NationStates Jolt Archive

Borman Bmpire claims that I am a godmodder yet he is even worse then I am
he claims to control me and all my profit's yet he never took me over.


Originally Posted by Borman Empire
If you do I will just pull out and release Y2K. My men will then go through and kill every last person in your country. I will then move back in. ANd you forgot the part when I have 60+ allies, an army over 50 million, and there are other nations who have holdings in you.


the Y2k virus is clearly god mode with 100% death rate . it is imposible!

Borman Empire claims he has an army of over 50 million try 8,730,000
incase you didn't notice yet the max for an army is 3% unless a draft is reinstated,
and I have seen no evidence of a draft.which would still be imposible with only 5% of your population avalible for the military

Mmmm... telegram him. Gets his attention.

Maybe it was a bluff @_@

He's fascist so alot more and his children are trained from birth so yeah he can have a big ol' army but I'm his ally I talk to him.

Y2K isnt a 100% mortality rate. 100% is not imposible.

I have over 50 million. The max is 5-10%. I have slaves to take the place of workers and I have Borman warrior to field from and I have conquered nations to field from.
More than 5% is available to field form.


I and 3 otheres (Taldaan, SafeHavan2, and Kryozerkistan) took you over.

When you take someone over you control their profits.

Empire is spelled with an E, not a B.

Nice try but..oh wait, it wasn't a good try.

You moron. Haven't you ever heard of bluffing? Don't be foolish. Also, Borman kicks your ass, RP wise. And you forgot to mention the part where you declared war on the world, Borman and three others invaded you, and then you tried to open a storefront and sell WMDs, despite the fact that you are an occupied nation. Crazy kids...

Y2K isnt a 100% mortality rate. 100% is not imposible.

I have over 50 million. The max is 5-10%. I have slaves to take the place of workers and I have Borman warrior to field from and I have conquered nations to field from.
More than 5% is available to field form.


I and 3 otheres (Taldaan, SafeHavan2, and Kryozerkistan) took you over.

When you take someone over you control their profits.

Empire is spelled with an E, not a B.

Nice try but..oh wait, it wasn't a good try.

listen,I thought everyone agreed that your magical Y2K was godemoding and does not exist.

We went through this.

No actually its not magical. More agreed it existed than not. and fine, even if it doesnt I have plenty more bio weapons I could use.

I though you were cool.

I have some monkeys for sale!
They're trained at stealing peaches!

And best of all: I'll sell them to both of you!

^
*eyes water*

lol

Alexias thank you .

I have some monkeys for sale!
They're trained at stealing peaches!

And best of all: I'll sell them to both of you!

HIlarious.

No actually its not magical. More agreed it existed than not. and fine, even if it doesnt I have plenty more bio weapons I could use.

I though you were cool.


I thought you were cool?

Jesus Christ,you sound like some middle class white kid or something,man.I'm sorry,Its just that you do.And its kinda funny.No offence.

Lol, I see what you mean. But I did, probably your name. Its cool.

1 small issue. 5% recruitment is stupendously high.

Try 0.5%. I mean you can draft and train loads of people, but at the same time? I doubt it. 0.5% including logistics would be a normal nation.
1% is high. 2% is extreme. 5% excepting total war, which is not long term sustainable without tragic consequences, still mobilises less than 5%. Look at WW1 in the UK, total men mobilised was less than 2 mil. Over the whole war. Which is about 5% of the population at the time. But not at the same time

TO sustain this, the economy was destroyed. Trade contracts lost internationally, money was borrowed, the trade balance fell dangerously (and such a thing is not normally possible) and many industries were destroyed as a result.

In NS terms, youre standing, short term army should not exceed 1% (and then 1% in extreme cases) unless you have had ages to prepare. You couldnt invade with 50 million today. 5 million, including air navy and logisitics maybe. With all your conditions, id count you an extreme case. But 1% in normal conditions is probably a maximum.

Notquiteaplace has .5% in total, including a medium logistics division. We also have a further 3 million reservists, but these are trained for defence and militia organisation and are not mobilised outside of extreme conditions. (ie we are invaded). We have a strong economy and good rights however, and by compromising these you could have more. And Notquiteaplace is extremely militaristic/ fixated on defence.

I dont know the exact size of your nation, but Im assuming you exceed 1bn and actually want some people left at home in case someone attacks you.

hey you two, no offense meant with the monkey thing :)

but i guess it's easy to get carried away, hu?

