Is war simply a matter of numbers???

[Feros Ferio]

I think as I stated before it’s the ability to choose the battle space that makes the difference but another question that must be asked can the smaller but technology superior side always anticipate every trick the other side might come up with? Maybe or maybe not.

I've heard it said that surprise is invevitable. Vulnerability is not. With this in mind, I would never suggest that the numerically superior side cannot outwit the inferior side. We are all human after all, and we all come with the same potential capacities. My assumption in this debate has always been equality in everything but numbers and/or tech. I think the first lesson anyone can learn when it comes to strategy and tactics is that your opponents are not inanimate objects. Not only will they react to you, but they will cause you to react to them.

With that being said, superior technology when it comes to intelligence gathering certainly has the potential to give one side the advantage in its attempts to anticipate the tricks of the other side

 

[rip]

I've heard it said that surprise is invevitable. Vulnerability is not. With this in mind, I would never suggest that the numerically superior side cannot outwit the inferior side. We are all human after all, and we all come with the same potential capacities. My assumption in this debate has always been equality in everything but numbers and/or tech. I think the first lesson anyone can learn when it comes to strategy and tactics is that your opponents are not inanimate objects. Not only will they react to you, but they will cause you to react to them.

With that being said, superior technology when it comes to intelligence gathering certainly has the potential to give one side the advantage in its attempts to anticipate the tricks of the other side

Intelligence as to about military capacities, especially about overall conventional military capacities is a goal that can reasonably be aspired too. But intelligence as to the use of tactics and most of all, real intentions not so much.

 

[SQDLDR]

Hello All,

I recently read an article produced by the Lexington Institute, which was authored by Daniel Goure, Ph.D. In it, he calls for the ressurection of the F-22 program, as he feels without increased numbers of this aircraft, the US would be overwhelmed in an air combat scenario against China. Now, it is not my intention to start an A versus B thread here. Far from it. What I found most interesting about his article is his statement right near the end:

"Ultimately, war has always been a numbers game. At some point, technologically inferior but numerically superior opponents will simply overwhelm the side with the better weapons. In conflicts between technologically equal adversaries numbers will determine the winner".

I strongly disagree with this statement. If war were simply a matter of numbers, how is it that brilliant commanders can have such an effect on the battlefield and/or operational theatre? I'm currently at work and unable to do the research, but I can almost guarantee that I would be able to find evidence of numerically inferior groups beating superior ones, superior tech or otherwise. The same goes for equal tech opponents.





What are your thoughts?

Many examples exist of this idea in history.
In reference to the F-22 Raptor, the idea is more modern. The Doctrine (as I understand it) is/was to use the F-22 (weapon system) to effectively negate the overwhelming numbers disadvantage it may face. The combination of Stealth, Avionics, Weaponry, Pilot skill, Computational Power, C and C, etc, are SUPPOSED to give that system a HUGE advantage over similar weapon systems that employ a greater number of technologically inferior weapon systems.
The Soviets used the "greater numbers" theory to some advantage over the Wehrmacht in WWII, yet no mater how many early model T-34's and KV's were destroyed there just always seemed to be more that they fielded. They applied the same Doctrine to their Air Force. And their Army.
It seems that this theory is always wanting to be tested.
Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority.Have you ever seen the movie
"Starship Troopers"? I think that movie sums up the perplexing idea of Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority. There was/were just to many bugs to be destroyed, and they reproduced at an astounding rate.
If you can constantly, and consistently build a weapon system in overwhelming numbers than perhaps all your Technology is just being wasted. Short of employing Nukes, the idea is a relic of History.

