There's also the fundamental problem that the more you break, the less your opponent has left to lose.

There were furthermore periods in European warfare where breaking things was pretty much irrelevant (not the least because the people of the time were not fixated on their tools of war since the enemy had the very same anyway). There were even wars in which actual fighting was of negligible relevance, while threats (such as to the enemy's supply depot line), diseases and the lack of supplies (such as the lack of food in besieged fortresses or in a siege camp) were of great importance.

The focus on 'breaking things' was uncommon even in naval warfare well into the late 19th century when explosive shells had finally pushed firepower into dominance over boarding for good (there were still some battleships captured instead of sunk at Tsushima!).


The whole focus on the tools and weapons of war and their destructive power is afaik a product of WW2.

Just an example; there's a civil war in Cote d'Ivoire right now but breaking things is of marginal relevance there.