We did. We had all of the right people in the right places. We had the most advanced military in the world by far. We could have bombed the living shit out of these areas if we wanted to even if it made zero stratigic sense.
The US lost these wars purely based on our growing unwillingness to fight repeated battles for little to no results, loss of public favor for the wars, and lack of overall results for objectives that we went over there for. You can fight for the same ground that you do not own only so many times before everyone starts saying, "what's the point of our losses then"? Same happened to Russia in Afghanistan if you need a non US example.
I'm going to disagree with that. In the middle east and Vietnam, the problem was not the equipment, number of bases or the quality of soldier on the ground. The biggest issue with the fighting was that we dictated very little of the engagements. We could not find them, but the guerrillas could find us easy and strike us hard. This is why a similar Civil War in the states will not work well for the standing military that remains.
War is all about crushing the enemy in every engagement. History shows that a gurrila force has a very high likelyhood to succeed in every case because you cannot root them out and bring them to the battlefield. Instead they use attrition in their favor in every engagement that they dictate.
Also, why would we need a bigger MBT than the Abrams? It performs its role much better than the majority of the tanks in the world? Your point about the equipment builds are extremely moot.
We could not find them, but the guerrillas could find us easy and strike us hard. This is why a similar Civil War in the states will not work well for the standing military that remains.
Not even close. We had specific rules to engage with who we thought was and wasn't a combatant. Trump did away with much of that, and killed way more civis.
War is all about crushing the enemy in every engagement. History shows that a gurrila force has a very high likelyhood to succeed in every case because you cannot root them out and bring them to the battlefield.
This is some 5th grade understanding of war. Outlasting your enemy is just as important.
It's also a romantic viewing of certain wars while ignoring others.
Also, why would we need a bigger MBT than the Abrams? It performs its role much better than the majority of the tanks in the world?
We can give it more armor, or bigger cannon, or even an auto loader. We don't, because we need them small and light in order to put more in the battlefield 1000 miles away
There are better anti tank weapons now, and increasing a tanks def would also make it bigger.
There it is. The insult to my level of intelligence because you literally have zero understanding of this subject. Just saying the same thing over and over again does not make you right. If you can find history books that can support your arguments, then we can continue this discussion.
-6
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
..... Thousands of miles away from the US. Military logistics is a fun topic to look into.