 

[rip]

Many examples exist of this idea in history.
In reference to the F-22 Raptor, the idea is more modern. The Doctrine (as I understand it) is/was to use the F-22 (weapon system) to effectively negate the overwhelming numbers disadvantage it may face. The combination of Stealth, Avionics, Weaponry, Pilot skill, Computational Power, C and C, etc, are SUPPOSED to give that system a HUGE advantage over similar weapon systems that employ a greater number of technologically inferior weapon systems.
The Soviets used the "greater numbers" theory to some advantage over the Wehrmacht in WWII, yet no mater how many early model T-34's and KV's were destroyed there just always seemed to be more that they fielded. They applied the same Doctrine to their Air Force. And their Army.
It seems that this theory is always wanting to be tested.
Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority.Have you ever seen the movie
"Starship Troopers"? I think that movie sums up the perplexing idea of Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority. There was/were just to many bugs to be destroyed, and they reproduced at an astounding rate.
If you can constantly, and consistently build a weapon system in overwhelming numbers than perhaps all your Technology is just being wasted. Short of employing Nukes, the idea is a relic of History.

I think we are straying off into the subset of human conflict called attrition wars. Sometimes these events are misidentified within the history books as migrations and mass population movements. Some attrition wars have in the past lasted for many generations, sometimes to be interrupted by short periods of peace until one side eventually denied the other, the means necessary to continue to replenish itself. Usually by driving the loser off the good lands and forcing them to live in the less productive marginal areas if not adsorbed or exterminated completely.

I thought we were talking about a war that would have a specific beginning and end and was to be determined by the forces and resource at hand.

Getting back to the original precept of where our discussion began. Technology is a force multiplier in most cases. If your technology gives you ten times more the effective fighting capacity than your rival, on a man for man basses in a standard stand up fight, and he has twelve times more people than you do, who are willing to fight to a conclusion regardless of their losses, it might not be enough. There has to be a logical end somewhere, where increasing the force multiplier effect results in diminishing to zero returns. If you stretch it our far enough it can get quite absurd.

What parts of a technological advantage have the most important effects? If the technology only gives you the ability to fight a win a battle, this alone might not be enough as I am sure you find many examples. But if the technology gives you the ability to choose the place, time, and even the form of battle on your own terms and if you have the strategic and tactical wisdom to use that ability correctly that is far better.

 

[Feanor]

Many examples exist of this idea in history.
In reference to the F-22 Raptor, the idea is more modern. The Doctrine (as I understand it) is/was to use the F-22 (weapon system) to effectively negate the overwhelming numbers disadvantage it may face. The combination of Stealth, Avionics, Weaponry, Pilot skill, Computational Power, C and C, etc, are SUPPOSED to give that system a HUGE advantage over similar weapon systems that employ a greater number of technologically inferior weapon systems.
The Soviets used the "greater numbers" theory to some advantage over the Wehrmacht in WWII, yet no mater how many early model T-34's and KV's were destroyed there just always seemed to be more that they fielded. They applied the same Doctrine to their Air Force. And their Army.
It seems that this theory is always wanting to be tested.
Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority.Have you ever seen the movie
"Starship Troopers"? I think that movie sums up the perplexing idea of Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority. There was/were just to many bugs to be destroyed, and they reproduced at an astounding rate.
If you can constantly, and consistently build a weapon system in overwhelming numbers than perhaps all your Technology is just being wasted. Short of employing Nukes, the idea is a relic of History.

Industrial war has been replaced in the recent RMA. Look at GW1, 2, etc. Look at the War in Georgia recently, even the Russian military that was enamored with the concept of industrial war during the Cold War, is now making changes. You can't consistently build a weapon in overwhelming numbers because those overwhelming numbers need to be controlled and coordinated. Also supplied and, fed, etc. If you can effectively strike at the C4I nodes, destroy their ability to gather intel, destroy the log train, then you've won regardless of how many tanks they have.

 

[surpreme]

Industrial war has been replaced in the recent RMA. Look at GW1, 2, etc. Look at the War in Georgia recently, even the Russian military that was enamored with the concept of industrial war during the Cold War, is now making changes. You can't consistently build a weapon in overwhelming numbers because those overwhelming numbers need to be controlled and coordinated. Also supplied and, fed, etc. If you can effectively strike at the C4I nodes, destroy their ability to gather intel, destroy the log train, then you've won regardless of how many tanks they have.

Things have change since WWII and the cold war. Basically world military has to change with the time Just like Feanor said if you destroyed all three ways he just mention. Communication is also important you cut this out what do you have units not knowing what do. So it don't matter how many you have without proper communication and intell you doom.