I mean, i run a standing military of 0.2% population...i have weapons in store though to arm 20% of my population for guerilla warfare :P so i guess thats a deterrent to staying on my soil longer than needed :P
works nice.

5% is very hard on an economy.
thats 5 in 100 people. children and old people are usually either not working or not efficient as a workforce. so count 75 people. you need logistics. You need to supply arms, ammunition, and the raw materials needed for this. You need food and supplies... with an army of 5%, easily one third of your nations people will be all but occupied with the military during peace time. If you send it on a campaign far away from home, the strain on logistics increases while your infrastructure and economy will usually suffer from a conflict.
Every nation maintaining high drafts for extended periods of time had it's economy suffer greatly from it...

I tend to agree read this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361143) My nation has 750 million and I claim only 1.3 million in the military, with mandatory service, and that is pushing the envelope as far as I'm concerned. China in RL has over 1 Billion in population and has a military of only 2 million or so. The bigger the military, the more expensive it is to maintain and the more difficult the logistics are in maintaining order, supplies, etc. for every 100,000 men you add to your army, you add an extra 30,000,000 to your expenses and this is assuming you can outfit them with all the gear they need for a mere $300.00. When you add in logistics to support them in terms of food, supplies, bullets and figure that $300.00 is going to get them a gun and fatigues and not much more, your cost to manpower ratio goes down even more.

ooc:

I see your Y2K and raise you Windows 95.

I tend to agree read this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361143) My nation has 750 million and I claim only 1.3 million in the military, with mandatory service, and that is pushing the envelope as far as I'm concerned. China in RL has over 1 Billion in population and has a military of only 2 million or so. The bigger the military, the more expensive it is to maintain and the more difficult the logistics are in maintaining order, supplies, etc. for every 100,000 men you add to your army, you add an extra 30,000,000 to your expenses and this is assuming you can outfit them with all the gear they need for a mere $300.00. When you add in logistics to support them in terms of food, supplies, bullets and figure that $300.00 is going to get them a gun and fatigues and not much more, your cost to manpower ratio goes down even more.

Im a developed nation with a well equipped military, I spend $1mil per single unit of infantry, but this does include an APC per squad. Still, if you want an effective, well trained and well equipped army, you cant afford to have more than .5% of your nation in service.

Im a developed nation with a well equipped military, I spend $1mil per single unit of infantry, but this does include an APC per squad. Still, if you want an effective, well trained and well equipped army, you cant afford to have more than .5% of your nation in service.

lest your nation is focused on this...by producing weaponry oneself and including military education in the growing up-process of young citizens...well.

As said, i maintain 0.2% population as military and like to have as many of the others have doctorates as possible... :P

This whole thread is probably a flame bait from the topic name alone.

i looked at the link, it has one flaw. The "reasonable" size is 2-5% whereas it should be about a tenth of that. Ive seen that thread before. Otherwise, its pretty good.

ooc:

I see your Y2K and raise you Windows 95.

OOC: HIlarious.

About the military...I used a military calculator. WHich gave me about 7% active. When I first started and several times after I read the stickies and searched for how large your military should be. I got 5%, not .5%. Someone said 15% was a strain, but believable. And even if I did have a military of 50 million i wouldn't use all of it to invade. It was a show of force and slight bluff, something to scare his peoples into submission. But I would send enough people to kill him. AND that figure includes logistics, whenever a force is deployed they bring the logistics they need.

Well yes. But calc arent gospel word. common sense is. And most calcs dont follow common sense. I appreciate you trying, but seriously. GDP calcs that think $40000 is the richest a country could be (hahahahaha, the USA the best a nation could be, no not at all, I mean its the best in RL... but you could easily have stronger economies if you abolished a few human rights and things) and that 100% tax rate economies could spend nothing on feeding their people ad housing them.

Im not saying your godmoding, but your numbers are hideously wrong. Those calcs should be divided by ten to be realistic. Your nation is extremely militaristic, .7% would be a good peacetime number.

Heres a thought. If 10% of your nation is in your army, and 10% is the most you could sustainably spend of GDP on military. You only have your GDP per capita for each person. You have to pay wages, which means they are below average wages, give them a gun and armour, and, bullets, and frankly, there goes your ENTIRE budget. Just think about it. Supplies, accomodation, transport.

