Is war simply a matter of numbers???

[Feanor]

It happened frequently and was a conscious policy during WWI. I'm unaware of any examples of this during WWII, other then incidents involving POW escapes, and partisan actions.

Enemy at the Gates was absolute garbage as far as historical accuracy is concerned. The mistakes in the film are phenomenal and the ideology behind it is impossible to justify given that the Cold War is long over.

 

[Feros Ferio]

It happened frequently and was a conscious policy during WWI. I'm unaware of any examples of this during WWII, other then incidents involving POW escapes, and partisan actions.

Enemy at the Gates was absolute garbage as far as historical accuracy is concerned. The mistakes in the film are phenomenal and the ideology behind it is impossible to justify given that the Cold War is long over.

I'm going to have to agree here that Enemy at the Gates was pretty garbage as far sticking strictly to historical fact. With that said, I did enjoy it

With that out of the way, doesn't the Battle of Stalingrad offer an illustration of my point here? The Russians were outnumbered at the start, and were pummeled in the opening stages of the battle. After suffering such losses, they were outnumbered for a fair length of time, yet still managed to hold on until they were sufficient in numbers to counter attack

 

[John Sansom]

It happened frequently and was a conscious policy during WWI. I'm unaware of any examples of this during WWII, other then incidents involving POW escapes, and partisan actions.

Enemy at the Gates was absolute garbage as far as historical accuracy is concerned. The mistakes in the film are phenomenal and the ideology behind it is impossible to justify given that the Cold War is long over.

Agreed. Indeed the "cold war" is a long gone phenomenon. Still, the ideology of an age remains within that age and retrospective exercises demand that it be recognized as part of the historical fabric being studied.

 

[Doomownage94]

I'm going to have to agree here that Enemy at the Gates was pretty garbage as far sticking strictly to historical fact. With that said, I did enjoy it

With that out of the way, doesn't the Battle of Stalingrad offer an illustration of my point here? The Russians were outnumbered at the start, and were pummeled in the opening stages of the battle. After suffering such losses, they were outnumbered for a fair length of time, yet still managed to hold on until they were sufficient in numbers to counter attack

People often assume because of that movie that Russian Strategy was mostly composed of human wave attacks. This could have justified the reason for the tremendous casualties on the Eastern front, but at the same time, people forget the strategic genius in the Battle of Stalingrad itself. What about the surrounding of the 6th army? This wasn't even shown in the movie. Even my teacher believes that it was only because of the numerical superiority (not true) and the harsh Russian winter (sort of true) that the Russians were able to push back German lines.

 

[rip]

People often assume because of that movie that Russian Strategy was mostly composed of human wave attacks. This could have justified the reason for the tremendous casualties on the Eastern front, but at the same time, people forget the strategic genius in the Battle of Stalingrad itself. What about the surrounding of the 6th army? This wasn't even shown in the movie. Even my teacher believes that it was only because of the numerical superiority (not true) and the harsh Russian winter (sort of true) that the Russians were able to push back German lines.

I am going to have to defend the movie even though I don’t want to. Not because it was historically accurate for in many respects it was not. The movie had to tell a story that makes since to people who have no knowledge at all about WW II much less the war on the Eastern Front. It had to show all of the things that happened and all of the influences that made the people in the movie act the way that they did or it would not have made any since as a movie.

All the stuff in the movie happened in that war they just didn’t happen at the time and place as it was depicted. But the people in the war knew what was happening even if it didn’t happen to them and they were acting in response to those commonly known events. So even though the movie is historically inaccurate it is contextually correct.

 

[Feanor]

I'm going to have to agree here that Enemy at the Gates was pretty garbage as far sticking strictly to historical fact. With that said, I did enjoy it

With that out of the way, doesn't the Battle of Stalingrad offer an illustration of my point here? The Russians were outnumbered at the start, and were pummeled in the opening stages of the battle. After suffering such losses, they were outnumbered for a fair length of time, yet still managed to hold on until they were sufficient in numbers to counter attack

The battle of Stalingrad was an example of operational and operational-strategic maneuver much more then it was an example of numbers and attrition.

 

[Feanor]

People often assume because of that movie that Russian Strategy was mostly composed of human wave attacks. This could have justified the reason for the tremendous casualties on the Eastern front, but at the same time, people forget the strategic genius in the Battle of Stalingrad itself. What about the surrounding of the 6th army? This wasn't even shown in the movie. Even my teacher believes that it was only because of the numerical superiority (not true) and the harsh Russian winter (sort of true) that the Russians were able to push back German lines.

There is the key failure. I bolded the wrong part. They didn't push back the German lines. They broke through, and encircled. The Battle of Moscow is an example of pushing back the German lines using numerical superiority (some technological superiority too, those T-34s were pretty unstoppable at the time), and capitalizing on the winter.

