Wars were one side won most individual battles, but lost the war? and why did than happen?

Wars were one side won most individual battles, but lost the war? and why did than happen?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ummm... Napoleon?
    I guess he wasn't prepared for the Russians being willing to burn the whole country to the ground up until Moscow itself and still not surrender.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Germans fricking crushed the R*ssians constantly, just didn't have the numbers and Adolf ruined their geopolitical situation.

      The Corisican manlet didn't get wrecked soon enough.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        Absolute scumbag towards the Dutch, Spanish, Swiss, and especially the Prussians. And the little frick was an opportunist, not even a Fr*nch "Revolutionary", given that he went and crowned himself Emperor and made his family kings (for 5 minutes lmao)

        Hello monarshits

        No your empires wont come back cope about it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Someone should have told the "Emperor" when he crowned himself and made it a hereditary title/office.
          How betrayed the "Revolutionaries" (the French Revolution was a bloodthirsty joke) must have felt! Haha!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah buddy, the Dutch were not monarchists, but the "Batavians" were, under one of his family.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Germans fricking crushed the R*ssians constantly, just didn't have the numbers and Adolf ruined their geopolitical situation.

      The Corisican manlet didn't get wrecked soon enough.

      Absolute scumbag towards the Dutch, Spanish, Swiss, and especially the Prussians. And the little frick was an opportunist, not even a Fr*nch "Revolutionary", given that he went and crowned himself Emperor and made his family kings (for 5 minutes lmao)

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I guess afghanistan comes to mind.
    Burgers must have won any fight until all the slammies did was hide in holes and some sporadic insurgency.
    They simply won by waiting it out and being surprisingly unwilling to do anything at all, besides the bare minimum anyways and breeding like rats.

    The basic assumption that they'd be willing to improve their quality of life and do something for it turned out to be wrong. They would rather burn the whole country to the ground than to see that other tribe behind the mountain get something nice going on.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Punic wars maybe?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Rome essentially outbreed cartage
      very impressive

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Usually this happens when one side has a strategic goal that is political but not military, thus using the wrong tool for the job.
    Or a strategic goal that is completely unachievable.
    And finally, when one has a military goal that makes sense, but the opponent manages to pull off a surprise of his own.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Rhodesian bush war
    Vietnam War
    Soviet-Afghan war
    War in Afghanistan
    >why?
    All of them lost the political side of the war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How does one even do COIN successfully? In my mind the mere term is synonymous with failure at this point.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        COIN is a lot more difficult nowadays than it was before, unironically the "kill them all" approach worked for most of history, but now there is the issue of international optics, human rights and economic sanctions, countries don't want to kill everyone because they don't want to be an isolated, sanctioned, international pariah state. There are outliers of course, countries that are strong enough that they don't care or others are willing to turn a blind eye to, or countries that are already fricked up that they also don't care. Plus, many countries now fall into the meme of "nation-building", like in the GWOT, which prevents them from killing everyone because that messes up their political goals. It honestly depends on what your goals are. Are you trying to nebulously bring freedom and democracy or socialism to Afghanistan? You're going to lose. Are you trying to wipe out the islamists in Xinjiang by sending all Muslims to camps and replacing them with chinks? You're going to win, because the latter is simpler.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Are you trying to nebulously bring freedom and democracy or socialism to Afghanistan?
          both are possible if done correctly. we were closer than most think

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >both are possible if done correctly. we were closer than most think
            You know nothing of south asia to think that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People who think like you keep causing problems for people like me
            (It’s my job to clean up your moronic messes)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Afghanistan was AT BEST a loose confederation of cities that used a common currency and traded with each other. Central governance ran through American military channels because Afghani leaders couldn't get along

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        COIN in the modern era is rehabilitation and extermination of opposition insurgents. Exterminating the insurgents was successful, but rehab? not so much. Insurgents utilize propaganda and sabotage to the host government of that country in order to keep their reach and control away from the general population. It doesn't matter how much foreign support they got, if the host government is weak, the foreign support is merely delaying the inevitable of their collapse. This is what happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Since the U.S. is never looking to conquer, all they were doing is directly supporting the government of that nation without taking territory for themselves. The foreplanning in trying to keep the general population on their side didn't work that much because of the lack of understanding of the culture and the poor set up of the host government, which lead to people not caring.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ok, unlike most people here I've actually read the lessons learned investigation into Afghanistan. First and foremost, the security situation needs to be stabilized, and this takes ALOT of soldiers and police, you cannot have a small force hiding in FOBs. Afghanistan probably needed 3x as many soldiers deployed. Once the security situation is stabilized and the insurgents no longer have freedom of movement or the ability to conduct operations. Then you can move onto political goal. The biggest issue in fighting COIN is not fully committed a expensive and large force from the get go.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Afghanistan probably needed 3x as many soldiers deployed.