Now if you have 1% with 10% of GDP, you can spare a few hundred thousand per man to equip him and train and amintain him every year. Which means you can probably have a ships or two for a few large groups (note exageration, you could have a navy) maybe some tanks, airforce etc.

Anyway. Youve been had. Sorry. Just divide by ten. Your ground army will probably shrink more than anything else.

((OOC: Meh. The rules say my max is 5%, so I'm damn well gonna adhere to that. I get sick and tired of you pussies whining about me having too many soldiers. Wow, this just became a flame. Damn.))

I have some monkeys for sale!
They're trained at stealing peaches!

And best of all: I'll sell them to both of you!

ROTFLMAOPIMP!

Seriously, this thread has gone stupid in more ways then I can count.

You, the starter, and you two, the "I can have 15% militaries" folks - read the Logistics thread by TEO and the Economics thread by Smoke Jaguar Clan.

Then you can both realize that 15% armies are utterly ridiculous.

As to the Y2K virus having 100% fatality rate - George, NOTHING has 100% fatality rate. Utter Godmod. You know very little about bioweapons if you think 100% is possible. So forget about it.

Finally - if you don't accept their occupations heres a simple idea - IGNORE THEM. There is no rule saying you have to accept or play with anyone here. And if they start bitching, its grieving and the mods will end up DEATing them.

Real simple.

People don't understand that 5% or15% or whatever include logistics personnel and reserves. That's why it's a military total, not a freaking combat troop number.

Can't help that.

For every combat troop, you should have 10 noncombatants in support. The Soviet Union went with 1:6, but then it expected massive losses and did not expect to repair anything. WW2 Japan had 1:3 and all of its troops were horribly undersupplied and starving within a year.

A 15 million man army has about 1.3 million combat troops total. That's it - no more.

If you have a 15 million army and 15 million combat troops - congrats, they all starve in the first week, now you have no army and your enemy is picking up free equipment from your dead people. He's probably going to invade you next, as you have no defenders at all.

*shakes head*

Can't help that.

For every combat troop, you should have 10 noncombatants in support. The Soviet Union went with 1:6, but then it expected massive losses and did not expect to repair anything. WW2 Japan had 1:3 and all of its troops were horribly undersupplied and starving within a year.

A 15 million man army has about 1.3 million combat troops total. That's it - no more.

If you have a 15 million army and 15 million combat troops - congrats, they all starve in the first week, now you have no army and your enemy is picking up free equipment from your dead people. He's probably going to invade you next, as you have no defenders at all.

*shakes head*

That's what I just said. 15 million man armies include logistics personnel. I'm saying that they are not all combat personnel, because as you so eloquently put it, if not your enemy would be picking up equipment from dead people.

*shakes fist*

As a military brat, and as a Cadet 2nd Lieutenant at a military academy, I would like to let everyone know that just because a soldier is a non-combatant (logistical servicemen) that does no meant they can't fight. Every soldier is trained to be infantry qualified before going to MOS or there profession in the military. Just a little information for all you non-military people (civilians). There are no contientious objectors (pussies who don't want to shoot people) in the Army. So once again a huge army is possible in a huge dominating push as so proven in the strategist book Sun Zu the Art of War, and the book ROMMEL, the Strategist at War. C A D (1) ---Opposition (0)

P.S. Japan during WW2 was undersupplied because of failures of the Logistical Chain of Command. So the Japan statement is out. Another Fact from a Militant Product

As a military brat, and as a Cadet 2nd Lieutenant at a military academy, I would like to let everyone know that just because a soldier is a non-combatant (logistical servicemen) that does no meant they can't fight. Every soldier is trained to be infantry qualified before going to MOS or there profession in the military. Just a little information for all you non-military people (civilians). There are no contientious objectors (pussies who don't want to shoot people) in the Army. So once again a huge army is possible in a huge dominating push as so proven in the strategist book Sun Zu the Art of War, and the book ROMMEL, the Strategist at War. C A D (1) ---Opposition (0)

P.S. Japan during WW2 was undersupplied because of failures of the Logistical Chain of Command. So the Japan statement is out. Another Fact from a Militant Product

Uhm Duh. However, you would not put a platoon of waterboys up against combat infantry by choice. They might be able to defend themselves, but they are not going to be front line troops. That's the point.

Now, if you want to have your support troops chewed up, by all means go ahead. And afterwards - you starve, run out of ammo, have no supply lines to speak of, and in short - you lose.

As to the Japan question - it failed due to lack of ability to perform its duty. Hence, the statement still stands.

