Does using scorched earth tactics on your own territory still make sense in the context of modern warfare?
Depends on the conext.
>>65211877OMG, that's right! It's almost Independence Dayhttps://youtu.be/eyVBnYAz8Bs?si=m_7d_gFD8McUnWPH!
>>65211882Wdhmbt?
>>65211877>short versionI would say not really>long versionhistorically armies would have to procure supplies in the fieldthis is why attrition to disease used to be such a huge issue, because this meant not always having reliable access to safe/clean food and water; things got particularly bad when holding a siege or on campaign somewhere that had been contested for a long period, as any army of noteworthy size will quickly strip the local area bare if it stays still for too longin this context, scorched earth benefited a retreating defender as it deprived an advancing army of the supplies it needed to function, forcing it to either abandon its advance or press on in a continuously weakening stateindustrialization has largely solved this issue through advanced preservation techniques and mechanization: railways, trucks, and aircraft have enabled huge logistics networks that can provide supplies from a long distance away from the front, making foraging unnecessary
