Is war simply a matter of numbers???

[Feros Ferio]

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?

 

[Kirkzzy]

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?

I would certainly hope numbers isn't the case. Otherwise various countries that rely on a tech and training advantage should just give up. It is more about the commander, his troops and their morale. One lion is stronger than a thousand mice.

 

[My2Cents]

"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.

If he had included “all other factors being equal”, then the statement would have been correct, but also would have been a tautology.

War is a numbers game, but the numbers have to include factors for training, leadership, and tactics. And his statement “At some point, technologically inferior but numerically superior opponents will simply overwhelm the side with the better weapons.” is correct.

 

[Birdman]

Is war is simply a matter of numbers???

You simply cant fight a war relying on one factor wether it be commanders skill, Technology or numbers.

A commander no matter how capable cant win a battle against 100 OpFor with only a fireteam at his command.
An F-22 can be taken out by three 4th gen planes simply because it cant be in three places at once....
and Ten thousand English musketeers or WW1 Cavalry cant win against just a few tanks....


Simply put battleplans cant rely on one of a thousand factors to win..... Not sure if what i said makes much sense

 

[SASWanabe]

You simply cant fight a war relying on one factor wether it be commanders skill, Technology or numbers.

A commander no matter how capable cant win a battle against 100 OpFor with only a fireteam at his command.
An F-22 can be taken out by three 4th gen planes simply because it cant be in three places at once....
and Ten thousand English musketeers or WW1 Cavalry cant win against just a few tanks....


Simply put battleplans cant rely on one of a thousand factors to win..... Not sure if what i said makes much sense

you got a little mixed up in the bolded bit.

firstly

A commander no matter how capable cant win a battle against 100 OpFor with only a fireteam at his command.

from memory, the battle of Mirbat was between 9 UK SAS and 250 Adoo so thats more than 4 -100 ods (the UK SAS won)

An F-22 can be taken out by three 4th gen planes simply because it cant be in three places at once....

F-22s carry 6xAIM-120 AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder and as i understand engage all 8 targets at once.

the last one i kinda agree with you

 

[kato]

"In conflicts between technologically equal adversaries numbers will determine the winner".

I fully agree with that statement, at least if we are talking about numbers in appropriately massive terms. And it's assuming the conflict is waged either way over an appropriate number of encounters.

Abstracting to a massive conflict and pulling the constraint of "technologically equal" levels force multipliers.

Ten thousand English musketeers or WW1 Cavalry cant win against just a few tanks....

Sure they can. The few tanks can't be everywhere the 10,000 men are.

F-22s carry 6xAIM-120 AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder and as i understand engage all 8 targets at once.

If a F-22 carries 8 missiles, it needs to use the wing pylons, vastly increasing its RCS and dropping its combat worth to that of a 4th-generation plane pretty much.

 

[My2Cents]

from memory, the battle of Mirbat was between 9 UK SAS and 250 Adoo so thats more than 4 -100 ods (the UK SAS won)

Battle of Mirbat - Wikipedia indicates that they were up to 40 additional personnel on the SAS side of the battle, most of which tried very hard to sit out the battle for one reason or another. The SAS definitely did the heavy lifting.

 

[PCShogun]

I would quote the example of Vietnam; and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are accomplishing our objectives, but the enemy continues to fight despite our extreme differences in available technology due to the simple fact that the enemies objective is, primarily, to kill coalition soldiers, not to hold ground.

Calling War a mere game of numbers is tough and I would be skeptical as so many other factors are needed to be considered.

Russia (along with Allies) defeated Germany in World War II. A comparison of military strength for Operation Barbarossa alone shows Russia had over 15,000 tanks to Germany's 3,200 (Nearly 5:1), 40,000 aircraft to Germany's 4,400 (9:1), and 8.2 million Russian soldiers to Germany's 3.9 million. Despite the huge numerical advantage, Russia lost almost 50% of her tanks and aircraft, along with 1 million troops killed, 3 million wounded, and 3 million captured. Putting that into perspective, 9 of every 10 Russian males aged 18 who served in the military were dead by the end of the war. This is one of the reason we saw so many young Russian women married to older men in the late 50's and 60's

I would say that to use numerical superiority to achieve victory will require a HUGE numerical superiority.

In a modern contest, I believe that initially, numbers would convey an advantage. Higher technology would defeat the enemy in nearly all contests, however, numbers would allow the enemy to strike in areas where your high technology isn't present. You cannot be at two places at the same time, and while you are digging a enemy with inferior technology out of its hiding places, you are not moving forward toward your own objectives.

After the initial battles were over, it would then come down to how fast the inferior enemy can replaces losses versus the time it takes to replace the much more expensive and complicated high tech toys that they managed to destroy. Russia had the advantage of Lend Lease and other aide, eventually a second front to help pull Germany's resources to the breaking point. Based on the numbers of World War II, I would say that No, numbers alone will not guarentee victory.