In reference to nonquietplae, I have yet to understand GDP. I can no longer debate wiht you because I have no idea what you said.

100% mortality rate is not impossible.

Y2K Is not 100% mortality rate.

Rome had about 1 out of 8 men in ITALY in thier army. How? Becuase slaves could take theie place. Then the conquered nations, colonies, and provinces could suply men. THey beat Hannibal becuase they outnumbered him nearly 6:1. I draw men from conquered nations, provinces, vassals, and the extra men generated by slaves.

In reference to nonquietplae, I have yet to understand GDP. I can no longer debate wiht you because I have no idea what you said.

100% mortality rate is not impossible.

Y2K Is not 100% mortality rate.

Rome had about 1 out of 8 men in ITALY in thier army. How? Becuase slaves could take theie place. Then the conquered nations, colonies, and provinces could suply men. THey beat Hannibal becuase they outnumbered him nearly 6:1. I draw men from conquered nations, provinces, vassals, and the extra men generated by slaves.

Good, because they won't stand and won't fight. So your supply lines are even more vulnerable.

Hannibal had limited intelligence, no air force, and was not fighting a mobile war.

You do things like Rome did, and you're dogmeat to a modern mobile warrior. Why? Because as was pointed out - supply troops can fight, and will. Slaves and such won't. They'll run.

In short - you've hamstrung your army and created a huge vulnerability because you are depending on an obsolete method.

I dont think you understnad my point or what I said.

Rome would attack an army. When they would the other nation would become allied, or a vassal. Rome could then draw soldiers from them. When Hannibal attacked he won several victories. But becuase Rome had conquered other nations they could draw men form the conquered lands. These armies with those of Rome outnumbered Hannibal and they thus won.
Point: Rome drew soldiers from conquered lands

When Rome conquered lands they took slaves. What do slaves do, they work. These slaves worked at home and took the jobs of Romans. These Romans who had purposely (sp?) lost their jobs joined the armies.
Slaves took the places of Romans in the economy, allowing thsese Romans to join the military

How many times to I have to say it, my army figure includes logistics!

How do I have a hamstrung army? I have Bormans loyal to Borman who are well supplied, with good intelligence, and good equipment.

I dont think you understnad my point or what I said.

Rome would attack an army. When they would the other nation would become allied, or a vassal. Rome could then draw soldiers from them. When Hannibal attacked he won several victories. But becuase Rome had conquered other nations they could draw men form the conquered lands. These armies with those of Rome outnumbered Hannibal and they thus won.
Point: Rome drew soldiers from conquered lands

When Rome conquered lands they took slaves. What do slaves do, they work. These slaves worked at home and took the jobs of Romans. These Romans who had purposely (sp?) lost their jobs joined the armies.
Slaves took the places of Romans in the economy, allowing thsese Romans to join the military

How many times to I have to say it, my army figure includes logistics!

How do I have a hamstrung army? I have Bormans loyal to Borman who are well supplied, with good intelligence, and good equipment.

The cause of the decline of the Roman Empire was the said integration of soldiers and people from conquered lands into the Roman Empire.

Slaves are known to be notoriously bad at fighting for someone that is enslaving them. Slaves taking the place of regular people=revolution.

On the path to destruction is thyne empire.

The Slaves ARE NOT FIGHTING!

The cause of the ROman empire was not that. These nations wer considered part of the empire and given citizenship. I know and love Rome.

Rome began to have internal problems, feuding, plagues, and more.
Attila the hun begna to take awya from the military. Then Germanic tribes came and threatened. Rome hired members of Germanic tribes to fight for Rome. These armies let their Germanic brothers through to attakc Rome.

The people we use are form the conquered lands, now part of the empire.

Rome was made weaker by internal problems, that allowed external armies to come and conquer. Rome hired members of these armies to fight for them. Thats what happened.

Ex: You and me are not friendly nations. I ahve plagues, revolutions, and start to lose order. You come and attack/invade me. I hire your army/people to defend me. When your military comes guess what, the people I hired let you through.

I use people from conquered lands who are now part of the empire, with citizenship to fight enemies of Borman and thusly their enemies.

Borman, do you remember what happened when in WW2 germany forced people from conquered lands to work in ammunition factories and other economy used to support their war machine?
Despite rigid controls many duds were produced...shells, bombs, torpedos.
As for regular ammo, some of it was fixed to explode the rifles or SMG's they were to be fired from.
Also these conquered nations, regardless of the efforts of the German military squads, maintained a high number of resistance fighters both providing intelligence to the enemy, disrupting supply lines and adding direct support to enemy combat troops. Besides, they forced Germany to maintain a significant military presence to prevent uprising.

