When in the history of war has attacking a city cost fewer casualties that holding it?
This war is much clearer if you know anything about military history and tactics.
They have NOT up until now been trying to take it. Do I need to explain the concept of a siege?
“When in the history of war has attacking a city cost fewer casualties that holding it?
This war is much clearer if you know anything about military history and tactics.”
Worth repeating. People who still believe Russia is winning in Ukraine are most likely the same people still wearing masks.
“This war is much clearer if you know anything about military history and tactics.”
Yes, one interesting thing is that most people predicted Ukraine would fall in a couple of weeks. That is because most analysts have PoliSci degrees and spend their time on political and economic analyses.
Military historians were the one group that thought the invasion plan was a disaster. The basic reasoning was “it took Hitler 4 million men to take Ukraine and Stalin 5 million to take it back. Putin is going in with 200K. They are going to be slaughtered.”
When in the history of war has attacking a city cost fewer casualties that holding it?
Leningrad 1941-1944. A besieged city does not inflict equal losses on the enemy.
Since now. Drones hover above trenches dropping grenades and spot for artillery. The 1.3 to 1 for the attacking force no longer applies. This is the first drone war where forces in stationary defenses are disadvantaged, as long as the attacker maintains logistical support.