• Dolores [love/loves]
    ·
    1 year ago

    That the doctrine isn't built around extended periods is actually a problem

    what? no country is capable of keeping their troops ahead of their supplies for very long, it'd be bad doctrine to assume you could make up for that with airlifts

      • Dolores [love/loves]
        ·
        1 year ago

        when has attrition warfare been about whose troops can operate unsupported for longer? who has more material & men, and the rate at which they are replaced is what 'attrition' analyzes

        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, what I'm saying is that tanks are less able to engage in attrition if they are constantly requiring a lot of constant work on them and guzzle more fuel as they move, including as they move from engagement to maintenance and back and forth. And requiring bridge layers and such makes logistics harder, further limiting the use of the vehicles.

          • Dolores [love/loves]
            ·
            1 year ago

            reading it back you're correct, operating for over 12 hours without support would be something desirable in a tank, especially in maneuver. just because the US usually has enough support doesn't mean it couldn't be a serious liability if they get into situations support isn't forthcoming