Thats how things work modern age.
Conquering someone and have them become a loyal vassal just doesn't cut it for a nation used to democracy, independence, and cultural identity. Neither will having them enslaved increase your popularity with them...
As for military figures including supply and logistics, sure, nice. But do you also include industrial and agricultural production in that? And despite using slaves as you mentioned, you know not ALL of the people in your country are always capable to work?
Anyway...slave workers, high draft, and vassalization might have worked wonders for Sparta or Rome, but name one example in modern warfare where it didn't cause a country more problems than benefits to try and keep a country annexed and economy wasn't crippled by a long-term maintainance of high draft...

As for all supply guys being combat-capable, too: i'd like to disagree to a point. While they usually undergo basic military training and are capable to use firearms to defend themselves, they are no combat troops. They lack parts of training, they often lack combat experience, and when confronted by the enemy, are just as likely to try and retreat behind the own frontlines to regroup as they are to try and engage them.

Actually I dont, I never learned that, my school sucks. But it makes sense. But although people (I included) wuld like this to be as real as possible, it cant be. And people ned to RP things, as long as they are not impossible. Ex: My rebels got control of a nuke and nuked your occupying force and empire

I have yet to conquer a democracy. Afmanistan wasnt and isnt. In most cases the peoples who were enslaved have a better life efter being enslaved.

What do you mean industrial and agricultural production? you mean factories?

Yes, not everyone is capable to work. Seniors who have saved enough money dont work, babies and yound cant work, crippled (I dont know if that is an appropriate term-I used it when I was), reterded,a nd probably others.

I dont have a draft.

I would have to have time that I dont to find you one.

I never said that, it was Knigh Phalanxia, but he is right. They recieve training, atleast basic, and can fight. He said they can fight, not they are as good as real soldiers.

I cant keep my eyes open. Talk to you guys tommorow. Like 4:00

Well back to the original issue..yes Afmanistan you have been conquered along with Useicton and other in your group.

The Slaves ARE NOT FIGHTING!

That was part of the point.

And conquered people are never completely loyal to a conquerer. Ever.

1 small issue. 5% recruitment is stupendously high.

Try 0.5%. I mean you can draft and train loads of people, but at the same time? I doubt it. 0.5% including logistics would be a normal nation.
1% is high. 2% is extreme. 5% excepting total war, which is not long term sustainable without tragic consequences, still mobilises less than 5%. Look at WW1 in the UK, total men mobilised was less than 2 mil. Over the whole war. Which is about 5% of the population at the time. But not at the same time

TO sustain this, the economy was destroyed. Trade contracts lost internationally, money was borrowed, the trade balance fell dangerously (and such a thing is not normally possible) and many industries were destroyed as a result.

In NS terms, youre standing, short term army should not exceed 1% (and then 1% in extreme cases) unless you have had ages to prepare. You couldnt invade with 50 million today. 5 million, including air navy and logisitics maybe. With all your conditions, id count you an extreme case. But 1% in normal conditions is probably a maximum.

Notquiteaplace has .5% in total, including a medium logistics division. We also have a further 3 million reservists, but these are trained for defence and militia organisation and are not mobilised outside of extreme conditions. (ie we are invaded). We have a strong economy and good rights however, and by compromising these you could have more. And Notquiteaplace is extremely militaristic/ fixated on defence.

I dont know the exact size of your nation, but Im assuming you exceed 1bn and actually want some people left at home in case someone attacks you.

RL Egypt had about 80% of their budget from 1971-1974 devoted to armed forces. Other than that, it was on average 37-30%. Their Armed Forces employed about 11-15% of their nation. Today the percent is less somewhat, but it gives a good idea of what is possible and what isn't. Of course probably not even 1/2 of that 11-15% were combat troops, but a good chunk obviously were.

Yes, and Egypt completely sucked wind from a lack of infrastructure it is still recouperating from.

I would point out - it lost to a much smaller, worse armed nation. Repeatedly.
More proof this approach does not work.

Yes, and Egypt completely sucked wind from a lack of infrastructure it is still recouperating from.

I would point out - it lost to a much smaller, worse armed nation. Repeatedly.
More proof this approach does not work.


