How about a War Fronts episode about the Geneva Conventions? What is it? What is its origins? Who is in it? Are there any relevant violations? It'd be a great episode.
@@9000Dogs not really because if actually read it he thinks some is pointless because way you wage it will be a lost just like Afghanistan for the US and Russia and just bleed your resources.
Strategic weapons are useful against soft targets, but not hard ones. Once you run out of soft targets (e.g., Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, Gaza), strategic weapons are pretty useless.
Welcome to the bottomless pit of Educational Entertainment. He will create another 3 by the end of this year just to reap in the content farm he's created lol
The B52 is basically the poster-child (errr... Grandpa) for Strategic Bombing, tho. 😅 Basically, if you wanna put your pants down and shit on the enemy, you call the BUFF.
I'd not say that it actually works. Germany had the shite kicked out of it by strategic bombing, yet Albert Speer was able to distribute industry into small enough packets to largely resist the effects. Witness the overall production figures during the worst of the bombing - barely affected and in some cases went up.
It definitely works. It radically degrades a country’s ability to economically power its ability to wage war. It’s a brutal part and reality of total war.
A theory goes that the Allies could've gotten better results with something like 1% of the bombs if they focused on power plants, but I certainly can't speak of the veracity or how important power actually was or was not for war production back then
@@dairebulson7122 I'd be a bit skeptical of that claim. Germany was so short of oil and coal that they were doing all sorts of wild stuff to generate energy by the end of the war, and not all of it was for electricity. Wood fired steam engines, alcohol, if it burned, the Germans tried it. I seem to remember the electric (Maybe gasoline?) trolleys getting replaced by 1870's era steam engines in Berlin or another major city because they just couldn't afford the fuel. Rationing was horrendous for them by the end of the war.
Great video! I feel like starting the story at WWI misses an opportunity though... Obviously "Strategic Bombing" did not exist before that, but the similarities to artillery based siege-warfare are hard to ignore. Being able to reach out and touch somebody at range where they can't touch you, is what Artillery and Air Superiority are both about. Scaring a civilian populace and starving a civilian populace have the same goal, get the people to give up hope and cause their leaders to capitulate. Aircraft changed the very nature of sieges, but strategic bombing such as the US used against Germany and Japan, is to me a modern style of siege. If my opponent knows I can attack them at my will, that also means I can attack their supply lines at my will.
It's crazy to think there are countries still applying 50s and 60s era strategy because the technology they're using is from that era and being used against adversaries even further behind than that. On a silly note I was trying to imagine a scenario where two developing countries wage trench warfare because they can only procure technology from the 20s. But then I realized there's a time limit to how far back you can go for cheap materiel because equipment becomes physically unusable over time. But anyway, if we say about 60 years is the lifespan of modern materiel, then in 60 years, developing countries will be using the best technology the world has to offer today to wage their wars against their technologically inferior neighbors. In that world, what would the technology of the strongest countries look like?
Weapons do not have to be big and scary to have a significant impact. Just look at what Ukraine has done with drones. Imagine when AI develops an additional 10 years and the miniaturisation of drones and their ordinance, whilst becoming super cheap. What kind of mayhem a swarm of 10.000 drones where each one is operating completely on its own could cause? Especially in the hands of an evil entity?
An important caveat to that is the cost of systems. A lot of the lower tech militaries don't really have an option of ever upgrading to the truly modern stuff, because they lack both the financial levels and the education levels to use it. Using e.g. a modern tank requires a crew that has spent 3-5 times as long in training as a 50s era tank, and be accompanied by infantry that has gotten more training, requires higher trained maintainers and so on. That will not go away, and means that countries like e.g. India will upgrade, a lot of their world countries will never upgrade to what is currently top class. because the barriers will remain to high. Similar with cost. They will get more updated systems, but they will not go anywhere near the current high end capabilities, because the costs scale exponentially compared to the more basic current stuff. And that is not cost that will come down in comparison, because the manhours needed to build and maintain that tech will not really go down.
@@reappermen Yet those multi-million dollar modern tanks get destroyed by 1000,- amazon drones with a bomb strapped to them. The future of warfare looks interesting but scary at the same time.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is due to the expense of aircraft and pilots in the modern day, which means the survial of the airframe and crew is top priority. It means that well trained and highly mobile Anti-air units can render bombing quite ineffective, not by shooting down aircraft but by making them drop ordnance at non optimum heights, which means even for guided munitions they won't hit as they need to be fired from the right height to even get close to what the manufacturer claims to be the accuracy. (In addition decoys are huge issues) For example in the 1999 NATO bombings of Yugoslavia. NATO forces thought they had destroyed 120 tanks, 220 APC's and 400 Artillery pieces in reality 13 tanks, 8 APC's and 8 Artillery pieces had been destroyed by all causes. This was due to decoys, moving at night, camo, and Yugoslavia had a small but well trained AA units. This meant that that NATO aircraft flew above 15,000ft to avoid MANPADs and would not fly along roads or within 5 km of a road and would only pass them at right angles. Due to the self-propelled anti-aircraft guns they had which were not great off road, but were very effective when in concealed positions. All units using shoot and scoot tactics. We have seen this in Ukraine, Ukraines S-300's have rendered Russia's air force totally ineffective. One thing that should be an added all this does is protect military assets, civilian casaulties and economic damage will still be huge unfortunately.
Funny how you are talking about hitting tanks which is tactical bombing not strategic bombing.... and Yogo fired 700 missiles and only shot down 4 NATO aircraft when NATO few over 30k sorties. That is pretty poor showing of ADA. And you used Yogo numbers on tanks destroyed equipment which Yogo would have reason to deflate their losses. News Week have slightly higher totals. Strategic bombing is all about destroying infrastructure. Which NATO inflicted high damage on their economy and infrastructure. And the bombing of Yogo did achieve the things NATO wanted. And those s-300 have not faced the bane of ADA stealth bombers. Which was used in Iraq to take out their ADA and allow the other bombers to do their thing.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas it is baffling that it seems you read non of my comment and it is obvious you know nothing on the topic and have just looked at Wikipedia. Modern anti-aircraft tactics are not to shoot down aircraft, because modern airforces due to their expense prefer to preserve aircraft. Therefore they stay out of range the point of modern AA is too keep them at that range which means Ordnance is not dropped at the optimum height. Well actually Yugoslavia know better than anyone what they've lost there are independent numbers that are a lot closer to Yugoslavian numbers than NATO, for example Newsweeks numbers are 14x lower than NATO estimates. And claim 1 tank more than Yugoslavia said was knocked out... Strategic bombing is about stopping the enemy army from functioning the NATO bombings completely failed in that. What they did do which was cause a lot of economic damage and civilian casualties. This is not the point of post WW2 strategic bombing as we know in an all out war scenario rather than land grab in the Yugoslavian case. That, that does not work, as proved by WW2. You mean the stealth bombers that were shot down in Yugoslavia by a 50 year old SAM system... That's stealth technology was sold to Russia and China and the SAM team explained that they just changed the frequency to long wave, which reduced range but meant they could see F-117 Nighthawks on Radar from 20km away. The S-300 is leagues more advanced that the 50 year old system they were using. It seems that the F-35 as confirmed by Isreal and Syria can be picked up by the very old radar on an S-200 sustem. Keep in mind the S-300 is so advanced that possible presence of a single battery in Syria was a major reason we wouldn't invade. Iraq went well because it was against a poorly trained and maintained army. They were using SAM tactics from the 1950s, just keep in mind the SAM tactics in the middle of the Vietnam war were more advanced than what Iraq used. That is how ridiculous it is to bring up Iraq. Simple shoot and scoot and turning off and on radar stops anti-radition missiles and wild weasel tactics from working. In 1999 over 1,000 HARMS were fired and they hit one Tel and that was it.
