Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
117,072
edits
Preparing for the Last War: Difference between revisions
m
grammar
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (italics on work names) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) m (grammar) |
||
Line 20:
== [[Literature]] ==
* In the ''[[Belisarius Series]]'', the Malwa regularly conquered by a combination of numbers and technology. When they met the Romans they met an enemy who was warned (by a messenger from the future) to develop their own technology. And a general who was not only a superb campaigner but capable of encouraging subversion through their empire.
* In ''[[Honor Harrington]]'', Haven regularly grabbed territory as a method of shoring up
* The [[Discworld]] novel ''[[Discworld/Pyramids|Pyramids]]'' has a scene involving this trope: two nations that are obviously expies of ancient Greece and Troy go to war with each other, each using the weapon that won the last war. Thus, the war begins with a dozen [[Trojan Horse|wooden horses]] arrayed on each side of the line of battle.
{{quote|"The one on the end's on rockers, sir; must be the officers."}}
Line 73:
***Also every specialty with the guild-feuding that marked [[World War 2]] had their own idea of what preparing for the next war would be. Even if they did intend to do such preparations. This could sometimes lead to unfortunate things like all the most glamorous specialties draining the infantry which no one wanted to get into for [[Cannon Fodder|obvious reasons.]]
** …except those who paid attention to [[Red October]] and wars in which the Soviet Union was entangled, including the [[Spanish Civil War]]: most high-ranked Red Army commanders participated in both last big wars, obviously considered ''their'' last and victorious big war, "the way to do it right", and hopelessly mired WWI abhorrent — and taught others this way.<!--No idea what this last bit was meant to say, can someone clarify?--> Which in turn led to promoting [[Attack! Attack! Attack!|a very aggressive style]] that worked in highly mobile warfare, but was ill-prepared for adequate defence whenever "good offence" was not the best response.
**Old-school eighteenth century officers in the [[Napoleonic Wars]] were not so much unprepared tactically (in fact they often thought themselves quite the forward thinkers). However there was a limit to how far their tactical speculation could go and it was limited to what a monarchist state or a Constitutional Monarchy (like Britain) or the few Medieval-style republics could manage. This usually meant a permanent army of [[Army of Thieves and Whores|otherwise unemployable soldiers]] commanded by [[Officer and a Gentleman|traditionalists]] fighting temporary wars over territory. What it did not mean was the options that could be brought in by conscription. The new ideas included permanent corps and divisions (self-contained multi-armed sub-armies). As well as greater reliance on skirmishing tactics (which long existed but was not as emphasized). And greater trust in subordinate commanders. A lot of these things were speculated on for decades in clubs and military periodicals. But it took a Revolution in France to bring a government that would dare demand enough of
{{reflist}}
| |||