What's new

War Simulations

Baybars Han

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
1,654
Reaction score
0
Country
Turkey
Location
Turkey
Anyone watch this youtube channel? I think its very interesting and the creator seems to have very good knowledge.

France vs UK


Russia vs Turkey


USA vs China

etc etc much more videos on youtube.
 
.
its a great channel for even a newbie like me..i hope he makes Pakistan vs India conventional and full on nuclear warfare scenarios soon (2 separate vids)
 
.
its a great channel for even a newbie like me..i hope he makes Pakistan vs India conventional and full on nuclear warfare scenarios soon (2 separate vids)

Nuclear scenario is pointless, we'd both get destroyed.

Conventional would be interesting though, however, this guy is Russian and has shown some bias in certain videos.
 
.
Nuclear scenario is pointless, we'd both get destroyed.

Conventional would be interesting though, however, this guy is Russian and has shown some bias in certain videos.
nuclear warfare will still be interesting to watch,he made one of USA vs Russian nuclear scenario..that was informative
 
.
Anyone watch this youtube channel? I think its very interesting and the creator seems to have very good knowledge.

France vs UK


Russia vs Turkey


USA vs China

etc etc much more videos on youtube.

Most of his channel are factually incorrect due to the fact he only commented on number and sometime quality, but failed to comment on terrain (Which is a major part of a war), Logistic (again, a major part of a war), tactics and grand strategy (It's all war is about) and finally the after effect, which he only ever compare a single country to a single country, the problem is, war is never going to fought mono-a-mono. And if you have not consider material or physical support of a third party, a war scenario is not realistic.

In effect, he only point out how many weapon platform, each country had, and how they are going to use these platform. Which is very layman term for commenting on a war.
 
.
Most of his channel are factually incorrect due to the fact he only commented on number and sometime quality, but failed to comment on terrain (Which is a major part of a war), Logistic (again, a major part of a war), tactics and grand strategy (It's all war is about) and finally the after effect, which he only ever compare a single country to a single country, the problem is, war is never going to fought mono-a-mono. And if you have not consider material or physical support of a third party, a war scenario is not realistic.

In effect, he only point out how many weapon platform, each country had, and how they are going to use these platform. Which is very layman term for commenting on a war.
He does talk about logistical problems that can appear and how they would be solved in certain scenarios and touches on terrain etc, obviously it would be impossible to touch on every aspect but I couldn't find any other channel better than this.
 
.
He does talk about logistical problems that can appear and how they would be solved in certain scenarios and touches on terrain etc, obviously it would be impossible to touch on every aspect but I couldn't find any other channel better than this.

A few of the vids he said about logistic as a whole (like how many man in Falkland Island or how many the Argentine need to retake today, I think he say something about 10000 men.)

Problem is that, logistic as a whole mean nothing really, on paper, the US military can support 50% of its troop in theatre, judging by the sealift and airlift capability, however, logistic is a bit more complicated than that, to fight a far away war, you need to know how much supply you need per unit per month, and then you need to calculate whether or not you can afford it, say 1 soldier will take 17 tons of supplies a month, to support 250,000 soldier fighting overseas, you will need around 350,000 tons supplies a month, and even with a large enough force to spare for supplies construction and distribution, you are looking at how many tons of supplies you can actually pass thru the pipeline every day or every months, also, the distant between forward operating base and the end of your supply chain is governed by a curve called "Loss of Power Gradient" which essentially the longer the supply route, the less power you can project.

In many of his vids, if he account for logistic in his own scenario, he accounting for the maximum possible or minimal need, which actually is a mood point, case in point in his UK vs Argentina over Falkland Video, He mentioned it will take 48 hours for the UK to travel from Ascension to relief the forces defending the Falkland, however, how much can the UK muster and how quickly you can ready and deploy them? That he did not mention, and in the end, it mean nothing telling me UK would take 48 hours to bring reinforcement to reinforce Falkland Garrison.

He did not mention much about terrain and other basic military term, and he does not cover any tactics and strategy the commander will use, all his analysis is based on a head to head fight. Maybe he did in latter scenario, but for the 4 I watched (USA vs China, UK vs Argentina Indonesia vs Australia and France vs the UK) he did not mention much of what I said.
 
.
following to this, Yom Kippur War should been won by Arabs. But that didn't happen. So war is something that cannot be simulated.
 
.
following to this, Yom Kippur War should been won by Arabs. But that didn't happen. So war is something that cannot be simulated.
The Egyptians won the October war, they got back the Sinai.

As for Syria, they didn't really accomplish anything but neither did Israel on that front.
 
. .
The Egyptians won the October war, they got back the Sinai.

As for Syria, they didn't really accomplish anything but neither did Israel on that front.
Israel got golan heights and Egypt got back sınai because of US pressure and a peace treaty.
 
.
Israel got golan heights and Egypt got back sınai because of US pressure and a peace treaty.
Israel already had it in 1967, it didn't make any major gains in 1973 against Syria to constitute a victory, like they intended.

Israel had already received pressure before to give Egypt back the Sinai. They only gave it back this time because Egypt had showed it was more than capable as a military force. Israel realised it simply couldn't permanently hold the Sinai from the Egyptians.

If pressure was the only influence, Israel would've given Syria back the Golan heights. But they didn't.
 
.
Israel already had it in 1967, it didn't make any major gains in 1973 against Syria to constitute a victory, like they intended.

Israel had already received pressure before to give Egypt back the Sinai. They only gave it back this time because Egypt had showed it was more than capable as a military force. Israel realised it simply couldn't permanently hold the Sinai from the Egyptians.

If pressure was the only influence, Israel would've given Syria back the Golan heights. But they didn't.
Israel gave Sinai because Egypt offered peace and recognition to Israel in return.
Before that, Egypt said no to peace, neither to Israel nor to normalization.
BTW Israel's goal in the war was to survive.
 
.
Israel gave Sinai because Egypt offered peace and recognition to Israel in return.
Before that, Egypt said no to peace, neither to Israel nor to normalization.
BTW Israel's goal in the war was to survive.

"Israel's goal was to survive"

You act like in this war the Arabs were trying to delete Israel. That wasn't the case, they only wanted to regain their lost territory. Egypt wanted the Sinai, Syria wanted the Golan heights. Egypt got what they wanted, literally taking what was more than half of Israel at the time. Syria didn't get the heights, but Israel didn't manage to roll into Damascus like it wanted to either.

The Arabs showcased the fact that they were still a fairly potent military threat to Israel, and scared Israel enough to give up more than half of its land.

If the Americans didn't resupply Israel to no end, trust me, the Jewish state would be nothing but a bitter memory.
 
.
"Israel's goal was to survive"

You act like in this war the Arabs were trying to delete Israel. That wasn't the case, they only wanted to regain their lost territory. Egypt wanted the Sinai, Syria wanted the Golan heights. Egypt got what they wanted, literally taking what was more than half of Israel at the time. Syria didn't get the heights, but Israel didn't manage to roll into Damascus like it wanted to either.

The Arabs showcased the fact that they were still a fairly potent military threat to Israel, and scared Israel enough to give up more than half of its land.

If the Americans didn't resupply Israel to no end, trust me, the Jewish state would be nothing but a bitter memory.
Israel's goal in all wars was to survive.
The Arabs wanted to destroy Israel, but they knew they could not, so their goal was to return the territories they lost in the Six-Day War.
Prior to the Yom Kippur War, Egypt wanted to negotiate the fate of Sinai, but not for peace with Israel or recognition of Israel,Israel didn't agree. Five years after the Yom Kippur War, Egypt agreed to peace with Israel and recognition of Israel provided that Sinai was returned to it,Israel agreed and signed the peace treaty.
Israel's policy after the Six Day War was "lands in exchange for peace", meaning that Israel would return all the territories it had occupied in exchange for peace.
No country agreed.
After the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptians agreed.
What happened was that Israel managed to achieve what it wanted without it being its goal.
Israel didn't plan to invade Damascus. I will also quote one of the generals, "What do we have to look for there?"

*"The Arabs showcased the fact that they were still a fairly potent military threat to Israel" - This is true.
*"and scared Israel enough to give up more than half of its land." - That's not true and I've already explained why.

American aid began to arrive only when Israel became the winning side in the war, and the airlift arrived as Israel already encircled the Third Army and succeeded the Suez Canal.
The American aid didn't affect the course of the war too much.
Egypt and Syria had no chance of destroying Israel even without American aid.

You also forget (apparently on purpose) that the Soviet Union shortly after the war began, began to send a massive airlift to Egypt and Syria, before the Americans, and much larger than the American one.
Add to this the threats of the Soviet Union to Israel, that if Israel will not stop its progress then the Soviet Union will start a war against Israel.
Don't forget that as soon as the momentum moved to Israel, the Egyptians asked for a cease-fire, and Israel didn't agree.
In addition, the Egyptians asked the United States to intervene in their favor.
This war caused the entire Arab world to understand that even under perfect conditions they can not defeat Israel, which led to decades without wars and peace agreements.
The stupid State of Israel managed to achieve something without intending to achieve it, which is exactly what happened in the Six-Day War.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom