Is war simply a matter of numbers???

[My2Cents]

However, I have never been opposed to getting side tracked Therefore, I submit that there IS a point were superior tech renders superior numbers useless. Remember the massive arsenals of nuclear missiles possessed by the US? Not to mention their bombers, fighters, Aircraft Carrier battle groups, etc... If all of Africa decided to attack them, their numbers wouldn't count for much given this sort of tech advantage. Even in a different scenario, we must remember the world has a finite number of people in it and certain tech is capable of destroying the planet if unleashed.

So how did the USA lose the Battle of Mogadishu?

 

[rip]

So how did the USA lose the Battle of Mogadishu?

As a paratrooper once said at the battle of the budge when he was asked about being in their situation of being surrounded, outnumbered, and out gunned by German troops “WE Are Air Born, we are supposed to be surrounded!”

If numbers alone were enough the ants would rule the world. Though that doesn’t mean they won’t win a battle or two.

People who think that just the things that can by their nature be counted, measured, and analyzed will then explain all that is worth knowing about human behavior, are by their lack of imagination and poor social skills, always surprised when people defy their expectations. But they never admit that the failure is their own. This is true in other areas of complex human endeavor not just within the phenomena of war.


In the battal of Mogadishu the US lost 18 men killed and the Somalis’ lost about 250. In most times and places that would not be considered a major defeat.

 

[Feanor]

These variables only matter at a tactical level, but not at a strategic level. Especially the timeframe becomes irrelevant at the strategic level; you just expand the conflict until either the specific objective is obtained or the constant flux of war has made the objective irrelevant to obtaining a desired resolution to the overall conflict.

Not so if the objective is not large enough to justify the expansion of the conflict. War is a means to an end.

 

[NICO]

As a paratrooper once said at the battle of the budge when he was asked about being in their situation of being surrounded, outnumbered, and out gunned by German troops “WE Are Air Born, we are supposed to be surrounded!”.........

If numbers alone were enough the ants would rule the world. Though that doesn’t mean they won’t win a battle or two......

In the batte of Mogadishu the US lost 18 men killed and the Somalis’ lost about 250. In most times and places that would not be considered a major defeat.

I think you raise a good point there, what is victory? It was what: a squad or 2 of USA SFs against couple of hundred of Somalis, if you take your number of 18 to 250 exchange rate, it could seem "we" won. I heard it was more than 250 but does it make it better if it were 500?1000? Would the USA still have stayed in Somalia? What is a human life worth?

USA still ended up leaving so one could argue the Somalis "won" the war even though they "lost" the battle. One could argue the sacrifice of 500 Somalis was worth it to defeat the USA although they lost the battle.


I also think you have to look at the "time" factor. Korea was viewed as a defeat then Vietnam happened. Suddenly Korea didn't look so bad compared to debacle that was Vietnam. More time goes by, now Vietnam is a big US tourist destination and I think INTEL has a computer fab there.

So who won and really was it necessary for so many soldiers and civilians to die?

 

[luccloud]

So how did the USA lose the Battle of Mogadishu?

Lacks of wills...... there's essentially nothing for US to win there other than faces.

US can wipe out Taliban easily if they are willing to inflict the same type of civilian casualty as they did back in WWII

 

[My2Cents]

In the battal of Mogadishu the US lost 18 men killed and the Somalis’ lost about 250. In most times and places that would not be considered a major defeat.

But the Somali forces retained control of the battlefield and the US withdrew without accomplishing their objectives. Most call that a victory for the Somalis.

 

[Feros Ferio]

So how did the USA lose the Battle of Mogadishu?

First of all, if the US wished it, they could have devastated the whole city of Mogadishu without losing a man. They simply chose not to inflict that sort of damage due to the civilian casualty factor.

Second, the US wasn't at war in Somalia. They had taken the lead of a previously UN led mission which was trying to keep the Somali's from killing each other, and to ensure aid reached the civilian population, which had been devastated by prior civil wars. They eventually left because they were not there to make war on the Somalians. They were there to try and enforce a peace which clearly the locals did not truly wish for. Therefore, there was no point in being there.

So this example you provide is a little different because it doesn't represent two peoples at war. While there was a conflict (very localized and brief), one side wasn't there for that and so backed out fairly quickly. Again, had the US actually been there to fight, I guarantee you the outcome would have been quite different, as demonstrated by the casualties a hand-full of their troops, with a very limited set of equipment (compared to what they could use if they chose to), inflicted on the militia while backing away. If they had wanted to destroy the Somalians in an all out war, the city of Mogadishu would be relegated to the history books (which, thank God, they did not).