Ooc- Read "Arabs At War" by Kenneth M. Pollack and then talk to me about why Egypt lost. Until then, I'm not going to listen to a word you say because you just don't have any idea what you're talking about (no offense, but really, you don't, you haven't read 1/2 dozen plus books on the Arab-Israeli Wars, read dozens of articles in periodicals, journals, magazines etc, have you?)

Do you really want to do this?

No?

Good.

The point of all this is that all troops named are not front line support troops. You need support, logistics.

50 Million is possible, if you include logistics. Otherwise, I wouldn't think so. Considering Afmanistan's lameassed intro post, I would vote Borman for the better RPer.

Yeah, I dont think Borman's a bad Rper, its just that like every other NS er inthe whole forum, theres always something to be learnt.

Again, egypt spent what? 80% of their BUDGET on armed forces. Not GDP. You may be right, but you didnt read what I said properly.

I am talking as part of GDP. As in total output. The biggest military spenders in the world are strong economies who spend a small % of GDP on it. At that time the US spent 15% of GDP on armed forces. But they have been scaling that back for years now as it wasnt doing the economy a whole lot of good.

But yeah, you want maybe to scale down your total armed forces, to mayb 1% and then assume a large chunk are logistics. That way your army are well equipped.

And just so you know, I have decided several times that I didnt have enough logistical support and have overhauled my armed forces. Infact Im in the middle of a significant logistic improvement program right now.

Thank you.

The figure includes all logistics.

Isreal won becuase they are a deomcracy. These always prevail. How do you think Isreal holds off the entire middle east?

I have been saying the whole time that that figure included Logistics. Not all jst front-line soldiers.

Thank you.

The figure includes all logistics.

Isreal won becuase they are a deomcracy. These always prevail. How do you think Isreal holds off the entire middle east?

I have been saying the whole time that that figure included Logistics. Not all jst front-line soldiers.

No. Israel won because of superior logistics, concentration of firepower, intelligence, lack of c3 ops by the opfor, and mobile warfare tactics.

Yeah, I dont think Borman's a bad Rper, its just that like every other NS er inthe whole forum, theres always something to be learnt.

Again, egypt spent what? 80% of their BUDGET on armed forces. Not GDP. You may be right, but you didnt read what I said properly.

I am talking as part of GDP. As in total output. The biggest military spenders in the world are strong economies who spend a small % of GDP on it. At that time the US spent 15% of GDP on armed forces. But they have been scaling that back for years now as it wasnt doing the economy a whole lot of good.

But yeah, you want maybe to scale down your total armed forces, to mayb 1% and then assume a large chunk are logistics. That way your army are well equipped.

And just so you know, I have decided several times that I didnt have enough logistical support and have overhauled my armed forces. Infact Im in the middle of a significant logistic improvement program right now.

So Notquiteaplace = Decisive Action. Ok.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha :p

no. Try again. Notquiteaplace is the first nation I ran. I have three active on this forum. One isnt mine so its almost inactive (im just babysitting it)

One is Orange state. THe other is this one NQP.

Try again. Plus look at my location. Its not a lie.

No. Israel won because of superior logistics, concentration of firepower, intelligence, lack of c3 ops by the opfor, and mobile warfare tactics.

And THEY WEREN'T LESS ARMED OR LESS POWERFUL. (Sorry: Caps-lock) BUt the democratic spirit allowed them to prevail. If the situation were the opposite I would not be surprised if Isreal prevailed. But couple with the fact that they have a much stronger and better army they most definetly should have won.

No. Israel won because of superior logistics, concentration of firepower, intelligence, lack of c3 ops by the opfor, and mobile warfare tactics.

And THEY WEREN'T LESS ARMED OR LESS POWERFUL. (Sorry: Caps-lock) BUt the democratic spirit allowed them to prevail. If the situation were the opposite I would not be surprised if Isreal prevailed. But couple with the fact that they have a much stronger and better army they most definetly should have won.

Uhm, no. Israel was outmanned and outgunned. It was not the sum totals that won for Israel, it was their application. Where the OpFor couldn't run effective combined maneuvers, Israel put all its force on one point, cut off huge swaths of OpFor troops, and destroyed logistical support.

In short, they fought better with what they had, not with better equipment.

I think we are trying to argue two different arguments of the same fight.

They had better spirit, logistics, tactics, and basically everything but man-power.

THey used it all to their advantage and thats why they are still alive today.