@@Alex-cw3rz I read your comment completely. Just disagreed with it. Hence what I said actually counters your argument. You don't try preserve your enemy aircraft. You still use ADA to shoot down Aircraft. That is what you don't get. Just the conflict you see in Ukraine Russia is too scared to send their aircraft close and use glide bombs. That is not US or NATO tactics with their aircraft. And Ukraine is too scared to lose what little modern Airccraft they have. If you are scared of flying near enemy ADA your enemy is still using ADA on aircrafts. So, yes aircrafts are still targets of ADA. Zoltan Dani later admitted in an interview he never altered any wavelengths. The radar malfunction... I have seen nothing from Israel saying s200 can pick up an F35. I have seen Israel saying that an s200 fired at their aircraft but did not name what aircraft. BTW US F35 was used a lot in Syria and never had an issue with Syrian ADA. US f35 are different than Israeli f35. Hell no US f16 was struck down in Syria.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas are you doing this on purpose, I said the airforce are trying to preserve the aircraft not anti-air 🤦♂️ again actually read my comments it would help out a lot. Look at my original comment I told you NATO tactics when they cannot take out enemy SAM's and AA. Which was to fly above 15,000ft, 5km from roads, fo not fly along roads and only pass them at right angles. Why are you l ying, Zolton Dani said nothing of the sort, originally Serbia said they used a special device to do it. He later admitted it was simply adjusting wavelengths to there max setting. Well it shows how you know nothing on the topic. A squadron of F-35's entered Syria in 2017. Syria said they hit one of the aircraft with an S-200, Isreal said we did enter Syria they did spot us on there radar, but we didn't lose an aircraft, however a few weeks earlier they lost one to a bird strike. This means we know for a fact S-200 Radar can see the aircraft, Isreal interestingly stopped using F-35's in Syria after that date, up until after 2022. Now before you start foaming at the mouth let's just say no aircraft was hit, it was just a bird strike. But it means the S-200 radar picked them up. The Syrian regime was fine with US aircraft because they were attacking ISIS, which the Syrian Regime is against. Let alone how shooting down US aircraft would cause a wider war. This is so simple
"Amazing how thing could be better if said thing wasn’t happening that’s been happening for multiple millenniums". Very insightful! People fight, and kill for their beliefs that’s how nations are made and a future born.
tie this video into the Astrographics space warfare video and discuss Rods from God, the ultimate non-nuclear strategic bombing system. It was only off limits in the past due to cost and Starships rapidly changing that dynamic.
15:00 Germany did pursue strategic bombing. Their problem is that somebody had a bright idea that all bombers should be able to dive bomb like a stuka. That's what prevented them from fielding a purpose-built strategic bomber.
The funny thing about Britian's "strategic bomber fleet" in 1939 to 1942 is that it was no different than the German strategic bombing fleet of the same period. Lots of single-engine bombers, the "heavy bombers" were twin engine with long range, little armor or defensive weapons and light bomb loads--Germany had superior crew training that was frittered away and Britain had superior leadership. The American "strategic bombing fleet" was an embarrassment as late as July 1942. The B-17 was promised to be an excellent coastal defense weapon but failed to achieve more than distraction at the Battle of Midway (the excuse was "Tiggers don't like thistles" and the precision daylight bomber was wasted on trying to sink battleships and aircraft carriers--despite promises to the contrary) and the B-25 medium bomber on a strategic Doolittle Raid accomplished more in the morale war. Strategic bombing was the sole mission that an independent air force could achieve. Most of the world to include Imperial Japan, the USA and the USSR didn't unify all aviation under a single command as an independent air force fighting its own little war. Britain's RAF and Germany's Luftwaffe hurt naval aviation and had negative impact on defensive fighter-interceptor aviation--Britain fixed these problems in time to win the Battle of Britain and later the Battle of the Atlantic. I'm not sure about Italy's aviation. Douhet preached these three nations needed aircraft carriers to support naval aviation: Great Britain, Imperial Japan, and the USA. He argued that for those three nations, aircraft carriers were strategic aviation assets. Imperial Japan's naval air force accomplished much during the first six months of its Pacific war. British naval aviation was vital to defeating the U-boat menace, and that war of supply line security was as strategic as bombing factories--fortunately, Goering didn't play well with others and Luftwaffe support to the Kriegsmarine was token. While most of the 99 US aircraft carriers in World War Two were the escort carries, some two dozen were the Essex class and then there were the pre-war Lexington and Yorktown classes and at war's end even larger Midway class of three CVB aircraft carriers were commissioned just after Japan surrendered. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway-class_aircraft_carrier Used as a strategic asset, the aircraft carrier contributed significantly to the Battle of the Atlantic and was pivotal in the Pacific Campaign. Postwar air force leaders had to ignore the strategic value of naval aviation and resume promising that heavy bombers were the superior sea control platforms. Controlling sea lanes really is a strategic function. Germany failed to either control sea lanes or at least deny the ocean to Britian in both world wars, and that eventually cost Germany its war. Focus on Luftwaffe glory at the expense of the Kriegsmarine was worse for Germany than "ignoring" strategic bombing--Goering had the same bomber capabilities that Britian had in 1939 to 1940 and better bomber crews. It's just that until 1944 there wasn't an air force in the world capable of living up to the promise of strategic bombing. The things an airman had to say in order to secure funding from Parliament or Congress...
After the war, another argument surface. The air force and it's strategic bomber squadrons are the only ones who can move a nuke on target, they say. Or the air force should naturally handle rocketry.
