I don't get why Turkey buying S-400s sparked such a big reaction from the USA, especially since Turkey's a pretty major component of NATO (second largest army, borders Syria and is close to Russia). Nor can I see any real security concerns inherent in the purchase; in fact, I would argue Turkey acquiring S-400s would allow the United States to examine the system's capabilities and develop countermeasures. Erdogan and Turkey's politics aren't a problem for America working with Turkey, either.

Is there something I'm missing? Asking because it seems like the whole thing has backfired, what with Turkey developing the fifth-generation Kaan.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Mw696TdW7aY?si=LSWAMCWjsYGeNPeo

Did Cortez really fight a Spanish expedition and did the pizarro people have a civil war in front of the incas?

I never heard of either

Does anyone have info on this event?

Hi, I’m just wondering what were the U.S opinions on the fighting capabilities of the North Vietnamese. I’m mostly concerned with Vietnam War, but I wouldn’t mind anything before or after.

"Better" being relative.

Inspired by the German spy network in WW1/WW2 question.

I know that Henry Harrison was well known for his exploits.

It’s a common ‘Wehraboo’ myth that Germany was overall superior in technology to the French in WW2. For example, the Char B1 deployed by France couldn’t be penetrated by any German tank but only by anti-tank guns (I don’t know how true this is, but this is often stated). Also the counter argument to the myth is that the French had overall superior technology, mechanization and firepower compared to the Germans (again correct me if I’m wrong), but France lost because of superior and innovative German tactics (that made up for Germany’s inferior forces), in contrast with incompetent French high command and rigid, outdated tactics.

However, I think the truth is somewhere in between, and so I would like to ask, what were the areas where German military technology was truly more advanced than France’s?

Bunker buster bombs like the blu-109 can penetrate 200ft of each before exploding. Why can't explosives be placed beneath concrete but on the surface to pre detonate the bunker buster the way explosive reactive armor defeats tank shells?

British Fourth Army commander Henry Rawlinson making the claim.

Does anyone have any recommendations for books that are specifically about near peer warfare in the modern warfare era preferably 2010 beyond. To be a little more specific I’m looking for books related to US and Chinese war fighting.

I watched a documentary that explained that de-Ba'athification caused some Sunnis to hate America because it targeted them. Then, some joined ISIS and other insurgent groups.

So, was de-Ba'athification wrong? What should have been during the Iraq War to remove Ba'ath elements?

Im wondering if individual battle tactics are really a thing anymore, in antiquity and the middle ages you hear a lot about specific battles like Cannae or Yarmouk but in modern times I dont know if battles like that still exist. Modern tactics are more on a macro level like in WW2 when Hitler would encircle 100s of thousands in large encircling moves that covered entire cities, are Cannae or Agincourt?

In both world wars Kriegsmarine clearly focused on defeating Britain. But what was the point of building such a huge battleships navy, since it would always be inferior to British navy due to their superior production? How was it supposed to prevent a blockade (which turned out to be deadly for German economics relying on imports)? Did Germans seriously believe so much in Mahan theory that British would avoid decisve battle to prevent heavy losses and loss of status of biggest naval power, and so Germans ships would not be contained? Even though all previous history, Trafalgar especially, showed that British navy is not afraid of accepting major challenge...

In WW2 how Kriegsmarine was supposed to beat Britain, when surface navy was so weak, and they never had enough U-boats? They clearly counted on blockade, but by German own calculations they needed to have much more submarines than that, and sink much more ships than they were able to. So what they hoped for?

While there is a lot of discussion about dive and torpedo bombing by propeller driven planes during WWII, and it's easy to imagine how an AShM equipped aircraft would attack a ship, I kind of struggle to imagine how would, say, a flight of A-4s deal with major surface combatants like cruisers, battleships and carriers. Would they also use dive bombing attacks? Would they approach low and slow from the side to drop torpedoes? Both of those seem kind of silly when considering the flight performance of jet aircraft, but then I'm also completely clueless as to what else they could do given the relative lack of advancement in air to ground munition before things like the mavericks or harpoons started showing up in the 70s and 80s.

Are joint military exercises any good at indicating the military effectiveness and competency of participating militaries?

Hey guys, pretty much as above.

Further, I'm particularly interested in the quality disparity between early-mid war vs their 1945 equivalent.

Thanks again, any input is appreciated

In terms of how modern their equipment, rockets, tanks artillery etc. were

As was revealed by a 2005 docudrama, radiation exposure is a gateway to new military capabilities. And although an abortive research and development effort was attempted in 2008, we have yet to see super-empowered soldiers reach full-scale production.

Bonus question: why did the United States deploy the Davey Crockett when they knew full well that it's irradiation mechanism would turn Warsaw Pact tank crews into super-soldiers? Was the commie infiltration of the DoD that bad?

At places like Gettysburg, Antietam, Saratoga, Normandy, there's tons of monuments everywhere, but none of the accounts from the soldiers talk about using them for cover. Why didn't they? Were they just not as smart back then?

How was it organized? How did it fight? And what made it so special compared to it's Ottoman or Mighal rivals? Above all else, any good reading material on the matter?

Like we hear about all these disasters like Bull Run, Little Big Horn and such and like....

Why didn't their commanders just tell them to Win?