John Sansom
New Member
That's what's so neat about this and other Defence Talk forums.... Ask a question, and get an answer )and a whole lot more than anybody's 2 cents worth.
Ta muchly.
Is war simply a matter of numbers???
- Thread starter Feros Ferio
- Start date
Ta muchly.
Force Multiplier
A modern day soldier goes up against the British Colonial Army during the revolution. He will ultimately lose, but using modern technology and tactics s/he will kill many Redcoats before falling.
Now compare that number of Redcoats killed to the number killed by a hypothetical sole minuteman against the same army. Divide the first number by the second and you have the force multiplier ratio.
Leadership is also a force multiplier, and from what I know about the chinese and the chinese culture, we'll have 'em beat no matter how big our military is.
This argument can be made, but you can't forget that technology is a force multiplier. Take this thought experiment:
A modern day soldier goes up against the British Colonial Army during the revolution. He will ultimately lose, but using modern technology and tactics s/he will kill many Redcoats before falling.
Now compare that number of Redcoats killed to the number killed by a hypothetical sole minuteman against the same army. Divide the first number by the second and you have the force multiplier ratio.
Leadership is also a force multiplier, and from what I know about the chinese and the chinese culture, we'll have 'em beat no matter how big our military is.
Feros Ferio
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #103
Then we definitely agree on some things. However, what is it about the Chinese that assures you of victory?
Even the older T-28, and BT-5 and BT-7 designs were superior to almost everything in the German arsenal. The PzKpfw I and II were too lightly armed and armored to compete with anything. The PzKpfw III was inferior to most Soviet light tanks (including the T-26). It's a tell-tale sign when the light tanks in the Soviet arsenal have 45mm main guns, while the only thing close to a medium tank in the German arsenal only has a 75mm (and a problematic one at that).
The Chinese military promotes through testing. In the US military we do this as well, but only through enlisted ranks. Testing is a dubious, at best, method of selecting leaders.
The Chinese have a culture of discipline and obedience, great qualities for human wave strategies. Their lower ranks will not speak up, though. They will not take initiative. They will not think creatively.
Modern warfare demands initiative and critical thinking even from the lowest ranks. Americans are unique in their culture of individualism, we would prevail.
(if we could stay focused...and that's a very big if)
Mod edit: please remove the parts of your post that denigrate the Chinese. It is borderline delusional to believe a society as big as China's is incapable of initiative or creative thought. This isn't a case of trying to enforce political correctness - though this topic is sure to cause flaming and arguments, another reason for mod intervention - but a case of your words simply not matching the reality of the situation.
If the Chinese are so deficient in creativity and iniative, why are we seeing the ongoing development of anti-carrier capabilities to counter USN superiority in the Pacific? Why are we seeing an increase in indigenous fighter aircraft development? Why are we seeing China make strategic inroads towards Africa for access to rare earth minerals?
On top of all this, the cultural traits of neither the US nor China are the topic of this discussion. If you wish to have such a discussion then make another thread in the Intro/Off-Topic forums but please, try to open your mind a bit and don't dismiss billions of people as though they're carbon copies of one another.
I'd like to see you modify this post within 24 hours if possible. Thanks mate, and I hope you understand the nature of the objection.
The Chinese have a culture of discipline and obedience, great qualities for human wave strategies. Their lower ranks will not speak up, though. They will not take initiative. They will not think creatively.
Modern warfare demands initiative and critical thinking even from the lowest ranks. Americans are unique in their culture of individualism, we would prevail.
(if we could stay focused...and that's a very big if)
Mod edit: please remove the parts of your post that denigrate the Chinese. It is borderline delusional to believe a society as big as China's is incapable of initiative or creative thought. This isn't a case of trying to enforce political correctness - though this topic is sure to cause flaming and arguments, another reason for mod intervention - but a case of your words simply not matching the reality of the situation.
If the Chinese are so deficient in creativity and iniative, why are we seeing the ongoing development of anti-carrier capabilities to counter USN superiority in the Pacific? Why are we seeing an increase in indigenous fighter aircraft development? Why are we seeing China make strategic inroads towards Africa for access to rare earth minerals?
