[Blog] Draft texts held back

Maybe you wonder why I don't write more blog texts. Well the problem is not in the writing, but in the publishing. Here's a list of draft texts held back (working titles):

"Barbarossa What ifs"
Old draft. This stuff has been debated endlessly in books and a blog is unlikely to add anything valuable, so I gave up on it. Research was also a concern. My central thesis was about capacity limits of rail road connections limiting the choices.

"On recruitment for software-based conflicts"
Cyberwarfare stuff; lost interest.

"Future threats"
All future major war scenarios for Germany I came up with looked too outlandish.

"The historical problem of carrier-borne reconnaissance"
Held back as analogy used in the book draft.

Basically a smackdown of the German greens who turned from minority politicians who criticised a militarised foreign policy into a pro-war ruling coalition junior party in no time.

"About the Watadas and Pfaffs of this world"
Lost interest during the research.

"A few link recommendations"
Not that good ones.

"Public debt after war with conscription"
Econo-wonkish, and I have no confidence in my own thesis.

"Warfare best practices"
This went nowhere either.

"Some old aircraft"
Just some aviation porn.

"Some martial arts references"
This went out of steam, and I actually made use of one reference in an old blog post anyway.

"On the nature of non-battlefield electronic warfare"
Cyberwarfare stuff; lost interest.

"Light infantry platoons"
Decided to not publish this. It could do harm if it is correct.

"What does this tell about the west?"
About hypocrisy concerning China.

"Operational Planning Processes and Tactical Decisionmaking"
I held this back for a book draft chapter.

"Definition of "shock""
Turned out to sound most trivial, albeit it isn't.

"On army field formation structures"
I scrapped many drafts like this. In the end, there's too much to say about the topic for a mere blog. A comprehensive approach exceeds my motivation for research.

"Income distribution and freedom"
Wonkish, and I have no confidence in my own thesis.

"A Nimrod anecdote"
Held back because I wasn't able to find critical sources again.

"Future of Warfare in low GDP countries"
Working on it.

So basically there is more than one month worth of blog texts in draft status, and more were already deleted without ever being published. The occasional periods of four to six days without a blog texts are typically not periods without writing, but periods without satisfactory writing. Many more texts were never even drafted for this blog because they were included in the book draft instead. (By the way; the book won't be published in 2013 as I will be terribly busy till January at the very least.)



  1. I'm most interested in:
    "On army field formation structures" and
    "What does this tell about the west?"

    with light infantry being a 3rd.

    How about putting up just whatever your best shot is as of now? It should still be interesting.

    1. Those were the ones that stood out to me too. At least a presentation of the problem and things to consider would be worth it for the first, and as for the second, I always enjoy it when you reveal the hypocrisy in the mainstream narrative.

  2. I think you should take a look at Sweden the past few weeks and give an outsiders perspective. If you somehow can manage timewise and think it's interesting.

    If you are not familiar with the recent events, is that russian air force sent bombers and EW planes to practice bombing missions to sweden and sweden couldn't cope, didn't have awareness to send up fighters etc.

    It's imo something that you write about in general. This is not about some foreign semi colonial war, this is strictly the defensive potential of a nation which is debated. How much is needed and of what.

    Please think about it. The 2 camps in sweden are just sad to read, either it's that no country needs an army or their counterparts where the russians are launching their deadly plans any day now.

    On topic; lots of it seems interesting. Keep it up! :)

  3. "Light infantry platoons"
    Decided to not publish this. It could do harm if it is correct"

    As a former light infantryman of sorts (aidman to various airborne infantry outfits) I'm purely curious; what harm, and why?

    I'll be the first to say that having seen "light infantry" up close I had my doubts about some of the supposed capabilities of the MTO&E; it always seemed to me that (at least for the U.S. Army) that the concept was never proven in battle - all the opponents were less capable and even "lighter" than the leanest Light unit. We DID go to NTC and got handed our ass, but that IMO was to be expected...

    It just seemed to me that the entire concept depended on restricting Light units to difficult terrain, and that in a general war you just couldn't do that enough to justify converting more than a tiny fraction of your infantry forces to a "light" configuration; against a conventional peer foe you'd end up having to round them up to a regular leg unit to use them or do nothing but fight in mountains, swamps, or forests...

    1. The LI text was actually a how-to for a guerilla force with just the very essentials needed to be the terror of an African-style army.
      I don't want to indulge in such how-to texts. Most of the text was already deleted anyway.

  4. I wonder if your rigorous culling of ideas and essays has something to do with the overall stellar quality of your posts?

    1. I'm never sure whether such comments are serious or sarcastic...

      In case of serious: Please note I don't respond much to news, but pick my topics from many places, many topics and different eras.
      Many other milblogs respond to recent events and news a lot. You don't have much information and not much time to develop your opinion or thoughts if you respond to breaking news.
      A report about a historical event from 20 years ago will usually be more accurate than the breaking news about it have been.

  5. I forgot to mention a draft that exists only on paper so far; it's about a long-time concern of mine: A comparison between the 1900-1911 period and our time. The analogies are striking to me, and most disconcerting.
    The problem is the amount of research required to add some meat to the bones.