The Art of War (Sun Tzu)

[RazorFox]

[Arokh Takakura]

I think this discussion has run its course, gentlemen. Thank you all for the participation.

[Kishoshima Dragonash]

Here's the issue Valaska, the TLDR of everything youve written is.. "Sun Tzu is stupid herp derp derp, you're all morons for reading it." A 'debate' or 'discussion' requires the ability to see beyond your own personal views and offer decent counter points to that which you dont agree. The only thing you've contributed is "Im right, you're wrong, look how epic I am Ffff you."

We've all agreed that The Art of War is outdated, but that doesnt make what's written in those pages any less pertinent. Books here have been mentioned by people like Rommel... -his- methods are outdated because of the way modern warfare works. You no longer actually have to "see" your target to destroy it anymore, even in a tank. JTAMS, JRAMS, AWACS, Satellites, Laser Designation.. all make the literal tactics in his book.. worthless. Let's look back to Desert Shield.. 200 Iraqi tanks, vs 48 US M1 Abrahms. Who won that one? The M1s. Not because of superior tactics, but because of superior weapons and firepower. According to Rommel, a 4:1 advantage should have been MORE than enough to ensure victory. It didnt. Why? Because the M1s had air support, advanced radar systems and could fire their main guns WELL before the Iraqis could see them in their outdated equipment. This is covered in The Art of War, its also covered in several other books, but the point is old does not mean wrong, or that it does not apply. Commanders still read old and out dated books to understand how commanders of the -past- have made mistakes and learned from them. They look for weaknesses in the theories and applications of those commanders, and compare them to their own. They take the best of what the commanders of old have to offer, and apply it to their own arsenal. This is why the Sun Tsu, Sun Ping, Rommel, Eisenhower, Bradley, Napoleon, Patton, Alexander the Great, Hitler and every other major leader in the history of war is studied. If you dont learn from the past, you'll repeat it. Since we're on a "its old therefore it sucks" kick, I like how Patton used the same tactics as those of Sun Tzu and Alexander the Great in several of the major battles he won... "just sayin"

[Phares Sarjeant]

From what I recall, Patton basically took in things such as capturing and using enemy supplies, no brainer, leaving enemies a venue of escape, and changing tactics if you've failed the first time around. He was a smart guy, he took in the broad strokes and threw out the literal pages of filler.

Lol, well if you wanted to get a rise you did. Impressed that you consider Patton a smart guy. If we measure all the generals of WW2 and say they had similar training in as you say "Capturing enemy supplies, no brainer, leaving enemies a venue of escape" Ask yourself why was he one of the more effective in WW2 if in fact he only did what the no brainer actions of warfare should've been. No doubt Monty was the real force behind winning the Western front eh?... But then he was simply unable to do all those no brainer tactics that Patton seemed to gravitate towards.