Commander Modern War [WORK]
Even taking into account the significant improvements in PLA capabilities, senior military leaders consider time and people to be more important for successful military modernization than money and equipment. Accordingly, their time horizon spans to mid-century in a multi-generational process of evolutionary development.
Commander Modern War
Doing the right thing, regardless of the consequences, is moral courage. An outstanding example is Gen. George Washington, whose legacy as the commander of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States remains among the greatest in American history.
According to historian Gordon Wood, Washington's most significant act was his resignation as commander of the armies -- an act that stunned aristocratic Europe. Many believed Washington could have been a dictator if he had chosen so.
Experience the thrill of a modern conflict between two factions, as you outsmart your opponents in an epic game of strategy and cunning. Take command of your ground, air, and naval units and lead them to victory in the most immersive turn-based battle simulation. The battlefield awaits.
Yaroslav Markevych, the terse drone unit commander for Khartia, described the combination of drones working with artillery as the "most important pair" in offensive operations and one of the keys to Ukraine's stunning September counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region.
IntroCommander: Modern War is a tactical turn-based game, opposing two factions in a modern conflict. Fight for the Alliance to protect the values of freedom, or choose the Coalition to repress those who oppose you. Infantry, vehicles, and air units are at your command.Description/h2]The conflict could not hold any longer, play the campaign for each faction, battle on skirmish maps, choose different parameters on the maps, and battle up to 7 other commanders.Battle with two different factions for complete dominance of the battlefieldRecruit infantry, vehicles, and air units to help in your missionCapture different locations ensuring a steady income to recruit new unitsUse the terrain as cover to increase the odds of a favorable battle outcomeUse specialized units to counter specific unitsCreate and edit maps in the Map Edito
Russia failed to achieve what was likely its main political objective: to overthrow the Kyiv government in a blitzkrieg military operation. The Russian military also faced significant challenges seizing and holding territory. These problems contributed to the suspension or firing of several senior military officials, such as Lieutenant General Serhiy Kisel, commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, for dereliction during the offensive against Kharkiv; Lieutenant General Vlaislav Yershov, commander of the 6th Combined Arms Army, for failing to capture Kharkiv; and Vice Admiral Igor Osipov, commander of the Black Sea Fleet, following the sinking of the flagship cruiser Moskva.12
The quality of Ukrainian forces was a major change from Syria, where Russia, Syria, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, and militia units from Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestinian territory, and other areas faced a relatively weak mix of insurgents. Russian mechanized formations in northern Ukraine were targeted by lethal Ukrainian light infantry armed with modern weapon systems, such as the Javelin anti-tank missile system, Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW), and Stugna-P anti-tank guided-missile system.
He is often regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in modern history, with use of an early form of combined arms. His most notable military victory was the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631. With his resources, logistics, and support, Gustavus Adolphus was positioned to become a major European leader, but he was killed a year later at the Battle of Lützen. He was assisted in his efforts by Count Axel Oxenstierna, the Lord High Chancellor of Sweden, who also acted as regent after his death.
Coming to the throne at the age of 16, Gustavus Adolphus inherited three wars from his father Charles IX of Sweden; border conflicts with Russia and Denmark-Norway, and a dynastic struggle with his first cousin, King Sigismund III Vasa of Poland. Of these, the Danish war was the most serious. During his reign, Sweden rose from the status of a Baltic Sea basin regional power to one of the great powers of Europe and a model of early modern era government. Gustavus Adolphus is known as the "father of modern warfare", or the first modern general. He taught a number of other military commanders, such as Lennart Torstensson, who would go on to expand the boundaries and the power of Swedish Empire after Gustavus Adolphus's death. Spoils meant he became a successful bookraider in Europe, targeting Jesuit collections.
Future commanders who studied and admired Gustavus Adolphus include Napoleon I of France and Carl von Clausewitz. His advancements in warfare made Sweden the dominant Baltic power for the next hundred years (see Swedish Empire). He is also the only Swedish monarch to be styled "the Great". This decision was made by the Swedish Estates of the Realm when they convened in 1633, making him officially called Gustavus Adolphus the Great (Gustavus Adolphus Magnus).
Warfare, in general, takes place on multiple levels. On the physical level, it is a test of firepower, weapons technology, troop strength, and logistics. At the psychological level, it involves intangibles such as morale, leadership, and courage. At the analytical level, it challenges the ability of commanders to assess complex battlefield situations, make effective decisions, and formulate tactically superior plans to carry out those decisions.
Striking a foe in an unexpected manner can disorient him and ensure that his response comes too late to be effective. To accomplish this, a commander take steps to degrade the quality of information available to the enemy, thereby impairing his ability to prepare for the attack.