On top of all this, the cultural traits of neither the US nor China are the topic of this discussion. If you wish to have such a discussion then make another thread in the Intro/Off-Topic forums but please, try to open your mind a bit and don't dismiss billions of people as though they're carbon copies of one another.
I'd like to see you modify this post within 24 hours if possible. Thanks mate, and I hope you understand the nature of the objection.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would suggest being careful when "painting" such broad swaths regarding different countries.
In the US, extensive testing and schooling is done, across basically all ranks (possibly except for Flag ranks...). On initial entry, if not before hand, the US conducts apptitude testing to determine what skills a person has, or can be taught. From there, personnel are then on to their service's basic and advanced training, and then the appropriate school(s) depending on which service they are in, and what MOS they have within said service. While officers might not undergo "basic" training, they do undergo training to lead personnel, including specific leadership, equipment training and tactics relevant to the type of unit and equipment they will serve with.
At each successive training, passing the testing associated with the training is required to progress. Failure could result in a candidate having to repeat the course, being dropped from the course and/or programme, being transferred to another type of unit, or potentially just discharged. Of course this is all dependant on what exactly the personnel was undergoing, how badly they failed and the circumstances. I would expect that if a soldier failed basic training, they would just be discharged. OTOH, if it was Crypto school, and the candidate failed Cryptographic Linguistics, they would either be given the chance to repeat the school, or be shunted over to Cryptographic Radio instead.
-Cheers
Lets keep the racial profiling out of this conversation.
I recall the same being said by certain Brits before the Japs invaded Malaya and Singapore in 1941. The same was also said about the NVA and Vietcong in Vietnam. The PLAN sub skipper who surfaced within torpedo range of a USN carrier some years ago, was he not thinking 'creatively' and taking the 'initiative' or was it just blind luck he managed to get in so close undetected?
Though different armies in many parts of the world may display the same behaviour patterns in certain areas in the conduct of wars or conflicts fought, this is mostly due to historical, political and social reasons rather than being unique to certain races. In 'Learning to East Soup With A Knife' by John Nagl, the author provides clear historical reasons why the U.S. army in Vietnam as a learning institution, was not able adapt to the challenges and changes needed to cope with a counter insurgency threat the way the British had done. The Chinese human wave as was done in Korea was in response to firepower and other advantages possessed by the Americans. I very much doubt that in a future war, the PLA will still rely on human wave assaults to overwhelm enemy positions or that even if human wave assaults are still in it's doctrine.
Feros Ferio
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #109
First of all, I apologize if my question lead to this sort of answer.
Second, HNelson, you should go read some ancient Chinese military strategy. While it may be cliche to mention Sun Tzu, he speaks of generals employing strategy that mirrors the qualities of water. By this, I believe he is trying to admonish the reader to keep ones strategy fluid, ever adapting to the situation, like water moving around rocks on its path to the sea. He also tries to promote an un-orthodox style of warfare in order to confuse and surprise ones opponent. He's not the only one either. Ssu Ma, the Tai Kung, Wei Lao-Tzu, they all talk about having a creative approach at one time or another. Does this sound uncreative to you?
Don't make the mistake of underestimation. Sun Tzu said if you know yourself and don't know your opponent, you will only be successful 50% of the time. But if you know both yourself and the opponent, you can be successful all the time.
John Sansom
New Member
I'm not so sure that the US is "unique" in their culture of individualism--presumably, in this context, as it applies to the battlefield. My service in a non-North American force stressed individual situational assessment and subsequent action at the OR (other ranks) levels. This, of course, was a matter of personal experience. There may be others who would disagree....just as there may be others in the US forces who would hold to a like negative opinion.
