NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen allot of this, newly trained troops, matching veterarn enemy troops in combat. So I was thinking why not let veterans win a battle against new troops if they have atleast 2/3 of the enemy.

Like:

Bob's army of 6,000 veteran troops defeated Greg's army of 9,000
no0b /newly-trained troops.

I don't agree. Sometimes, as you see in real life, new troops are better than the vets.

I don't agree. Sometimes, as you see in real life, new troops are better than the vets.

Where exactly do you see that in real life? Assuming the same quality equipment, people with a good amount of experience and training will always kick the butt of people with no experience, with or without training.

Where exactly do you see that in real life? Assuming the same quality equipment, people with a good amount of experience and training will always kick the butt of people with no experience, with or without training.

Damn, you beat me to it.

EDIT: I was logged out when I saw the poll before

Well, a few other factors come in, like


equipment and quality of weapons
strategic value of position of troops


But in the end, usually quantity prevails over quality. You ever watched Black Hawk Down? A few highly-trained elite U.S troops VS. thousands of badly-trained Somalian Militia only armed with AK-47s. The Somalians were able to flush the American troops out and kill a few of them, even though they have worse training than the US soldiers. But, they did have more soldiers than the US, (May I add, WAY MORE. That's a whole city of thousands against those roughly a hundred U.S troops) so they won.

With quantity, you can flank the enemy, surround them, etc. and do all sorts of tactics to defeat the veteran troops. So I'd say no, new recruits beat out vets if they have superior numbers.

Added: One-on-one though, with equal numbers, vets definitely beat new recruits.

Veterans have the bonus of experience, and with experience comes battlefield wisdom: invaluable in combat, since that wisdom transfers into strategy.

Strategy can win battles for any type of force, and since the veteran soldiers better know how to apply strategy to their ultimate goal of victory, I would say that they have the better chance of survival. For example, whilst new recruits know simple fix-and-flank maneuvers, veterans will know how to use every single weapon, piece of the environment, and soldier to their advantage. That's something that's hard to beat, no matter who you are, and especially if you don't have actual (or very little) combat experience.

The poll's still open.

There are some instances where raw recruits can beat veterans armed with equal weaponry. Superior position/superior numbers/fanatics are some of the situations.

Where exactly do you see that in real life? Assuming the same quality equipment, people with a good amount of experience and training will always kick the butt of people with no experience, with or without training.

Well not too long ago when Australia and America had some wargames between the American force (and I belive they were/or had at least some Special forces) and some units from the Australian Army reserve. Guess who won, you bet, the reservists.

2/3? That's so, sometimes.

But not always. For infantry in Napoleonic era battles, even 4/5 won't be enough. In Vietnam, 1/2 did suffice. In cities, it's again more like 4/5, given equal commanders. However, one shouldn't count on experience if he has less than half as many troops.
And, please, don't overestimate the equipment for infantry. Since StG-44, nothing makes much difference. StG-44, AK-47, AK-74 give an edge over M-16 in close combat (below 200 yards), due to full-auto mode, and over 400 yards M-16 gains advantage, but that all will be about 10%.

In modern tanks (M1, T-80 and all above), this ratio will depend greatly on how new the noobs are: one month of training, and the difference is minimal, about, maybe, 5:6. For ships it's even less, and for modern ships experience of the crew will have minimal effect.

In aircraft, it highly depends on style of combat, and consequently on aircraft era. In Korea, American pilots beat untrained locals despite their better planes. So for close combat the ratio may be very high; a good pilot is as expensive as his plane. In BVR engagements, if both pilots can detect each other, sheer number of missiles decides a lot of the outcome, and here the main concern is presence of AWACS-like plane (E-3, A-50). Four F-15+AWACS will beat four F-22 without AWACS, but without AWACS they stand a small chance against even two (but not one, it has too few missiles). Pilot makes small difference in BVR. And, obviously, inside visual range it's all about the pilots, with 1:3 ratio not impossible.


But that's if positions are equal. Advantage of ground air command and radar will overwhelm quality of the planes and experience of the pilots. Good knowledge of terrain and defensive positions allow untrained troops beat off even somewhat larger numbers of trained ones. In good flank attack barely trained crews with M-60 will crash twice as many M1A2, or even Leclerc, Merkava or T-95 with trained crews. Crossing the T in WW2 era or before lets a weaker fleet sink much stronger one.


So the strategic advantage is way more important than equipment and training. Way more important.

Well, a few other factors come in, like


equipment and quality of weapons
strategic value of position of troops


But in the end, usually quantity prevails over quality. You ever watched Black Hawk Down? A few highly-trained elite U.S troops VS. thousands of badly-trained Somalian Militia only armed with AK-47s. The Somalians were able to flush the American troops out and kill a few of them, even though they have worse training than the US soldiers. But, they did have more soldiers than the US, (May I add, WAY MORE. That's a whole city of thousands against those roughly a hundred U.S troops) so they won.

With quantity, you can flank the enemy, surround them, etc. and do all sorts of tactics to defeat the veteran troops. So I'd say no, new recruits beat out vets if they have superior numbers.

Added: One-on-one though, with equal numbers, vets definitely beat new recruits.

