I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I truly feel that modern war is missing something. I mean World War 1, World War 2, Korea, Vietnam-they all had this decorum that really made war a truly interesting topic to research. Modern war is all about laser-guided missiles and electronics-gone are the good old days of 'the very essence of battle'. For my last note on this topic, please refer to the last quote in my signature. Thanks...
I think I can speak for all of us who serve or have served, you can have the essence of battle, if lasers allow me to come home in one piece then I will take modern warfare.
If I were in combat, I would want lasers saving my arse. But in terms of history and research, Desert Storm will never be as interesting as ww2. All the characters, strange weapons, massive theaters of operation...but of course, millions of lives.
That weapon's been around for ages in one form or another. I'm surprised they managed to keep it funded. At the moment it's no more than a useful research tool, though, as far as I'm informed.
Panzerknacker, you have to remember that "the very essence of battle" really means coming face to face with your enemy. Hand to hand combat. No holds barred. Brutal, vicious, bloody. Bodies and body parts lying everywhere. Young people dying before they've learned to live. That saying tends to romanticise something which is really quite horrific. And if using laser guided weapons, smart munitions, etc. means that lives are saved, rather than lost in vain, I'm all for it. But, I do know what you mean. The wars you mentioned, especially WW2, were about Good versus Evil, or at least perceived Evil. Desert Storm was about good versus someone bad, but not Nazi style, take over the world, murder millions, type Evil. Most of the other modern wars have been the same, good versus someone bad, or very bad, but not Evil. And WW2 was a global war. A war that changed technology from biplanes to jets, from binoculars to radar, from railway guns to missiles. It changed the world over such a short span of years. And to me, it's the heroics, the technology, the sheer vastness of the theatre of war, that fascinates me. And I guess always will. _______________ "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - General George Patton (1885-1945)
I'm not trying to disgrace the essence of old wars-I have nothing but complete respect for those who served, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for their service. I am going into the miliatry in a time where we have to face chemical and biological warfare-all I meant was that war nowadays is centred around technological superority-if it gets me home well good-but it has made the world a dangerous place to live. [ 08. November 2002, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Panzerknacker ]
I think a lot of this is falsly percieved thanks largly down to the media. It loves to show the smart bombs and laser guided missiles. These weapons are just advanced version of theold artilery. They can damage the enemy, but not defeat him. The only way to truely defeat the enemy is te same now as its always been. And thats to close with the enemy, and either kill him or drive him away. The most iportant weapon on the battlefield is still the humble Infantryman (ok, i'm biased). But he can opeate in any enviroment and over any ground. Tanks cannot. He can clear a house or a wood. A LBG cannot. And he can react instantly to ay siuation that the enemy may come up with. s for techology, just ask the Americans in Vietnam or the Russians in Afghanistan, what good all teir technology did them. Personally, i am opposed to to much technology. It has a nasty habit of going wrong. And if we rely on it to much, and its suddely taken away, we are screwed. Thats one good thing aout the Bitish Army. We don't always have excellent modern kit. So, when anything breaks down, we are not surprised. So, we just shrug our shoulders and get on with it. But, the essence of war will still be there as long as war needs men to fight. And of course, we have also not had the large wars that you used to get.
Yes, there was a time when men tested their courage by going off to battle and prove their manhood in hand to hand combat. Then came technology and slowly but surely the art of chivalry has gone away. Now it is a matter of who is quicker at the button. Strength and skill are no longer an issue.
I would not say chivalry is totally dead, at least i hope not. As long as one man has to face another, there will be room for it. If not, then whats the point.
I have a feeling it started changing in WW1 with the use of 1. Maxim machine gun 2. Heavy artillery ( Verdun,Somme ?) 3. Mustard gas etc. The value of a soldier was turning to nameless pieces of meat that were dying by the thousands for a square meter of land.
As all Europe understood in 1914: War is not a glorious nor romantic matter. It is a hell on Earth. It was not like the old wars like the American revolution or the Napoleonic wars, with many squares of soldiers marching in order against the enemy like those little lead figures you play with... Even then war was war and there were blood, smoke, tears, sweat, famine and the cold steel... Now, the lasers and missiles can do two things: Saving many lifes in one side and taking many more lives in the other side. A missile destroying an underground bunker will do the same than artillery shells or even infantry taking over. It will cause deaths, injuries, blood and chopped bodies... Modern war is not interesting at all, but it remains being as bloody.
"Strength and skill are no longer an issue." I think the closest weve been in recent years to Panzers meaning and one which counters the above statement is the Falklands war in early eightees. Definately a so called old fashioned war in the main....Logistics at end of thether, walking to battle across open barren mud, need to take the high ground, down in end to man on man and even the bayonet. Not nice, but proved there is a need for a fit guy on the end of that rifle who doesnt need to have a clue how to press a button or why.
G'day At the end it is of being better than your opponent, by what ever means possible. From the dark ages warriors are looking for ways to destroy the opponent better, easier, faster with less blood lost on your own side. The weapons industry is inventing new things to make it look better then the weapons you have at your disposal, and then buy these. War is all a mindgame, playing poker with men, civilians and soldiers to get your own side better out of the conflict. Reading John Keegans "Face of Battle" you see how new gadgets make diference in winning and losing. So you too want these gadgets. And who likes to lose something? Certainly not your own life if possible. So send those smart(what's in a name) bombs if you can stay alive, but at the receiving end of that bomb that bomb will not be smart enough to avoid collateral damage, and take innocent lives. The arsenal of nuclear weapons is enough to destroy the world several times over and still the warlords want more bigger better weapons. Strange world ain't it. Merry Newyear Popski
Im not sure if some of your Europeans know it yet. But Today the US delpoyed the ENTIRE 3rd Division to Kuwait. This is including divsional command and control units. It looks like this time around we plan to go in all the way. Now if we could just solve the problem of city fighting... CvM
