[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 20251025_010507.jpg (45 KB, 544x725)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
How much do competenti generals matter in a war?
Always compared to techn edge
>>
>>64444817
>How much?
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
>>
Good generals are what create a military capable of actually performing in the first place, when it comes to tactical success however that tends to more often fall on officers between major and coernel.
>>
>>64444817
Depends on the technological difference between the sides.
If it’s really massive like the Anglo-Zulu Wars then competence doesn’t matter. The poofs with the guns and artillery will eventually beat the guys with spears and shields. If the playing field is more or less even then competence matters a lot.
>>
>>64444817
>competenti
Gesticulates with hands
>>
>>64444817
How competent the military is doesn't matter if the political objectives of the war are nonsensical or unachievable. Just look at Afghanistan.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.