 

[rip]

There is the key failure. I bolded the wrong part. They didn't push back the German lines. They broke through, and encircled. The Battle of Moscow is an example of pushing back the German lines using numerical superiority (some technological superiority too, those T-34s were pretty unstoppable at the time), and capitalizing on the winter.

The battle of Stalingrad had so many factors going on at the same time I do not think that it is a good example to use to address of the thread’s theme.

I have been reading a very good new book called “The Gun” that describes the invention and use of automatic small arms leading up to the almost universal distribution of the AK-47 in the modern world today. Among other things it fairly much covers all the early, technology verses numbers issues, very well and the resulits.

At least is the respect of modern small arms handled by a few well trained solders when confronted with thousands of warriors armed with spears and such? I think that issue has been settled.

But the more correct question has to do with the support of the war fighter. Today more of the military and defense establishment is composed of support people than it is shooters. Is that fact the deciding factor more than then the number of shooter themselves when it comes to numbers?

 

[Feanor]

It's the ability to bring the numbers to bear which depends heavily on those supporting the shooters, as you put it.

 

[rip]

It's the ability to bring the numbers to bear which depends heavily on those supporting the shooters, as you put it.

And recent history has proved you are right but the really big long lasting war between great powers we haven’t seen for a long time may be different. If fact I am sure it will be different I am just not sure in what way it will be. In that story line, I do not see how even the industrial capacity of any combination of countries can sustain the High Tec massive firepower and exspenture of resources approach for very long

 

[My2Cents]

At least is the respect of modern small arms handled by a few well trained solders when confronted with thousands of warriors armed with spears and such? I think that issue has been settled.

Are you referring to the Battle of Isandlwana or the Battle of Rorke's Drift? Both were on 22 January 1879

 

[rip]

Are you referring to the Battle of Isandlwana or the Battle of Rorke's Drift? Both were on 22 January 1879

Yes those fights among several others. The book I was referring to “The Gun” was written by C. J. Chivers a Pulitzer Prize winner copyrighted 2010. Though the thrust of the book is about how the AK-47 has become, in many respects, a “technology equalizer” with devastating worldwide effects it covers the history of automatic weapons and their uses quite well. I leaned many new things.

 

[John Sansom]

There is the key failure. I bolded the wrong part. They didn't push back the German lines. They broke through, and encircled. The Battle of Moscow is an example of pushing back the German lines using numerical superiority (some technological superiority too, those T-34s were pretty unstoppable at the time), and capitalizing on the winter.

An interesting aside on the encirclement is that the Russian troops were ordered to re-enact the link-up of their infantry units for the benefit of the newsreel cameras. Most of us have seen the clip, which includes much embracing and the throwing of headgear into the air.

 

[rip]

An interesting aside on the encirclement is that the Russian troops were ordered to re-enact the link-up of their infantry units for the benefit of the newsreel cameras. Most of us have seen the clip, which includes much embracing and the throwing of headgear into the air.

The way to stop tankes back then was by concentrated artillery. If you have enough big guns and enough shells with just reasonable amout of fire control you can always stop tanks. The German artillery was very good but then never had enough of them but the Russians had pleanty (Stalin’s Organs)

It was artillery support that kept the 101 air born division alive against General tanks at the battle of the bulge when they had so few tanks to support them. Yes I know there were parts of the 10th armored division there but then were worn down fairly fast even though their good efforts were under reported in the history books, it was the 10th armored that gave the infantry time to dig in other wise the story would have had a different ending.

 

[My2Cents]

The way to stop tankes back then was by concentrated artillery. If you have enough big guns and enough shells with just reasonable amout of fire control you can always stop tanks. The German artillery was very good but then never had enough of them but the Russians had pleanty (Stalin’s Organs)

It was artillery support that kept the 101 air born division alive against General tanks at the battle of the bulge when they had so few tanks to support them. Yes I know there were parts of the 10th armored division there but then were worn down fairly fast even though their good efforts were under reported in the history books, it was the 10th armored that gave the infantry time to dig in other wise the story would have had a different ending.

Artillery of that period was only truly effective against tanks in direct fire over open sights. Katyushas (Stalin’s Organs) were nearly worthless against armor, lacking accuracy, low velocity, and having simple impact fused HE warheads (shaped charge warheads were post war development). They were great for area fire against troops and artillery in the open because of the saturation effect of their massive salvos.

Remember that in WWII most troops in all armies were leg infantry and marched to, and into, battle. Only armored and motorized units had transport for infantry. Trucks were used mostly for support units, and in many cases logistics were handled using animal drawn carts or pack animals.

 

[rip]

Artillery of that period was only truly effective against tanks in direct fire over open sights. Katyushas (Stalin’s Organs) were nearly worthless against armor, lacking accuracy, low velocity, and having simple impact fused HE warheads (shaped charge warheads were post war development). They were great for area fire against troops and artillery in the open because of the saturation effect of their massive salvos.

