Infected Mushroom wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:You can pretend this is what you meant when you said "21st century tactics" all you want. But you're not convincing anyone. We all know you weren't talking about technology or equipment.
And we also know you don't know anything about what you were actually talking about.
I don’t have to pretend. It’s dictionary-supported.
Sure, a tactic is defined as "a device for accomplishing an end," but there leaves some ambiguity there for what exactly the word 'device' implies. This ambiguity, in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is clarified in the second line of the same entry, rewording the same meaning, but specifically for military: "A method of employing forces in combat."
Here, I would assume that "device" is used as a synonym to "method" - as it can be often so used in the English language.
But while that's the definition of tactic, you've been talking about military
tactics, which you may have assumed is just the plural of "tactic," but the English language is a cruel bastard. The same Merriam-Webster dictionary defines
tactics as "The science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat" or "the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end"
Either way, the military science of tactics is largely about how you move or manage your troops during combat. It's cool that we have bulletproof vests but that's not a military tactic - nor is telling all your troops to wear bulletproof vests.
So, basically, we're talking about third-generation warfare here. This type of warfare "focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth, and surprise to bypass the enemy's lines and collapse their forces from the rear. This is the type of warfare we've seen with WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, The Iraq War, and the invasion of Afghanistan, among other modern wars. This is the type of warfare we still use today (unless fighting a belligerent that is not a state or non-kinetic warfare, they fall into 4th generation and 5th generation warfare, respectively). Third-generation warfare was the end of the idea that two armies would meet face-to-face in a field somewhere and fight each other head on - this is the type of warfare where opposing combatants attempt to outmaneuver one another to gain the greater advantage.
We saw the first war utilizing these new tactics and strategies of third-generation warfare in World War 2. The Germans' use of blitzkrieg during the invasions of Poland, then France, demonstrated the power of speed and maneuverability instead of static artillery positions or trench defenses. The Germans were quickly able to break through Polish and French defenses via their use of tanks, mechanized infantry, and close air support to capture the rear and gain a greater advantage over their enemies.
This is literally the same tactics we see used today: speed and maneuvering to bypass enemy engagement and collapsing the enemy's defenses by striking deeper and at their rear. You could argue that we have vehicles that move faster now and therefore can accomplish this easier, but "moving faster" isn't a new tactic, it's just doing an old tactic faster. A lot of modern tactics are forms of guerilla warfare, which dates back to prehistoric tribes of people; Sun Tzu would later write about it in his 6th century BC writing,
The Art of War.
The thing is, IM, that technology has advanced quite a bit - but tactics haven't changed much since WW2.
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:42 pm
).