Live data from Hacker News

Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

thestrategybridge.org

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#191
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true at all. Supply lines have existed as long as organised armies have existed. Many major military campaigns have made use of supply depots, supply ports, supply trains (on pulled wagons, long before what we now call trains existed), etc. Napoleon also made use of them. Only, it's very expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to live off the land. Only living off the land also takes time, so if you want to mov…

Quoting from Bret Devereaux's blog ( https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-... ): > Rather than reinvent the wheel here, I’ll note that K. Chase (op. cit.) ran these numbers assuming two-horse 1400lb wagons and found that assuming the army acquired no local food (but could get grass for the horses), for a group of thirty infantryman the first wagon doubles their range from 120 to 240 miles (less…

I never said it's a good idea for all situations, but for some. It was most definitely done, so the claim that it was impossible is clearly nonsense. It was impossible in some circumstances, but possible in others. And of course it's a good idea to use local resources when they're available, but there's a big difference between that and relying entirely on local resources.

Armies used supply lines over land during the 100 Years War[0], Romans maintained a network of supply depots[1]. It happened during most time periods.

Just like there's a limit to how much food you can move how far, there's also a limit to how large an army can live off the land. Beyond a certain size, you simply need to bring your own supplies. In fact, one of Napoleon's innovations was that he organised his armies in a way that allowed larger armies than before to live off the land. But larger armies did exist before; they just had to bring supplies.

And of course you're not going to supply a large army over a distance of hundreds of miles using just carts. They used ships where possible, they used supply depots, and organised the most efficient routes by which to maintain those. But you bet lots of land travel was involved as well.

[0] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/medieval/army-supplied-100-...

[1] https://www.everythingsupplychain.com/roman-army-supply-line...

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#192
post #187
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true at all. Supply lines have existed as long as organised armies have existed. Many major military campaigns have made use of supply depots, supply ports, supply trains (on pulled wagons, long before what we now call trains existed), etc. Napoleon also made use of them. Only, it's very expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to live off the land. Only living off the land also takes time, so if you want to mov…

It's absolutely true, and the only thing I missed and you are not wrong about is that supplying armies via ship was possible, if they only operated near ports. That's exactly why the Roman empire conquered lands around the Mediterranean but never advanced deeply into central Europe or the middle East. But no, neither depots nor wagon trains can supply a large army over long distances. It's not too expensive, it's imp…

They did conquer the entirety of Gaul, which is not just coast. And France isn't small. Romans built roads, supply depots, carried supplies on pack animals.

And if you think you can move 50,000 soldiers 500 miles deep into enemy territory without supply lines, you can forget about that too. Napoleon did use supply lines from Poland into Russia. Remember: we're talking about Sun Tzu's advice not to bring your own food but take it all from the enemy land, and I'm saying that doesn't work in all circumstances. I'm not saying it never works. But there are very good reasons why historically, large armies did rely on supply lines.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#193
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he has a choice. "Not having a choice" is just his own excuse for the choice he made. He could have continued trading with the EU while investing in the development of Russia, but that takes actual work and isn't glamorous. (Not to mention that much of that investment would probably be eaten by corruption.) I think he saw a rapidly closing window of opportunity. A successful Ukraine would be a threat to his…

> and Ukraine possibly even joining at some point That wasn't possible, and as far as I'm aware it remains impossible for now. I believe it is a prerequisite for joining NATO, that you should be in control of your internationally-recognized borders. Otherwise, at the moment of joining, the whole of NATO would instantly be at war with Russia, because NATO's supposedly a mutual defence treaty organisation. Same goes fo…

> I believe it is a prerequisite for joining NATO

It is, and that's at least part of the reason why when Ukraine asked to join NATO, they were rejected. But NATO won't rule it out entirely, and Putin took that as a reason (a necessity, he claims) to invade Ukraine.

> Western countries took advantage of the end of the Cold War and the "peace dividend" to hollow-out their armed forces and ammunition reserves.

Even with those cuts, though, NATO has a far, far larger army than Russia. And far better. Though ammo shortages are definitely a big problem.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#194
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't think this excuse works. I guess you're right, it doesn't. I don't know what I'm talking about; I'm just someone who enjoys strategy games. I'm also extremely interested in trying to figure out what Putin was thinking when he attacked, and why he didn't just pull back when his initial blitzkrieg failed. I happen to think his own utterances and writings are a largely-accurate presentation of what he r…

> And regarding the Baltic states: they weren't in NATO They have been in NATO since 2004. Narva in Estonia is > I'm also extremely interested in trying to figure out what Putin was thinking when he attacked, and why he didn't just pull back when his initial blitzkrieg failed. > I think you can understand his thinking by listening to what he says. I think he really believes "there's no such thing as Ukraine". I guess…

