Відео

By the way, isn't it a bit contradictory to claim that there are too many people in small-scale agriculture on the one hand, while not enough rural labor for workforce on the other hand?

Although I am well aware of the Dengist historical revisionism against the Cultural Revolution, it is nevertheless shocking for me to know that such an economic miracle took place in the 1970s. 😳

01:51:20 It is difficult to believe that China doesn't understand class warfare, as China is still officially Marxist…

What is not put into table is whether china block will unite to pursue the islands within EEZ of the Philippines.

Great work!

I cant believe im getting these valuable lectures for free

they never talk about meggido war in turkish history classes xd

The a video owner might have gone brain freeze , that he put indian attacks were unsuccessful... Kargil and dras were taken back within 3 months of detection and before US Played the ceasefire game. We lost 500-550 of our brother while pakistani bodies were in 1000 . If you are allowed to visit the battle areas you will still find their graves because their country refused to take back their bodies.. In siachen , we pre mpted the pakistan move to capture the glacier aand beat them their by capturing one of their post. We operate at a much higher level than them they go little further up from skardu and claim they reached siachen...😂

Great work with this, my man. With a complex system like this, mistakes are inevitable when teaching off the cuff. I see you started to list of them in your description, but a critical one not mentioned is in regards to combat calculations. When halving a units combat factor (rounding up), it is important when you do this, as defined by series rule 9.4. "When modifying unit strengths, modify each unit individually..." The correct way is to half it immediately at the beginning of the calculation. So for example a 3 factor unit attacking across a river is halved, resulting in 1.5 rounded up to 2 factors. If you incorrectly first add up all the factors attacking across the river, and THEN halve it, you get a bad result. For example let's say two 3 factor units are attacking across a river. The correct way is both contribute 2 factors for a total of 4. The incorrect way is to add everything up first, for a total of 6, and then halve it, getting 3. It doesn't sound like much, but that mistake meant your 1:1 attack should have been a 2:1. A lot of people won't do videos like this because they hate making mistakes. Mistakes are a part of wargaming, and you clearly get it (to all of our benefit). Would love to see another one like this on NW:Iran.

Doubling the radius of a sphere 8x the volume as well πr³ -> π(2r)³ = 8πr³

These videos are the best thing since bread, let alone sliced bread!

Thanks

Thank you for all of your online lectures. Currently, I'm studying postgraduate strategic studies in the UK and you cannot imagine how it is helpful and interesting. Nowadays is quite difficult to find valuable stuff about strategic studies. And yes, strategic studies is still woke - free!

Now in year 50 of wargaming. So much fun.

I'm in. Thanks much

Great video, very informative. The Polish attack plan graphic is a stark reminder of just how close we came!

One word: in-sane.

Thermal effects not included in US damage estimates

The MLRS is not nuclear capable.

Could you upload lectures on Drone Warfare theories??

👍👍 Philippines

Im from Kashmir shit is bad here

The German military that faced the Americans in the Ardennes Offensive was most certainly not the same military force that had attacked France in 1940. That force would most likely have defeated the Americans. Most of the remaining forces were poorly trained, either too old or to young to be soldiers, and the Germans did not have enough fuel to make effective use of their tanks and planes.

I feel like i should be paying for this content

This is S tier PowerPoint

🙌

amazing explanation!

Thanks for sharing this ❤

1:15:29 what's the course 2 and course 3?

I haven’t even finished high school, but these videos are very interesting, thanks for letting them be available to the public

Olko?

Lecture 3 is missing

Ya' need to double check some of your 'facts'. I.e., the m107 was 175mm and not nuclear capable. The M110 was 203mm but with its short barrel was not nuclear capable. The M110A1 was long barreled 203mm without a muzzle brake and it was not fielded. The M110A2 was long barreled (32') with a muzzle brake and was nuclear capable. With either the M422 or M753 rocket assisted (RAP) rounds. Range and yields: classified.

01:04:37 “陆无第一，海无第二”, which roughly means “no first on land, no second on sea”.

1:27:11 That would be disastrous XD

38:25 perhaps that is on display with the new Chinese coast guard laws

2:31:35 China demanding tribute from its tributaries is more similar to the United States demanding payment for its military bases from their host countries. Essentially it was a security guarantee primarily financed by the guarantor, and the purpose of extracting payment from the recipient of the guarantee is mostly a display of authority, to show who the senior partner is.