In the middle of the 20th century the Chinese army weak for its huge size because of their small industrial base, which they have now remedied. The claims of ‘human waves attacks’ in the Korean War were misquotes in the western news services referring to the seemly endless supply of Chinese troops was like fighting an ocean. The Chinese of that period used WWI Hutier infantry infiltration tactics, not marching abreast, and were reportedly better than the UN forces at it. That is a sure indication of flexibility at the squad, platoon, and company levels, probably because the Chinese avoided the mistakes that the Russians made and developed professional NCOs.
Lastly, look at the strategy and tactic papers being written by the officer corp. They are frequently more innovative than anything published and accepted in the west, so their commanders must be flexible too.
As for “a culture of discipline and obedience”, that is the same description used for the Japanese and Spartans. I doubt you would classify either of those cultures as push overs.
Richard45s
New Member
Interesting thread, normally I just pass through but I’ll post a response to contribute my 2cents to the question.
"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".
The premise he uses as a foundation to support his argument is false. War has not always been a numbers game, there is far more to war than simply numbers. Case in point the Patriotic War of 1812. Superior numbers did not help Napoleon in his invasion of Russia, and even if you increased Napoleon’s manpower by a few million and gave him inferior technology to be in line with the author’s argument I doubt the outcome would have been any different. The problem was in the assumptions Napoleon’s strategy was based on, not his troop numbers.
Now if he was here I’m sure the author would counter with something along the lines of, “but if Napoleon had more troops then he could’ve returned next year better supplied” to which I’d have to say something sarcastic along the lines of “Yes and the Zulu could have conquered Europe in the early 1900s if they had a few trillion people with pointed sticks”
I really dislike this type of thinking. War is more complicated than simple numbers. Give me 500 modern tanks and 50 modern combat aircraft and 500 pieces of mobile artillery, put me in a desert and about 700 miles away create an opposing force of a million tanks, Sherman’s T-34’s, Panzers, take your pick, then give me a week or two and I’ll give you a victory. Superior enemy numbers will mean little after my planes blow up their fuel depots, food stores and ordnance stockpiles. Despite the obvious credentials I feel that the author’s statement communicates a simplistic view of war. In my humble opinion if you want to think about war then think of it this way, military formations are structures, with the tip of each structure being the actual combat units and its leadership. These structures are dangerous because a portion (the tip) has the ability to cause damage to our structures, (our military units, our civilian government, our corporations etc, etc) To neutralize these dangerous structures you don’t necessarily have to destroy the tip, destroying the foundation which supports it is often just as effective and more permanent.
I can understand though where the author’s statements are coming from. Seeing the emphasis on superior numbers and China I’m going to infer that these concerns are embedded in the American experiences in both the Korean and Vietnam wars. I disagree with these concerns. Warfare is structural, Korea and Vietnam happened as they did because the support structures that made the Chinese army possible were located in China, a no go zone. It’s pretty easy to keep pouring in infantry when you have a population of a billion and the enemy is not attacking your training facilities, your munitions factories, your mines, your transportation infrastructure, your government. Again, warfare is structural. Since our political leaders would not give the go ahead to hit China directly our forces were only able to engage the stucture that was the Chinese army at its most dangerous point, the tip. Should another war with China happen and Western forces get the clearance to attack China directly then I think the next conflict will turn out very differently. Personally I’m looking closely at Chinese development patterns, sooooo many people, so clustered on that overdeveloped eastern seaboard. One nuke detonated high enough to EMP the entire region and snap, 1 billion people suddenly have more urgent priorities like food and water. I can’t see a Chinese repeat of mass infantry tactics being possible under these conditions, especially since they’ll likely be short 10-20 million soldiers just to maintain order on their now technologically impaired eastern seaboard.
Superior numbers in both troops and population simply means that there are bigger support structures at work, our forces just have to pull out enough supports and the entire structure will come crashing down. So long as we don't pull a battle of Britian of course and give the opposing military structures a chance to rebuild and grow much bigger teeth
Anyways though, tanget, sorry. In response to the question no, I believe there is far more to war than simply numbers.
Lovely, a defensive strategy based on first use of nuclear weapons.
ukeWhat happens when the Chinese do the same to the west coast of the USA in retaliation? Or worse, a ground burst in Los Angeles, Portland, and/or Seattle?
