Lots of sciences have their own "laws" that predict how things will work in a given set of circumstances i.e. entropy always increasing in a closed system and so on.
In all the thousands of years of military history and the study of it, I was wondering if there have been any "laws", even broad and vague ones, that predict how a country will build and utilize its armed forces.
For example, common sense and casual observation would already tell us some of the following:
- As a matter of demography, smaller countries tend to use conscription more since they have a smaller poor of volunteers. Conscription helps them utilize a greater percentage of their population to make up for the smaller numbers of people. This is especially true if surrounded by geopolitical enemies. Ex: Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan.
- As a matter of geography, continental powers focus on armies, while island/overseas powers focus on navies and air forces. This is a combination of the lesser need for ground forces (i.e. no need to worry about hostile land neighbors) and the greater reach of air forces and navies to strike across channels and oceans. Ex: Great Britain vs. France and Germany. The US vs USSR.
- Countries that are outmatched in conventional terms will try to develop an asymmetrical advantage. This often but not necessarily involves the use of a new domain of warfare or new technology. Ex: German U-Boat campaigns in both world wars to make up for inferior surface navy. Confederate usage of ironclads to take on a Union navy of mostly wooden ships. Russian and Chinese psychological/cyberwarfare against the technologically superior NATO and US forces.
- Agricultural/"settled" societies tend to focus on infantry. Pastoral/nomadic armies have more of a cavalry emphasis. Ex: China vs. the Mongols.
- Gunpowder weapons bring vast social changes tending to reduce or destroy aristocratic power. Both medieval Europe and Japan independently developed a martial class of landed nobles (knights and samurai) whose prowess was challenged by mass-produced weapons that did not require nearly as much training as a sword, spear, or bow.
Consider this a part 3 to this thread.
I’m sure the vast majority of us are aware of the US’s geographic advantages in terms of it being hard to invade also being situated between the Atlantic and East Asia which allowed it to grow economically for a long time. I want to further emphasise the first point which makes it hard to invade - this is a commonly cited strategic advantage that the US has however it is rarely discussed how it is also a strategic disadvantage due to it making it harder to project power globally.
This is why the US spends so much on maintaining bases which means that when the US and China’s military meet currently on a PPP basis China can spend 41% of its budget on procurement whilst the US only spends around 10% .
In terms of hardware artillery is the part that’s the most worrying as you can see from the thread at the top. Russian and Chinese military formations have nearly double their western counterparts on average. Now this is worrying for the US due to the fact that history shows that artillery has caused the most casualties in history. It is very important wherever you can get artillery superiority it you do due to it being the game changer on the field. The reason why the US not spend that much money on artillery is geography. Due to the fact that hauling it overseas would be prohibitively expensive and timely which would be a killer in modern war where a peer war would only last perhaps a few weeks. This is very rarely discussed especially with English speaking sources which obviously do have natural biases.
Another part if you read the thread is that the US and especially air power can be harmed if a lot of the known bases and even classified bases are attacked using cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. This could knock out the US’s doctrine out in the first day of the war and the US will be left with its pants down inside a military conflict - this is also rarely discussed with English speaking sources.
How do you interpret these strategic disadvantages that aren’t typically discussed?
How did the semi-nomadic Turko-Islamic conquerors achieve such lightning quick and fast victories over large sedentary Hindu states? What were the reasons for their victories? Why did the Hindus lose to them?
https://twitter.com/indianhistory0/status/1420773824547590145?s=21
For example, dragons only live in high mountains and therefore only alpine cultures have access to wyvern riders.
Werewolves in the forests of blah blah continent.
Mages require large enough countries to support magic colleges.
This thread is about using circumstances to justify exotic and suboptimal military designs. While some designs can be ridiculous and horridly impractical, it is also unrealistic to make everything utilitarian and universal, because there is always history to it.
This idea came to me when I was researching tank design history. WWI has the strangest vehicle designs because tank design was in its infancy, with nobody really knowing how tanks should be used. WWII tanks were a fair bit more sensible but still quite diverse from country to country because countries weren't really coordinating designs before and during the war, and socioeconomic differences between the capitalist, fascist, and communist powers lead to different emphasis' on crew ergonomics, maintenance, logistics, armor, etc. The Cold War began to standardize tank designs around American and Russian inspirations due to tanks becoming multi-national designs (most NATO tank designs were designed by scientists from every NATO and allied country).
