive operations.
Never trust in the defensive OP. Defense by its very nature is a losing proposition since you hand over the initiative to your opponent and allow him to realize his plans without interference. Big no-nos.
Jonathan Phillips
there is no weapon that is better used defensively than offensively.
think about it in simple terms no self defense weapon ever made would be more effective in the hand of a young girl than her would be rapist.
William Gomez
> there is no weapon that is better used defensively than offensively. Mines. Mines are a defensive weapon, you use them to stop the advancing enemy where you want him to, so he will sit nicely placed in your field of fire.
While in the offense, their only use is to trap a retreating enemy, but you have to make him retreat with other means first.
Hudson Murphy
>Ambushes are defensive kys
Eli Butler
mines are weapons? they are more like traps no?
Parker Price
>Mines are a defensive weapon >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1 unless they are used offensively, airdropped and especially targeting children
Christopher Lee
>it's like you forget that Russia's main rival is the largest military on the planet, Not for much longer. youtu.be/o--FmUXHPKE?t=3m1s
Nathan Moore
>it's like you forget that Russia's main rival is the largest military on the plane Russia has never picked a fight with the big boys by choice, even when they originally met the chinese while expanding into east they flinched. Growing China will absorb Russia after realizing its the path of least resistance :)