1:52:49 I feel obliged to differ: China was able to vanquish the resistance of MANY peoples it conquered, and those vanquished people all went extinct. So your claim is kind of a survivorship bias.

_"Neutrons flying out can be lethal... to.. uh.. Life!"_ Hahaha 😂

I suggest hypersonic change the sense of strategy. And fundamentally change tactics, namely aircraft carriers deployment. Sea air carriers obsolescence is absolutely evident.

How many nuclear HAND GRENADES did the U.S. military produce.....???????

Hello from Serbia! I really like your Nuclear Strategy Lecture series and can see you are very knowledgeable in many many field. Your historical analysis is quite on point, but the conclusions are quite wrong. This may seem counterintuitive so Ill try and elaborate a bit. Russian invasion of Ukraine is not comparable to Russian invasions of Finland, or Estonia or their many wars with Turkey (11 in total historically) or WWI or WWII or the campaigns in Asia, Afghanistan etc. Reason for this is that Russia simply doesnt see Ukraine as anything else then Russia it self. It sees it as infected tissue that has to be healed and brough back into the organism. They will not give up like they did in Afghanistan for example and hardly anyone can force them without going into Ukraine and fighting directly against Russians. Now many think this is the answer and that Russia would be stopped and kicked out if USA and NATO intervened directly. While yes with a build up of 6-9 months NATO could achieve such a thing Russians would go nuclear most definitely. For Russians as a whole this war is EXISTENTIAL. They will not give up or give in. There maybe some ceasefire along some new demarcation line but kicking out Russians from Ukraine without them going nuclear is simply not going to happen. This is not the issue of Putin or the current administration. This is the issue of the entire Russian nation. Some voices from the youth you speak of have a much higher number of voices from the same youth that woudlve burned down Kiev and Lviv in the first 3 months with if not nuclear then some bio or chemical weapons if it were up to them. I understand the inability of a Canadian mind to comprehend this and I understand that many will dismiss what Im telling you know, but trust me this doesnt end well for Ukraine in any outcome. They dont win in any scenario. Best they can hope for is a line so stabilized that the Russians cant move an inch and then a ceasefire settlement. After that maybe the development of their own nuclear weapon so that they deter future Russian aggression. Other then this there is no better outcome for Ukraine, it doesnt matter how long it lasts, even a ceasefire without a nuclear armed Ukraine will just mean renewed Russian aggression down the line in 5-10-20-whatever years. The ONLY reason Russians lost the Crimean War is they had no alternative, if they had an option equivalent to modern day nuclear weapons they woudlve used it. And even with them losing the Crimean War against Ottomans, France and UK we see that in the end the Russians still took Crimea down the line. So there. You must understand, there is no changing of Russia other then it collapsing and disintegrating down the line cause it cant take whole of Ukraine or at least Odessa and the entire Black Sea shoreline of modern day Ukraine. They simply have to control it either directly or by proxy or the whole idea of Russian nation falls short. It is a zero sum game. Simple as that.

Very useful! Thanks!

This channel is such a treasure trove of knowledge and insight. There is no other publicly available in-depth course about military strategy (if anyone finds any other please let me know), so you sharing this on UA-cam is a blessing to the world! As a curious layman, I'm so glad to have found your courses, and they are so competent, too! The cherry on top is the philosophy of the scientific method. Thank you so much!

Lol I mean if you're going to include Nelson, shouldn't use Trafalgar as an example. His strategy at Trafalgar was underdeveloped and careless. Had he been up against a competent enemy Admiral, his pell-mell tactic wouldn't have won the day.

Thnx dude. I just this moment was wondering if i missed any good stuff.

All electromagnetic radiation, including gamma and X-rays, consists of photons.

The geni is a rocket. Not a missile. Ty!

Its hard to find this kind of in-depth info! Thanks!!!!

1:03:56 China, unlike the USSR or the DPRK, is heavily dependent on maritime trade, so the strategic purpose of its naval buildup, besides a lightning assault on Taiwan, is more on keeping its Indo-Pacific lifeline flowing. For the first purpose, wielding its rocket force as sea denial against USN & co. is more than sufficient, whereas commerce denial with unrestricted submarine warfare is pointless.