Does such a thing truly exist? If so, how would you even define it? Is there anything inherently unique about the American style of warfare?
The American Art of War
Does such a thing truly exist? If so, how would you even define it? Is there anything inherently unique about the American style of warfare?
Maneuver warfare.
Violence. Of. Action.
I remember about a year ago someone noted how Russia tried and failed to replicate shock and awe before everything went to shit with their logistics, saying they were incapable of waging war like a modern military. Someone replied to them suggesting that what they called modern might just be American, because only America has ever really waged war like that and had to logistics to keep it up, so maybe that's something close to an answer for you OP.
American warfare is material warfare.
Having decent leadership and planning is important but in a large scale, long term, and complex modern war you need endless amounts of material the organizational expertise to: produce it in effective amounts, get it where needs to go, use it correctly once it arrives, and maintain it correctly as it is used.
Overwhelming firepower and a rapid advance can overcome a numerically superior enemy with better per soldier training, if your ground troops are "good enough" while having near constant access to fire support, extra supplies, and comfortable living conditions they will obliterate an opposing force with less support.
Modern war is about machines & munitions, and the proficient administrators & technicians that keep the machine running.
American never had to fight peer-to-peer
What's the point of fighting peer-to-peer if you can just stomp the enemy?
America is the only nation that understands that soldiers walk on their stomachs. Overengineering anything food related is their literal culture, sometimes as with logistics even beneficial.
That roflstompable enemy only happens to sit sometimes on some strategically relevant area of interest.
Your peers -- either allying them or disabling them -- are always a strategical interest.
Excuse me? We fought five major peer wars between 1860 and 1953, and Vietnam was a peer war in the air at first. It only stopped being that way after major work to modernize our equipment and tactics, effort the Soviets declined to match and pass on to the NVA for whatever reason.
Name them
Civil War
Spanish-American War
WW1
WW2
Korea
America has no peer.
Overwhelming power is the American way of war.
Superiority in all domains
Correct. Superiority in firepower reconnaissance and logistics in particular. Then utilize this superiority to find and kill enemies to first disable their countermeasures (AAA, SAMs, air forces) then eliminate command and control assets with precision. Following this, the utter destruction of conventional field forces is trivial.
>Overwhelming power is the American way of war.
Although it's interesting that technological innovation and improved individual power, volunteer forces, and so on were actually making an appearance even at the earliest days when America was absolutely a massive underdog. If you've never read it I strongly suggest taking a look at "Six Frigates" if you ever get the chance, great book on how the US Navy got going. 3 of our first ships used at the time advanced/autistic construction with super heavy and hard to work with live oak, were much more powerful than any British frigate. They had high morale volunteer crews and worked hard. Despite everyone knowing the Brits were the world's greatest oceanic military by a long shot and expecting America to get promptly swept from the seas, the fledgling USN scored multiple victories in a row. Changed the course of history, people had been hesitant and called navy a waste of money and effort etc.
Kind of interesting thinking about this thread about how that sort of thing made an appearance so early, worked, and has continued ever since in at least some aspects.
Throwing a billion planes at the problem until it goes away
>Is there anything inherently unique about the American style of warfare?
>bomb civilians
>frick off when you are defeated
>loudly proclaims your victory or usurp someone else's achievements
Basically the same as Russia's.
>America fricks off with all your oil, opium, and natural resources after 20 years of occupation
>Defeated
Lol, lmao even
>America fricks off with all your oil, opium, and natural resources after 20 years of occupation
So again, basically the same Black folk as Russia with basic appliances, only difference is that a ruskie soldier steals for himself, while burger steals for Dick Cheney's stocks.
Keep moving those goalposts my bogan friend, my point was that America accomplished exactly what it set out to do; create a context to go to war with a country that had something it wanted, then invade and take everything, then frick off. Americans aren’t conquerors, they’re occupiers. They’ve achieved every military goal they’ve had since Vietnam.
>Americans aren’t conquerors, they’re occupiers
Exactly why would you want to rule over some unstable diet country when you can replace the government with one friendly to your business interests so you can buy&sell on favorable terms?
yeah we're totally swimming in that oil that we pay market price for lmao spoils of war bros!!!
>lose 250 men for every 1 American soldier you kill
>claim victory when they get bored of occupying you
>usurp someone else's achievements
whose?
The American Art of War is to turn people in other countries into woketards.
