Opposing Combat Philosophies: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Jason taylor (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jason taylor (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 80:
* The opposing ground forces during the [[Cold War]] in Germany. NATO's philosophy was to have individually highly capable, but expensive chess pieces whose loss could be crippling. The Soviet/Warsaw Pact, on the other hand by comparison, was deliberately limiting the capability, initiative and equipment of each individual chess piece, and instead investing a large percentage of its effort in raising a breed of grand masters who could play chess well, understanding and accepting the natural limitations of each piece. In other words, a rank of bishops and rooks against three or four ranks of pawns.
* Martial Arts is often divided into [[wikipedia:Hard and soft (martial arts)|"Hard" and "Soft"]] categories; usually accepted as using force directly or redirecting an opponent's force.
* US Admirals Spruance and Halsey had differing philosophies with Spruance normally being more cautious and Halsey more aggressive. Halsey was able to sanitize Formosa of enemy air power before the Second Phillipines Campaign but on the other hand he was out of place at Leyte Gulf. On the other hand, Spruance in the two notable times he refused pursuit might have been justified for at Midway there were still large forces waiting in a potential ambush while at the Marianas, covering the invasion force may have saved lives, the Japanese naval air force was crippled in any event, and first class airstops on Saipan/Guam/Tinian would blanket the area and make sure that the Japanese navy would never come back.
{{reflist}}
| |||