As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
As history repeats itself, the epic of the Corsican, Napoleon Bonaparte, is one line of successful military leaders who arose in Europe to prosecute war. The reality is though, without taking anything away from the man, is that Napoleon had no inspirational tactics nor weaponry which was that much more advanced. Napoleon was simply a skilled tactical officer, who was able to deploy the same blitzkrieg which successful military leaders have for thousands of years.
In all things in life, the rules which prevail in most cases are, bringing the maximum amount of force to bare as quickly as possible in a concentrated point, and you will most of the time win.
In Napoleon's era the understanding developed from the First World War meaning the 7 Years or French and Indian War in America, which was the first global war, was that columns of troops marching side by side and not strung out for a hundred miles, being able to make contact with enemy lines, and then converging quickly to form battle lines from the columns, before the enemy could react, was the lessons of world war.
Napoleon was an artillery officer. He learned from the best in France, which were the best in the world. He learned to arrange his cannon and howitzers, the heavy guns left for siege and the light four pounders brought to bare on enemy lines to open gaps for the infantry.
The French during the Revolution lost a majority of officers after the King was beheaded who emigrated. The artillery officer corp remained mostly in tact, but the rest of the army was an assembly of conscripts and lacking officers. In order to deal with this, the French were mauled in their first battles, but learned to use concentrated forces, which assured their untested soldiers in battle. Napoleon would continue with this formation, in success and defeat, to his advantage and disadvantage.
In all of this, the reality was that Napoleon was successful because he did not rearrange the military corp he took control of, but instead prudently utilized what he had by regulating it and deploying it more effectively than his adversaries.
I have visited Waterloo and the British under Wellington did not defeat Napoleon. What Wellington engaged in, was setting his lines, and then allowed them to be mauled by the French, until the French broke their resources, and in that the British counter attacked. It was a brutal use of the red coat, but at Waterloo it overcame the French deployment structure.
In the upcoming theater of war in Europe, pitting the Russians with Muslims against "NATO", the correct array would be for Russia to strike in Poland and Scandinavia, with China and the Muslims striking the Balkans and the Italians as fodder for Russia on a broad advancing front.
The checkpoints in this for Russia will be Sweden, Czechoslovakia and the Balkans. It it doubtful the Europeans will hold any more than the Germans did in 1945. The effective front will be the Alps and the Rhine. It is there that Russia will breakout or be broken in the first army successful in conquering all of Europe.
The key elements for the Russian arsenal will be:
- Surface to air missiles
- Rapid mechanized spears
- Air cover
Define it as the Prague line, for there the Russian forces will have their success after their first roll out due to this being closer to their front than European combined forces. After this, Russia will have distance issues, no matter if they acquire NATO operating bases, as it will require volumes for fuel, time and munitions to reach this success. A moving war is less costly than a fixed line war and this occurs at the Rhine.
Everything Russia is, will hinge on their SAM S 400 missiles. The 400's protect the mechanized spears and protect the air cover. The Achilles heel in this is there are not enough 400's for a front which stretches from Scandinavia to Greece in the first and second dimension and ionosphere for the 3rd dimension.
If Vladimir Putin reaches his Waterloo, it will be due to holes in the S 400 and S 500 lines.
Theater window is 370 miles and there are a number of 370 mile areas in Europe. There are not enough systems to grid the Continent. Holes can be generated at distance by high energy weapons.
The Russian military is a most effective coordinated battle implement. It's weaknesses like Napoleon are it's strengths. Mobility creates holes as much as it makes attacking it elusive. Speed extends past operational support. Maneuverability exposes the lack of necessary strength.
Attrition will be the cost of the Russian military in Europe. This is the Putin complex which is a paradigm in which Hitler failed in robbing one service to deploy armament to another. Russia has enough strength to take ground to the Prague line. Russia jeopardizes itself from that point on as it does not have the resources to effectively protect the grid. If Russia could mount such an effort than it's nuclear umbrella could hold Europe as long as it exterminated the local populations of resistance. Russia though in doing so, would lose the population it needs, to deal with China, because once China does not have Europe, Australia, Japan or America to contend with, China will vanquish the over extended Russian front.
Russia in that scenario needs Chinese columns obliterated in south Europe and the south Pacific to provide Moscow and equilibrium of a balance of terror to wait out Chinese population depletion in 2050 AD in the year of our Lord.
This is another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
Nuff Said
agtG