By the definition you gave, Ukraine's drone attacks on Russian oil refineries are strategic bombing attacks - by that example, air superiority isn't necessarily required, so long as a sufficient number of bombers can be launched to ensure some get through. (There's definitely also times in WWII where strategic bombing - and even terror bombing, where civilian housing or similar is the target - was conducted without air superiority. The Blitz, the Doolittle raid, and generally the early phase of the bombing campaign against Germany by the British and Americans all come to mind.)
Except there has been loads of evidence that it was not all that much of an advantage. Yes, it helped, but if you compare mission with the highest tier bomb sights in identical situations as at the start of the war, it only made somehwere between 5-15% difference. The sheer increased scale, improvement of the bombers planes, the escorts, crew training, coordination, and the bombs themselves all had a far greater overall impact than the bomb sights.
I believe that was something told to civilians to reduce concerns about civilian casualties by suggesting they were more accurate and targets hit were valid military targets only.
Air power absolutely decides any major war. By itself it may not lead to the enemies surrender but it removes the enemies ability to wage war. Even bombing civilians always leads to loss of war making ability. WWII was entirely decided by Western Allied air forces destroying their enemies industries, communications, transportation, fuel, housing, killing their civilians etc. It maybe sad, but it worked and does work. Obviously Japan surrendered because of bombing, Atomic bombs just being the final coup de grace, but less known is that Nazi Germany was mainly defeated from the air. The Soviets walked into Germany over the ruins of its industry. The Western Allies had conducted all the way into Eastern Europe and Western Russia. The Germans efforts to fight the Western Allies Air Forces itself came at enormous cost, more guns and ammunition were expended trying to kill the bombers than sent to any front. Critically, efforts to mitigate and harden were even more costly to the Nazis. Bunkers and dispersion cost not just efforts, it reduces efficiency dramatically. Don’t look at the rising number of tanks and guns Germany produced and expense of its future, look at what Germany could have produced MINUS the Western Allied bombing. Of course, the Soviets never had anywhere near the technological means defeat Germany, never mind conducting strategic bombing (no Soviet bomber ever reached the industrial heartland of Germany). Germany manufactured 1200 submarines just to interrupt supplies to the bombers stationed in England and starve British industry. (Again, the Soviets were completely incapable at sea). Now it should be obvious why Germany only devoted 10% of its industrial resources to the Eastern front.
When Germany invaded the Netherlands they demanded surrender and threatened the (strategic) bombing of Rotterdam and that other city and population centers would be to follow, the Netherlands surrendered. Rotterdam was still bombed but regardless, I think it's an example of strategic bombing being succesfull :)
Look at Syria. The Russian air campaign that failed in Ukraine was very successful in Syria. I think the difference in a population's moral is based on a people's ability to respond to the airstrike. The Ukrainian could punch back, while Syrians were hopeless.
Ironically the reason that this bombing raid continued was due to a late German soldier failing to get the message that the Netherlands had surrendered to his commander.
@@lotcam4046 The uprising was supported by the people when the rebels were winning. When the advances stopped and they were helpless as Russia destroyed schools, hospitals, and power stations, the enthusiasm for the rebels plunged.
@@badluck5647 let me correct you, it was supported by the US, being delusional to facts breeds the disease which led the downfall of multiple democracies, like the Athenian Empire by Sparta upon which Plato cried and the Greek Empire by SPQR upon which Hannibal's Greek tutor awed as how these barely clothed uncivilized bunch conquered rich Greek, SPQR by Germanic tribes, British Empire by exhausting resources,etc,
10:30 did catapults, ballista and/or other siege engines not provide an avenue by which to employ a strategic bombing campaign of sorts? How about cannons or balloons/flying fire-lanterns?
that is why every "civilian inferstructure" that housed weapons got bombed " Every point in this war, from the point of contact on the border between occupied Palestine and Lebanon to the Litani River at least, every point there, every hill, every village, every house, and every region was a front line and a cover, and this cover was not a tangible, known cover, as is common in wars such as those that were. In our war, no, there was a special tactic. If I wanted an analogy, I would liken all of this tactic adopted by Hezbollah to a vast, clever minefield in which there is no safe empty point. Therefore, observe the enemy’s method of movement and you will see that the enemy was unable to enter some of the villages adjacent to the border, such as Aita al-Shaab, and was unable and unable to enter these villages. He was unable to enter the cities, and therefore he decided to go from the eastern valley to enter and advance towards the Litani, and that was in fact the enemy’s weak point and defeat" - The full text of the interview with Major General Qassem Soleimani, in which he narrated some of the events of the July War
Kinetic bombardment is what scares me. Cheap flechettes, from low earth orbit. Explosives imho, are more for sabotage, prepare for ground invasion, to force the enemy to bunker. I’ve heard conflicting results about mining. Artillery is what works no? King of war…
From a cursory search, I do not believe any of your channels have compared Clausewitz vs. Jomini. Why? This video clearly shows that you could shed some amazing light on these two military theorists and their contributions to modern warfare.
Strategic bombing is a horrible reality of total war. It’s why we need to deter major wars from starting in the first place and the only real deterrent is the credible threat of force - the more force the more deterrence. It’s the reason Putin isn’t going to start a direct fight with NATO and the only reason Taiwan is still free. It’s also the reason I am a fan of the Western military industrial complex and the US’s high military spending, despite their issues and failures.
There's just too many variables in war to determine definitively what works or doesn't work, but one thing's for sure , in war regardless of the weapons or strategy you have, if it doesn't work within the first 3 - 6 months , change it ....the enemy has adapted already and anything beyond that is an exercise in futility ,,just look at Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq , East Timor, Rhodesia, Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and all these other places where there has been an assymetry in power, the first days are usually bad for the guys on the receiving end but they just need to hold out for the first days ,then they adapt, they begin recognising patterns and so on and from then on it's just a matter of who's willing to take more losses. The VC and PAVN forces along with all other communist guerillas in Indochina probably suffered during the first days of the American bombing campaign but soon learned how to live with it. Btw this is the reason behind Blitzkrieg and why it was so important for Germany to beat Russia quickly, they knew well that if they take too long and Russia adapts ,they really stood no chance , because when it came to acceptable losses ,Russia could bear far more losses than the Germans. This is why a war with a country like China or India is so risky, If your weapons and tactics don't lead them to capitulate in the first 6 months or so, you're cooked ,like real cooked.
"The VC and PAVN forces along with all other communist guerillas in Indochina probably suffered during the first days of the American bombing campaign but soon learned how to live with it. " This is a common false misconception, the VC/PAVN/NVA/North Vietnam in general lost over 2 million people, compared to the Americans 58k, they absolutely never were able to cope with American air power. "This is why a war with a country like China or India is so risky, If your weapons and tactics don't lead them to capitulate in the first 6 months or so, you're cooked ,like real cooked." Not necessarily, smaller countries can beat larger countries all the time throughout history, manpower is not the single decider of war, its not even really a very important metric anymore nowadays since you really dont need that many people to fight a modern war, far more important is GDP, and GDP per capita, PPP, and of course, military spending adjusted for all those factors I just listed.
@@connorbranscombe6819 Who won the war?Germany inflicted on the Soviets 3 times as more casualties than the Soviets did on Germany ,Germany still lost because at the end of the day the Soviets could absorb the losses, Manpower is ultimately what decides the fate of war , nothing else ...the US inflicted heavy losses on the Taliban but still lost because at the end of the day ,the Taliban could take the hits the Americans were throwing but the Americans couldn't take the hits , war is a continuation of politics ...before you bring that b.s excuse that "wE lOsT tHe war pOlitically" ,why didn't the Talibs lose it politically? Military spending doesn't mean squat, how much do you think the Talibs were spending in a year ? Bonus point : the Americans left Somalia after 19 KIA, SNA suffered 200 KIA , 8 times the numbers but it survived ,but the Americans left, because the SNA could absorb the losses but the Americans could not.
@@Avaricumstudios Implying the only reason the Soviets won was “muh manpower” is literally just pure Nazi propaganda, the Germans lost that war because they were fighting 3 major powers all with far larger economies then them, and 3 separate fronts towards the end of the war as well, you think the Soviets could have absorbed those losses if they didn’t have the industrial capabilities to produce replacements for lost equipment? Or having allies like America to supply them with everything an army requires? Just the man power huh? If that’s the case, why did Germany absolutely fuckjng crush the Russian empire during WW1? Surely they could have absorbed the losses right? They had just as large a population then, almost like there are loads of extenuating circumstances that affect a wars outcome besides just population.
@@Avaricumstudios The Taliban didn’t lose it politically because they outmanoeuvred the Americans politically, are you so dumb that you can’t comprehend it is possible to win a military battle and lose the political battle? They crushed the taliban, they ran to the hills, the US set up a dogshit government under the ANA that was horribly unpopular and corrupt, and so the second the US decided to hand over control back to the ANA, the Taliban knew they had the opportunity, and seized power back from the ANA. America didn’t lose a military war to the Taliban, the ANA did though, still a victory to the taliban regardless but again, nothing really to do with manpower because sorry to surprise you, but the US outnumbered the taliban and lost, so… thanks for proving my point I suppose?
Destroying an entire industry and/or logistical capability of an nation takes a lot of bombing and a lot of time. Oh, and aerial superiority of course. Its certainly a lot of effort
"Stunningly high rates of civilian casualties" in Gaza? Wait, what? Israel's efforts in Gaza have an astronomically low rate of civilian casualties. Something like 0.8 civilian casualties per airstrike. You research the heck out of everything, except that?
It’s a view looking down from the top of the “combat box”. There were usually two, sometimes three, levels of bombers attacking together. That said, friendly fire incidents did happen. There is a video somewhere of a Fortress taking a hit in the wing root from a bomb dropped on it from a bomber above them. Thing folds up like a book and drops like a rock.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
In the grim darkness of the 21st century, there is only Simon Whistler.
The only thing I hate is how sharp his S is but, the man is an elegant presenter.
News for the Newsman, Stories for the Editing Chair!!!
Even the Chaos Gods cower in Simon's all encompassing presence.
I opened my freezer door the other day and found a new channel featuring Simon Whistler. The guy gets around.
Warographics changed to Warfronts about a week or so ago
Yeah it is not new. It's renamed. If you were already subscribed, you stay subscribed. If you weren't subscribed, then I guess it's news to you .😊
😂
Omg dude, I got on the weighing scales this morning and the readout said Simon Whistler!!!
@@septia101 Lmao! "He's here, he's there, he's every frickin where, Simon, Simon!"
Warographics changed to Warfronts then proceed to drop multiple OG Warographics-style videos 😏 jokes aside, always good content
I wondered what was going on. I didn't remember subscribing to a "Warfronts" channel, but it sounded up my alley.
When lawyers speak things usually change.
😢
@b.a.m.5078 I've 100% ignoring stuff because I thought youtube was shoving a new channel down my throat 😂
A bit like how Business Blaze dropped a bunch of business related videos right after rebranding as Brain Blaze
@@gregstreet7902 what lawyers?
How about a War Fronts episode about the Geneva Conventions? What is it? What is its origins? Who is in it? Are there any relevant violations? It'd be a great episode.
Editing is amazing 👍 Keep it up guys!
1:35 - Chapter 1 - The theory
10:25 - Chapter 2 - The history
20:55 - Chapter 3 - The modern day
"Sun Tzu said that once! And I think he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do pal!" -TF2 Soldier (rip Rick May)
"All warfare is based" -Sun Tzu
Because he invented it! And then he perfected it so that no man could best him in the ring of honor!
@@fhmcateer *HAAAAUURRRRRARGHHHHH*
@@9000Dogs not really because if actually read it he thinks some is pointless because way you wage it will be a lost just like Afghanistan for the US and Russia and just bleed your resources.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlasit’s a joke dude
Love this series, very informative and entertaining. Good Job👍
Lol! "Purportedly stealthy Su-57." Fucking savage! 🤣
Well they would be but they forgot to paint them purple.
Tactical bombing is to the ones that it concerns, strategic bombing is to who it may concern
Strategic weapons are useful against soft targets, but not hard ones. Once you run out of soft targets (e.g., Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, Gaza), strategic weapons are pretty useless.
How many channels does Simon have?!?!?! I thought i was subscribed to all of them already lol
i think he pops another in every week
You were. This is not a new channel. Just renamed. It was Warographics
Lots
One billion, approximately.
Welcome to the bottomless pit of Educational Entertainment. He will create another 3 by the end of this year just to reap in the content farm he's created lol
last time I was this early, we had strategic cannonballs
Nice, also cool content it will be getting added to my playlist to listen to
New Channel who dis
Last time I was this early the comment section was full of moronic last time I was this early comments.🤦🏼
Thousands of likes incoming
The last time you were this early your mother swallowed
You changed the name n didn't ask first! This is outrageous
4:01 wasn’t expecting to see grandpa buff
😂😂😂Same
But it’s literally a strategic bomber
Buff Franklin 2024
The B52 is basically the poster-child (errr... Grandpa) for Strategic Bombing, tho. 😅
Basically, if you wanna put your pants down and shit on the enemy, you call the BUFF.
calm down there sonny
I'd not say that it actually works. Germany had the shite kicked out of it by strategic bombing, yet Albert Speer was able to distribute industry into small enough packets to largely resist the effects.
Witness the overall production figures during the worst of the bombing - barely affected and in some cases went up.
It definitely works. It radically degrades a country’s ability to economically power its ability to wage war.