And I would not be sure that they would have to pull a 10-20 million troops back to maintain order. Historically in this situation it is more likely that they would be swamped by volunteers demanding revenge against the USA.
Richard45s
New Member
Defensive strategy? No, EMP on that scale is a purely offensive strategy to be used should war become avoidable. It is a purely offensive tactic used to cause mass destabilization of a country prior to ground operations through impairment of an adversaries ability to respond to military incursions.Lovely, a defensive strategy based on first use of nuclear weapons.
What happens when the Chinese do the same to the west coast of the USA in retaliation? Or worse, a ground burst in Los Angeles, Portland, and/or Seattle?
And I would not be sure that they would have to pull a 10-20 million troops back to maintain order. Historically in this situation it is more likely that they would be swamped by volunteers demanding revenge against the USA.
The only conceivable way to use this as a defensive strategy would be covertly. Say putting a nuke in orbit, have it attach itself to a Russian or Indian satellite and then detonate over Chinese territory. Geopolitically we are not the only rivals the Chinese have, from their perspective it could very well be Russia, India, Japan, the USA or even terrorists. What, are they going to nuke the entire world? Doubtful China is a 10000 year old civilization, they are not going to undertake an action that could have themselves permanently wiped off of world civilization.
Likewise this is a security issue we also face, someone pulling off an EMP attack off on North America. If this happens and those who pulled it off are of uncertain origin, who are you going to attack? And if you find them are you going to nuke them in return? Better yet how can you justify the use of a nuclear strike that will kill millions of civilians when the actual EMP attack likely never killed a single American?
“Historically in this situation it is more likely that they would be swamped by volunteers demanding revenge against the USA”
Really, to which historically situations are you referring to? Nuclear related I know of the two nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagisaki, though the reaction was more of a “we surrender” than a desire to enlist. Though a lot of people died in both of these. There really is no historical precedent for the use of EMP on this scale, no one dies, just a lot of things with electronics don’t work anymore. It literally is electronic warfare on a massive scale.
But you sound very sure of this, so to which historical situations are you referring to in which any foreign country has been swamped by volunteers demanding revenge against the USA? And for what? and how can it be related to use of EMP?
My mistake, I thought you would try to avoid a war. I suppose you want to launch that nuke today, just to make sure to hit them first? :flame
Seriously, you have your defensive and offensive strategies reversed. You use the covert satellite to sneak it in for an offensive war opening strike. Defensively, after the war has commenced you can just use ICBMs, no one is going to believe it was not you anyway. No one is going to believe terrorists have the capability to launch such an attack. And China does not need to be sure who launched the EMP attack. After being crippled like that they will not want any of their enemies to be in shape to exploit it, so they launch on every one, Russia, India, the USA, and probably Japan, Australia, Taiwan, and the EU as well. Russia does the same, and the USA responds and the whole Northern Hemisphere is a radioactive mess.
Japan was already fully mobilized, women, children and the elderly included. There was literally no one left to volunteer, and no remaining materials to do anything with. The Japanese were already beaten and knew it, they just had too much pride and fatalism for their own good. The nuclear strikes and the launch of the Russian offensive that was rolling up the last of their overseas conquests in Korea and China finally pounded it through their skulls, thank god. If it had not, the X-day planners were estimating that less than 3% of the population would have been left after the invasion, based on the results in Okinawa. The plans included the battlefield use of nuclear weapons for supporting fires and chemical warfare. Estimated US casualties were over 1 million, not including radiation casualties from infantry advancing though nuclear debris immediately after detonation (they did not understand fallout yet).
As an opening move of the war offensive surprise strategy, a better comparison would be Pearl Harbor. :argue
The technology verses numbers debate is never ending. Most often technology wins but not always. The interesting question is why does it usually win over numbers but at times it does not? What are the determining factors which decide which side wins and under this circumstance? Besides the factor of the naked will to win, which cannot be determined in advance.