If you look at the casualtie reports from the Battle of Mogudishu you will find that we took only 18 causalties (the 19th came 3 days later) While the somalian Militai took 1000's. We "lost" because we fail to capture Mohammad Farrah Addid in 6 Months... a task which was orginally planned to take only 3 months. The White House was Already Upset that we were takking twice as long as we estimated, The 19 deaths were just the iceing on the cake.

Well not too long ago when Australia and America had some wargames between the American force (and I belive they were/or had at least some Special forces) and some units from the Australian Army reserve. Guess who won, you bet, the reservists.

That's a meaningless statement. What were the conditions and parameters of the exercise? Wargames aren't done just for kicks, they're designed to teach one or both sides something, or to learn what can be done. They are always scripted, often times with a preconceived outcome. So to say that they won is meaningless, you have to give the surrounding context.


So for close combat the ratio may be very high; a good pilot is as expensive as his plane. In BVR engagements, if both pilots can detect each other, sheer number of missiles decides a lot of the outcome, and here the main concern is presence of AWACS-like plane (E-3, A-50). Four F-15+AWACS will beat four F-22 without AWACS, but without AWACS they stand a small chance against even two (but not one, it has too few missiles).

Not necessarily. The AWACS still has to detect the Raptor, and I've heard of Raptors getting undetected gun kills on AWACS planes. Even without that, with all the nice new datalinking the F-22 acts as a mini-AWACS in its own right. Furthermore, a single F-22 could kill all four F-15s and the AWACs, as they have room internally for 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders plus a gun. It's also an open question of whether AMRAAMs have the ability to lock on to a Raptor from sufficient range to be useful.

There's a reason the Raptor had a 108:0 kill ratio in the latest exercise.


In good flank attack barely trained crews with M-60 will crash twice as many M1A2, or even Leclerc, Merkava or T-95 with trained crews.

Only if you catch them by total surprise . Which a barely trained crew will not achieve. Furthermore, the M1A2s (or whatever) will be able to adapt and destroy their opponent by virtue of their superior training, even though they may have been taken by surprise and suffered some initial losses.


But in the end, usually quantity prevails over quality. You ever watched Black Hawk Down? A few highly-trained elite U.S troops VS. thousands of badly-trained Somalian Militia only armed with AK-47s. The Somalians were able to flush the American troops out and kill a few of them, even though they have worse training than the US soldiers. But, they did have more soldiers than the US, (May I add, WAY MORE. That's a whole city of thousands against those roughly a hundred U.S troops) so they won.

The Somali militia did not win in any military sense. The American forces achieved their objective, capturing certain persons, kept control of those persons and were able to take them back to base, and were able to extract a unit that had become surrounded and pinned down through enemy action. Were they able to inflict heavier casualties upon the Americans than had been expected? Yes. But the same thing happened at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, both of which are indisputably American victories. So in exchange for 4,000+ casualties, the Somalis failed to prevent American forces from achieving a single mission objective, and only inflicted 101 casualties (19 fatalities) upon the UN forces.

Now, are quantities important? Yes. But they're no match for training, C4I, and technology.

I've seen allot of this, newly trained troops, matching veterarn enemy troops in combat. So I was thinking why not let veterans win a battle against new troops if they have atleast 2/3 of the enemy.

Like:

Bob's army of 6,000 veteran troops defeated Greg's army of 9,000
no0b /newly-trained troops.

I choose to abstain, as the noobs may be better armed, and less tired.

Read battle of Cowpens.
Or, as you would put it:

Outnumbered Noobs defeat overwhelming veteran troops.

Exeriance isn't everything. And, after 6 month's intensive training, you're about as good a soldier as the next (except those who are battle hardened and have not cracked).

I suppose it all boils down to a matter of scale and at what levels.

Given even numbers, soldier ability and officer ability, then the more experienced ones will win.

Then, I'd say first it goes to officer ability. A brilliant commanding officer would probably be able to hold or take a position with far less forces than an average one. Truly exceptional units have fallen before because of an incompetent officer taking charge. Terrain also falls under the scope of officer ability - if you choose to charge up a hill against an entrenched position you deserve what you get.

Next, it comes to numbers. Given even officer ability and different numbers, the one with more troops to play about with would probably win - simply because they can put more force behind any maneuver they decide to pursue. If you have twice as many troops you can send out twice as many groups of the same size as your opponent's.

Finally, but certainly not unimportant, soldier quality. Having a high-quality army means that in an average engagement they should take less losses and cause more enemy casualties. I group NCOs into this category too, given that they are responsible for the tactical level of an engagement. But if they're sent up against a force ten times their size, up a hill and into machinegun fire, their experience and ability doesn't count for much. Given roughly equal officer ability and numbers, then experience will factor in.

Equipment matters more than you might give it credit for as well. Sure, dithering between AK and M-16 gets rather pointless, but when you introduce the M25 HVAR, Hali-42, etc., it's a whole 'nother ballpark. And trying to use 5.56 NATO against full-body Level IV armor is going to get you killed pretty darn fast. Not wearing armor at all is a death sentence, especially against an opponent who uses large amounts of NBC weaponry (standard issue on Otagian forces, for example).

I'd have to agree, equipment, training and numbers all add up to what defines an army. Admittedly, sometimes rookies come out swinging lucky, or like in Stalingrad, those recruits that had survived had become rather adept city-fighters, throwing in an equal number of untrained recruits and veteran soldiers will largely result in a victory for the Veterans.

Its like Astronaut vs Caveman rhetoric :P

Equipment matters more than you might give it credit for as well. Sure, dithering between AK and M-16 gets rather pointless, but when you introduce the M25 HVAR, Hali-42, etc., it's a whole 'nother ballpark. And trying to use 5.56 NATO against full-body Level IV armor is going to get you killed pretty darn fast. Not wearing armor at all is a death sentence, especially against an opponent who uses large amounts of NBC weaponry (standard issue on Otagian forces, for example).

*Ahem*, moving along...

(till recently I RPed almost exclusively without body armor, infirior numbers of troops, and with 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition, caused horrific casualties upon Parthian Veterans [L 4 body armor does no good -except slow you down- when those 5.56 mm bullets are fired at point blank in three round bursts from a full length rifle...] I upgraded number of troops and the caliber to either 6 x 51 or 6.5 x 50 or 6.5 x 51 mm)

There is always an exception.
As the clever caveman has a tendancy to win...

There's a old saying that answers this question quite effectively..

"you can train for a lot of things, but there is one thing that training can never give you..Expirience"

I think that sums up my vote well enough without me needing to actually voice it.

Where exactly do you see that in real life? Assuming the same quality equipment, people with a good amount of experience and training will always kick the butt of people with no experience, with or without training.

Assuming that, then it'll be true (that veterans would own new troops).

*Ahem*, moving along...

(till recently I RPed almost exclusively without body armor, infirior numbers of troops, and with 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition, caused horrific casualties upon Parthian Veterans [L 4 body armor does no good -except slow you down- when those 5.56 mm bullets are fired at point blank in three round bursts from a full length rifle...] I upgraded number of troops and the caliber to either 6 x 51 or 6.5 x 50 or 6.5 x 51 mm)

There is always an exception.
As the clever caveman has a tendancy to win...
Considering Level IV armor is proof against 7.62 AP bullets and that many people use even higher grades of armor (me, for example), I don't think it's going to matter overly much, especially when you're already choking on your own vomit. I'd more doubt the Parthian's knowledge of his own equipment than the supposed abilities of your inferior weaponry. As any researcher will tell you, anecdotal evidence is next to worthless.

I wish to say just one thing on the topic of professional soldiers vs. green soldiers.

Professionals can be judged, but the world is filled with amateurs. For an example, look at thev Germans in Russia during WWII. Highly trained troops got stomped by defenders who often had literally no combat training at all. Granted, the Russians usually had numbers, but still...

~ Romandeos.

sometimes the new guys might have better air support and artillary support and can be better supleid with ammo and food but if there equal or only slightly better than veterans win

sometimes the new guys might have better air support and artillary support and can be better supleid with ammo and food but if there equal or only slightly better than veterans win

No always. Look at Vietnam. We, the Americans, had all the aireal support, artillery, advanced weapons and so on that we needed, but we still lost out in the end, because the North Vietnamese fought in such a way that troops lost the will to keep fighting. Heck, most actual battles in Vietnam were American wins in which NV losses were hideous, but they just inflicted such a cost upon us that we lost all will to fight. Before they fought us, they did largely the same thing against the post-WWII French forces.

~ Romandeos.

Considering Level IV armor is proof against 7.62 AP bullets and that many people use even higher grades of armor (me, for example), I don't think it's going to matter overly much, especially when you're already choking on your own vomit. I'd more doubt the Parthian's knowledge of his own equipment than the supposed abilities of your inferior weaponry. As any researcher will tell you, anecdotal evidence is next to worthless.

Ballistic armor doesn't equal protection from NBC warfare. As my forces are adaquately trained and equiped for such combat.

Type 4 armor is only proof against said bullets at relatively longer ranges, lower PSI of bullet surface area, and much slower than muzzle velocities.

Cross refferance what Class 4 is proofed against versus the ballistics of the test bullet.
Now the bullets I plan on using, also, American testing methods allow for sufficent shock and penetration to kill and still are rated proof against said weapons. Europe has twice as demanding requirements for the same rating.

Also, body armor doesn't protect all your vitals, such as head and appendages (the majority of combat injuries in the past are to the head and body, followed by the legs and then arms)

Ceramic inserts can be 'depleted' through multiple impacts. Rendering it to class 3A.

When emperical and anecdotal evidence disagree, check empirical analysis for errors.

Type 4 armor is only proof against said bullets at relatively longer ranges, lower PSI of bullet surface area, and much slower than muzzle velocities.
Then we have things like Dragon Skin Level III, which can take multiple 7.62 hits at 10 feet without penetration. And even with the ranges given for standard values, .30 AP has more than double the energy of a muzzle shot from 5.56 rounds.

Also, body armor doesn't protect all your vitals, such as head and appendages (the majority of combat injuries in the past are to the head and body, followed by the legs and then arms)
Depends on whose system you're using. Mine provides all-around protection, including much of the face, the neck, outer limbs, and groin at IV+ levels.

Ballistic armor doesn't equal protection from NBC warfare. As my forces are adaquately trained and equiped for such combat.
It certainly helps. Without some sort of armor, a mere scratch along your suit will leave you exposed to any agents.

Not necessarily. The AWACS still has to detect the Raptor, and I've heard of Raptors getting undetected gun kills on AWACS planes. Even without that, with all the nice new datalinking the F-22 acts as a mini-AWACS in its own right. Furthermore, a single F-22 could kill all four F-15s and the AWACs, as they have room internally for 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders plus a gun.
Not necessarily. But quite possibly, if it is Eagle group who attacks. Raptor isn't a stealth aircraft like B-2, it is a reduced detectability one. BTW, F-15 has more missiles, and evasion from several missiles is impractical. AWACS can give the tactical advantage of detecting F-22 before it detects F-15 (either it uses radar and loses stealth, or, more probably, doesn't, while AWACS-supported aircraft don't have to).
Actually, that was a bad comparison, it's much clearer if we have 40 F-22 vs. 40 F-15 + 2xAWACS. The scattered and uncoordinated aircraft may at best partially survive, even if they are very "cool", but not accomplish something. Coordinated ones have clear vision and direction, and can efficiently engage their opponents and accomplish the set objective.

There's a reason the Raptor had a 108:0 kill ratio in the latest exercise. As you wrote above about the war games... Shortly - don't overestimate all the new things, they always seem a century ahead when a lot of money is spent. People felt pretty much the same way about B-2 at first.
And keep in mind that Lockheeds really want more F-22 purchases.

But well, F-22 is too mythical and glamorous, let's take something more neutral - MiG-21 vs MiG-29. The latter will beat obsolete 21s in 4 vs 16 battle, but add four MiG-31 (mini-AWACS capability) to the second group, and they'll match 12 or even 16 MiG-29.
It's very much about tactical advantage.

Also, let's imagine a war between two aircraft carriers with equal air groups. Who will win? It's not the one who has more training or equipment. If a carrier is attacked with planes in the air, the attackers go down. Even if they have better (but not different generations) planes and more trained crews. If it's attacked with most planes inside, the outcome is also clear. If they meet on neutral grounds - well, it's where equipment and training start to play a really decisive role.


Only if you catch them by total surprise. Which a barely trained crew will not achieve. Furthermore, the M1A2s (or whatever) will be able to adapt and destroy their opponent by virtue of their superior training, even though they may have been taken by surprise and suffered some initial losses.
Yes, if that's a flank attack and the M1A2 are either caught by surprise or attending some other group; in any way attackers will have a minute at least, and that's a lot. Heavy initial losses may negate all the technical advantage. Tank isn't a battleship, it gets a round in the side and it's out of combat; a head hit can just turn it blind, which may mean pretty the same.



Now, are quantities important? Yes. But they're no match for training, C4I, and technology.
Quantities themselves are not very important. Tactical advantage is.
And remember that American military for many years has always operated in conditions where it had overwhelming tactical and strategic advantage. Overwhelming.

It's these bulky and ugly AWACS, together with thousands of people on the ground which turn air skirmishes into air domination, not another 0.2 TWR or 200 knots of speed.



Depends on whose system you're using. Mine provides all-around protection, including much of the face, the neck, outer limbs, and groin at IV+ levels.
Such armor is beyond normal weight carrying capabilities of a human. And, even if you use bodybuilders only, .50BMG, rockets, artillery, bombs and all the other weapons which score for well over 70% kills today, will not care much about this protection, but low mobility of your troops will make them easy prey.

Not necessarily. But quite possibly, if it is Eagle group who attacks. Raptor isn't a stealth aircraft like B-2, it is a reduced detectability one.

Everything I've read on the subject says that the F-22 is stealthier than a B-2.


BTW, F-15 has more missiles, and evasion from several missiles is impractical.

Quite frankly, that depends on the situation. They may be equally easy or hard to evade. And while the F-15 can carry more missiles, that really doesn't mean much.


AWACS can give the tactical advantage of detecting F-22 before it detects F-15 (either it uses radar and loses stealth, or, more probably, doesn't, while AWACS-supported aircraft don't have to).

I'd give the F-22 with its radar, which is unlikely to be detected (Low Probability of Intercept radar), the better chance of detecting the enemy first. The AWACS will have to be at a significant stand-off distance, with some of the F-15s doing close escort, degrading its ability to detect the Raptors. Meanwhile, they only need one Raptor using its radar, using it as a sort of mini-AWAC. FLIRs might also be used to detect and takeout the Eagles before they can detect the Raptors.


Actually, that was a bad comparison, it's much clearer if we have 40 F-22 vs. 40 F-15 + 2xAWACS. The scattered and uncoordinated aircraft may at best partially survive, even if they are very "cool", but not accomplish something. Coordinated ones have clear vision and direction, and can efficiently engage their opponents and accomplish the set objective.

You're right. Which is why the Raptor has an integral datalink. What one aircraft sees, every aircraft sees. It allows for the Raptors to coordinate themselves very well.


As you wrote above about the war games... Shortly - don't overestimate all the new things, they always seem a century ahead when a lot of money is spent. People felt pretty much the same way about B-2 at first.
And keep in mind that Lockheeds really want more F-22 purchases.

I believe that this was at Red Flag that they did so, which would remove claims that it was scripted to give the win to the F-22 regardless of opposition.


But well, F-22 is too mythical and glamorous, let's take something more neutral - MiG-21 vs MiG-29. The latter will beat obsolete 21s in 4 vs 16 battle, but add four MiG-31 (mini-AWACS capability) to the second group, and they'll match 12 or even 16 MiG-29.
It's very much about tactical advantage.

The only reason that there'd be any sort of match would be the MiG-31s engaging in combat themselves, the MiG-21s still would be easily beaten.


Also, let's imagine a war between two aircraft carriers with equal air groups. Who will win? It's not the one who has more training or equipment. If a carrier is attacked with planes in the air, the attackers go down. Even if they have better (but not different generations) planes and more trained crews.

Not necessarily. There's a reason carriers need SAM equipped escorts after all. There's really too many factors to say what would happen. For instance, the CAP could be looking in the wrong area for them, and so not be in position to intercept. That's what happened to the Japanese at Midway.


Yes, if that's a flank attack and the M1A2 are either caught by surprise or attending some other group; in any way attackers will have a minute at least, and that's a lot. Heavy initial losses may negate all the technical advantage. Tank isn't a battleship, it gets a round in the side and it's out of combat; a head hit can just turn it blind, which may mean pretty the same.

It won't be a minute, it'll be only the amount of time it takes for a single shell to be fired. At that time the Abrams will be alerted and react to the situation quite quickly.


Quantities themselves are not very important. Tactical advantage is.
And remember that American military for many years has always operated in conditions where it had overwhelming tactical and strategic advantage. Overwhelming.

It's these bulky and ugly AWACS, together with thousands of people on the ground which turn air skirmishes into air domination, not another 0.2 TWR or 200 knots of speed.

Quantities are important in and of themselves. You need a certain minimum number of anything for it to be effective after all.

Everything I've read on the subject says that the F-22 is stealthier than a B-2.
I don't mean to offend, but I would be pleased to know what exactly sources do you mean.

P.S. I don't ask you to trust my sources, but just note that even serious proponents don't describe F-22 as a stealth aircraft. It is a reduced RCS design, not stealth-focused.
Besides that, B-2 stealth approach is much less susceptible to high-wavelength radars and IR detectors. Speed and engines. Air reflects waves as well, and the higher temperature and turbulence, the better. Radars of a fighter, AWACS, and ground radar stations are very different.

You're right. Which is why the Raptor has an integral datalink. What one aircraft sees, every aircraft sees. It allows for the Raptors to coordinate themselves very well.
Datalink is not yet coordination. AWACS, with centralized data processing and dedicated staff coordinating the fighters is a very different thing from pilots attempting to communicate.


In any case, F-22 vs F-15 was just an example. Let's look at the more clear one.

The only reason that there'd be any sort of match would be the MiG-31s engaging in combat themselves, the MiG-21s still would be easily beaten.
This is a situation where combining these planes into a coordinated group doubles the strength. MiG-31 can use the MiG-21 as just dumb missile carriers, loading them with additional R-37. In this formation each MiG-31 would itself control the missiles launched by MiG-21. And this group would be efficiently coordinated, as MiG-31 is a two-seater, with weapons officers generally free to act as command staff of the group. Such a group could carry and effectively use 56 very long range missiles. By themselves, however, the 21s couldn't really help, as they are incapable of directing long-range missiles, and would be vastly outranged by MiG-29.

This is an example where the coordination and tactics give a formation of obsolete planes, reinforced just with a few modern units acting as command and control, an edge over modern ones.
Of course, many things can happen here as well, but these many things are again tactics and situation.


Not necessarily. There's a reason carriers need SAM equipped escorts after all. There's really too many factors to say what would happen. For instance, the CAP could be looking in the wrong area for them, and so not be in position to intercept. That's what happened to the Japanese at Midway.
That's it. Yes. The first thing in the war is to know where is the enemy and what you should do. I'm speaking about all these little factors: wrong area, wrong time, bad position. Who is attacking is just one of these factors.



It won't be a minute, it'll be only the amount of time it takes for a single shell to be fired. At that time the Abrams will be alerted and react to the situation quite quickly. If they are perfect. But perfect tanks won't even need crews.
In reality the attackers will have enough time before most of the attacked:
- Realize what happened - remember, you don't hear anything from a tank, look out through a thin slot, and it's all shaking;
- Notice the threat and evaluate is as the primary one;
- Receive the command to engage M-60 as the primary targets - not everyone even noticed them;
- Finally engage.
During this time the M-60 will have a lot of chances to inflict heavy losses upon the Abrams. Side armor is weak and insufficient protection. Of course, in head-on battle Abrams can blast times more Pattons.

I deliberately avoid comparing equipment of different countries, but the picture would be pretty the same with T-55 vs T-90, and much better for the attackers if they have autoloader and stabilized turret.

Quantities are important in and of themselves. You need a certain minimum number of anything for it to be effective after all.
No doubt. Numbers are the factor #1: without numbers, nothing can happen. But the factor #2 is tactics, coordination, position.
Training of combat personnel and equipment are only #3 and #4, most of the times correspondingly.

What you also must remember is that at all times, NS is freeform roleplay. In the end, who wins in a fight all comes down to who roleplays better until the other person (However reluctantly) admits that they lost. On NS, this would tend to favour veterans, simply because veteran forces will have more experienced roleplayers behind them. However, on the other hand newer roleplayers are also (I have seen this from experience, it is not simply a generalization) much less willing to take casualties, which causes an unfair advantage to them.

But in the end, it comes down to this: Who roleplays better. If you people here make some decision about odds and victory, I will ignore it completely. You can say "But I have 20,000 troops and you only have 1,500 so I win!" as much as you want, but as long as I am still willing to roleplay my troops existing and fighting back, I will. If you legitimately defeat me through good roleplaying and I say "Yeah, that was good, you trapped my troops in a canyon and then fired on them until they surrendered" then that is that and I lost. But if you post some shitty roleplay saying "My troops advance. OOC: I have more troops so according to some random thread, I will win!" then I will answer back saying "Not quite" and use tactics and good roleplaying to tear your advancing troops to shreds. You have to earn your victory on NS, you can't simply rely on numbers.

Roleplaying is the end all, be all of NS arguments. If you're a good RPer, you're more likely to win, no matter what the quality of the troops you're deploying. If you're a good roleplayer, however, you will also factor in the quality of your troops when roleplaying, and, for example, have rookie troops be less well trained and have worse morale than the veterans.



For example, I was once in an RP where a column of 150 troops of mine were ambushed by around 800 bandits trying to steal the supplies and kill the refugees the convoy was trying to protect. I was outnumbered, but my troops were from one of the most battle-hardened divisions in my entire military and were better outfitted. Even though I was in a much worse position than my ambushers, I managed to form up defensively and use superior training, equipment, and tactics to completely rout my opponents with very few casualties. My opponent was, luckily, also a good RPer and was quite willing to take losses.



Another example: I had 150,000 troops in fifteen divisions deployed, along with my allies (Not the largest of forces; some Transylvanian bombers, an unspecified amount of Panteran soldiers, and 50,000 Freekian Sentinels landing on the other side of the country), against a total of fifteen million Dephirian troops. As I was the most prolific RPer on my side, I was essentially outnumered 100:1. But I used vast air and naval superiority to my advantage and in half an hour killed 400,000 Dephirian troops with air and missile strikes, completely devastating his frontline troops and allowing my forces to advance at an unrivalled pace, capture huge tracts of land, and take huge amounts of prisoners. After nine hours of advance, I ran into Dephirian reinforcements, but all his air forces had been destroyed on the ground as part of ym initial strike and I still maintained overwhelming air and naval superiority. As such, despite the large numbers of troops thrown against me, my painstakingly set up tactics and preset plans worked to my advantage, and I used close air support to devastate his frontline troops. Ground fighting only lasted three hours, in which Dephire lost huge amounts of troops and I lost minimal ones, despite his huge numerical superiority. After twelve hours of warfare, he surrendered unconditionally.

As can be seen by this example, according to anything agreed to in this thread about numbers, I should have lost. But I used good RPing, tactics, and used my force's strengths to my advantage to force an unconditional surrender after only twelve hours of fighting.



RP is what wins it. RP is what loses it. What it boils down to is this: If you post one line saying "I send 20,000 troops and they advance on you to attack" you will lose no matter how few troops you deploy. I have more examples I could share, but I don't feel like I need to.

That's correct. I was talking about reality only.

Nationstates battles are about Strategy and Tactics:

1) Strategy-- You describe your weapons better because you purchased your weapons from an excellent shop like Macabees, Phoenix Militia, etc. The other guy is using standard soviet era weaponry. You have a better breakdown of your command structure and what you have in the field. The other guy has tanks and men with machine guns.

2) Tactics-- You can describe in detail exactly how your guys fight compared to the enemy who has a vague recollection of how the troops fight. Better execution.

Better strategy and tactics lead to the win. Experience in this setting might be in your strategic description. My troops are veterans, they have fought in x battles so they know their guns...

Nationstates battles are about Strategy and Tactics:

1) Strategy-- You describe your weapons better because you purchased your weapons from an excellent shop like Macabees, Phoenix Militia, etc. The other guy is using standard soviet era weaponry. You have a better breakdown of your command structure and what you have in the field. The other guy has tanks and men with machine guns.



LOL

1) Strategy-- You describe your weapons better because you purchased your weapons from an excellent shop like Macabees, Phoenix Militia, etc. The other guy is using standard soviet era weaponry. You have a better breakdown of your command structure and what you have in the field. The other guy has tanks and men with machine guns.

Ummm.... how the fuck is that 'strategy'? Strategy is not having better weapons and a better command structure -- it's having a better overall plan to defeat the enemy (for instance, classics such as "Incite your enemy to attack, defend against their attack until they are weakened, then strike"). Tactics is having better ways to execute that plan (e.g. forming up in small groups in a forest so that when the enemy attacks you can defend against them from all sides or circle around to cut off their rear). Weaponry is a different matter entirely.

And since when is TPM's storefront an example of an "excellent shop"? No offence intended to TPM himself, but I have yet to see one of his weapons that would actually work if built in real life.

Well, a few other factors come in, like


equipment and quality of weapons
strategic value of position of troops


But in the end, usually quantity prevails over quality. You ever watched Black Hawk Down? A few highly-trained elite U.S troops VS. thousands of badly-trained Somalian Militia only armed with AK-47s. The Somalians were able to flush the American troops out and kill a few of them, even though they have worse training than the US soldiers. But, they did have more soldiers than the US, (May I add, WAY MORE. That's a whole city of thousands against those roughly a hundred U.S troops) so they won.


Um...the kinda lost. The "100" US troops (Varying from 10th mountain division to special forces operatives) managed to kill nearly 2,500 militamen and complete there mission successfully, hardly a "win" for the Somali's. They:
A. Failed to stop the opposition from completing their mission

B. Took over 100 times as many casualties.

Again, I don't consider that a "Win".

