Is war simply a matter of numbers???
- Thread starter Feros Ferio
- Start date
That's not even close to accurate. While there is significant symbolism in Stalins decision to remain in Moscow, that's not why the RKKA was able to stop operation Typhoon. The Germans had over-stretched themselves in the advance on Moscow. Their supply lines were in poor condition, in part due to the atrocious conditions of Russian roads. At the same time the RKKA was engaged in a fairly simple defensive action that did not require great skill on coordinating their assets across a large space, nor any real operational level maneuver. Finally they had the reinforcements they pulled from the Far Eastern MD which were fairly well equipped, and fresh, troops.
There is also the fact that the weather made rapid offensive operations difficult.
captonjohn
New Member
True mate and we both are right one our point. My point is that we can't neglect another factor that is motive for war and will to defend country. Both factor works together to change the balance of war and affects the outcome. Russians were fully aware about german forces strength and their technological as well as strategical superiority. Due to this russian suffered heavy loss and continuously were pushing back from their land. Despite that we were continuously fighting already knowing the fact that they are losing war and german forces are too much stronger. What they did is that they change the direction of war by their continuously replacement of troops and number while on other side due to germans were in offensive role so they didn't managed their supply for long.
On the other hand bad wether had played vital role in that war and gave enough time for russian to re-think their strategy and prepare to counter german forces and germans were not prepared for wether.
In short balanced tilted in favor of russian cause they chosen to fight that was their moral reason otherwise any country who had suffered that much loss could easily accept defeat.
I would say that the Russian leadership was aware of the German strategic shortcomings and that's what kept them in the race despite them seeing their original army getting hammered by mostly tactical superior German forces at the beginning of Barbarossa.
Strategic wise the Germans never had it right. Attacking Russia while being enageged in a war which stretches from the shores of Northern America to the deserts of Northern Africa is not a sound strategy.
Strategic wise the Germans never had it right. Attacking Russia while being enageged in a war which stretches from the shores of Northern America to the deserts of Northern Africa is not a sound strategy.
Not so. Apanasenko, commander of the Far East MD, essentially on his own authority drafted men and used stores of equipment to form replacement units for every unit that was sent westward. As a result to an outside observer it appeared that the Soviet forces didn't lose numbers in the theater. Morever the units he formed turned out to be combat worthy enough that at some point even some of his newly formed units were taken from him and sent westward.
There seems to be a hidden subtext to the discussion of “Is war simply a matter of numbers???” and the answer to the obvious advantage of numbers is the addition of more sophistication into the matrix of warfare’s perimeters, be it in organization, technology, or some other factor with multiplying effects. This subtext states that by piling on the amount and levels of sophistication in warfare, we will make war somehow less awful than it is, at least for the other guy. But the truth is, it doesn’t work that way no matter how many or of what kind of tricks we come up with. I am including the new fad of non-lethal weapons now in the pipeline for use in the future.
To quote General Robert E. Lee “It is good that war is so terrible or we would grow too fond of it.” There is no level or type of sophistication that will make it less treatable and to pursue it for that reason is an empty dream, except to determine the outcome quicker. So what is the result? Asymmetric warfare and it's step child terrorism.
I agree that we only become better at killing and destroying not at making war less awfull.
But assymetric warfare is nothing new.
The Romans had to cope with generations of rebels in Spain before it was pacified. The Hordes of the Great Kahn had to crack down on rebellious tribes and chinese kingdoms. Napoleon's Marshalls learned to hate the Spanish guerillas.
There are numerous examples for guerillas/rebels/insurgents/whatever in history and how they fought more or less assymetric wars against superior forces.
Alexander would have some pretty interesting storys to tell about Afghanistan, too...
The difference is that in the past "COIN" included alot more of "kill all the males and enslave the women and children" than "hearts and minds"...(Not that Alexander didn't try both ways)
But assymetric warfare is nothing new.
The Romans had to cope with generations of rebels in Spain before it was pacified. The Hordes of the Great Kahn had to crack down on rebellious tribes and chinese kingdoms. Napoleon's Marshalls learned to hate the Spanish guerillas.
There are numerous examples for guerillas/rebels/insurgents/whatever in history and how they fought more or less assymetric wars against superior forces.
Alexander would have some pretty interesting storys to tell about Afghanistan, too...