 

[rip]

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?

The simple answer is that everything but everything counts to some degree and no factor can be completely dismissed. (Please insert here a list as long as your arm.)Those things that you know about and especially those things you don’t have a clue about (until they hit you upside the head) all count and trying to reduce war or any other complex human enterprise to just a few simple ideas or formulas is always a recipe for disaster. To successfully conduct a war to a satisfactory conclusion you require all the same skills that are needed to have and run a successful Civilization pulse other skills that are not needed anywhere else.

But different elements of war have proven over time, to always be in play, though that may have different levels of effect at any peculiar time and whose consequences often changes under a bewildering number of factors. That is why all wars almost never turn out the way that they planned to turn out, no matter how smart or thorough you are before you started.

The most interesting question is not just about total numbers or high or low technology because you can always find examples where both were not enough to bring victory but what is the most important and common factors, found within that vast and confusing human activity we call war, which are the most consistent determining ones?

My vote would be ”The will to prevail to the end.“ both by the people who must do the fighting and the society that must in the end support them.

 

[Feros Ferio]

If he had included “all other factors being equal”, then the statement would have been correct, but also would have been a tautology.

his statement “At some point, technologically inferior but numerically superior opponents will simply overwhelm the side with the better weapons.” is correct.

If one takes a quick glance at history, you'll find numerous examples to the contrary. Here are a few examples for you:

The Battle of Agincourt: An outnumbered English force, fielding the longbow, defeat a larger French force. This battle helped turn the tide of the conflict in the favour of the English

The Battle of Myeongnyang: A vastly outnumbered Korean fleet defeats a much larger Japanese one. This helped prevent a Japanese invasion of the Korean peninsula.

The Battle of Cannae: Due to Hannibal's brilliant generalship, the Carthaginian side (along with various allies) defeats a numerically superior Roman side. This battle led to Hannibal terrorizing Italy for years with impunity.

These are but a few. Furthermore, if you read much on military history and strategy, you will find many great minds blatantly state that in war, numbers alone confer no advantage. It is how you use what you have. I fail to see, based on the many examples provided throughout history, how numbers are the deciding factor.

 

[My2Cents]

If one takes a quick glance at history, you'll find numerous examples to the contrary. Here are a few examples for you:

Reread the statement “At some point, technologically inferior but numerically superior opponents will simply overwhelm the side with the better weapons.”

The Battle of Agincourt: An outnumbered English force, fielding the longbow, defeat a larger French force. This battle helped turn the tide of the conflict in the favour of the English

The Battle of Myeongnyang: A vastly outnumbered Korean fleet defeats a much larger Japanese one. This helped prevent a Japanese invasion of the Korean peninsula.

Which just means that they did not have sufficient numbers to overwhelm their opponents despite their technological advantage, and were stupid enough to not back off and come up with a new plan when it became obvious.

The Battle of Cannae: Due to Hannibal's brilliant generalship, the Carthaginian side (along with various allies) defeats a numerically superior Roman side. This battle led to Hannibal terrorizing Italy for years with impunity.

Irrelevant. The Carthaginian side had better generalship, not a technical superiority.

 

[Feros Ferio]

Irrelevant. The Carthaginian side had better generalship, not a technical superiority.

My2cents, apologies if I misread your statement. I believe you are saying that a numerically superior force, even if it has somewhat inferior tech, will always win in the end yes? This is what I have taken from your statements anyhow.

If this is the case (i.e. you are taking this position), then the battle of Cannae is entirely relevant to this discussion. It led to Hannibal terrorizing the Italian peninsula with impunity for years. Similarly, the battle of Agincourt is also relevant as my position from the beginning of this thread has been that when it comes to something as complicated as war, numerical superiority alone will not decide the outcome. This is what the author of the piece stated (the link to which I posted at the start of this thread) when speaking of a potential air war scenario between China and the US.

To be clear, I am saying that factors such as generalship, training, morale, the will of a society to see a war through to the bitter end (as rip stated earlier), etc... are all things that have a bearing on the outcome of a war. To bank on numerically superiority alone to achieve victory, is to make the same mistake the Romans made at Cannae.

 

[Feanor]

Guys numbers matter. But not always. It's a matter of being able to make those numbers count, and of the numerical advantage being large enough to compensate for other weaknesses. No numbers along will not decide the battle. A simple example, the Russian Land Forces outnumbered the Georgians roughly 10-1. But for the first iirc 3 days of the 5-day war, the Georgians had decisive tactical number advantage because the Russian troops could only enter the conflict zone by air, or through a single two-lane road. None the less the Georgians could not capitalize on their number advantage because of serious coordination issues between their units, and because of a Russian technological advantage (air power and tactical missile strikes).