It’s a brutal part and reality of total war.
A theory goes that the Allies could've gotten better results with something like 1% of the bombs if they focused on power plants, but I certainly can't speak of the veracity or how important power actually was or was not for war production back then
@@dairebulson7122 I'd be a bit skeptical of that claim. Germany was so short of oil and coal that they were doing all sorts of wild stuff to generate energy by the end of the war, and not all of it was for electricity. Wood fired steam engines, alcohol, if it burned, the Germans tried it. I seem to remember the electric (Maybe gasoline?) trolleys getting replaced by 1870's era steam engines in Berlin or another major city because they just couldn't afford the fuel. Rationing was horrendous for them by the end of the war.
@@lu544 so terrorism? “Killing civilians to achieve political aims”
@@smilewithmygrin Clearly it depends on who is doing it, for some countries it is called the right to defend yourself but for others it is terrorism.
Battleplan is an excellent 2006 tv show about this kinda stuff. I think they covered this in season 1
Awesome. Outstanding. You're incredible Simon. God bless you sir. 🫡 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
Thank heavens you decided to continue the Art of War series. Really love this series of videos way back from Warograhics.
Guy gets around more than a domesticated Goat in Afghanistan
Now that’s funny stuff right there
Warfronts?? Love you simon
Turnabout is fair play i.e. the Golden Rule. The weapons one wields will be returned in kind... deescalate eventually.
Thank you
Great video! I feel like starting the story at WWI misses an opportunity though... Obviously "Strategic Bombing" did not exist before that, but the similarities to artillery based siege-warfare are hard to ignore. Being able to reach out and touch somebody at range where they can't touch you, is what Artillery and Air Superiority are both about. Scaring a civilian populace and starving a civilian populace have the same goal, get the people to give up hope and cause their leaders to capitulate. Aircraft changed the very nature of sieges, but strategic bombing such as the US used against Germany and Japan, is to me a modern style of siege. If my opponent knows I can attack them at my will, that also means I can attack their supply lines at my will.
Informationial. Thanks
Clicked this just to see if it was Simon!
It's crazy to think there are countries still applying 50s and 60s era strategy because the technology they're using is from that era and being used against adversaries even further behind than that.
On a silly note I was trying to imagine a scenario where two developing countries wage trench warfare because they can only procure technology from the 20s. But then I realized there's a time limit to how far back you can go for cheap materiel because equipment becomes physically unusable over time.
But anyway, if we say about 60 years is the lifespan of modern materiel, then in 60 years, developing countries will be using the best technology the world has to offer today to wage their wars against their technologically inferior neighbors. In that world, what would the technology of the strongest countries look like?
> In that world, what would the technology of the strongest countries look like?
I don't think I want to know tbh
Weapons do not have to be big and scary to have a significant impact. Just look at what Ukraine has done with drones. Imagine when AI develops an additional 10 years and the miniaturisation of drones and their ordinance, whilst becoming super cheap. What kind of mayhem a swarm of 10.000 drones where each one is operating completely on its own could cause? Especially in the hands of an evil entity?
An important caveat to that is the cost of systems. A lot of the lower tech militaries don't really have an option of ever upgrading to the truly modern stuff, because they lack both the financial levels and the education levels to use it.
Using e.g. a modern tank requires a crew that has spent 3-5 times as long in training as a 50s era tank, and be accompanied by infantry that has gotten more training, requires higher trained maintainers and so on. That will not go away, and means that countries like e.g. India will upgrade, a lot of their world countries will never upgrade to what is currently top class. because the barriers will remain to high.
Similar with cost. They will get more updated systems, but they will not go anywhere near the current high end capabilities, because the costs scale exponentially compared to the more basic current stuff. And that is not cost that will come down in comparison, because the manhours needed to build and maintain that tech will not really go down.
@@reappermen Yet those multi-million dollar modern tanks get destroyed by 1000,- amazon drones with a bomb strapped to them. The future of warfare looks interesting but scary at the same time.
Hey Simon on your next video use the theme music from the original modern warfare 2 would suit so good
One thing that has to be kept in mind is due to the expense of aircraft and pilots in the modern day, which means the survial of the airframe and crew is top priority. It means that well trained and highly mobile Anti-air units can render bombing quite ineffective, not by shooting down aircraft but by making them drop ordnance at non optimum heights, which means even for guided munitions they won't hit as they need to be fired from the right height to even get close to what the manufacturer claims to be the accuracy. (In addition decoys are huge issues) For example in the 1999 NATO bombings of Yugoslavia. NATO forces thought they had destroyed 120 tanks, 220 APC's and 400 Artillery pieces in reality 13 tanks, 8 APC's and 8 Artillery pieces had been destroyed by all causes. This was due to decoys, moving at night, camo, and Yugoslavia had a small but well trained AA units. This meant that that NATO aircraft flew above 15,000ft to avoid MANPADs and would not fly along roads or within 5 km of a road and would only pass them at right angles. Due to the self-propelled anti-aircraft guns they had which were not great off road, but were very effective when in concealed positions. All units using shoot and scoot tactics. We have seen this in Ukraine, Ukraines S-300's have rendered Russia's air force totally ineffective. One thing that should be an added all this does is protect military assets, civilian casaulties and economic damage will still be huge unfortunately.
The White elephant effect
Funny how you are talking about hitting tanks which is tactical bombing not strategic bombing.... and Yogo fired 700 missiles and only shot down 4 NATO aircraft when NATO few over 30k sorties. That is pretty poor showing of ADA. And you used Yogo numbers on tanks destroyed equipment which Yogo would have reason to deflate their losses. News Week have slightly higher totals.
Strategic bombing is all about destroying infrastructure. Which NATO inflicted high damage on their economy and infrastructure. And the bombing of Yogo did achieve the things NATO wanted.
And those s-300 have not faced the bane of ADA stealth bombers. Which was used in Iraq to take out their ADA and allow the other bombers to do their thing.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas it is baffling that it seems you read non of my comment and it is obvious you know nothing on the topic and have just looked at Wikipedia. Modern anti-aircraft tactics are not to shoot down aircraft, because modern airforces due to their expense prefer to preserve aircraft. Therefore they stay out of range the point of modern AA is too keep them at that range which means Ordnance is not dropped at the optimum height.
Well actually Yugoslavia know better than anyone what they've lost there are independent numbers that are a lot closer to Yugoslavian numbers than NATO, for example Newsweeks numbers are 14x lower than NATO estimates. And claim 1 tank more than Yugoslavia said was knocked out...
Strategic bombing is about stopping the enemy army from functioning the NATO bombings completely failed in that. What they did do which was cause a lot of economic damage and civilian casualties. This is not the point of post WW2 strategic bombing as we know in an all out war scenario rather than land grab in the Yugoslavian case. That, that does not work, as proved by WW2.