I think the determining factor is the ability to control the battle space, as to which side has the ability to choose the time and place of battle to be conducted on its own terms and or to deny battle to the other side when the terms are favorable to them. Which usually means as a practical matter the advantage goes to the ones with the power to attack and the disadvantage goes to the ones that must defend.
In classical battle, the technologically superior force has greater intelligence, mobility, and firepower and if it is greatly outnumbered, uses these capacities to defeat their opponent in nice easily digestible bit sized chunks, yum yum. Then the numerically larger force will then in desperation try to force the big climatic final battle, where it can bring its greater numbers to bare but by the time that usually comes it is so weakened that any advantages their numbers once hade has already been greatly reduced.
In unconventional war it is just the opposite. The unconventional forces usually get to pick the time and place of battle and it is the technologically greater force, even if they have more numbers, that must defend itself in scattered spread out locations.
But I think, that in both conventional and or unconventional war the general principal hold true.
As to the earlier statements made about China’s historical methods of fighting, historically getting impressed into the army was a life time sentence and there was no getting out until you were too old or crippled to fight. They were very few enlisted volunteers historically specking. It was considered almost equivalent to a death sentence in and of itself. Historically military service was not a valued profession within confusion societies. Today China has a professional and mostly volunteer modern army and I would not assume that this new army would act in the old historical ways. The rest of their society is quickly evolving. Would it not be prudent to think that this segment will to?
They don't have the arsenal to respond with a mass strike on everyone. There is also the question of delivery systems. China only has a handful of ICBMs, with a large chunk of their arsenal being bombs. They don't have the airpower to reach Moscow, nevermind Europe. There is also the question of BMD. The A-135 around Moscow could conceivably stop the entire Chinese ICBM arsenal. When (if) the GBI in California in Alaska reach larger numbers, they may provide a similar capability. As far as deterrence goes, China is fairly vulnerable.
They do not need a mass strike and they will probably avoid hard targets like Moscow and target undefended population centers – this is a retaliatory strike. They just need enough to trigger the bloodbath. China (or rather the rulers) has already lost so they have nothing to lose, that makes them dangerous. The cost will be millions of dead and shattered civilization.
Limited nuclear war is a fantasy.
This makes little sense. For starters they haven't lost everything. They still have a country. A Russian or American nuclear response would change that pretty quick. They may have taken massive damage, but in a situation where it's unclear who the perpetrator is, and no immediate follow-on actions occur, I suspect their immediate reaction will not be to nuke everyone. More likely it will be to investigate the incident, raise their military to high alert status, etc.
In fact it makes no sense what-so-ever for them to strike everyone. As I already noted, they don't have the physical arsenal to do it. Now if prior to the event they have had tensions with a given nuclear power, they might respond by striking the perceived perpetrator. But even that is questionable. An aggressive ultimatum is far more likely then an immediate all out nuclear strike.
If the target is the US or the Europeans, then China is limited to their ICBM arsenal, which isn't enough to destroy either one, much less the entire northern hemisphere. But even if they do strike at everyone the damage they do will be minor, and diffused among a large number of geographically separated locations. The response on the other hand will be from everyone on China. Huge amounts of damage, but only to a single country. I don't see how the entire northern hemisphere is a mess.
Feros Ferio
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #120
Interesting point Richard. Sometimes superior numbers can be a disadvantage. Think of the chaos in the opposing ranks one could create if enough key supply depots where taken out. If the infantry has no ammo, if the tanks, trucks, and planes have no fuel, what good are superior numbers?
Also, I like the fact that you bring up EMP. While there is no historical precedent for its use, based on the known effects, its effective use has the potential to tilt the scales in any conflict in this increasingly technologically reliant world. This becomes especially true if it is used to disrupt the economy of the opposing nation. We all know that the prosecution of a war cannot continue without an economy to support it. Therefore, if EMP can also be used to disrupt the civilians who support the military effort, the effect is multiplied many times over. This is a great example for all the naysayers out there who quickly disregard some of the more advanced tech out there and its effects, and who talk about superior numbers as if they were all that is required in order to win.
nfloorl: