I've been lurking the threads and posted a few but there seems to be this recurrent theme. Numbers vs. superior technology.

There seem to be some that believe superior numbers wins the day. Although it's a good thing, it's not an absolute thing. There are MANY examples where superior number only insures that you will have superior numbers of casualities.

The old Soviet military doctrines preached a minimum of ten to one odds to start an offensive.

The current US military axiom is three to one superiority, but that is constantly adjusted by combined arms and point of attack ratios.

To me it's always about superior strategies, superior planning & execution, superior logistics. Numbers are nice, but they don't matter as much as people are lead to believe.

thoughts?

hrxll

"amateurs worry about tactics, professionals worry about logistics"

i would like both number and tactics...

but tactics are more impotant...

you cant win a war if you people are shooting the wrong direction!

also sometimes tactics dont help if there is too much against you...

Yea, ut as good as your tactics are as soon as you run out of ammo food and whater you'r preaty much dead.
Unless you go into guerilla warfare but with the tipe of equipment that big armies rely on these days its a double bladed knife. And you need some preaty good soldiers.
I cant imagine an American pushing a bike loaded with grenades and suplies up a mountain during an airstrike like the Viet Cong did.

Another example is from the big one, WWII. The Germans were technologically superior to most of the Allies. By sheer might did the Soviets push them back. Their manpower was limitless. The western front was all but won, until the Americans entered the war.

The developement of the radar didn't help either........This is also a major reason why the Germans were stopped in the West.

Many of the Fieldmarshalls were tactical geniouses. Rommel was defeated in Africa, by numbers, and an incompetent leader.

See, both numbers and technology can be the decisive factors in victory. By having both, though, an Army would be unstoppable.

One of the reasons that the Nazi's did not succeed vs Russian is that they did not commit enought resources against them. True the Russians out manned them in the end but the Germans could have used their resources differently and quite possibly beat the Russians.

Originally posted by THENEO
One of the reasons that the Nazi's did not succeed vs Russian is that they did not commit enought resources against them. True the Russians out manned them in the end but the Germans could have used their resources differently and quite possibly beat the Russians.

That could be true, but the Germans only had so many resources. When you're battling 2 major fronts, steel, oil and manpower seem to dwindle down fast.

Now, towards the end of the war, the Germans did throw everything they had to the Eastern front. That was to slow the impending Soviet advancement unto German territory. The Germans would have much rather had the Western Allies in Berlin, than a vengeful Russia.....

Originally posted by THENEO
One of the reasons that the Nazi's did not succeed vs Russian is that they did not commit enought resources against them. True the Russians out manned them in the end but the Germans could have used their resources differently and quite possibly beat the Russians.

you just showed your STUPIDTY!!!

Germans put MOST of their armies at Russia...

they wanted a quick win...

but later they found out that to many troops in Russia...

ment that there was not enough troops to fight the rest of the war...

i ask you for the i dont know times...

please DONT post STUPID things...

If you hate Russian....

well its your problem...

YOU DONT HAVE TO ALWAYS GIVE MISINFORMATION!!!

I am sick and tired of reading your post on the weaponary and aircraft forums...

I think 60 years ago, numbers were all that mattered. Take Russia and Germany for example. In WWII, Russia just sent masses of men at the Germans (many w/o guns) and the Germans were sent crying home to their mommas.

Originally posted by GodBlessAmerica
I think 60 years ago, numbers were all that mattered. Take Russia and Germany for example. In WWII, Russia just sent masses of men at the Germans (many w/o guns) and the Germans were sent crying home to their mommas.

back in the day yes...

now you need number and tactics...

more efficent and less destrucive....

It was just plain #ing retarded to start the war with Russia while fighting Britain. If they hadn't done that things would be much different today most likely.

Originally posted by evildoer
It was just plain #ing retarded to start the war with Russia while fighting Britain. If they hadn't done that things would be much different today most likely.

very very true...

they could have taken Britain out...

and then open a front against the Russians...

I think then Russian would not have a chance...

well exept the winter...

but yes Germans wanted to take on to much people at one time...

must have been to greity(spelling)...

Auote:

That could be true, but the Germans only had so many resources. When you're battling 2 major fronts, steel, oil and manpower seem to dwindle down fast.

Now, towards the end of the war, the Germans did throw everything they had to the Eastern front. That was to slow the impending Soviet advancement unto German territory. The Germans would have much rather had the Western Allies in Berlin, than a vengeful Russia.....


Unlike our good friend Russian here I do know that what you have said is the truth. Hitler was most criticized in the end for opening up two fronts when Germany only needed to use one. If Germany had seized control of Russian resources then they would have been a more formidable opponent of the allies. Not that I desired that outcome and thank god it did not happen.

It depends on your strengths and his weakness'. I'll elaberate more more when I get home.

No they dont.

Only number of tanks (MBTs mainly..) and aircrafts and guided weapons matter..

Or number and 'power' of ATGMs and SAMs..

In open battle.

Occupation and guerilla warfare is different matter.

TIME OF CANNON FODDERS IS OVER!

Numbers and Tactics aren't separate.

Numbers are simply a FACTOR to be used when deciding tactics. And, as a factor, they are one of many, including equipment, ability to hit the enemy when they can't hit you, supply lines, downtime, number of fronts, etc. etc.

German equipment, especialy tanks and fighters, were much more superior to soviet ones. A Tiger with experianced crew destroyed 20-30 soviet tanks before beeing destroyed. BUT soviets replaced the lost 20-30 tanks with 40-60 tanks, and Germany, bombed by thousands of american and british bombers cant replace the lost tiger and its experianced crew. And most of german tanks were PzIII and PzIV. If in 1943 80%-90% of german tanks would be ONLY tigers and panthers they would surely win the war with russia. And in air, even a Fw-190d-9 with veteran pilot cant survive simulanteus attack of 10 or 20 Yak-3's Germans lost the war by loss of manpower and economy crippled by alied bombers.