Since Ukraine is the most recent and most highlighted modern conflict, what lessons could be learnt from it in terms of tactics and strategy? If such a modern war was to break out elsewhere, like Egypt-Israel, Armenia-Azerbaijan (again), India-Pakistan, India-China, Iran-Afghanistan, Iran-Israel, etc, what lessons should the 1)Commanders, and 2)Soldiers, take away from these modern conflicts to help them win, or just stay alive?
>what lessons could be learnt
fight russia if you want to win
I'm talking about conflicts where Russia isn't involved, I don't care about Ukraine or Russia, I'm only asking because I wanna know how wars are won or lost, and how average soldiers can stay alive and fight better in modern wars. Take the examples I gave and imagine a war between them, India-Pakistan for example, how would that pan out and what would an average jeet or jihadi have to do to survive?
>war between them, India-Pakistan for example, how would that pan out
I would imagine in a similar fashion like the Iran-Iraq one if they refrain from nuking each other.
From what I've read, that was more like old wars than modern wars, with trench warfare and human wave attacks, a lot has changed since then, particularly the use of drones.
Both sides are using the same soviet tactics so all we can really take away from it is that soviet tactics suck.
See
ukr could collapse without western aid
Ukr without western aid, permitted an overextended Russia, which resulted I. Ukraine actually inflicting a higher daily attrition rate on Russians and capturing vast amounts of russian armour and equipment. The primary effect of western aid has been to stabilise and slow down the conflict, the lines haven't really moved for 12 months now. Which has resulted in Ukraine no longer capturing Russian equipment except in Belgorod - a situation which would've been much more widespread and occuring earlier had western arms not formalised Ukraine into a western style force rather than an insurgency type, which Ukraine was actually excellent at.
>what lessons could be learnt from it in terms of tactics and strategy
Nearly none as voth sides are extremely incompetent.
This unironically. NATO is lightyears ahead with combined arms operations and mission tactics.
The basic lessons haven't changed: War is bad, preparation and logistics are important, set clear (achievable) goals and how you're going to meet them with the resources available. Equip and train your troops properly. Corruption is bad. Don't make optimistic assumptions. Anticipate challenges. Make sure you try alternatives and use war as a last resort.
You know, the shit people have been saying since Sun Tzu but no one actually listens to.
Of course, makes sense.
But at a tactical level? Like, how would soldiers survive getting bombs dropped on them by grenades? Or what would they do if their own state/army is incompetent and makes questionable strategic choices? How would they survive then at the front lines? How would private militias or mercenary groups fare in such a war, would they be better or worse off than the main army? What should citizens do if they got invaded suddenly?
> how would soldiers survive getting bombs dropped on them by grenades
The same way you survive when planes try to bomb you: hide with a camo net in the bush or woods
> what would they do if their own state/army is incompetent and makes questionable strategic choices
leave the country before the draft
> How would they survive then at the front lines?
Run fast to hide, don't stay in one place for too long or else they'll know where to bomb, aim to shoot
> How would private militias or mercenary groups fare in such a war, would they be better or worse off than the main army?
If they're in Wagner, they're fricked. If they're in Kadyrov's guard, they'll be aight
> What should citizens do if they got invaded suddenly?
Fight or flight
That's reasonable, thanks.
Also don't get high on your own supply of propaganda
>War is bad,
This is where most people mess up.
>what lessons could be learnt from it in terms of tactics and strategy?
The eradication of the muscovite vermin is paramount to world peace. Military as well as civilian resources should be rerouted and utilized to round them up and send them to those famous polish summer camps.
W O O D E N D O O R S
F I V E P E R M I N U T E
T O T A L
> get lots of aid from a reliable ally
> use it
The Afghans, Arabs, and Vietnamese got a lot of aid from the US but their statesmen robbed cash, sold the arms, and lied to all.
Colonel Moran's mentioned a few times in his videos that we really can't make any assumptions about the war until we've got all the information, which will take years.
Honestly, nothing we've seen so far is too shocking. Drones have been used before and they're just like slower, more accurate, and weaker, artillery.
Fair enough, how about Armenia-Azerbaijan, then? That's recent enough to be relevant but long enough ago to be sufficiently analyzed.
Between India-Pakistan? Just give me a hint, I'd say Pakistan is the former, but without the numbers.
Hypersonic missiles don't work if you can't target things that matter, and if the things that matter are outside of the one country you're invading, they're useless.
