Durzan wrote:The Empire of Pretantia wrote:>All military functions
>All
>Military
>Functions
What is logistics then, a branch of the salvation army?
This is an incredibly broad and inaccurate explanation. For one, you're comparing real life combined arms to video games, which is "Trust me I play COD" tier which fails to reflect its reality. For example, infantry is slower than cavalry, except when the infantry is also cavalry, which it often is in mechanised warfare.
Two, if you're trying to compare medieval armies to modern ones then you completely fucked up.The Empire of Pretantia wrote:>All military functions
>All
>Military
>Functions
What is logistics then, a branch of the salvation army?
This is an incredibly broad and inaccurate explanation. For one, you're comparing real life combined arms to video games, which is "Trust me I play COD" tier which fails to reflect its reality. For example, infantry is slower than cavalry, except when the infantry is also cavalry, which it often is in mechanised warfare.
Two, if you're trying to compare medieval armies to modern ones then you completely fucked up.
Oh really? Its called Combat Arms, my friend... and it is a real thing. Although in real life the classifications are based more on how the units fought (which is ironically based off of capabilities and traits similar to what I mentioned initially). The classics originated in medieval times, but continue into use in today's world. They were as I said before: Infantry (soldiers who fought on foot), Calvary (Originally horse-mounted troops, but in today's world I'd argue that many ground vehicles would fill a similar role in how they fight), and Artillery (Long-Range Weaponry, typically used for some kind of bombardment). Overtime, additional "classes" were added...such as Aviation, which I'd be willing to wager has something to do with aircraft, but for simplicity's sake lets focus on the original three. Anyway, what I was trying to describe up there was how you use them tactically. Of course there are times where the line blurs between the "classes" (for lack of a better term), or there are some degree of overlap, but that doesn't mean that they are not applicable to modern warfare. I probably am not using the terms in exactly the correct fashion, but I'm not saying I'm an expert.
In cases as you describe, I guess you look at what the purpose of that particular unit and how it was supposed to fight, and classify it based on how it is supposed to fight, taking into account the specifics of individual unit/vehicle specifications. Based on that, you give it an appropriate classification and sub-classifications within each class (if there is actually any). Your example given in mechanized warfare doesn't give enough information: Are you talking about drones, some type of automated ground vehicle, or a robot? If its a drone, it doesn't really fit the classic roles (though you probably could shoehorn it in somewhere) at all and would fall under Aviation. Heck, two can play at this game of providing class overlaps. A similar comparison would probably be how infantry and artillery can blend together.
In medieval and ancient times a battalion of Archers were considered artillery even though their movement capabilities were arguably more comparable to infantry than to other forms of artillery. Because bows were ranged weapons that could hit opponents from far away with volley's of arrows while the melee infantry and calvary were trying to cross the field (unless the infantry was able to pull off a Phalanx, in which case archery proved considerably less effective, but thats besides the point). Not as long range as a catapult, but they still were just classified as artillery. Their skill set and way of fighting were different than that of foot soldiers, and required a completely different skill set (Archery). Confusing? Yep. It gets better. When guns were introduced, soldiers with muskets replaced both archers and soldiers with spears and shields. Muskets could be used long range like bows or as a melee weapon (with a bayonet), but required a more direct line of sight as bullets had so much more force that it traveled in a straight line when compared to an arrow. Thus the artillery role of the archer merged with that of the foot soldier, creating the modern day infantry (as they still fought on foot, just using ranged weapons), which basically functions the same as today... although we have different specializations of infantry (Such as anti-infantry... like snipers, anti-Artillery... like guys who use RPG's and other such weaponry, etc)
(Tangent: What the heck would a transport be classified as anyway? It can't be infantry... cause its a vehicle and people ride in it, can't be considered artillery, cause its primary purpose is logistical in nature, not to attack via bombardment. Calvary makes the most sense to me, but then again transports tend to be slow and bulky... extra storage space often has the opportunity cost of speed and maneuverability, and again its purpose isn't to fight but to... well transport people and equipment. So... it doesn't really fit in any of the three classic Combat Arms, although if I had to go with one, calvary fits the best. Meh, if there is a Support class that'd probably be it)
As far as saying that trying to compare medieval armies to modern ones is fucked up... guess what. Your wrong. While the methods, means, and tools by which we wage war have changed vastly over humanity's existence on this worthless rock, the underlying principles behind warfare have not. There is a reason Sun Tzu's The Art of War (a book thought to be over 1500 years old) is still very much relevant even today. Although the applications of military tactics and strategy are vastly different today than they were 100 or more years ago (WWI used a lot of trench fighting), the principles are still basically the same. And guess what... video games that focus on tactics and strategy (pretty much any game that doesn't rely entirely on luck and/or reflexes involve some amount of strategy and/or tactics) do take lessons and inspiration from the Art of War (either directly or indirectly).
Of course video games do not accurately portray real life, I'm not stupid enough to think that (Although, you'd be surprised as just how realistic and/or accurate some games can be when you compare them to what it is they are trying to replicate). However, many video games involve strategy and tactics, which as I mentioned before, is ultimately rooted back in actual tactics and strategy used in real life. So there is some room for comparison if you know what to look for and take it with a grain of salt.
Real Time Strategy games in particular (Ya know, games like Command & Conquer, Starcraft II, and Age of Empires) are especially comparable to actual warfare as the whole point of those games is to simulate warfare on the battlefield from the perspective of a commanding officer. Of course, it is VASTLY simplified and abstract for the sake of ease of gameplay and fun, but when it comes to applying tactics and strategy, a lot of the same basic principles apply:
- You pick your general strategy (how you plan on going about winning long term) and you implement it via tactics (short-term attempts that move you one step closer to your end goal), while trying to prevent your opponent from doing the same. In an RTS, your win condition is typically to destroy all your opponents structures or force them to "GG out" (Surrender and leave the game), while in real life your overall "win condition(s)" for a war/battle depends on what exactly your nation is trying to do... it can be as general as "claim territory" or "force [nation] to submit" to something as complicated as "claim specific area, fortify and hold it to serve [insert purpose here]" or "Sneak in and eliminate/capture [target]." In either case, you want to use the right tools for the job and that means planning your strategy and tactics according to the needs of your overall objective.
- You need money to sustain a war effort, as money is what allows you to start and maintain the training of soldiers and weapon production. In an RTS this takes the form of mining resources (which also serve as an abstract for supply lines... IE logistics), while in real life this is exactly what it says on the tin (your nations actual economy). If you are running low on resources (Literally natural resources/Money/etc. in real life) you are in trouble and need to acquire more resources (represented by having to establish an outpost/base at a new patch of resources).
- You need to establish and maintain the proper infrastructure for your war machine. In an RTS this takes the form of establishing the buildings that you train your units from and buildings from which you research upgrades (you always start from scratch). In real life this takes the form of establishing and maintaining your nation's weapons factories, bases to train your troops, naval docks, military airstrips, etc.
- You need to be able to adapt. If you cannot change your strategy or tactics to defend against your opponent's, or take advantage of your opponents openings, then it will cost you. Both in real life, and in an RTS.
(BONUS ROUND)
To further emphasise the parallels between warfare and RTS games, here are some Strategies and Tactics that work well in an RTS. See how you could compare it to real life events:
- Rapid Expand (Strategy): Your goal is to win through economic advantage. You do this by claiming additional bases early on. More bases means that you mine more resources at a faster rate. More resources means you can build up your infrastructure rapidly and eventually overwhelm your opponent with the might of your economy and rapid unit production. However, this strategy has a weakness, if you stretch yourself too thin (by trying to claim too many bases at once) or focus too much on boosting your economy, your opponent can catch you off guard if he attacks you early on.
- Rushing (Strategy): Your goal is to sacrifice building up your economy so you can attack your opponent early on, hopefully catching him off guard while he doesn't have a strong economy and infrastructure. If you are successful, this can result in temporarily crippling your opponent's economy (IE you cripple him by killing enough workers to set him back), and allowing you the time to pull ahead and gain an economic advantage. If you are really lucky, you may even force a surrender from your opponent. Unfortunately, if your opponent is able to defend against your rush, then your opponent will have an economic advantage.
- Turtling (Strategy): You focus on fortifying your main base. Your goal is to protect your main base and slowly build up your forces until you can push your opponent back. Make sure to invest in upgrades and keep your units alive for as long as possible, as you do not have the resources to rapidly replace your losses. Downside is that when you do turtle, any outlying expansions you have will be left vulnerable. Your opponent could prevent you from expanding altogether by positioning his troops nearby and/or through rapid expansion. Either way, he gains an economic advantage.
I could name a few more, but I'd be here all day.
Anyway... Tanks are totally artillery (Specifically Heavy Artillery with some siege capability. Specifics depend on the kind of tank though). They hit hard from a long distance, and move fairly slowly when compared to other types of ground vehicles. Great at punching through enemy fortifications and positions from a safe distance, or holding fortified areas (if you manage to get the tank into such a position with the fortifications in the first place) on high but level ground. They still have quite a bit of use in modern warfare.
I could reply to all of this, but all I will say is that neither this nor the other post answer whether or not tanks are worth it. Both of them are merely armchair general tier explanations of combined arms.
Oh, and your armchair general tier explanation of strategies is triple bad.