:sniper

 

[ltdanjuly10]

The US accomplished all of Its objectives for the raid that led to the battle of Mogadishu. The targets for the raid were two clan leaders who were captured along with 21 others and successfully interned in UN custody. The fact that the US suffered the losses it did is due to the denial of Armor support for the initial raid (because tanks and APC's look really bad when you are playing the role of "Peacekeeper) and the denial of Close air support (AC-130s, Fast Jets and Attack Helicopters apart from the lightly armed AH-6's) and the failure to understand the intentions of the populace. True the UNOSOM II mission in Somalia was a failure but the US was clearly the "Victor" in the Battle of the Mog as much as anyone can be in a battle
Seems like a Victory to me
1. Accomplish all the objectives of the raid
2. Very high Kill to Loss Ratio
3. Successfully disengaged with the majority of forces intact (True not a squeaky clean exit but those rarely happen)
Of coarse the raid was not worth it but that is beside the point
As for "Holding the field of battle" that is in no part an objective of a raid and had it had been UN could have done it with "light" casualties.

 

[rip]

I think you raise a good point there, what is victory? It was what: a squad or 2 of USA SFs against couple of hundred of Somalis, if you take your number of 18 to 250 exchange rate, it could seem "we" won. I heard it was more than 250 but does it make it better if it were 500?1000? Would the USA still have stayed in Somalia? What is a human life worth?

USA still ended up leaving so one could argue the Somalis "won" the war even though they "lost" the battle. One could argue the sacrifice of 500 Somalis was worth it to defeat the USA although they lost the battle.


I also think you have to look at the "time" factor. Korea was viewed as a defeat then Vietnam happened. Suddenly Korea didn't look so bad compared to debacle that was Vietnam. More time goes by, now Vietnam is a big US tourist destination and I think INTEL has a computer fab there.

So who won and really was it necessary for so many soldiers and civilians to die?

I think if you remember that it was intended to be primarily a “humanitarian mission” because of all the people who were starving and not a military one. The US didn’t want to get into the position of “We had to destroy the village to save it.” And if you look at has happened to Somalia since that time then I think we can say that the people of Somalia lost "big time". And as far as that goes, all the bad actors in that action, the warlords and such didn’t last very long did they?

The US did lose the Vietnam War because we did not have sufficient will. So far the countries of Vietnam and Laos are the only two countries that went communist, by the method of internal popular revolution, which have not turned around and killed millions of their own people in the pursuit of a perfect communist order; at least they have not done it so far. That has been the pattern in the past (Millions and millions). So I guess they did win both ways.

Intel Company has built a packaging and testing factory in Vietnam like the one in Costa Rica, not a chip FAB.

 

[My2Cents]

The US accomplished all of Its objectives for the raid that led to the battle of Mogadish.

They won the battle and lost the war. The main objective was to gain information leading to the capture/arrest of General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, which failed.

Body counts are irrelevant, the US learned that in Vietnam. What counts is public perceptions. The Somali public saw it as a victory over the US/UN forces. The US public, and in particular the administration in power, saw it as a defeat and retreated/pulled out without meeting their stated objectives. That makes it a defeat.

 

[rip]

They won the battle and lost the war. The main objective was to gain information leading to the capture/arrest of General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, which failed.

Body counts are irrelevant, the US learned that in Vietnam. What counts is public perceptions. The Somali public saw it as a victory over the US/UN forces. The US public, and in particular the administration in power, saw it as a defeat and retreated/pulled out without meeting their stated objectives. That makes it a defeat.

the goal was to promote peace and the respect for life, it was not nocking off another stupid warloard but if peace is not wanted and if life not respected the only recourse is the peace of the dead. A solution the US was not willing to enforce.

If that incident and all of the things that has followed from it was a victory for the Somali people then after a few more such victories, similar to that one, we can assume that they will soon become extinct. We can readily enough see that they live non ending lives of fear and misery at the very least.

The popular read on the Mogadishu affair, the one you are eluding to if note stated directly is that the Islamic fascist’s, sucessfully used the so called US withdraw from Somali, as a selling point for ever more of their atrocities and that it showed that the US would easily fold and go away if faced with causalities. And from such results the world would somehow come to the ascendency of the true faith and the eventual worldwide caliphate as was prophesied. As the story goes this is why the various Islamic fascist’s terror groups were emboldened to carry out their later attacks. That is pure bull shit.

 

[John Sansom]

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.

Here is a full link to his article for your review:

defence.professionals | defpro.com

What are your thoughts?

This numbers thing puts me in mind of one of the revolutionary leaders in the US. This was Marion, also known as the Swamp Fox. This guy was truly an extraordinary bigot and a racist, but had some successes against the British.

When asked to what he could attribute these successes, he replied that he "got there fustest with the mostest". One wonders if his ghost isn't speaking through the estimable Daniel Goure.

Of course, there are some examples of the mass overwhelming the technologically superior minority. Some WWII Russian infantry attacks come to mind. Notably those where unarmed troops followed their attacking brothers, and salvaged the arms of the fallen in order to continue carrying the battle to the enemy.

And one cannot help but think of the Vietnam conflict.....

 

[Sampanviking]

Numbers are of course a significant factor but are balanced by such other things as:

The Level of Technology:
The Level of Training:
The Level of Discipline:
The Level of Morale:
The Quality of Leadership
The Quality of Organisation
The Quality of Deployment.

You probably also need to add other factors such as:

The Quality of the Military Industrial Complex
The Amount of Strategic Depth.