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/wokeness-as-white-supremacism/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/white-antifragility/
Seething asiatics have to be one of the weirdest subset of posters on this board.
I'm not white and even I'm tired of this blame whitey narrative.
>America's apparent weakness: too much self reflection
>Russia and China's obvious weakness: zero self reflection
Which one's better, the side that strives for self improvement and has the occasional overcorrection or the side that puts anyone asking any questions in a labor camp in the middle of nowhere?
Shock and awe is pretty much an American doctrine
I'd say the current style is "Overwhelming precision strikes with numerical overmatch and technological superiority" but does it really count as a style of warfare, or is it the ideal to aspire to? Every military would do that if they could, building on what >57507140 said.
At an operational level, the american army practices improvisation and violence of action much more than other armies. I'd say good NCO corps, easy access to fire support and a belief in american military superiority are the key factors.
In case of doubt, attack and all that.
Fighting a war in the most materially expensive way possible, in order to spend less manpower.
Or put another way: spend money, not blood.
Arguably it's better in the long term to have you human capital working MC Jobs, spending McDollars, and reproducing to make more future laborers than having them die in some foreign land fighting whoever at age 18-24.
The death of a young and remotely educated male is the loss of a most vital economic engine who's economic potential had just been cut prematurely short while also wasting all of the time and wealthy spent on producing them in the first place. Their death is a guaranteed economic losd
The most valuable part of a tank or plane is the human. It takes 18 years to assemble then you have to select for one that matches a mission fit.
With how selective pilots are it’s like making a Dr.
The American weakness has always been casualties. The American public is not good at accepting casualties even in the most just of wars. If there is an American way of war, it is to completely dominate the operational level while completely ignoring the strategic level, because by the time you have to think about the strategic level your approval rating tanks. Campaigns like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and I would even argue Korea were strategized poorly, even though they followed brilliant operations. Plus with casualties being the Achilles heel, a lot of money gets put into equipment to ensure survivability. Not just armour, but battlefield awareness, countermeasures, even stealth technology can be seen as an extension of this mentality.
Even if it is entirely for strategic reasons, there is a certain morale high-ground you get from trying to avoid casualties as much as possible
>no sauce
Logistics. Truly absurd logistics, which enables the profligate use of combined arms, with an emphasis on air and artillery support, and these days, guided weapons out the wazoo.
Finally the correct answer.
Well that and decapitation strikes.
>use superior firepower and logistics
Americans aren't the most creative at waging wars but they can just pour so much money and equipment to solve problems until they go away.
Outspend by roughly 6000% of their opponent's GDP.
That’s just good business, Americas primary export since ww2 is warfare, the American military industrial complex is a finely tuned machine at this point. We need a reason to use all the bombs and bullets so we can buy more bombs and bullets.
You have to consider the United States' GDP. We account for almost 40% of the world's defense spending in raw dollars, but in terms of percentage of GDP, we're barely in the top 15 (and bear in mind, like always, North Korea is "No Data Available"). Can you fricking imagine what the US military would be like if we were still spending 6%+ of GDP on defense like we did in the Cold War? Give the DoD $1.5 trillion a year and they'd be using hypersonic missiles as a platoon-level support weapon.
You would also frick up the economy. You'd have to raise taxes to an effective rate 40%.
>raise taxes
or just cut welfare to fat minorities and boomer bux which are like 60% of federal spending
You'd lose the election immediately
Top tax rates were. Effective was always much lower. In fact, spending to gdp ratios have on average climbed since WW2 days.
so lie about it, do it after the election, and keep the policies in place long enough for the leech classes to die
Do you understand how the government works? You need congressional approval to cut welfare. Even Republicans won't do it. The biggest welfare queens, the farmers, are their biggest voting bloc
>You'd have to raise taxes to an effective rate 40%.
Yeah? You don't have to go back that far to see top tax rates at 90% anon:
>https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
When the Cold War was really serious right after WW2 and America was experiencing one of its greatest periods ever taxes started in the 20% range and went up from there. There are strong arguments that's too high, but also reasonable arguments that 37% as the top rate is too low. At any rate it's very clear there is no law of nature saying we couldn't have higher rates if we wanted and thrive.
>muh 90% tax rate
fricking moron, do you think people actually paid that? There's a reason companies used to give their employees companies cars, personal secretaries, and all sorts of other benefits. It was to get around income tax. Not to mention that 400K in the 1950s is equivalent to 5.5+ million now thanks paper money
lol moron, no one pays 37% either what of it?