The difference is that in the past "COIN" included alot more of "kill all the males and enslave the women and children" than "hearts and minds"...(Not that Alexander didn't try both ways)
Yes you are right and though those options will always remain but they are an option we at this point we don’t want to take, thronging human civilization backwards yet again. At least not yet!
But the real tragedy of asymmetric warfare is in that destroys the one benefit that war has to offer for all of its terrible cost, as the final arbitrator to settle human conflicts whichcannot be settled in any other way. Better to have originated war with a final resolution than never ending disorganized war. From the first civilizations can recover from the second they waste away.
The point is that to inflict disproportionate casualties on an enemy usually requires a certain level of connivance on his part, even if unintentional. The Germans also had a technological advantage, the use of railroads, but it could only be fully exploited because of the failure of Russian communications security.
Moral can keep you fighting, but in itself cannot deliver victory.:duel
Last edited:
Beatmaster
New Member
Another thing to remember is that, you have to think about what counts as a victory?
For example the somalians wanted the US out this was their major objective, altrought they lost the battle they achieved their objective.
Still they where helped as the US did pull their troops out, and if the US would have stayed then there would be nothing mutch the somailians could do.
However the fact that the US where pulled out made the objective for the somalians a succes.
See my point?
Another thing is some of the posters mentioned the battle between germany and russia where russia did have a huge numerical avantage but still lost 70% of their total force.
One factor besides the technological thing is that the germans did have a very hard time logistically and a simple crazy leader with insane demands, wich bottlenecked and downscaled the german force to a point where the russians could turn the tide and bring the fight to the germans.
So numerical factors do count in a large degree, however the objective and the timeframe, as well the support and effort to achieve those objectives might equal tech towards numerical numbers.
In other words regardless the numbers and regardless the tech levels, certain scenatio's and battles make tech vs numbers usless as tech needs the room and the space to operate and given the right scenario tech can be made usless during a fight, as history did teach us time after time after time and this is where numerical differences still count as a major factor.
For example the somalians wanted the US out this was their major objective, altrought they lost the battle they achieved their objective.
Still they where helped as the US did pull their troops out, and if the US would have stayed then there would be nothing mutch the somailians could do.
However the fact that the US where pulled out made the objective for the somalians a succes.
See my point?
Another thing is some of the posters mentioned the battle between germany and russia where russia did have a huge numerical avantage but still lost 70% of their total force.
One factor besides the technological thing is that the germans did have a very hard time logistically and a simple crazy leader with insane demands, wich bottlenecked and downscaled the german force to a point where the russians could turn the tide and bring the fight to the germans.
So numerical factors do count in a large degree, however the objective and the timeframe, as well the support and effort to achieve those objectives might equal tech towards numerical numbers.
In other words regardless the numbers and regardless the tech levels, certain scenatio's and battles make tech vs numbers usless as tech needs the room and the space to operate and given the right scenario tech can be made usless during a fight, as history did teach us time after time after time and this is where numerical differences still count as a major factor.
Doomownage94
New Member
Can you please clarify on the technicality of how the Germans were bottlenecked and downscaled? There was a huge variety in Russian Strategy. Also, when you say "tech can be made useless during a fight" it seems as though you believe one must choose either technological or numerical superiority. I don't think history has taught us this. Generally, history has taught us that certain cirumstances are exploited to ensure victory by those who are most flexible and/or prepared.
Even though Napoleon had far from a weak army in terms of numbers and technology, he never moved without a strong advance guard. Even in modern scenarios, I don't think this basic philosophy has changed.
I must disagree once again about Somali. First there is no evidence that the warlords running the show at the time had a premeditated goal of forcing the US leave as their primary objective. They wanted the international food relief effort, even with the security forces that were a part of it, to continue so that they could continue to steal as much of it as possible, that was their emendate goal.
What they wanted was to grab as much of goodies as possible and keep as much of them as possible from getting to their rivals. This was a classic warlord fight over the spoils and nothing more; the Islamic factor was at that time a very minor element and was only later that it was rebranded to calm it as an Islamic victory when they wearn't even in the fight.
If the warlord’s had succeeded in “their” goals, they would have achieved the desired victory of monopolizing the goodies for themselves on the way to defeating their rivals situated further inland which were being denied food aid because they did not have access to the ports. The Warlord’s goal was to take over the country for themselves and for their blood clan. Since they failed and in fact most of them lost their lives they failed big.
This assertion that they won is something that is common among the mythologies of the defeated. It is always easy to say, that the way things eventually turned out, even if it wasn’t part of your objectives, or was it caused by any of your actions, nor was it one of you goals, are after the fact, “part of your plan”. It is what defeated people often do.
