This recalls my old post, but more detailed and better explained:
War is all about counters and counter-counters. It is fought by people, not machines, and people will do everything to avoid being killed. As a result, any kind of attrition-based, symmetric warfare scenario is flawed. Training is paramount, to allow soldiers knowledge necessary to adapt to changing circumstances.
[This is a continuation of a previous article in a series]
There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
B-17 Flying Fortresses Over Germany in April 1945
The founding fathers of military aviation had an uphill battle in advocating the value of airpower to their doubtful Army and Navy counterparts. Though their approaches (and successes) varied, all of these advocates shared a common underlying theme: airpower, operating in the third dimension, provides an asymmetric advantage in warfare. Almost a century later, have we forgotten this keystone principle?
Joint US doctrine defines asymmetric as “the application of dissimilar strategies, tactics, capabilities, and methods to circumvent or negate an opponent’s strengths while exploiting his weaknesses” (JP 3-15.1). Doctrine covers all types of warfare: nuclear warfare, conventional warfare, irregular warfare, and even hybrid warfare. Interestingly, the only references to asymmetric warfare…
View original post 1,064 more words