I hear echoes of "every power is a prisoner of its last victory". You can see the same thing in Soviet and American Cold War doctrine, but also in the way that just about everybody started WWI (and why the casualties were so horrific).
By the time WWI rolled around, German veterans still in service were almost exclusively veterans of colonial wars. However, just about everybody from the Kaiser and central command down to the rank and file believed that a war against other Europeans would (and should) be fought differently from those colonial wars. Thus, the military philosophy that they thought won the Franco-Prussian war was brought to the present with very little modification, but enacted by people who had never actually seen its use.
This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage.
> This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage.
"Fighting the last war" has been another way I've heard it referred to. It is why, for instance, I didn't agree with the US DoD curtailing the F-22 purchase plans in favor of more counter-insurgency focused efforts.
As to tanks in Iraq/Afghanistan, lets not get tricked into thinking they were useless because there were no tanks for them to fight. They proved supremely useful as mobile pillboxes or observation posts, that could sit somewhere and use their sensor suites that were far and away better than the binoculars or nvg's a solider could put to their face.
First the war in Ukraine showed us that tanks are obsolete, not. Noe it shows us manned aircraft are obsolete, and I go out on a limb and say those are neither. A javelin doesn't replace a tank, and a dronw doesn't replace attack aircraft and helicopters. What we in the West have tonaccept so, and that is difficult for public that grew up post-Vietnam, is that even our top notch, ultra hightech military hardware can and will be destroyed in a war. And that includes everything from submarines over cruiser to aircraft carriers, from tank over helicopters to fighters and bombers. The only reason we didn't see losses there since Korea / Vietnam is kind of wars the West fought since.
By the time WWI rolled around, German veterans still in service were almost exclusively veterans of colonial wars. However, just about everybody from the Kaiser and central command down to the rank and file believed that a war against other Europeans would (and should) be fought differently from those colonial wars. Thus, the military philosophy that they thought won the Franco-Prussian war was brought to the present with very little modification, but enacted by people who had never actually seen its use.
This still happens today, too. Look at the volume of tanks that NATO countries shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. What tank losses occurred were predominantly from infantry, because there were simply no enemy tanks available to engage.