Well, a few other factors come in, like


equipment and quality of weapons
strategic value of position of troops


But in the end, usually quantity prevails over quality. You ever watched Black Hawk Down? A few highly-trained elite U.S troops VS. thousands of badly-trained Somalian Militia only armed with AK-47s. The Somalians were able to flush the American troops out and kill a few of them, even though they have worse training than the US soldiers. But, they did have more soldiers than the US, (May I add, WAY MORE. That's a whole city of thousands against those roughly a hundred U.S troops) so they won.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu

Why strategy, when you can have Baron von Blitzkrieg?

http://modernwarstudies.net/Lineart/Baronblitzkrieg.png

quanity is good look at kursk ww2 and berlin for that matter but
look at afganistan even though the mujahadeen are regaining strentgh now because of pakistan the united states with very littel troops destroyed them
and very rairly useing air raids in infantry gound to ground fights not high mountain fights i mean ground and etc anyway they won look at veitnam
semi trained us marines vs battel hardend veit cong defeated the vc in 6 months 6 MONTHS thats crazy but they did it vs thousands upon thousands hell the united states won veitnam untill the politics and civiliains got into it now take iraq the islamic army in iraq and all those miltiias they have low quality low qaunity but they are still inflicting great damage upon the usa and coalition so all in all it is all about the soldier and the will faith etc to fight thats all what about that old guy in ww2 who held off 20,00 japanese or sas who held the germans at bay only with 20 mabe 10 men vs thousnds i could go on with storys on both sides of the war but all in all its the man that makes the soldier not the soldier that makes the man :sniper:

quanity is good look at kursk ww2 and berlin for that matter but


To be fair, Kursk and Berlin were not won solely through numbers. Believe it or not the Red Army was superior to the German Army at deep operation, and German blitzkrieg had met its match when its opponent knew that by using mobile reserves it could soak up the offensive, blunt the German spearheads, counterattack and destroy the opponent. The Red Army was tactically and strategically superior to its German opponent since late 1942, and had 're-perfected', so to speak, deep operation by 1943.

^^ All that I thought about WWII, is now a lie! NOOOO!!!

For discussion on the Second World War and Kursk see this thread: http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=3

now take iraq the islamic army in iraq and all those miltiias they have low quality low qaunity but they are still inflicting great damage upon the usa and coalition so all in all it is all about the soldier and the will faith etc to fight thats all what about that old guy in ww2 who held off 20,00 japanese or sas who held the germans at bay only with 20 mabe 10 men vs thousnds i could go on with storys on both sides of the war but all in all its the man that makes the soldier not the soldier that makes the man :sniper:

You call great damage 20 troops a month? In WWI 1,000 people died in a week....

You call great damage 20 troops a month? In WWI 1,000 people died in a week....
I have no clue what that guy said

Also, casualties wise, WWII beats WWI, there are battles in WWI were 100,000s of men died/missing/wounded in a week, the same goes for WWII. In the Battle of Kursk, over 1 million men were killed/wounded/captured, and this in only a matter of weeks

Still you get my point. And im pretty sure more TROOPS died in WWI than WWII, but i know more PEOPLE died in WWII

Still you get my point. And im pretty sure more TROOPS died in WWI than WWII, but i know more PEOPLE died in WWII
Nope, More soldiers died in WWII

in WWI the ratio of Civillians to Soldiers is smaller than in WWII, but more Soldiers died in WWII than people in WWI

WWII
Military dead:
25,000,000
Civilian dead:
37,000,000

WWI:
Casualties
Military dead:
10,000,000

with about 5 million civies dead

Um...the kinda lost. The "100" US troops (Varying from 10th mountain division to special forces operatives) managed to kill nearly 2,500 militamen and complete there mission successfully, hardly a "win" for the Somali's. They:
A. Failed to stop the opposition from completing their mission

B. Took over 100 times as many casualties.

Again, I don't consider that a "Win".

"Phyrric victory"

More british tommies died in WW1 than WW2 though...

Also 'heavy losses' is based on perception.

America considers the 2 casualty war an autrocity, and a 0 casualty war ideal.
Though some Americans see it another way, which you so clearly pointed out.

Of course veteran troops are qualitatively superior to n00bs, but it's not really a huge factor in modern warfare.

The biggest factor in accomplishing a military objective is the utilization of troops and equipment. This isn't the 18th century where you can ride on having the l33test troops in the world.

1. Most of the overall plan in Nationstates is how you buy equipment and what kind of troops you have. Part of any overall plan is logistics-- how you equip and what types of troops you choose. I rarely have seen any other element of "strategy" in Nationstates. Buy your equipment, arrange your soldiers , choose your allies then fight. Very few other elements of strategy are present.

I agree totally.

1. Most of the overall plan in Nationstates is how you buy equipment and what kind of troops you have. Part of any overall plan is logistics-- how you equip and what types of troops you choose. I rarely have seen any other element of "strategy" in Nationstates. Buy your equipment, arrange your soldiers , choose your allies then fight. Very few other elements of strategy are present.

If you're playing this way, there's something seriously wrong. Where's the fun in lining up troops opposite each other and firing away? In a proper battle, equipment matters FAR less than strategy.

