• Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    That the doctrine isn’t built around extended periods is actually a problem

    what? no country is capable of keeping their troops ahead of their supplies for very long, it’d be bad doctrine to assume you could make up for that with airlifts

      • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        when has attrition warfare been about whose troops can operate unsupported for longer? who has more material & men, and the rate at which they are replaced is what ‘attrition’ analyzes

        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sorry, what I’m saying is that tanks are less able to engage in attrition if they are constantly requiring a lot of constant work on them and guzzle more fuel as they move, including as they move from engagement to maintenance and back and forth. And requiring bridge layers and such makes logistics harder, further limiting the use of the vehicles.

          • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            reading it back you’re correct, operating for over 12 hours without support would be something desirable in a tank, especially in maneuver. just because the US usually has enough support doesn’t mean it couldn’t be a serious liability if they get into situations support isn’t forthcoming