Rolling the clock back to WWII and staying there, you can see different influences per country:
- The US had to ship all its weapons overseas during the war, so everything was designed around being able to load onto ships and rail cars, and the corporations that built these tanks standardized the designs like they did their cars.
- The Soviets didn't need to ship tanks overseas, so their tanks were specialized for the rolling plains and unimproved swamps of Eastern Europe. Soviet tanks were also allowed to break down more often since the assumption was that the front line would provide an ample enough screen for recovery assets to recover and repair or recycle the vehicle.
- The Japanese had no pressing need for tanks, and resource shortages and underservice rivalry resulted in the navy getting more of the resources for vehicle design, while the army had to rely on outdated ground warfare equipment. If outdated equipment was enough to fight the underequipped Chinese, then contracts weren't going to be common.
- The Germans designed tanks to be the primary assaulting element rather than fire support, so they were given heavier armor and guns when facing heavy Russian tanks. However this focus on combat capabilities resulted in gross negligence to maintenance practicality, especially when the Nazi ideology looked down on the less glamorous logistical aspect of war.
That last point then brings another point, where the Fascists had an "aesthetic" el
... keep reading on reddit ➡I basically had the map of the world memorized by the time I was about eight because we moved frequently to weird random places and you kind of needed to be able to tell your friends if you were going to be 200 miles away from them or 2000 relatively quickly because you might be gone in the next couple weeks and as a kid it’s kind of hard to remember to tell someone that unless you really have an understanding of how far away you’re going.
One week you might live in Maryland the next year in Germany or the UK or Japan or maybe you’re spending some time somewhere in the Middle East or maybe South Africa or Kenya or if you’re really kind of weird you might end up somewhere in Finland if your dad’s temper early on assignment to the embassy there for whatever reason... You might spend a couple months in Brussels periodically or you might end up in Berlin again or Rome or even on occasion Okinawa,Or Texas California New Hampshire Vermont or Tallahassee for whatever reason.
You have to understand geography to a certain point by that time just to know where the hell you’re going,
See title.
Im interested in finding out more on how the landscape affects tactics and strategy. Any help would be greatly appreciated please and thank you
I think I worded that the way I want to. Hopefully you'll understand what I mean. I'll be graduating college next Spring with a B.S. in Geography and certificates in GIS and Physical Geography/Climatic Systems.
For a few reasons, I'm looking at potentially joining the Air Force as an officer after college. I'm going to have a good amount of student loan debt and it might be a good way for me to pay it back as quickly as possible (good salary, rank advancement, low living expenses for 4 years, and financial aid for a future Masters degree). I also don't feel like I'm ready to be out in the free and open world yet, if that makes sense. I attended a very large college, which wasn't ideal for my personality, so I feel like I've never bonded with people since I steer clear of the extremely social types that don't fit my value system/interests. I've always been very independent, but at the same time, I prefer tight structure and routine, and I don't think I'm ready for the chaos of the wide-open sphere of regular "work" just yet. Being in the AF for a few years could help me out by providing structure and close-knit community so I can be more focused.
But I wouldn't plan to be in the military for a whole career. I'm more interested in working for federal government agencies dealing with physical geography/planetary science, etc. NASA, NOAA, NGA, USGS, Park Service...something like that. I particularly would someday be interested in mapping other planetary bodies including Mars to assist with landings of probes and eventually humans.
The question I have is: people have told me that being an officer in the military is pretty much a supervisor role where you do a lot of paperwork and lead enlisted members. The enlisted members do the hands-on work; officers motivate, supervise, and handle the larger-picture perspective. I would be a good fit for that because I'm responsible, serious, and can help others set themselves straight. But if I do that for 4 years (that's the contract), I would hope that I don't "lose" my expertise in my geography skills from doing paperwork all the time or something.
I was looking on NASA's website, and they say there is a specific process you must go through if you're applying to be an astronaut from within the military. But it doesn't say much about normal NASA jobs. I assume then that it's just like everything else: once your time in the military is up, you just apply to regular jobs as normal and your time in the military would
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Hello, My name is Iulian and I am very passionate about HISTORY/GEOGRAPHY/ MILITARY . I learned a lot though the years and I want to share my knowledge with an audience on YOUTUBE , where I am creating my animated videos . I will post regularly 1 video / week and I will try to give a lot of feedbacks and critiques here, because I see it's an incredible community! Thank you all for reading my message! It means a lot!