Artillery still matters
>Egypt vs Israel
Those two are allies. Egypt blockades Gaza more strictly than Israel, both are US clients, Egyptian public opinion isn't really against Israel except for a subset of religious extremists, and both are united by dislike for Iran who now is the only power friendly to the Palestinians due to all the bridges they've burnt.
>India-Pakistan
That moving to BCT/BTU style organization is dumb for them. If Russia can't do organic battalion level ops scaled up well and Ukraine with NATO training and support can't do complex ops well with brigade level organization, they shouldn't bother trying to restructure that way. It makes sense for the US because the US has to plan on rapid deployments around the world and can generally count on air superiority to make up for any firepower deficit.
These countries would be better served to focus on leveraging their huge populations, particularly India, and focusing on big ops. You can throw field armies at the opponent, take advantage of it and organize and train accordingly.
Also buy lots of SHORAD for drones and MANPADS.
I think they know this though. India has riots that kill as many people as this war because Hindus and Muslims really have a bad history in the area. Recruitment and morale isn't their problem, it will be getting their own people to stop gangraping each other and only focus on Pakistani Muslims.
>India-China
Fairly irrelevant, the terrain dictates everything there. Neither can actually invade the other or even sustain larger scale ops in the Himalayas, really no power can.
>Iran-Isreal
Most relevant lesson for Iran is that once you have nukes you can keep screaming about them to stop people from b***h slapping you... but also that this won't save you if you're moronic.
> https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-egyptian-opinion-poll-continued-dissatisfaction-government-performance-almost
> A mere 11% agree that “people who want to have business or sports contacts with Israelis should be allowed to do so.”
Thats why Egypt's democracy got overthrown pretty much instantly and nobody said a peep about it since.
There is a difference between some antipathy and wanting war, much less getting your government to actually do the war.
I worked in Cairo for years. I had a lot of exposure to your regular Egyptian 20 something through classes I taught. There was definitely a fair amount of antipathy for Israel in the form of general antisemitism sometimes dressed up in or merged with anticolonialism, but the Sinai insurgency was considered a bigger problem.
People disliked Israel in the way Americans disliked the Soviets, antipathy mixed with fear and grudging respect. Only the religious radicals actually want a large scale war with such a formidable military and a nuclear power.
Also, Egyptians, especially the young, and Arabs in general attribute almost God-like abilities to Mossad. A lot of anti-Israel shit is just filtering anger with current conditions into a format that is allowed by the powers that be, i.e. saying the government is failing isn't ok, but saying Israel and their magic is the reason everyone is broke is ok. This has the strange effect of making young Arab men actually fetishize them though, the way young Americans fetishized the "Spetsnaz," until this war took the bloom off the rose.
Like, one funny example I got was that "using the IDF to hit insurgents was like using Vegeta to destroy the first two androids when Goku was sick and he was the only Super Sayan to fight."
Sadly, nothing. It’s basically WW1 with drones and rockets. The reason for this are several:
1. Use of advanced AT weapons vs largely obsolete tanks.
2. Very poor logistics capabilities makes maneuver warfare impossible.
3. Lack of training and technology in air power severely limits their effect on AD-denied airspace.
4. Stand-off missiles are insufficient in number to cause decisive damage at the strategic level.
The shape of this war is more due to LACK of capabilities than capabilities cancelling each other out.
Bring back chemical warfare; that is the lesson.
You should tell your troops that the invasion is happening instead of letting it be a surprise then finding out you don’t have enough fuel to rush the capital
Perhaps there should be more investment in active protection systems to counter anti-tanks weapons? Those ATGMs can be really dangerous.
Lesson? Logistics determine if you are going to control the outcome of an entire war or not.
I want to see India-China war so fricking bad.
It will end up as a stalemate where they are now. Those borders didn't happen overnight.
>Modern
Only in the sense that its happening right now.
>Lessons learned
Don't fight like a third world country? Both sides fight like morons so there's nothing in there for a competent military.
>like Egypt-Israel
Egypt and Israel aren't in a conflict, bozo. Egypt is a puppet to US and Israel. It's the reason why Egypt gets the second-largest military aid behind Israel from the US, it's to keep their military junta in power. Gaza itself is under a joint blockade by the two, since it borders Egypt the latter could easily open the borders and let trade and people move freely but won't. They have to build tunnels just to get shit through and those get blown up by Egypt often.