>hurr there are no deductions or work arounds in 2023 like there were in the 50s
imagine being as moronic as (you)
Honestly I think it's almost too long to write about as a greentext, since the question you are asking isn't simply about battlefields or operations or entire wars. It's also how we use soft power, how we structure the different branches, what the government does to inure the average citizen to the extreme "cost of vigilance". You can't merely copy the technology and the tactics and the organizations. It goes beyond that.
High Morale.
High Skill.
High Tech.
Big Log chain.
NCOs.
That's what wins battles.
Its SO FRICKING EXPENSIVE and requires Olympic class moron wrangling skills.
I remember a fellow contractor had a heart attack in NE Africa and the USAF flew him to Germany for surgery. They had a plane on standby for medical flights 24/7 or when we had to refuel our equipment and The USN Helos dropped fuel bladders for us like clockwork all day long. Just supporting operations across the damn planet at that scale was insane.
yeah its impressive what Robert Gates did to unfrick the DoD under Rumsfeld.
The American art of war is industry and logistics. During WW2 we still didn’t go balls to the wall we had entire ships for getting our marines fresh ice cream. If you can supply an army with Big Macs you can supply them with bullets.
>But muh Chinese industry
The US has produced F-35s at three times the rate that China has produced J-20s. We don’t have three times as many, we have nearly five times as many, but even as China has ramped up production to try and surpass us they can’t even match a third of our production rate.
This.
The winning American war doctrine is ice cream ships and forklifts
>tempo tempo tempo
Our asymmetrical doctrine is often quite experimental.
>Our asymmetrical doctrine is often quite experimental.
Because we are an accidental empire with a cultural and governmental legacy very opposed to empire now half assing the operation of the largest and most wealthy defacto empire in human history by virtue of historical happen stance, good geography, and a work/business obsessed culture.
It's a very comical situation when viewed from a detached historical lense.
Overwhelming air power.
having gorillion equipment by being #1 economy
thrashing others as idiots for fighting peer warfare
>they’re shooting at us? Blow them up, we don’t need to waste lives by sending people in.
It is called Frick you-money.
The American Art of War is to pick fight with countries one tenth their size and with technology from 4 decades ago.
It's a pretty good strategy
So pretty much every country?
Actively demoralizing your fighting force and hoping tech will make up for it.
so Russia, but with tech?
Well less trying to literally assrape you by dedovshchina and more trying to frick you out of your promised sign-on bonus and benefits while blacks and women are allowed to lord it over you at every opportunity.
Have no idea what you're doing so your enemy can never anticipate your moves
Overcompensate with airpower and technology their shitty infantry.
If the Russians throw bodies at it, Americans throw money at it. Not necessarily at the tank or plane but the logistics system that built and shipped the plane to the war zone.
Think Henry Ford mixed with a boat shoe wearing buisness chad
Throw trillions of dollars into the military until the problem is solved
If that doesn’t work just use said trillions to claim victory over whoever they were fighting in despite falling to achieve their objectives (the war of 1812)
The war of 1812 achievemed nothing for either of the fighting sides, the only ones who "won" are Canadians who stopped and attempt from America to forcibly annex then, but even then they were British and not Canadians at the time.
American art of war is logistical supremacy. Literally the only reason we have been in countries for long periods of time is because they get a sophisticated supply chain immediately up and running to support the troops
Yes it's called "losing", I think Granada and Panama have been the only success since WW2 which was an 80% Russian effort.
More specifically it's known as 'waste trillions on an undefined or unachievable objective that will be a success thanks to good old American know how and spirit, and when that fails cut and run calling it a victory according to a different objective and completely deny any failure'.
Don't @ me homosexuals you know it's true
T. Seething non-american angry that his country hasn't gained anything from armed conflict in the past 200 years.
If we are talking about "winning" in your moronic terms, then the British in the Falklands war was the last force to defeated it's enemy
>WW2 which was an 80% Russian effort.
Two words. Lend. Lease.
I wonder how much of the American way of way is a result of the civil war and West Point. All its historical great generals were trained as engineers.
America alsways wants to build a better mousetrap or better supply chain with autistic focus. Even the the aversion to causalities goes back to Mclellan and Sherman made shock and awe
I just got this MountainDew from the vending machine, and that crazy thing happened where it got tapped just right at the right temperature where it all instantly turned to ice.