It appears he's psychologically unable to back down. He must double down on every stupid idea, a problem more strongman dictators seem to have. Maybe he believes he cannot lose and will ultimately win if he perseveres. Or maybe he thinks he can't afford to lose because it would ruin his image and lose his power.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#195
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"infamous army" by Georgette Heyer (she pretty much invented the bodice-ripper genre which Barbara Cartland drove a long way afterward) was on the reading list at cranwell college. Best description of the battle of waterloo ever, alongside the romance. The lead characters include Harry Smith and his Wife, who are the stars of "the spanish bride" which is about the campaign in Spain, when not about smooching and teena…

Cranwell College is the Royal Air Force college (for those like me who didn't know). But, while Georgette Heyer invented the Regency romance, hers are not "bodice-rippers". They're far better than that. "An Infamous Army" is kind of a strange book. It's half a romance, and half a war story, and it doesn't quite work as either one, but it works well as itself.

It was of course Sandhurst, not Cranwell. I keep getting my institutions mixed up.

Heyer didn't know how to end a book. They're all flirtation and then "reader, she married him (probably)"

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#196
post #4

From what little I know Sun Tzu has a lot of "good rule od thumb" wisdom but you shouldn't stick to what he says as if he is infallible. For example: > The greatest victory is that which requires no battle He says a lot of stuff like that but this is only true if your aim is peace in the near term and appearances of victory. The carnage of war, the worse it is the more it avoids even more war. If you win without batt…

The main point of that quote is that a battle is a negative-sum game. Reaching the same ultimate outcome without a battle is better than fighting for it, because both sides will suffer losses in the battle. Trying to achieve a lasting peace through a decisive victory rarely works, because people don't work like that. In a more likely outcome, you are simultaneously not aggressive enough to prevent future conflicts an…

All of that depends on your goals and priorities. And keep in mind, not everyone fights a battle for defensive reasons. Peace isn't always the desired outcome of war.

He also implies that diplomacy and posturing is actually part of battle which isn't the case but I am sure diplomats and politicians consider themselves warriors.

Often wars are started to avenge a wrong, significant losses in your side were accepted when you declared war. If you win a battle without accomplishing your objectives then what was the point?

But I think I do agree with you on his intent and that is sort if my point, his wisdom is neither absolute nor infallible. I would consider it a guidance to help you decide not hard set commandments to follow.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#197
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he has a choice. "Not having a choice" is just his own excuse for the choice he made. He could have continued trading with the EU while investing in the development of Russia, but that takes actual work and isn't glamorous. (Not to mention that much of that investment would probably be eaten by corruption.) I think he saw a rapidly closing window of opportunity. A successful Ukraine would be a threat to his…

> and Ukraine possibly even joining at some point That wasn't possible, and as far as I'm aware it remains impossible for now. I believe it is a prerequisite for joining NATO, that you should be in control of your internationally-recognized borders. Otherwise, at the moment of joining, the whole of NATO would instantly be at war with Russia, because NATO's supposedly a mutual defence treaty organisation. Same goes fo…

> I believe it is a prerequisite for joining NATO, that you should be in control of your internationally-recognized borders.

It’s not a formal prerequisite, but its probably a practical one.

> Otherwise, at the moment of joining, the whole of NATO would instantly be at war with Russia

There’s no theoretical reason the Accession Protocol for Ukraine couldn’t specify particular territories as excluded from the coverage of Article 6 until some specified future determination.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#198
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations. You could still apply statistics. That's what people who breed animals or plants do. Every organism is different and individual, too.

I was referring to social studies. Biology on the other hand is a real science. A science has laws.

Not sure I buy that.

There's plenty of studies in economics (especially micro-economics) that have statistical laws just like biology does. Similar for psychology. And even for war:

It's hard to run controlled experiments at the largest scales, but there have been plenty of experiments and studies at smaller scales. And some of them yielded statistical 'laws'.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#199
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Britain, you have the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce, Royal Marine, but no 'Royal Army'. That might have something to do with a leftover from the English Civil War. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

The individual regiments are very often royal titled though. "Royal Artillery", "King's Fusiliers" and so on.

Yes, it's complicated.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#200
post #95
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's traditionally the head of state, so King makes sense. In Bulgaria the president is mostly a figurehead with very limited power (basically easily repeatable veto, appoint ambassadors and temporary cabinets when there's no active government pending elections), but is still the commander in chief of the armed forces.

In Britain, you have the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce, Royal Marine, but no 'Royal Army'. That might have something to do with a leftover from the English Civil War. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

Indeed, my understanding is that the British Army was created by and legally answerable to Parliament, unlike the other armed forces. As you mentioned, a remain of mistrust after the monarch was restored to the throne after the civil war (though the navy did remain under the monarch's control). Also, there are royal units within the Army, but the whole of the army is not regimented in this way.
Post reply on HN