It is the strategic and tactical needs that determine the development of weapons, and it is the national strategy that determines the strategic and tactical needs, and the national strategy is drawn up according to the changes in the battlefield pattern and its own conditions. To put it to the extreme, there is no distinction between superior and inferior weapons, only the question of whether or not they are suitable for the actual battlefield and whether the strategic direction of the country is correct and realistic. After all, wars never end, and murderous things never go out of style in any era.

Here's an example. The famous M1 "Abrams" tank and T-72 tank, both of which were developed at a similar time and were originally designed for use in the hypothetical Third World War, can be called one of the most important "decisive weapons" on the land battlefield in addition to NBC weapons. However, the performance of these two vehicles in the Gulf War and later in the Iraq War was a big surprise. The US armored forces equipped with the "Abrams" and even the older M60 tanks almost unilaterally slaughtered the Iraqi armored forces equipped with Soviet-made tanks, including the T-72, almost like chopping melons and vegetables. The pictures of various types of combat vehicles used by the Russian army in the Chechen war were blown up by the Chechen armed forces confirmed people's impression that the Soviet/Russian combat vehicles were "shoddy" and "vulnerable". However, this is not the case.

In terms of national strategy, the goals of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War were different. The US-led NATO is thinking about how to block the torrent of steel rushing under the cover of nuclear bombs, and the Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Union is preparing for the beginning of the war, which will break through the Iron Curtain with momentum at all costs, occupy the entire Western Europe, and drink the Atlantic Ocean (this is not to say that the Soviet Union's national strategy is necessarily inclined to attack, in fact, the core strategic goal of the Soviet Union has always been to focus on defense, but Maozi, who experienced the Great Patriotic War, understands defense as "offense is the best defense", "preemptively", " Once the war starts, it will be a decisive battle for the liberation of all mankind").

Under the guidance of two completely different strategies, the combat vehicles on both sides have to undertake different tasks from the beginning, the main task of the M1 is defense, wearing thick armor, equipped with high-precision main guns and frenzied depleted uranium armor-piercing shells, equipped with advanced observation and sighting systems, just like a heavy destroyer tank with a turret, even the work content is similar to the expulsion tank, that is, relying on the advantages of high-power artillery and observation and sighting system to contain the torrent of red steel, and the solid front face gives strong survivability and long-lasting combat ability, so as to hold on until the reserve catches up to strengthen the defensive line, while the T-72 is given the mission of attackingIn the tactical concept of the Soviet Red Army, once the war starts, the armored assault group in East Germany will charge forward desperately with nuclear bombs and NATO's air-ground integrated strike, and in the process, even if the cluster in East Germany is all wiped out, it will tear apart the NATO defense line, and pave a passage for the follow-up troops with thick corpses (typical Soviet-style large corps large-depth combat thinking). Under this combat mentality, combat vehicles are basically the same as toilet paper, which are disposable consumables that are thrown away when they are used up. So there's no need to waste time and resources trying to design a vehicle that's as perfect as a work of art, as long as it's enough to destroy enemy armor at normal engagement distances.

It is not surprising that the US armored forces, which have the support of a more perfect system and a stronger will and determination, have crushed the Iraqi army on the battlefield with two completely different ideas. On the other hand, the Saudi armored forces, which are also equipped with "Abrams" and have strong air support, have been beaten in the face of the extremely poorly equipped Yemeni forces. As for the war in Chechnya...... In the anti-terrorist security war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "Abrams" who were blown into the sky also performed flying turrets from time to time.

So again, there is no distinction between superior and inferior weapons, only whether they meet the national strategic needs, and whether the national strategic direction is correct and meets the needs of reality.

Unlike business practices, national strategies are not absolute indicators of costs, inputs, and benefits, and even the criteria for victory are vague.

What is a victory? The crushing of the enemy's army, the destruction of the enemy's government, the occupation of the enemy's territory -- these can by no means be regarded as final victories, not even phased victories. If you have to define it, it can only be considered a good start. It is a favorable factor for achieving the ultimate goal, but it is by no means a reliable guarantee. There are too many cases in history where the situation was good at the beginning, and the middle game was beaten to the point of doubting life, and finally being pressed to the ground and rubbed.

The ultimate goal of any national strategy is to ensure living space, and the so-called core interests, important interests, and secondary interests are all graded around the highest proposition of living space. The vast majority of wars also revolve around the issue of living space, and the market, resources, population, territory, and geopolitical security are all part of the living space, and the problem of living space will not be over until an external environment suitable for its development is created and this external environment can be maintained for a long period of time, and the war will be temporarily suspended.

The reason is simple, but not many people have the ability to carry this theory through to the end with this in mind. The vast majority of nations provoke wars before they have amassed sufficient resources, and later generations will often criticize such acts as irrational and gambling with the fate of nations and nations. However, few people have noticed that the countries that gamble on their fortunes are themselves resource-poor countries that are likely to self-extinguish due to their own internal economic crises before they accumulate enough resources. The use of war to convey economic crisis may be a cup of highly poisonous wine, but in the face of the crisis of dying of thirst, how many people can refuse this poisonous wine?

Charlemagne was like this, and the country drank the poisoned wine it had brewed and fell to the ground. The Holy Gilmanian Empire, which annexed its territory, was not immune to the mistakes of its rivals.

The elves know very well how powerful the resistance to oppression can be, and they themselves are the best examples.

Once the spark of rebellion spreads and spreads throughout the occupied territory, the fledgling empire is likely to face the danger of being subverted. At that time, unless all Charlemagnes who resisted or were suspected of rebellion were killed, the flames of revolt should never be quelled, and if this was combined with the intervention of foreign powers, when those previously disgruntled but had to swallow their anger came out of the background and launched an attack on the Empire, the real disaster began, and the struggle could probably turn into a bloody quagmire capable of drowning the Empire.

The elves are very aware of their problems, and since the past, they have tried to avoid a protracted war, and the current strength of the Imperial Defense Force cannot guarantee that they can confront the nations while extinguishing the flames of resistance in the rear and protecting the smooth and stable channels of resources. This problem involves a deep strategic structure that cannot be solved by purely military operations and the blind expansion of the armed forces. Thus, in the early stages of the guerrillas, the Defence Forces behaved not so much in restraint as in appeasement. The reason is that they really can't spare their hands to solve these flies, and it is better to wait and see what happens for the time being than to act rashly and lead to the failure of the bandits and intensify the contradictions. As a result, as the situation deteriorated repeatedly, the General Staff of the Defence Forces had to admit that the situation in the Alpine border area had reached the point where "surgery had to be used".

Although the determination has been made and the will to carry out the action is incomparably firm, the question still lies in the question -- where will the troops to suppress the bandits come from? If there are fewer factions, they will not do anything, and if they want to send too much, they will tear down the east wall and make up for the west wall. In order to solve the problem of guerrilla forces on the border, the problem of insufficient troops cannot be bypassed, and it cannot be solved in the short term.

Having said that, it is not unthinkable, at least there is the possibility of using technical means to solve it.

As mentioned earlier, the elves have a very clear understanding of their own problems, and from the moment the defense force was formed, this army has shown two very elven characteristics.

The first is that the weapons design of the defense forces are based on the premise of "fighting more with less";

The second is that compared with foreign counterparts who are keen to emphasize bravery, decisiveness and "long live the charge", the defense force is more keen on "exchanging technology for life";

When these two ideas come together, after a series of chemical reactions, they are now about to bear the most feared fruit yet.

A beautiful poisonous flower that has never been seen before is about to bloom in the Alpine mountains.