Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt W
Important point to note for those who admire the fighting ability of Rhodesians or - for that matter - people like Confederates and Waffen SS.
THEY LOST
All of these example sindicate that "Good tactics are less important than good strategy"
|
Ah. None of the books I read covered that bit. Honestly, Matt, have you been hanging out at NPR, where people need to have these sorts of things explained to them?
The losers of a war can teach us a great deal, just as the winners are not necessarily worth uniformly emulating. The US, for instance, clung to the imperatives of mass producing the Sherman, despite the obvious need for a heavier tank in widespread use. The use of sheer weight of numbers masks other deficiencies which, had they been corrected, might have resulted in victory at a lower cost or an earlier date.
All that said, I couldn't agree more that good strategy outweighs good tactics. Hitler flushed a magnificent fighting machine down the toilet. The US accomplished more-or-less the same thing in Vietnam. The Rhodesians failed to enact political reforms largely because they appeared to be doing so well on the battlefield. The Japanese never developed a suitable strategy for bringing to successful conclusions the wars in China or the Pacific; thus the fighting skills and spirit of the Japanese soldiers, seamen, and aircrews were squandered. We could go on and on in this fashion, but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm saying.
Still, soldiers don't make national policy. They do they best they can with the resources at hand. Those who do well with the resources at hand are worth studying.
Webstral