Thats fricking wild.
It happens sometimes. Tastes great.
if i had to describe it in one word, i think it would adaptability.
during inter-war periods i don't think there's another military out there that changes as much as America's.
most other countries stick to the same tactics, strategies and even technologies for as long as they can, but the U.S. is always adjusting, not as fast as it should, but it tries at least.
see it's transformation between WWII and Vietnam, and between Vietnam and the Gulf War. And we're seeing it now once more with all of the network centric warfare stuff. meanwhile you see Russia in Ukraine fighting the same way they were fighting back in Chechnya.
that might work against some countries but i think it's pretty obvious the U.S. would curb stomp Russia right now and not just because of the economic disparity.
We can see all of this in action watching the Marines give up their tanks and retooling as a Special (Ed) Forces at Scale concept to fight the Chinese in an RF-hostile environment.
https://archive.is/VRh3J
Even in a "dispersed" asymmetric operation more akin to SEAL ops than our usual style of war there's still a huge logistical train in providing initial loadouts, artillery autism/overmatch via HIMARS+PRISM, drone tactics learned from observing Ukraine, and a huge degree of trust in delegation. The idea is to use the Marines to get in and start wrecking shit on the ground until the Space Force and carrier air wings remove the enemy's eyes in the sky. Then the traditional ass whipping conga line resumes.
The American Art of War can be summarized as:
>Keeping the technological advantage
This has always been the case except in our two wars with the bongs who edged us out technologically both times.
>Maintaining superior training
Starts with Baron von Steuben. We spend more per soldier than anyone else. Probably more than a lot of countries spend on whole platoons. A lot of this comes down to the US not seeing its soldiers as expendable despite having a manpower advantage in almost every war it's fought.
>Being exceptional operational maneuvering
Started with Washington, was perfected by Winfield Scott, and was used to maximum effect by Grant, Pershing, Eisenhower, and Schwarzkopf.
>Having highly-accurate artillery
Starts with Henry Knox. Literally everybody we've fought talks about how their troops shit their pants at the accuracy and effectiveness of American artillery.
>Performing quick mobilizations
Starts with the colonial Minutemen. The ability of the US to cobble together an effective fighting force and land it anywhere is rivaled only by our Angloid-bong sisters.
>Having a dynamic doctrine and mode of operation
Starts with Washington. He started off fighting conventional battles, then he started using ambushes and guerilla tactics, then he started engaging in a Fabian strategy of maneuver and attrition, then he went back to fighting conventional battles. People meme about the US having a nonexistent doctrine, which isn't true. The US just likes its doctrine the same it likes its religion - secularized and highly flexible.
>Possessing godly logistical capabilities
This doesn't need an explanation.
Meanwhile the guys that beat you can't even spell operational!
Care to explain how the Americans lost to the Taliban when the Taliban signed the treaty?
America lost because third worlders and tourists do not understand victory or strategic goals unless its reduced to video game logic. America didn’t wipe the enemy team, so of course they “lost”.
Same thing as in Vietnam. Democrats threw it all away in order to score minor domestic political points.
Have you actually read the treaty
The main points are
>US to leave
>completely unspecified negotiations to be held with afghan government
>Taliban not to host terrorists
The last part was in fact always the case. The Taliban and Al Qaeda had a schism long ago, which was why Bin Laden had to flee to Pakistan.
Are dead people running Afghanistan?
>Are dead people running Afghanistan?
Might as well be. Considering the coming famine that would probably result in them not knowing how to govern a modern and more populus afghanistan than they left behind 20 years ago.
>Considering the coming famine
Not that guy but why are Westerners so obsessed with the inevitable doom of their enemies? Did the Soviet Union give the wrong idea to the people or something?
Iran isn't collapsing because they have some protests, the Russian army won't collapse and just let the ukies roll over Crimea and Putin's head won't come off any day soon nor will he die of cancer or whatever, the Chinese haven't collapsed and they won't in the next 10~20 years because muh demographics, housing inflation, Covid or whatever new stuff is on the agenda for the next 2-3 years, the Kims are alive and North Korea isn't going anywhere and I don't think the Talis will go back to the caves because of some inevitable famine or the rise of ISIS either.
>he doesn't know
>Does such a thing truly exist? If so, how would you even define it? Is there anything inherently unique about the American style of warfare?
No. American doctrine, broadly speaking, have been always about leveraging its massive economical-industrial base while still operating under the confines of a generally casualty-averse political-cultural system that have been characteristic of western liberal democracies. Basically, nothing new other than doing what the others were doing but better because the USA can pay for it.
>Not that guy but why are Westerners so obsessed with the inevitable doom of their enemies? Did the Soviet Union give the wrong idea to the people or something?
A mix of that and excessive assurance in the superiority of their own political-social system to the point that any other must not just be inferior but actively self-destructive.
When faced with an enemy who was not self destructive we nuked them twice.
>When faced with an enemy who was not self destructive we nuked them twice.
And now that is no longer possible because of MAD. Nuclearization is a b***h.
MAD only exists with the Russians, which is why we're using the Ukrainians to troll them into deleting their own industrial base so they can't maintain the nukes anymore.
>MAD only exists with the Russians
MAD is designed around the basic idea that any existential conflict between nuclear powers will end up in an "everyone loses" scenario as a decent number nuclear weapons+delivery systems will lead to massive losses.
>which is why we're using the Ukrainians to troll them into deleting their own industrial base so they can't maintain the nukes anymore
Russian industrial base have already collapsed during the 90s and 00s, hence why they have to import massive amounts of western industrial equipment, the current conflict is basically them burning throw old soviet stockpiles.
>throw
*through
Probably because they're fricking dead.
Afghanistan was a cultural victory
>I'm done here
kek. You can't pull out of your own country
Well I'm going to be honest we tried maneuver warfare on the people who already A long time ago Circle the great Genghis Khan
>Starts with Henry Knox. Literally everybody we've fought talks about how their troops shit their pants at the accuracy and effectiveness of American artillery.
Non-Americans underestimate how autistic America was about this. Like pre-WWII, the French got the idea of building a table of where to aim from the Maginot line in order to speed up their artillery fire there.
America sent out survey corps across the entirety of Europe to figure out where to hit anything from anywhere in a bigass book so it didn't matter where the frick we were fighting, we could hit any position in a couple dozen seconds where other militaries would take a dozen minutes.
This extended to the navy too. One of the big advantages American battleships had (before and even after getting obsoleted by American carriers and aircraft) was much better FCS. The mechanical computers and other efforts to more accurate aim the big guns were amazing technological feats.
I suppose you could argue that this same basic desire for accuracy has carried right on into the modern age with American autism over smart precision munitions, not just artillery but missiles and bombs. Hell, even our ICBMs, the AIRS for the Peacemaker missiles is still almost unbelievable, the pinnacle of electromechnical inertial guidance with effectively perfect accuracy without any external reference (drift was below the limit of the rest of the missile systems). Ludicrous autism (too far even, military later realized there was never really lack of an external reference).
Or I guess in direct comparison to your example is America's efforts to gravity map the entire planet to extremely fine detail. It's a major bit of classified information, very valuable for nuclear submarines.
>Hell, even our ICBMs, the AIRS for the Peacemaker missiles is still almost unbelievable, the pinnacle of electromechnical inertial guidance with effectively perfect accuracy without any external reference (drift was below the limit of the rest of the missile systems)
One might even go as far as to say that the missile knows where it is at all times.
Got any good links about the survey corps? I've heard how autistic Americans are about artillery in a few threads and would love to read more
Why do you think the US Geological Survey has such autistic topo maps of our own territory available to the public? Why do you think NASA gets so much money for mapping satellites? Why do you think GPS exists? It's mapping autism turtles all the way down. We are the pirate kings of Atlantis and we know the value of a good treasure map.
Don't forget the transportation of information as well as physical cargo. If you can send bits instead of boxes you move at the speed of light, and if you can shorten that light path you're literally seeing into the future compared to the mook on the other side of a trade or a battlefield. America has been on thebcutting edge of communications from day one. Paul Revere, the Army Signal Corps, having platoon level radios in fricking WW2, the telephone, the cell phone, the INTERNET, basically every networking protocol and platform worth the name, DSP and comm chips so advanced that withholding them from an enemy country sets their militaries back ten years...
Electrical Engineering is the American art, and it is beautiful.
>Possessing godly logistical capabilities
People underestimate just how much the United States and our forefathers in the UK revolutionized the transportation of cargo.