          yeah no total bullshit. The Obama surge was a massive flop and the lesson from every war in Afghan history is that large numbers of foreign troops just inflame the situation and makes things worse. The failures in Afghanistan were the same as Vietnam: throwing good money after bad dictators and failing to create a central state that anyone actually wants fight for (should have gone with that monarchy) then fricking said local forces as soon as it's politically convenient to make a hasty exit via chinook.

          If the US actually wanted to fix the security situation they should have purged the corruption in the Afghan government and military then killed all the drug traffickers instead of flooding the country with a bunch of 80IQ ASVAB waivers who will antagonize the civilian population and try to solve 500 years of Pashtun blood feuding and livestock raiding using JDAMs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Oongo surge happened far too late to change the outcome of the war, by that point the Taliban had recovered from their initial poor performance and now fought on with renewed vigor.

            If the same surge that taken place in 2001-2002, the Taliban would have likely fallen apart

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is no fixing Afghanistan, since Afghanistan is just a collection of rural villages and a spattering of few cities all controlled by different warlords.

            The best case scenario was controlling the nearby regions of Kabul, Bagram, and Jalalabad, as well as the mountains all the way up to the Wakhan corridor.
            And try to build up the local economic industries in those areas to make them self-sufficient to fend off the warlords from the rest of the rural country.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >And try to build up the local economic industries in those areas to make them self-sufficient to fend off the warlords from the rest of the rural country.
              Which would be even more utopic since the workers of the city all owe allegiances to their respective FEUDAL (and not war) lords of the countryside

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Afghanistan needed more troops
          No, Afghanistan needed the Taliban leadership decapitated, which didn't happen because the US lost the propaganda war immediately and the leadership was sheltered and supported by the fractious mountain peoples. The US failed to legitimate their puppet regime and failed to delegitimize the Taliban

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because insurgents can lie about everything and have no expectations placed on them on how to behave, they can replenish endlessly. Therefore, the only way to really wipe them out is to deprive them of weapons/munitions and/or take out their leadership. The Algerian security forces accomplished this in 2015 by destroying an Algerian ISIS splinter faction before they got rooted by rolling up to their warehouse and killing all 35 of their leaders in one swoop

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >All of them lost the political side of the war.
      This, you need clear political goals that can be achieved by the military or you have lost before it started.
      You also need to realize the militry might not be the best option for your goals, never underestimate the power of media.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >you need clear political goals that can be achieved by the military
        This is too important to only be posted once.
        Especially since it'll explain why we'll lose wars well into the future

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Utility of Force is quite a good book on this topic, by a NATO general

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      aren't all wars political in nature?
      after all a politicians have a bag of tools to accomplish their goals, and warfare is but just one tool in their bag.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Logistics, too. There are many armies that won many battles, but lost teh war because the other side kept getting up and punching them again, until they weakened and lost/withdrawl.

    This is where we get the term "Pyrrhic victory", for Pyrrhus of Epirus was one of teh best generals of his day...yet he could not beat the Romans, because they kept coming back with another army after every defeat: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In a strategic sense, was framing the response to 9/11 in military terms a mistake? Declaring it a war and invading two whole countries to limited and ephemeral effect, when more a more surgical police act was what took care of the culprit?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Wars were one side won most individual battles, but lost the war?
    Ukraine vs Russia 2022-2024
    They literally had the entire weapon stockpiles of the West and still lost.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Brown detectors are off the scale.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Brown detectors are off the scale.
        And yet you have proven nothing he has said to be incorrect. Cry some more.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Stop pretending to be more than just one poster.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Brown detectors are off the scale.
      And yet you have proven nothing he has said to be incorrect. Cry some more.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >resorting to ad hominem

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Russia is "winning" by pushing the front lines back, but their "victories" are beyond pyrric and their initial strategic objectives were lost literally as soon as they invaded because they invaded

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >pyrric
        >strategic objectives
        Stop trying to sound smart you just sound cringe bro lmao

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Work on your English vocabulary

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Here comes the gore! Ukraine must be losing badly right now!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Vietnam, South African Bush Wars and the Rhodesian Insurgency come to mind.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *