Required military reading at Military academies

[Metallgewitter]

In a way yes. then again to go in a perhaps practical example.

Sun Tzu states that one of the worst outcomes is besieging an enemy who is tucked behind strong walls
Now if we go into WW2 that is what the French hoped with their Maginot line while the Germans decided to pass said fortress to ravage the hinterlands by attacking through the Ardennes. In a way this is Sun Tzu's philosophy right there: avoiding fighting a fortress and defeating the enemy without facing them (well not facing the entrenched units). Of course if we take that age's technology a siege is usually not as bad anymore as you can devastate a fortress with bombs. Lots of bombs. But of course a city fight is even today like fighting in a fortress and should usually be avoided unless you are prepared to throw men into a meatgrinder

[butchbird]

Sorry to hound on this, but I'll counter.

Back in Sun Tzu's days, it was indeed an evidence that attacking a forteress was a bad idea. But then, the role of forteresses changed much once we got into "mass warfare". Suddenly, a forteress was not meant so much as to hold a region, but rather offer a point to counter-attack from, or a supply base for said counter-attack. It can then be said that the conception of polyorcetics that Sun Tzu had was completely out of touch.

And then you had WW2. A forteress could basically become an advantage for the ennemy. The maginot line was but "making the most of meager ressources" as france had manpower and budgetary constraints...and of course, part of why the line stopped at the ardennes was international constraints. Belgium would've been quite mad at seeing the line extended to their border.

And then, there's belgium herself. A large part of the defense plan was fort eben-mael, supposedly the best of the best in terms of fortification. It only took a few paratroopers and some explosive charges to neuter belgium's war capacity. In the highly mobile days of warfare in the mid-20th century, a forteress could reveal itself a liability to the grand scheme of things.

*add-on*

Thinking about it I thought I'd forgotten something...re-read my post and was quite disapointed with myself, so 2 things.

On the maginot line, it's probably not very clear, but I meant that building the fortification was a loss of budget/manpower, compounding those already present weaknesses. Furthermore, many parts of the maginot line were not even fully equipped when the germans invaded. Surely all that time and money spent on fortifying would've been best used elsewhere.

On city fighting...well, yes, it can be compared to siege warfare, but I'd argue its a whole different animal...and an occupation developped relatively recently, pretty much as fortifications became more or less obsolete in many cases.

[Cannonshop]

Sorry to hound on this, but I'll counter.

Back in Sun Tzu's days, it was indeed an evidence that attacking a forteress was a bad idea. But then, the role of forteresses changed much once we got into "mass warfare". Suddenly, a forteress was not meant so much as to hold a region, but rather offer a point to counter-attack from, or a supply base for said counter-attack. It can then be said that the conception of polyorcetics that Sun Tzu had was completely out of touch.

And then you had WW2. A forteress could basically become an advantage for the ennemy. The maginot line was but "making the most of meager ressources" as france had manpower and budgetary constraints...and of course, part of why the line stopped at the ardennes was international constraints. Belgium would've been quite mad at seeing the line extended to their border.

And then, there's belgium herself. A large part of the defense plan was fort eben-mael, supposedly the best of the best in terms of fortification. It only took a few paratroopers and some explosive charges to neuter belgium's war capacity. In the highly mobile days of warfare in the mid-20th century, a forteress could reveal itself a liability to the grand scheme of things.

*add-on*

Thinking about it I thought I'd forgotten something...re-read my post and was quite disapointed with myself, so 2 things.

On the maginot line, it's probably not very clear, but I meant that building the fortification was a loss of budget/manpower, compounding those already present weaknesses. Furthermore, many parts of the maginot line were not even fully equipped when the germans invaded. Surely all that time and money spent on fortifying would've been best used elsewhere.

On city fighting...well, yes, it can be compared to siege warfare, but I'd argue its a whole different animal...and an occupation developped relatively recently, pretty much as fortifications became more or less obsolete in many cases.

On Fortresses: it's not actually new.  The Seiges took longer, but the basic doctrine stands up-if your fortress (or walled city) doesn't have relief coming, it's a waiting game, and you're probably going to lose.  Thus, how the Mongols overcame walled cities from one end of asia, to the other, despite not having seige equipment or a doctrine of siege and fortification.

Even in the era of swords and sandals, food, clothing and supplies were what determined who won, from who lost more often than not.  Hence why the Romans made Greece their bitches-they invented the supply column, built roads to run their supplies up, fortified encampments that had a second means to sending messages (so they'd be relieved if seiged) and so on to keep their army from starving even when the forage was poor.

(Invented might be the wrong word, but for the era and their location, they certainly perfected it.)

I would expect 31st century soldiers and warriors to have their OWN history, historical military thinkers, and philosophers.  Why? because there's not really that much difference between modern military thinking, and ancient, but periodically there ARE changes, and the ones that work get to write books and histories (or be written about) detailing their exploits to inspire future generations.

Kinda like music.

There are doubtless hundreds of officers who've only read teh Cliff Notes on Ceasar, but they've read Von Clauswicz religiously, and studied the work of Zhukov, Patton, MacArthur, Bradley, Monty (Montgomery), etc. in the real world.

In a fully fleshed 31st century Sun Zhang or NAIS (or other academy) they've no doubt got people teaching 24th through 28th century military thinkers, in addition to, or even in replacement of, the ones we're familiar with in the 21st century.

WHY??  Because Soldiering, in particular, Officer level soldiering, benefits from knowing what didn't work last time, so you know not to do that stupid thing again.  The chief benefit to the study of history, is just that, "Look at what didn't work, understand it didn't work, now don't go trying to do that, because it doesn't work."

[butchbird]

On forteresses.

The thing here is that the purpose changed. While in antiquity and the middle ages a forteress was intended to provide defense from which to HOLD an area, a shift happened more or less gradually. From a stong point which was meant to "outlast" the ennemy, most forteresses became supply centers. They weren't made to hold for years but rather to be too troublesome to attack for what was to be gained from such an attack.

While yes, the idea was always to hold against the siege while hoping for reinforcements, there's a major shift from the reinforcements aiming to relieve the fortification itself, which was generally the most important objective in the region, to the reinforcements actually making a wider counter-attack which will merely be helped by the presence of a reliable and well defended supply center.

From the bronze age to the renaissance, invading a region pretty much invariably culminated in besieging the local forteress/walled city. Afterwards, if you could ignore the forteress, you did so, as it generally did not defend the most important objectives per say.

Now of course, fortifications in the form of "city walls" or  would still be constructed well into the 18th century, but already in the 16th century, more and more forteresses were built whithout the intent of housing important forces, or the nearby inhabitants.

*add-on*

Tried to write some more on use of fortifications but doing it through chores didn't turn out so well.

Still, I'd like to point out how sieges of important fortifications were major actions before the renaissance, often forming the bulk of campaings. But following after the renaissance, I can think of few instances were that was the case. More often, the campaings were decided by open battle. Gone were the days of Alésia or the siege of constantinople.

Also, concerning "citys figthing taking the place of good ol sieges", thinking about it, else then the battle of tenochtitlan in the "conquistador era", I can't think of many such actions before the 20th century. Not saying it didn't happen, but took a while before city fighting became "a thing" after the displacement of major siege action as an inevitable fact of war.

[Nerroth]

Perhaps there might be a difference between "undergraduate" and "postgraduate" studies, at least at some of the more expansive military academies in this setting.

-----

For comparison's sake, the Prime Directive Federation sourcebook outlines, among other things, what Star Fleet Academy looks like over in the Star Fleet Universe.

In that setting, the four-year University course is aimed at preparing its graduates for life aboard ship (either as a "naval" officer or as a Star Fleet Marine) at a lower officer level. There is a separate Medical School, for those who wish to practice medicine aboard a starship.

From there, things can branch in a few different, and in some cases overlapping, directions.

It"s possible to move directly into master's and/or doctorate studies before entering active service; most officers pursuing postgraduate studies instead chip away at this over time via distance learning.

Also, there are various "schools" which mark one's ascent through the ranks. The Advanced Leadership School has to be attended in order to be promoted to a senior Lieutenant (or a Marine captain.) Attendance at the Staff School is required for promotion to Lieutenant Commander (or Marine major). If you want to become a starship captain (or marine colonel), you must attend the Command School. Whereas the War College is required for promotion to Admiral (or Marine general).

Other empires in the SFU have equivalent academies. How fairly they accept prospective students, however, can vary from one empire to the next: on Romulus, for example, the ongoing rivalries between Great Houses - plus the wide societal gap between their scions and the more numerous "Houseless" - skews things severely, perhaps to the detriment of the Empire overall.

-----

In BattleTech, however, there are probably very few - if any - academies which are quite as thorough, or as fair in terms of admission, as Star Fleet Academy would be.

Perhaps the most prestigious academies in the Sol system would have come closest, at least during the first Star League. Although, I could well picture the Taurians having made a good go if it by themselves, at least prior to the Reunification War.

Others might go no farther than the undergraduate level, or be much more beholden to the pressures of noble families in their respective realms.

Although, it would be interesting to see what the Wolves make of those facilities on Terra they have now inherited from the Republic of the Sphere... or rather, those which weren't razed by Malvina's Falcons prior to the ilClan Trial.

At the very least, a would-be "Regular Army" might wish to use those facilities to train its senior officers. And perhaps both Trueborn and freeborn Gunslinger candidates might be sent to study at such institutions prior to entering the field?

[Metallgewitter]

The SLDf had it's recruits go through a lot of study sessions as well. After they completed basic training they went into "trade school" in the over 200 academies that were spread across the Hegemony (or the ones on Tharkad, Skye and New Avalon) There they not only learned their respective trade but also accounting, history and other subjects giving even the lowest infantry man a bachelors degree after he or she graduated. I am not sure if that is even done on the most prestigious academies in the IS. Perhpas on the original SLDf academies mentioned before but the rest?

Well how mmany major academies are left from the Republic days? The major ones I can think of were Northwind (currently independent), Mars, Kentares IV, Skye and Sandhurst on Terra. And do the Wolves even have trainers for that? Redemption Rites has given a glimpse how they transformed the military academy on New Olympia but recruits who are trained in the clan fighting way make poor warriors when they are facing opponents who don't care about Zellbriggen. They might order the cadet classes to increase but I suspect training might be (for the time being) done according to RAF regulations. Unless the Wolves can actually spare warriors for training

[Nerroth]

The War Academy of Mars would have to be rebuilt, or at least restaffed, from scratch: the prior faculty, staff, and students were all killed on Malvina's orders.

Sandhurst was in the portion of Terra seized by the Wolves prior to the IlClan Trial, so there would presumably be some survivors to work with - should any of them wish to do so, that is.

-----

One other person whose military career might be a subject of study would be First LordGeneral Aaron DeChavilier.

As someone who was deeply involved in the SLDF campaign against the Amaris Empire at the highest levels, his service record would no doubt be a key corollary to that of General Kerensky himself.

And, while the "Prime" timeline would see him join the Exodus, the military academies over in the Empires Aflame timeline would no doubt look at the likes of Operation BLACK SHIELD and his establishment of the Terran Supremacy in great detail.

[Minemech]

deleted

[wanderer25]

   I think all states would read both the works that appeals to them and those favored by their enemies!

The whole "Known your enemy bit"