You mean the stealth bombers that were shot down in Yugoslavia by a 50 year old SAM system... That's stealth technology was sold to Russia and China and the SAM team explained that they just changed the frequency to long wave, which reduced range but meant they could see F-117 Nighthawks on Radar from 20km away. The S-300 is leagues more advanced that the 50 year old system they were using. It seems that the F-35 as confirmed by Isreal and Syria can be picked up by the very old radar on an S-200 sustem. Keep in mind the S-300 is so advanced that possible presence of a single battery in Syria was a major reason we wouldn't invade.
Iraq went well because it was against a poorly trained and maintained army. They were using SAM tactics from the 1950s, just keep in mind the SAM tactics in the middle of the Vietnam war were more advanced than what Iraq used. That is how ridiculous it is to bring up Iraq. Simple shoot and scoot and turning off and on radar stops anti-radition missiles and wild weasel tactics from working. In 1999 over 1,000 HARMS were fired and they hit one Tel and that was it.
@@Alex-cw3rz I read your comment completely. Just disagreed with it. Hence what I said actually counters your argument.
You don't try preserve your enemy aircraft. You still use ADA to shoot down Aircraft. That is what you don't get. Just the conflict you see in Ukraine Russia is too scared to send their aircraft close and use glide bombs. That is not US or NATO tactics with their aircraft. And Ukraine is too scared to lose what little modern Airccraft they have. If you are scared of flying near enemy ADA your enemy is still using ADA on aircrafts. So, yes aircrafts are still targets of ADA.
Zoltan Dani later admitted in an interview he never altered any wavelengths. The radar malfunction...
I have seen nothing from Israel saying s200 can pick up an F35. I have seen Israel saying that an s200 fired at their aircraft but did not name what aircraft.
BTW US F35 was used a lot in Syria and never had an issue with Syrian ADA. US f35 are different than Israeli f35. Hell no US f16 was struck down in Syria.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas are you doing this on purpose, I said the airforce are trying to preserve the aircraft not anti-air 🤦♂️ again actually read my comments it would help out a lot.
Look at my original comment I told you NATO tactics when they cannot take out enemy SAM's and AA. Which was to fly above 15,000ft, 5km from roads, fo not fly along roads and only pass them at right angles.
Why are you l ying, Zolton Dani said nothing of the sort, originally Serbia said they used a special device to do it. He later admitted it was simply adjusting wavelengths to there max setting.
Well it shows how you know nothing on the topic. A squadron of F-35's entered Syria in 2017. Syria said they hit one of the aircraft with an S-200, Isreal said we did enter Syria they did spot us on there radar, but we didn't lose an aircraft, however a few weeks earlier they lost one to a bird strike. This means we know for a fact S-200 Radar can see the aircraft, Isreal interestingly stopped using F-35's in Syria after that date, up until after 2022. Now before you start foaming at the mouth let's just say no aircraft was hit, it was just a bird strike. But it means the S-200 radar picked them up.
The Syrian regime was fine with US aircraft because they were attacking ISIS, which the Syrian Regime is against. Let alone how shooting down US aircraft would cause a wider war. This is so simple
How on earth did i know i was about to hear simon narrate this?
Lol exactly this. For some reason, the thumbnail, the title, it all screamed Simon. And here we are.
Imagine how amazing things could be, if only humans used all this energy of destruction for their own development instead…
"Amazing how thing could be better if said thing wasn’t happening that’s been happening for multiple millenniums". Very insightful! People fight, and kill for their beliefs that’s how nations are made and a future born.
Don't disregard the fact that short periods of amazing scientific and engineering development are the direct result of these conflicts.
tie this video into the Astrographics space warfare video and discuss Rods from God, the ultimate non-nuclear strategic bombing system. It was only off limits in the past due to cost and Starships rapidly changing that dynamic.
My old military buddy said it best: tactics are used for winning battles, strategy is used for winning wars
Terrorism by the powerful
Such a waste of blood and treasure. A world gone insane
Strategic bombing or The Simon-verse?
15:00 Germany did pursue strategic bombing. Their problem is that somebody had a bright idea that all bombers should be able to dive bomb like a stuka. That's what prevented them from fielding a purpose-built strategic bomber.
Russia never advanced further in warfare
That why they’re so tiny
The funny thing about Britian's "strategic bomber fleet" in 1939 to 1942 is that it was no different than the German strategic bombing fleet of the same period. Lots of single-engine bombers, the "heavy bombers" were twin engine with long range, little armor or defensive weapons and light bomb loads--Germany had superior crew training that was frittered away and Britain had superior leadership. The American "strategic bombing fleet" was an embarrassment as late as July 1942. The B-17 was promised to be an excellent coastal defense weapon but failed to achieve more than distraction at the Battle of Midway (the excuse was "Tiggers don't like thistles" and the precision daylight bomber was wasted on trying to sink battleships and aircraft carriers--despite promises to the contrary) and the B-25 medium bomber on a strategic Doolittle Raid accomplished more in the morale war.
Strategic bombing was the sole mission that an independent air force could achieve. Most of the world to include Imperial Japan, the USA and the USSR didn't unify all aviation under a single command as an independent air force fighting its own little war. Britain's RAF and Germany's Luftwaffe hurt naval aviation and had negative impact on defensive fighter-interceptor aviation--Britain fixed these problems in time to win the Battle of Britain and later the Battle of the Atlantic. I'm not sure about Italy's aviation. Douhet preached these three nations needed aircraft carriers to support naval aviation: Great Britain, Imperial Japan, and the USA. He argued that for those three nations, aircraft carriers were strategic aviation assets. Imperial Japan's naval air force accomplished much during the first six months of its Pacific war. British naval aviation was vital to defeating the U-boat menace, and that war of supply line security was as strategic as bombing factories--fortunately, Goering didn't play well with others and Luftwaffe support to the Kriegsmarine was token. While most of the 99 US aircraft carriers in World War Two were the escort carries, some two dozen were the Essex class and then there were the pre-war Lexington and Yorktown classes and at war's end even larger Midway class of three CVB aircraft carriers were commissioned just after Japan surrendered. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway-class_aircraft_carrier Used as a strategic asset, the aircraft carrier contributed significantly to the Battle of the Atlantic and was pivotal in the Pacific Campaign. Postwar air force leaders had to ignore the strategic value of naval aviation and resume promising that heavy bombers were the superior sea control platforms. Controlling sea lanes really is a strategic function. Germany failed to either control sea lanes or at least deny the ocean to Britian in both world wars, and that eventually cost Germany its war. Focus on Luftwaffe glory at the expense of the Kriegsmarine was worse for Germany than "ignoring" strategic bombing--Goering had the same bomber capabilities that Britian had in 1939 to 1940 and better bomber crews. It's just that until 1944 there wasn't an air force in the world capable of living up to the promise of strategic bombing.
The things an airman had to say in order to secure funding from Parliament or Congress...
After the war, another argument surface. The air force and it's strategic bomber squadrons are the only ones who can move a nuke on target, they say. Or the air force should naturally handle rocketry.
Tactical bombing is used against hard targets; strategic bombing is used against soft targets.
Definitely better than indiscriminately leveling a region.
What's the story behind the picture at 6:58, why is there a Syrian bomber and a US Navy aircraft in the same picture?
By the definition you gave, Ukraine's drone attacks on Russian oil refineries are strategic bombing attacks - by that example, air superiority isn't necessarily required, so long as a sufficient number of bombers can be launched to ensure some get through. (There's definitely also times in WWII where strategic bombing - and even terror bombing, where civilian housing or similar is the target - was conducted without air superiority. The Blitz, the Doolittle raid, and generally the early phase of the bombing campaign against Germany by the British and Americans all come to mind.)
Jeez how many channels do you need
Strategic content channeling. I think you could make a new channel about bombs themselves.
Warographs or however it was named wasn't bad, but warfronts is a much better choice
Lose the battle but win the war
Is the square on the left of all your old stock film cut ins a part of old film design?
Why did the Nazi V2 rocket at 17:25 have "Do not touch" written in English?
Nothing says "Wrath of God" than death from above
Simon doesnt want to talk about iran missile attack.
take a shot every time he says strategic bombing
Are you going to bring back the special operator series?
I’m shocked that you didn’t discuss usa bombing sights. It was classified as high as the atom bomb. It was a huge advantage.
Except there has been loads of evidence that it was not all that much of an advantage. Yes, it helped, but if you compare mission with the highest tier bomb sights in identical situations as at the start of the war, it only made somehwere between 5-15% difference.
The sheer increased scale, improvement of the bombers planes, the escorts, crew training, coordination, and the bombs themselves all had a far greater overall impact than the bomb sights.
I believe that was something told to civilians to reduce concerns about civilian casualties by suggesting they were more accurate and targets hit were valid military targets only.
Watch Hardthrasher's Bomber War series of videos if you want to dig further into this topic
Art of War needs to be a channel
Outstanding episode as always. I really enjoy the Art of War series and this did not disappoint
14:21 wait wait wait BILLY MITCHELL?!
.... ah, not that one, of course.
-me listening on earbuds
Air power absolutely decides any major war. By itself it may not lead to the enemies surrender but it removes the enemies ability to wage war. Even bombing civilians always leads to loss of war making ability. WWII was entirely decided by Western Allied air forces destroying their enemies industries, communications, transportation, fuel, housing, killing their civilians etc. It maybe sad, but it worked and does work. Obviously Japan surrendered because of bombing, Atomic bombs just being the final coup de grace, but less known is that Nazi Germany was mainly defeated from the air. The Soviets walked into Germany over the ruins of its industry. The Western Allies had conducted all the way into Eastern Europe and Western Russia.
The Germans efforts to fight the Western Allies Air Forces itself came at enormous cost, more guns and ammunition were expended trying to kill the bombers than sent to any front. Critically, efforts to mitigate and harden were even more costly to the Nazis. Bunkers and dispersion cost not just efforts, it reduces efficiency dramatically. Don’t look at the rising number of tanks and guns Germany produced and expense of its future, look at what Germany could have produced MINUS the Western Allied bombing.
Of course, the Soviets never had anywhere near the technological means defeat Germany, never mind conducting strategic bombing (no Soviet bomber ever reached the industrial heartland of Germany).
Germany manufactured 1200 submarines just to interrupt supplies to the bombers stationed in England and starve British industry. (Again, the Soviets were completely incapable at sea).
Now it should be obvious why Germany only devoted 10% of its industrial resources to the Eastern front.
Entirely acceptable
Go go starfishes!!!
Dad posts im here
Everywhere I go, I see his face...
Next step orbital bombardedment, in scifi that can crack continents.
Art of War: Strategic bombing.
*queues Firestorm by Sabaton*
When Germany invaded the Netherlands they demanded surrender and threatened the (strategic) bombing of Rotterdam and that other city and population centers would be to follow, the Netherlands surrendered. Rotterdam was still bombed but regardless, I think it's an example of strategic bombing being succesfull :)
Look at Syria. The Russian air campaign that failed in Ukraine was very successful in Syria. I think the difference in a population's moral is based on a people's ability to respond to the airstrike. The Ukrainian could punch back, while Syrians were hopeless.
Ironically the reason that this bombing raid continued was due to a late German soldier failing to get the message that the Netherlands had surrendered to his commander.
@@badluck5647 in Syria, there were political power hungry rebels, not common people,
@@lotcam4046 The uprising was supported by the people when the rebels were winning. When the advances stopped and they were helpless as Russia destroyed schools, hospitals, and power stations, the enthusiasm for the rebels plunged.
@@badluck5647 let me correct you, it was supported by the US, being delusional to facts breeds the disease which led the downfall of multiple democracies, like the Athenian Empire by Sparta upon which Plato cried and the Greek Empire by SPQR upon which Hannibal's Greek tutor awed as how these barely clothed uncivilized bunch conquered rich Greek, SPQR by Germanic tribes, British Empire by exhausting resources,etc,
10:30 did catapults, ballista and/or other siege engines not provide an avenue by which to employ a strategic bombing campaign of sorts? How about cannons or balloons/flying fire-lanterns?
What there's a guy named Billy Mitchell who that isn't that guy who cheated at Donkey Kong?
❤
that is why every "civilian inferstructure" that housed weapons got bombed
" Every point in this war, from the point of contact on the border between occupied Palestine and Lebanon to the Litani River at least, every point there, every hill, every village, every house, and every region was a front line and a cover, and this cover was not a tangible, known cover, as is common in wars such as those that were. In our war, no, there was a special tactic. If I wanted an analogy, I would liken all of this tactic adopted by Hezbollah to a vast, clever minefield in which there is no safe empty point. Therefore, observe the enemy’s method of movement and you will see that the enemy was unable to enter some of the villages adjacent to the border, such as Aita al-Shaab, and was unable and unable to enter these villages. He was unable to enter the cities, and therefore he decided to go from the eastern valley to enter and advance towards the Litani, and that was in fact the enemy’s weak point and defeat" - The full text of the interview with Major General Qassem Soleimani, in which he narrated some of the events of the July War
HOW MANY CHANNELS DOES THIS GUY HOST!! 😂
dot dayum those are some purdy bombers. sincerely, a merican
Kinetic bombardment is what scares me. Cheap flechettes, from low earth orbit. Explosives imho, are more for sabotage, prepare for ground invasion, to force the enemy to bunker. I’ve heard conflicting results about mining. Artillery is what works no? King of war…
Adds like every 2 minutes
Wow Simon really phoned this one in
From a cursory search, I do not believe any of your channels have compared Clausewitz vs. Jomini. Why? This video clearly shows that you could shed some amazing light on these two military theorists and their contributions to modern warfare.