A large number of poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly organised foot soldiers may not of themselves pose an insurmountable problem to a smaller but clearly superior force, but if part of the large force is also well equipped and organised, then the impact of the lower quality troops will be considerably enhanced.

Likewise if you raise the general quality of the larger force, the effects of numerical superiority soon rise dramatically.

 

[rip]

Numbers are of course a significant factor but are balanced by such other things as:

The Level of Technology:
The Level of Training:
The Level of Discipline:
The Level of Morale:
The Quality of Leadership
The Quality of Organisation
The Quality of Deployment.

You probably also need to add other factors such as:

The Quality of the Military Industrial Complex
The Amount of Strategic Depth.

A large number of poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly organised foot soldiers may not of themselves pose an insurmountable problem to a smaller but clearly superior force, but if part of the large force is also well equipped and organised, then the impact of the lower quality troops will be considerably enhanced.

Likewise if you raise the general quality of the larger force, the effects of numerical superiority soon rise dramatically.

War is a complex human endeavor indeed. You list is the short list.

 

[John Sansom]

the goal was to promote peace and the respect for life, it was not nocking off another stupid warloard but if peace is not wanted and if life not respected the only recourse is the peace of the dead. A solution the US was not willing to enforce.

If that incident and all of the things that has followed from it was a victory for the Somali people then after a few more such victories, similar to that one, we can assume that they will soon become extinct. We can readily enough see that they live non ending lives of fear and misery at the very least.

The popular read on the Mogadishu affair, the one you are eluding to if note stated directly is that the Islamic fascist’s, sucessfully used the so called US withdraw from Somali, as a selling point for ever more of their atrocities and that it showed that the US would easily fold and go away if faced with causalities. And from such results the world would somehow come to the ascendency of the true faith and the eventual worldwide caliphate as was prophesied. As the story goes this is why the various Islamic fascist’s terror groups were emboldened to carry out their later attacks. That is pure bull shit.

Sorry, Rip. I am still trying to sort out your third para; namely, "The popular read on the Mogadishu affair......"

Is the b.s. component the thought that the world would then accept the ascendancy of Islam...or the alleged emboldenment of Islamic "fascists" to carry out subsequent attacks (wherever)?

This is not an aspersion on your post. It's simply me trying to put the remains of a super busy day in order....and with only limited success.

 

[rip]

Sorry, Rip. I am still trying to sort out your third para; namely, "The popular read on the Mogadishu affair......"

Is the b.s. component the thought that the world would then accept the ascendancy of Islam...or the alleged emboldenment of Islamic "fascists" to carry out subsequent attacks (wherever)?

This is not an aspersion on your post. It's simply me trying to put the remains of a super busy day in order....and with only limited success.

Sorry if I was not clear. The bull shit part, was referring to the often made illusion that “if the US hadn’t pulled out of Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident then the ‘Islamic fascists’ would have acted differently”. I was disputing the often made connection that it was the US withdraw, itself that embolden them to increase their efforts, (a statment reported to have been made by Osama bin Laden) for it seemed to reward their use of violence on one hand and so to promote even further violence after. If we had stayed, regardless if we succeeded or not in bringing some kind order to that sad country, the “Islamic fascists" would just have then said, that it was just another attack upon Islam.

 

[Feanor]

Of course, there are some examples of the mass overwhelming the technologically superior minority. Some WWII Russian infantry attacks come to mind. Notably those where unarmed troops followed their attacking brothers, and salvaged the arms of the fallen in order to continue carrying the battle to the enemy.

You're thinking of WWI.

 

[Doomownage94]

You're thinking of WWI.

lol I'm gonna go ahead with a completely n00bish reponse...
The movie "Enemy At the Gates" quite clearly expressed the deseperation on the russian side to what was one of the bloodiest battles in WWII in that officers would shoot retreating men who were unfortunate enough to be put in the position of advancing, without a rifle, to a horde of Nazis waiting behind machine gun nests.

(please do not hurt me)

 

[Kilo 2-3]

.
The movie "Enemy At the Gates" quite clearly expressed the deseperation on the russian side to what was one of the bloodiest battles in WWII in that officers would shoot retreating men who were unfortunate enough to be put in the position of advancing, without a rifle, to a horde of Nazis waiting behind machine gun nests.

Movies, although entertaining, aren't always a good sources for historical fact. that said, the scene you are referencing is based, at least in spirit, on some Red Army tactics of the time.

"Human wave" tactics seem to have been fairly prevalent among Communist armies and insurgencies during the 1940s-1960s (Korea, Vietnam, etc.). They're very, very costly, but in some ways though they're a decent solution to the challenges these forces face (coordination, lack of training, low morale/incentive to fight) as cruel as it is, human saturation attacks can yield results.

 

[John Sansom]

You're thinking of WWI.

I'd forgotten all about "Enemy At The Gates". True enough, this provided an example of arms recovery.....although how accurate that may have been is open to question.

In fact, however, I was thinking of some Soviet WWII memoirs....and I am damned if I can pin them down. Still, I am confident in the matter and will put considerable energy into identifying the source.

And, Feanor, I won't debate that this may have happened--and probably did--during WWI.:daz