True the US didn’t get what it wanted but it is always far easier to destroy something than to build something up. So we, our other partners who trying to help the Somali people who were starving, and the Somali people all lost. That fact cannot be denided but there was no victory unless you define victory as death, misery, and despair.
Beatmaster
New Member
Well the germans where technological on the better hand compared to the russians wich they would have exploited to the max IF the leadership in berlin would be alittle smarter and little less careless.
But given the harsh winters and the imense distance and reckless leadership and orders given by berlin it was a failed mission from the start.
This is where the russian numbers payed off.
Beatmaster
New Member
i cannot agree or disagree to the warlords part as i honestly found no proof that they where running the show but neither did i found evidence that the did not.
Fact remains that the US did face some serious firefights with local rebels, who where aied to wound and kill as many US soldiers as they could.
What time period are we talking about? Because in many areas the Soviets were miles ahead of the Germans in '41 (tank building comes to mind).
I would take the position that everybody lost but that the common Somali people that lost the most and they were not given a chance to decide for themselves because it was the power of the GUN that ruled their lives and not reason.
The Vietnamese always had the numbers or surprise on their side or they simply did not fight. Either way, they thought the numbers were critical to success but did not count on the American fire power via one radio call. Thusly, they adjsuted their tactics to fight in close and in numbers, to achieve their objectives. Strangely, the Americans were slow to adopt or modify their tactics, and thusly some events did not turn out too well. I believe that tactics, in the field, can counter numbers unless of course, it's 40,000 to 400.........then you'd better stand-by ! Especially if you're in a defensive posture...aka Con Thien. Now there was a real mess !
Reporters, CBS, Generals.........none of them showed up for D-Day...stayed home and wrote their stories or were busy doing self promotion. Since we lacked strategy and seldom used good tactics....the result was, not too impressive.
SF..>Chuck
Reporters, CBS, Generals.........none of them showed up for D-Day...stayed home and wrote their stories or were busy doing self promotion. Since we lacked strategy and seldom used good tactics....the result was, not too impressive.
SF..>Chuck
John Sansom
New Member
Hi, Feanor....and apropos only slightly of WWII tank design, I recall the self-loading post WWII main gun on Russian tanks was alleged to be effective with three types of ammunition; HE, AP, and the "soft stuff"-- namely, the gunner.
For information sake, it would be interesting to know just how technologically superior Russian armour may have been when stacked up against the Germans. Anybody out there have a technical assessment to put forward?
The opinions I have heard have centred on rugged construction, weight, sloped armour and numbers, numbers, numbers.:lam
Depends on the period. The thing is that in the 1st half of the war the German tank designs were inferior to those of most of the Allied powers, while Russian was several years ahead. The Germans won most battles in this period because of superior doctrine, training, and coordination (due to 2-way radios in nearly all their tanks).
When the Germans invaded the Russians had probably had more different tank designs in their in their units that the rest of the Allies did in the entire war, and that is designs, not variants. The Russians built and tried out tank concepts that other countries just discussed, and then sent sample to the Spanish Civil War to get real world experience. So did the Germans, but their side won so they declared their designs superior. The Russians took notes about which design features were important (a gun big enough for a decent explosive shell (75/76mm) with anti-tank capability, mobility, and good armor), then went home and built the T-34.
Russia had already decided to standardize on the T-34 tank when the Germans invaded, but did not finish shifting production until the factories were move east of the Ural Mountains. The accounts indicate that only thing that the German tanks (whose tanks at the time only mounted 50mm antitank guns and low velocity 75mm infantry support guns) could do to a T-34 or KV series tank driving through their lines was immobilize them by shooting the tracks and then bring up heavy AAA artillery (88mm) or artillery piece (105mm or 155mm) to kill it.
The up gunned and up armored Mk.IV’s with the long 75mm could kill the T-34, but was inferior in armor and mobility (the T-34 was both faster and had wider tracks for lower ground pressure). The tank that finally put the Germans ahead was the late war Mk.V Panther tank, when it was finally debugged.
The Mk.VI Tiger was nearly invulnerable to Russian tanks, until the Russians up gunned the T-34 from 76mm to 85mm and introduced the JS series with 122mm guns, but suffered from poor mobility. Much of their reputation probably results from their arriving at the start of the period when the Axis was forced onto the defense, for which they were well suited.