40 seconds ago is diabolical
22:21 Hey HLC, how'd buff get here?
Franklin helped out
@@bamacopeland4372 Buff/Franklin 2024
@@motorsr20 HLC fan thank you
That old guy really gets around
You know Buff gets around. Plus he's old, Buffalo knows everyone.
Otherwise known as "Total War"
Nuclear does
Rapid Dragon
Yes, the answer is yes. Crippling an economy and a population is the definition of war just phrased differently.
It is total war, a war without restriction. That is not a good thing. Especially when you say "crippling its population".
Manufacturing consent
How the hell can you do a piece on strategic bombing and not mention Hamburg?
Hiroshima. End of discussion. 2 bombs ended WW2
Strategic bombing is a horrible reality of total war. It’s why we need to deter major wars from starting in the first place and the only real deterrent is the credible threat of force - the more force the more deterrence. It’s the reason Putin isn’t going to start a direct fight with NATO and the only reason Taiwan is still free. It’s also the reason I am a fan of the Western military industrial complex and the US’s high military spending, despite their issues and failures.
Clever thinking. My compliments.
There's just too many variables in war to determine definitively what works or doesn't work, but one thing's for sure , in war regardless of the weapons or strategy you have, if it doesn't work within the first 3 - 6 months , change it ....the enemy has adapted already and anything beyond that is an exercise in futility ,,just look at Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq , East Timor, Rhodesia, Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and all these other places where there has been an assymetry in power, the first days are usually bad for the guys on the receiving end but they just need to hold out for the first days ,then they adapt, they begin recognising patterns and so on and from then on it's just a matter of who's willing to take more losses. The VC and PAVN forces along with all other communist guerillas in Indochina probably suffered during the first days of the American bombing campaign but soon learned how to live with it.
Btw this is the reason behind Blitzkrieg and why it was so important for Germany to beat Russia quickly, they knew well that if they take too long and Russia adapts ,they really stood no chance , because when it came to acceptable losses ,Russia could bear far more losses than the Germans. This is why a war with a country like China or India is so risky, If your weapons and tactics don't lead them to capitulate in the first 6 months or so, you're cooked ,like real cooked.
"The VC and PAVN forces along with all other communist guerillas in Indochina probably suffered during the first days of the American bombing campaign but soon learned how to live with it. "
This is a common false misconception, the VC/PAVN/NVA/North Vietnam in general lost over 2 million people, compared to the Americans 58k, they absolutely never were able to cope with American air power.
"This is why a war with a country like China or India is so risky, If your weapons and tactics don't lead them to capitulate in the first 6 months or so, you're cooked ,like real cooked."
Not necessarily, smaller countries can beat larger countries all the time throughout history, manpower is not the single decider of war, its not even really a very important metric anymore nowadays since you really dont need that many people to fight a modern war, far more important is GDP, and GDP per capita, PPP, and of course, military spending adjusted for all those factors I just listed.
@@connorbranscombe6819 Who won the war?Germany inflicted on the Soviets 3 times as more casualties than the Soviets did on Germany ,Germany still lost because at the end of the day the Soviets could absorb the losses, Manpower is ultimately what decides the fate of war , nothing else ...the US inflicted heavy losses on the Taliban but still lost because at the end of the day ,the Taliban could take the hits the Americans were throwing but the Americans couldn't take the hits , war is a continuation of politics ...before you bring that b.s excuse that "wE lOsT tHe war pOlitically" ,why didn't the Talibs lose it politically? Military spending doesn't mean squat, how much do you think the Talibs were spending in a year ?
Bonus point : the Americans left Somalia after 19 KIA, SNA suffered 200 KIA , 8 times the numbers but it survived ,but the Americans left, because the SNA could absorb the losses but the Americans could not.
@@Avaricumstudios Implying the only reason the Soviets won was “muh manpower” is literally just pure Nazi propaganda, the Germans lost that war because they were fighting 3 major powers all with far larger economies then them, and 3 separate fronts towards the end of the war as well, you think the Soviets could have absorbed those losses if they didn’t have the industrial capabilities to produce replacements for lost equipment? Or having allies like America to supply them with everything an army requires? Just the man power huh?
If that’s the case, why did Germany absolutely fuckjng crush the Russian empire during WW1? Surely they could have absorbed the losses right? They had just as large a population then, almost like there are loads of extenuating circumstances that affect a wars outcome besides just population.
@@Avaricumstudios The Taliban didn’t lose it politically because they outmanoeuvred the Americans politically, are you so dumb that you can’t comprehend it is possible to win a military battle and lose the political battle? They crushed the taliban, they ran to the hills, the US set up a dogshit government under the ANA that was horribly unpopular and corrupt, and so the second the US decided to hand over control back to the ANA, the Taliban knew they had the opportunity, and seized power back from the ANA.
America didn’t lose a military war to the Taliban, the ANA did though, still a victory to the taliban regardless but again, nothing really to do with manpower because sorry to surprise you, but the US outnumbered the taliban and lost, so… thanks for proving my point I suppose?
Southpark thumbs.
this man must be an AI right?
Scorched earth.
The next level=war crimes
It's never a war crime the first time
I do miss the Warographics name.
Russia: Indiscriminate bombing
When i was this early the channel logo wasnt ruined
CLOWN. Shhh...
So no cannonballs?
Destroying an entire industry and/or logistical capability of an nation takes a lot of bombing and a lot of time.
Oh, and aerial superiority of course.
Its certainly a lot of effort
"Stunningly high rates of civilian casualties" in Gaza?
Wait, what? Israel's efforts in Gaza have an astronomically low rate of civilian casualties. Something like 0.8 civilian casualties per airstrike. You research the heck out of everything, except that?
Short answer, yes, but only under specific circumstances.
14:56 is this a pic of a B-17 bombing his buddies??
It’s a view looking down from the top of the “combat box”. There were usually two, sometimes three, levels of bombers attacking together. That said, friendly fire incidents did happen.
There is a video somewhere of a Fortress taking a hit in the wing root from a bomb dropped on it from a bomber above them. Thing folds up like a book and drops like a rock.
It is "ordnance" not "ordinance". No "i". Two very different words.
Yes because it makes it so people can't shoot at you for 1000 Windows .
Yes, but in many cases it hardens an enemy's resolve.