Given a finite timeframe, a real location, and specific objectives of the conflict, those things will determine if and how much numbers matter.

 

[kato]

Given a finite timeframe, a real location, and specific objectives of the conflict, those things will determine if and how much numbers matter.

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.

 

[Belesari]

Numbers always matter even if its just how many bullets it takes to kill the enemy. If you dont have enough you may be ******.

That said picking the ground you fight one is one way to bring those odds back down.

"The Battle of Agincourt: An outnumbered English force, fielding the longbow, defeat a larger French force. This battle helped turn the tide of the conflict in the favour of the English"

If i remember correctly the reason the french lost or a big one was that they dismounted and the English had chosen the spot well. Very muddy. History is full of battles were few chose the right spot to make a stand. Thermopoly anyone?

War is all about power. Your and theirs. Everything from the technological edge to numbers to what you feed your men (one of those things that rates HIGH up there in importance that most people dont consider) contribute or deduct from your power. Then there is the last bit. Luck

 

[Feros Ferio]

Numbers always matter even if its just how many bullets it takes to kill the enemy. If you dont have enough you may be ******.

That said picking the ground you fight one is one way to bring those odds back down.

"The Battle of Agincourt: An outnumbered English force, fielding the longbow, defeat a larger French force. This battle helped turn the tide of the conflict in the favour of the English"

If i remember correctly the reason the french lost or a big one was that they dismounted and the English had chosen the spot well. Very muddy. History is full of battles were few chose the right spot to make a stand. Thermopoly anyone?

War is all about power. Your and theirs. Everything from the technological edge to numbers to what you feed your men (one of those things that rates HIGH up there in importance that most people dont consider) contribute or deduct from your power. Then there is the last bit. Luck

It seems as though we can agree on one thing here, that if the smaller force makes intelligent decisions, victory is indeed possible, despite the odds. Yes?

 

[My2Cents]

My2cents, apologies if I misread your statement. I believe you are saying that a numerically superior force, even if it has somewhat inferior tech, will always win in the end yes? This is what I have taken from your statements anyhow.

No, I am saying that no matter how large the tech advantage there will be a force ratio where it is insufficient to win. In extreme cases this will be the point where the force with the higher tech runs out of ammunition before defeating the larger force. Another case is where the higher tech force simply cannot kill the low tech force fast enough and gets overrun.

If this is the case (i.e. you are taking this position), then the battle of Cannae is entirely relevant to this discussion. It led to Hannibal terrorizing the Italian peninsula with impunity for years. Similarly, the battle of Agincourt is also relevant as my position from the beginning of this thread has been that when it comes to something as complicated as war, numerical superiority alone will not decide the outcome. This is what the author of the piece stated (the link to which I posted at the start of this thread) when speaking of a potential air war scenario between China and the US.

Most of us are discussing how large a numeric superiority is required to overcome a technical superiority.

You seem to want to make the discussion about how large a numeric superiority is required to overcome a leadership superiority, a totally different topic, which makes it appear we are talking past each other.

To be clear, I am saying that factors such as generalship, training, morale, the will of a society to see a war through to the bitter end (as rip stated earlier), etc... are all things that have a bearing on the outcome of a war. To bank on numerically superiority alone to achieve victory, is to make the same mistake the Romans made at Cannae.

And I disagree with none of those points. But they are not the point that I thought this discussion was about either.

 

[SASWanabe]

If a F-22 carries 8 missiles, it needs to use the wing pylons, vastly increasing its RCS and dropping its combat worth to that of a 4th-generation plane pretty much.

no mate, it doesnt.

utilising wing pilons it carries 12 missiles and 2x600 gallon fuel tanks tanks

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-070605-002.jpg

 

[Belesari]

It seems as though we can agree on one thing here, that if the smaller force makes intelligent decisions, victory is indeed possible, despite the odds. Yes?

To a point but remember, they still lost at thermopoly.

 

[Feros Ferio]

No, I am saying that no matter how large the tech advantage there will be a force ratio where it is insufficient to win. In extreme cases this will be the point where the force with the higher tech runs out of ammunition before defeating the larger force. Another case is where the higher tech force simply cannot kill the low tech force fast enough and gets overrun.

Most of us are discussing how large a numeric superiority is required to overcome a technical superiority.

You seem to want to make the discussion about how large a numeric superiority is required to overcome a leadership superiority, a totally different topic, which makes it appear we are talking past each other.

And I disagree with none of those points. But they are not the point that I thought this discussion was about either.

What I was trying to have the conversatin about is the author (Daniel something or other, PHD, who's article I posted a link to in the beginning) and his apparent assertion that numbers are the deciding factor in a conflict. So youre right, I am trying to make the conversation about this

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.