1. Most of the overall plan in Nationstates is how you buy equipment and what kind of troops you have. Part of any overall plan is logistics-- how you equip and what types of troops you choose. I rarely have seen any other element of "strategy" in Nationstates. Buy your equipment, arrange your soldiers , choose your allies then fight. Very few other elements of strategy are present.

Wrong on all counts. Not only is it not fun, as Otagia points out, but if an amazing RPer with great strategies is facing someone who posts (As you say everyone does) "My troops are 20,000 men with assault rifles and body armour plus 200 heavy tanks which I bought from X storefront, we advance." most likely the RPer will tear them to shreds.

However, strategy is not the only thing. It is probably the most important, but when RPing a battle you have to realize a lot of factors are present: weather, time of day, terrain, size and direction of movement of troop forces, force composition, generals commanding the troops, what support is available for each ... And this is before you get to the battle itself.



Say we have the 20,000 troops from the previous example, with an RPer who doesn't care about strategy or tactics and just posts that one sentence post. His opponent is a good RPer with only two brigades totaling 3,000 troops, no tank support, and one squadron of attack planes, his ace in the hole. All this exists because he says it does. He's RPed these troops getting into position and he's RPed the attack planes just waiting for an order. His opponent has no air cover, because he has not said he has any, and he's far away from any friendly airbases.

Now, let's say the smaller force is the defender. As such, he gets to choose the terrain for where the fight is. He says the attackers are advancing through the border regions of his country, which is mostly heavily forested rolling foothills. This forces the tanks to stick to the road, and to provide support for them the infantry will stick close. Since the defender has no heavy equipment, he has free reign of movement through the woods as his opponent moves. With scouts keeping tabs on the advancing troops, he sends in run after run of the attack planes, using bombs and cannons to strafe and attack the advancing columns, aiming mainly at the tanks, and the planes destroy a significant number of them.

Now that his opponent is leaving the woods, and it's getting on to night, the attackers have to stop to camp for the night and refuel the tanks. When they do so, the 3,000 defending troops descend on their camp, attack planes making a daring nighttime raid and the infantry aiming their attack at the supply depot, which they easily destroy. Using logistics, the defender has now all-but crippled the attackers. Without fuel for the tanks, they have another half day of advance at the most, the two players decide.

When the new day dawns, the defenders are sitting on very few casualties, while their tactics and strategies have now forced the attacker into a hole. Although in a fair 'line vs. line' fight they would still win, by now they are down about a thousand troops and dozens of tanks, and the tanks are limited to half a day of movement.

The defenders bide their time, waiting, and in the late afternoon the tanks run out of gas, forcing them to stop between two fairly large hills. The defenders advance in behind them, cutting off their supply lines to prevent any new fuel from arriving, and the attack planes bomb them mercilessly until night comes, destroying dozens upon dozens of immobile tanks. By now all those heavy tanks are pretty much gone and the attacker, who thought he had it in the bag, is down to about forty tanks. They make camp for the night to try and wait for more supplies. Their men are running out of food with their supply lines cut and no supplies remaining in camp.

When dawn comes, so does the final attack. Appearing over both of the large hills come large amounts of defending troops firing down on the attackers from both sides. The planes fly run after run over the valley where their opponents are entrenched, and by the end of an hour of fighting thousands of attackers lie dead and all the tanks have been destroyed. The remaining 16,000 attackers surrender, hungry, cold, and demoralized. They feel embarrassed to discover that their opponents were only 3,000 troops in two brigades, but that strategies and tactics won the entire battle for them because the smaller force refused to engage them in a 'fair fight'.



I've seen this sort of thing happen too many times to count. As an example that actually happened to me, I had 750 special forces troops (I was a small nation, and this was Spring 2003) deployed to help my ally Kecha in a peacekeeping operation. Kecha had about 150,000 troops deployed in a fairly well-entrenched position between two forests at the foot of some mountains. Descending from the mountains came 200,000 enemy troops. As Kecha settled in to defend, my special forces, in the forest on the left flank of the advancing troops, went to town with machine guns and assaulting fire, ripping thousands of attackers to shreds before they could even reach Kecha's lines. By the time they did, they were destroyed and demoralized enough that the defending troops barely had to do anything to stop them. And why? Because I used strategies and tactics in conjunction with the available terrain to my advantage.

Perhaps (And I do say this somewhat hastily) you have not seen any strategy and tactics not because it does not appear on NationStates (Because I know for a fact that it does) but simply because you are RPing with people who do not do this, in which case you would be making an unfair assumption based on a biased sample of NS RPers.

I've seen this sort of thing happen too many times to count. As an example that actually happened to me, I had 750 special forces troops (I was a small nation, and this was Spring 2003) deployed to help my ally Kecha in a peacekeeping operation. Kecha had about 150,000 troops deployed in a fairly well-entrenched position between two forests at the foot of some mountains. Descending from the mountains came 200,000 enemy troops. As Kecha settled in to defend, my special forces, in the forest on the left flank of the advancing troops, went to town with machine guns and assaulting fire, ripping thousands of attackers to shreds before they could even reach Kecha's lines. By the time they did, they were destroyed and demoralized enough that the defending troops barely had to do anything to stop them. And why? Because I used strategies and tactics in conjunction with the available terrain to my advantage.

Yeah, that sounds about like what happened. It proves a good point.

~ Romandeos.