>First standardized pallets? USA
>First standardization of cargo invoice with coded systems? UK and USA
>The first cargo containers? USA
>Standardized railroad gauges and road widths? USA
What people fail to understand is that we are a nation of privateers, lunatics, and merchants. Our entire drive was to find new wealth, and transport it abroad in the most efficient and least costly means possible. Because of this, it's sorta a no brainer that we said, "Frick cargo nets. All my homies hate cargo netting" and went about completely revolutionizing the maritime transportation industry.
This is largely wrong
>first standardised pallets
Standardised skids were used since ancient times. Modern forklift pallets yes.
>cargo invoices with codes
Already extremely well established as far back as Venice. Hell even Babylonians had detailed invoices on clay tablets.
>cargo containers
First UK. First standardised in France. But yes the modern version are tweaks from those made in America.
>standardised railroad guages
UK.
> completely revolutionizing the maritime transportation industry<
And then walked away from maritime transportation completely.
The privately owned US deep sea fleet is under 90 ships today.
That's because of companies foreign flagging their ships to dodge taxes. We need to start applying the Jones Act to inbound ocean container freight.
logistics, industrial might, full spectrum dominance
The American Art of War is the Royal Art of War.
Americans fight like Kings.
>Every man a King
Burger King fricking sucks how much did they bribe the DoD with and why couldn't the clown do the same?
Clown fears the PR as they're international. I hope that more restaurants adopt black bean patties and falafel as they store long, are delicious, and most people can enjoy them. Five guys' is pretty good, I wonder what the clown and King could do.
Its honestly multifaceted, but in order of what I would see as importance:
>Personal initiative:
There have been many jokes about "The US tactics work because your enemy can't know what you are doing when you don't either" due to how habitually US troops wipe their ass with doctrine, but this is a feature, not a bug. The US is pretty much the only army that understands that doctrine is entirely conceptual and should really start and end with procurement. And once its in the field, the best way to use it is often where your men think its needed. So, more responsibility to lower ranks and less autism regarding doctrine gets shit done.
>Logistics
The US, for the last 150 years, has exclusively been fighting battles with a fricking ocean between them. So they've become the undisputed masters of logistics by simple necessity
>Apolitical funding
The funding part is a nobrainer, but the apolitical aspect is what is the real gamechanger here. Other militaries suffer one of 2 issues:
>1. A large divide between doves and hawks, meaning that military spending graphs represent a fricking sine wave as the doves keep cutting loose procurement attempts of the hawks, leading to a military that is often patchwork in its modernization and is bleeding 70% of its budgets on procurement some childless b***h of a defence secretary will put a stop to once she gets in office in 2 years, with the MIC company inevitably suing to recuperate his costs. Everyone loses. We call this the "German method" but half of every NATO country has this issue.
>Highly politically motivated or even outright factional branches of the military. Some clear examples of this was the Japanese military in WW2 which saw its navy frick over the ground forces at every turn in procurement and logistics. Or Germany, whose navy was found dead in a ditch because funding was given based on how much usable propaganda a branch produced. Or current day Moscow.
Thats about it really
an all volunteer force is another big one i'd say, and part of apolitical funding (if not its own point, apolitical operation) - coupled with the military being beholden to the constitution (not the sitting government), it makes military coups essentially impossible in the US - the management isn't politically dependent and the troops aren't forcibly separated from civilian families. this provides another level of separation between the military operations themselves and the political process that doesn't always exist in national militaries.
as an aside in support of the "personal initiative" point, a more decentralized strategy is both more adaptable and more efficient at computing its local needs than central hierarchies are - central command's relationship with subordinates should be to facilitate independent subordinates being able to rely on each other (such as by combining information and giving general strategic goals), but almost nothing else. a force with competent strategists/tacticians at every level doesn't need to enforce compliance - sharing the same end goal is enough to create the cooperation that forced compliance attempts to imitate, with the added benefit that the cooperation itself can adapt in real time to conditions on the ground regardless of how incomplete the information a central command has might be
The American Art of War consist in outspending the opponent 100 to 1.
America basically drops massive amounts of pallets of money until they suffocate the enemy under them.
Treating warfare as wagies doing express delivery of kinetic energy while keeping themselves as safe as possible rather than grandiose heroics
>trying to distill strategy into fun quotes
stop
>extensive recon
>make contact
>dumpster target with precision airstrikes
>rinse repeat
No. It’s all french stuff, even down to parade drill.
>maneuver warfare
Coined by Frenchmen = guerre de manoeuvre
>superior firepower
More french stuff = pussance de frappe/feu
Logistics = Something else learned from the French who figured out the mass production of canned food.