On the front lines, combined arms implies the integration of weapons-allocating, coordinating, and targeting as evolving conditions and tactical objectives require. In Operation Desert Storm, for instance, the U.S. Marine Corps relied heavily on simultaneous direct fire, artillery, and air attacks, synchronized by frontline observers and pilots, to create shock, terror, and chaos among more heavily equipped Iraqi forces. At a higher level, combined arms involves selecting and arranging various combat assets to provide the commander with a fighting force tailored to the mission at hand. For example, Napoléon invented the army corps to enable greater dispersion and speed among his forces. Consisting of infantry, artillery, and cavalry, the corps operated as a coordinated, self-sufficient entity that could move more rapidly with less logistical support requirements than conventional force configurations and deliver more combat power because of the complementary nature of its assets.
Finally, given the fact that for every move there is a countermove, maneuver warfare practitioners must constantly be aware that rivals could be employing the very same concepts to shape the conditions of the competitive encounter in their favor. One need only recall how the Germans, the modern progenitors of maneuver warfare, were deceived about the location of the D-day invasion.
An Old-Fashioned Soldier in a Modern War? Robert E. Lee as Confederate General Gary W. Gallagher Much of the literature on the Civil War portrays Robert E. Lee as a grand anachronism. In a conflict often characterized, whether accurately or not, as the first great modern war,1 the Confederate commander frequently appears as a soldier of considerable martial gifts who harkened back to an earlier time. Lee is cast as a man who thought of the struggle in terms of protecting his own state rather advancing the cause of the entire Confederacy, forged a personal bond with his soldiers reminiscent of feudal relationships, focused on winning setpiece battles without taking in the broader political and social landscape of a modern war, and failed to understood the implications of new weaponry such as the rifle-musket. Historians and other writers have employed an array of images that tie Lee to a knightly tradition and an agrarian age, presenting him as a localist for whom kinship and ancestral place meant everything. This Lee functions as the perfect foil to Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, Union generals typically described as forward-looking officers who recognized the necessity of waging a modern war that engulfed entire societies, plotted their strategy accordingly, and changed the nature of the conflict. Two very different groups of authors have nourished the anachronistic image of Lee as an old-fashioned general: those who admire him and intend their chivalric portrayal to be positive, and those more hostile who describe a commander out of 1 Historians are fond of debating whether the Civil War was a modem "total" war or a more limited nineteenth-century conflict. See, for example, Robert A. Daughty, Ira D. Gruber, et al., The American Civil War: The Emergence ofTotal Warfare (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1996); Mark Grimsley, The Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy Toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); James M. McPherson, "Lincoln and the Strategy of Unconditional Surrender," Gabor S. Boritt, ed., Lincoln, the War President: The Gettysburg Lectures (New York: Oxford, 1992); Mark A. Neely Jr., "Was the Civil War a Total War?," in Civil War History 37 (March 1991); Charles Royster, The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans (New York: Knopf, 1991); and Daniel E. Sutherland, The Emergence ofTotal War (Fort Worth: Ryan Place Publishers, 1996) Civil War History, Vol. xlv No. 4 1999 by The Kent State University Press 296CIVIL WAR HISTORY touch with much ofthe military reality of his time. There is irony in the fact that these two groups became unlikely accomplices in creating a fascinatingly flawed interpretive tradition. Before making a case for Lee as a general well attuned to the realities of midnineteenth century warfare, it is necessary to review some of the literature that portrays him as a throwback to an earlier epoch. These works divide conveniently into two types: those that describe Lee as a magnificent and admirable anachronism, and those that more critically insist he was unwilling or unable to adapt to the demands of a mid-nineteenth-century modern war. Titles of the first type began to appear almost as soon as the war ended and have continued to be published ever since. Many of the early ones nestle comfortably within the Lost Cause literature. Former Confederates such as Jubal A. Early described Lee as an exemplar of the South's antebellum agrarian civilization , a devout Christian of great humanity whose patriarchal bond with his soldiers helped forge a military record to which all white Southerners could look with pride. Early delighted in contrasting Lee and his band of underfed and poorly equipped Confederates to a modern Unionjuggernaut dependent on technology and backed by unlimited material resources. In a famous address delivered in 1872, at Washington and Lee University on the anniversary of Lee's birth, Early spoke of the confrontation between his hero and Grant. "For nine long months was the unequal contest protracted by the genius ofone man, aided by the valor of his little force," stated Early. Lee finally surrendered "the mere ghost of the Army of Northern Virginia, which had been gradually worn down... 041b061a72