 

[rip]

Industrial war has been replaced in the recent RMA. Look at GW1, 2, etc. Look at the War in Georgia recently, even the Russian military that was enamored with the concept of industrial war during the Cold War, is now making changes. You can't consistently build a weapon in overwhelming numbers because those overwhelming numbers need to be controlled and coordinated. Also supplied and, fed, etc. If you can effectively strike at the C4I nodes, destroy their ability to gather intel, destroy the log train, then you've won regardless of how many tanks they have.

It might not be obvious from the experiences in recent times when wars have been low intensity conflicts, usually conducted with limited means , by mirror parities, or through proxies but a lot has changed from World war Two in the respect of industrial war. In a high intensity conflict where the very existence of the primary combatants is at stake (the prime suppliers of modern weapons), the idea of Industrial war is I am afraid, one that is almost completely obsolete for the following reasons.

One. In the case of the most powerful and sophisticated weapons, which in fact define what we mean by modern warfare, two things must be recognized. First the reach and destructive power of modern weapons of today are so great that they can destroy the productive heartland of their adversary’s war making industrial potential which effectively means that there are no longer completely safe rear areas behind the battle lines to reliably produce war making materials as in the past. In effect battle lines as we once knew them, no longer exist. Thus there already exists today the ability to destroy with conventional weapons an adversary’s ability to manufacture arms of a similar nature to the ones that are being used. I know that this tactic was only marginally successful in WW II but today with long rang precision strike weapons and the stealth platforms to deliver them it is now a viable fact. And that the manufacture of such modern weapons is a long, complicated, and costly process that requires a large, complicated and mostly intact functioning infrastructure to support their manufacture of such sophisticated weapons they are very venerable to supply chain disruption. As an American General once said during the Cold War, “If this ever gets hot? What you start with is all that you will have. That’s it.”

I know that this is somewhat simplistic but if in the opening rounds of such a conflict if one side has the ability to severely damage or disable the most critical parts of others industrial capacity which are necessary to make the most effective weapons the loser of this initial phase will only be able from that point on to play defense to an ever decreasing effect.

Counting on technology as a force multiplier is great thing but only as long as you can maintain the ability to replenish your weapons. The idea that you can absorbed an attack and use time delaying tactics to build up your war making power is no longer true, at least as to offensive capacity.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Many examples exist of this idea in history.
In reference to the F-22 Raptor, the idea is more modern. The Doctrine (as I understand it) is/was to use the F-22 (weapon system) to effectively negate the overwhelming numbers disadvantage it may face. The combination of Stealth, Avionics, Weaponry, Pilot skill, Computational Power, C and C, etc, are SUPPOSED to give that system a HUGE advantage over similar weapon systems that employ a greater number of technologically inferior weapon systems.
The Soviets used the "greater numbers" theory to some advantage over the Wehrmacht in WWII, yet no mater how many early model T-34's and KV's were destroyed there just always seemed to be more that they fielded. They applied the same Doctrine to their Air Force. And their Army.
It seems that this theory is always wanting to be tested.
Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority.Have you ever seen the movie
"Starship Troopers"? I think that movie sums up the perplexing idea of Technological Advantage vs. Numerical Superiority. There was/were just to many bugs to be destroyed, and they reproduced at an astounding rate.
If you can constantly, and consistently build a weapon system in overwhelming numbers than perhaps all your Technology is just being wasted. Short of employing Nukes, the idea is a relic of History.

I agree.....quality certainly has it's own merits in quantity vs quality scenerio however there is a point of diminshing return in regards to technological superiority. Say the example about the F-22 and it's support structure.... regardless of how advance the total system is ultimately it is still limited by ammo. An F-22 against 50 1960's era F-4s will still ultimately lose.
no different than a soldier with a modern rifle against hordes of rushing barbarians armed with clubs and sticks.

 

[Feanor]

"Quality" is a simplified averaging of so many complex qualities and aspects that I'm not sure we can even use it as an effective generalization in this conversation. Not to mention it's extremely contextual, to say the least.