>violence of action
hello, Marshall Foch, Supreme Commander of the French army, here to teach you about "offensive à outrance" to impose your will upon the enemy.
>conscription and national service
More French stuff invented during the Napoleonic wars
>lead by example, leading from the front
That’s French too.
It’s all French.
You forgot logistics
Throw massive amounts of money at it.
Fluidity and agressive moves
>Robert's Rangers
>Amphibious Pacific island hopping campaign
>two ocean navy
>air supremacy for unrestricted combined arms maneuver warfare
Vietnam brought the light infantry/dragoon emphasis to its apex, Gulf War the combined arms element. Clausewitz & Moltke's logistical wet dream, sustained overkill.
Having your 1st grade child bring the family pitbull to class
The only "rules of war" that matter are "kill the enemy without getting killed" and "destroy the enemy's ability to wage war without letting him do the same to you". Everything beyond that is either situational or fluff.
>Does such a thing truly exist? If so, how would you even define it?
If anything defines a truly American Art of War then its fricking logistical overkill.
We are talking about an army that, even in 1968, was able to deliver gallons of ice cold coke into a fricking besieged firebase on a hilltop under constant fire.
An army, that was able to ship 6-figure numbers of soldiers over the atlantik within days just to man combat ready vehicles stored in Europe.
I think no other military in the world ever came close to such a gigantic, accurate and overwhelming logistics system.
This marvel of a system also enables America to wage war a completely different way. You got a problem somewhere? Just throw so many arty rounds and bombs at it until it goes away. US soldiers just don't have to worry about stuff like ammo conservation because they WILL get replenished within hours max.
Basically the American Art of War is a degree of logistics excellence that allows them to throw so much stuff at the enemy that he gets burried.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention, but I would absolutely apply to the unique "American" way of doing war, is by actively hollowing out and withering your enemies and allies' ability to make war without you. NATO is a fantastic example of what I mean.
Look at what happened there, virtually everyone said: "Domestic arms base? That's moronic, we can just Buy American(TM) and the Americans will pick up the rest of slack." Almost on every level this weird sort of soft power has fricked up dozens and dozens of nations' capacity to make war. Right now we're seriously arguing whether or not China could successfully invade and then occupy Taiwan, a country that is many times smaller by every metric because the logical assumption is that even without direct American intervention, America would just sell or flat out donate huge reserves of weapons to the Taiwanese. This has sort of been the case for well over a decade already and the proliferation of arms and arms deals has only increased, not decreased. On the verge of any actual hot war between the two states, America would just offload an insane amount of long-range weapons to frick over China because it makes sense to do so.
Even when Britain Ruled The Waves, they didn't actively hollow out the French, the American, the Russian, etc. military industrial bases by way of extreme soft power and weapon proliferation. All they did was manage to get the entire world into an arms race between them. Even if there was certain cases where foreign nations did buy British vessels (Japan), it wasn't anywhere on the scope of the shit America pulls.
>Even when Britain Ruled The Waves, they didn't actively hollow out the French, the American, the Russian, etc. military industrial bases by way of extreme soft power and weapon proliferation.
that's because at the period Britain was most dominant no other nation had similar industrial capacity to hollow out. The British built their empire on free trade and sold arms to basically anyone even to their small fry enemies like the Italians.
They even made massive profits selling arms to both sides in the American civil war and getting grain/cotton at fire sale prices. They would have done the same in WW1 if it wasn't for germanic autism in the low countries.
They actually did to its colonies. Through various laws, import restrictions and tariffs, they prevented any of their colonies from industrialising. For example manufacture of exports of clothes from India had a several hundred percent tax, making them impossible to manufacture. So India had to export cotton, have it manufactured in Britain and import it back at several times the price. Its why basically every colony it had is a 3rd world shit hole when it left.
>Claim to be neutral
>Give material aid to one side of a war (Lend-Lease Act) and let volunteers go join that one side
>Other side of war gets pissed and attacks or conspires to attack if not outright declare war
>Go into war all out
That is the American Art of War. False neutrality and baiting.
Overwhelming firepower and strong risk aversion
from which era?
America loses every war. Money and tech doesn't matter when your soldiers are low-T pussies who can't fight
i think american war is all about making money for companies once it's over usa leaves. That us president talks about the weapon industry and it's happening
wolf blizter said how if it's a moral issue about killing people
Yeah.
>The Shart of War