Remember that in WWII most troops in all armies were leg infantry and marched to, and into, battle. Only armored and motorized units had transport for infantry. Trucks were used mostly for support units, and in many cases logistics were handled using animal drawn carts or pack animals.

There is no tank in the world that has ever made which can take a plunging direct hit from a 105mm or 155mm shell. Against professional formations, tanks find their most effective use offensively not defensively, to create breakout situation for supporting infantry and then to rush to flank enemy positions. Yes I know there have been exceptions but most of them have been against less than fully professional armies. The only thing more deadly to tanks than artillery, is Air-power but you can’t always could on getting it when you need it.

I love tanks, they are the greatest things since sliced bread, but if you can have only one or the other, artillery or ground based ant-tank weapons of any kind to stop advancing tanks, I would take artillery if you have enough of them.

It is interesting to note that of all the armies in the world today, China has the greatest investment in numbers, types, and kinds, of both tub and rocket artillery. Talk about Numbers! They got bunches and bunches; they are very prominent in their order of battle. Something we have not seen since the height of WW II.


But no matter how many great toys you have or how deadly they can be, you will always have to have infantry. I would like to know at what point is it where the ratios of the infantry man, to the things that are made to support him, no long act as force multipliers. There got to be a point somewhere.

 

[My2Cents]

There is no tank in the world that has ever made which can take a plunging direct hit from a 105mm or 155mm shell. Against professional formations, tanks find their most effective use offensively not defensively, to create breakout situation for supporting infantry and then to rush to flank enemy positions. Yes I know there have been exceptions but most of them have been against less than fully professional armies. The only thing more deadly to tanks than artillery, is Air-power but you can’t always could on getting it when you need it.

Sure, “a plunging direct hit from a 105mm or 155mm shell” will kill a tank, but what does it take to achieve that? From FM 100-61 “To neutralize a tank or mechanized infantry platoon in a hasty defensive position covering 6 hectares (1 hectare equals an area 100 by 100 m), a 122-mm howitzer battalion would have to fire 900 rounds weighing 19,800 kg.” (note:neutralize means 50% destroyed in this context).

As for aircraft, I’ll bet you are combining the effects of both CAS and level bombers. CAS (direct fire) is much more effective against tanks than level bombers (indirect fire), they need to be considered separately.

I love tanks, they are the greatest things since sliced bread, but if you can have only one or the other, artillery or ground based ant-tank weapons of any kind to stop advancing tanks, I would take artillery if you have enough of them.{my emphasis}

OK, which is more effective against a company of advancing tanks in WWII, a battery of 105mm howitzers firing indirectly or a battery of 88mm antitank guns?

 

[deepsight]

Number did not matter because in modern war tactics technology changed this idea. I n my point of view we can say that War is a matter of technology.

 

[Feanor]

I love tanks, they are the greatest things since sliced bread, but if you can have only one or the other, artillery or ground based ant-tank weapons of any kind to stop advancing tanks, I would take artillery if you have enough of them.

If you have enough of them is a very interesting caveat to add here. Assuming you have the same amount of money to spend on both, you could take buckets of RPG/ATGM infantry vs a fairly limited numbers of tubes. At that point I'd have to say situation dictates. You would have to consider things like whether the enemy has more effective counter-battery fire, or infantry support for his armor. Terrain would matter, as would the quality of you targeting data. I.e. you would need pretty good info to continue dropping arty on a moving tank unit.

 

[rip]

If you have enough of them is a very interesting caveat to add here. Assuming you have the same amount of money to spend on both, you could take buckets of RPG/ATGM infantry vs a fairly limited numbers of tubes. At that point I'd have to say situation dictates. You would have to consider things like whether the enemy has more effective counter-battery fire, or infantry support for his armor. Terrain would matter, as would the quality of you targeting data. I.e. you would need pretty good info to continue dropping arty on a moving tank unit.

It has to do with positional warfare, as was seen in the second half of Korea and some of the larger conventional battles of Vietnam (think Khe Sanh). A defensive position can withstand assault by overwhelming numbers if they have the fire power as in tub artillery or mass bombing from the air. The infantry jos is to hold the aggressor in place even if it is by just surviving.

To attack, the aggressor must concentrate their forces and limit their maneuvers to stage their attack, when they do this the artillery tears them up in a battle of attrition. The function of the infantry then is to hold the enemy in place, so the attacker can get smashed. And as a generall rule technology is always more effective in the defense side of things than it is in attack side and the necessary concentration of forces the emery must make to stage an attack is what makes them more susceptible to all of the types of death dealing technology you can think of.

That is why when a new way of conducting methods of attack are found, (be it by Tanks or air-craft or Cyber) when they do come along, from time to time, they are the game changers in the art warfare.

There are probably better experts on this board than me but doesn’t modern artillery have ant-tank sub-munitions to use?