Sounds like just the type of thing Robert McNamara would love so Iím very wary. Never trust the fancy models or military civilian whiz kids too much is another lesson history teaches us. Vietnam was such a utter failure in a large part because so many in the DOD were enamored with the models of limited warfare. First rule of war is of all things in the world war is the least limited of them.
ph3n1ks: Is it me or did they just say that size of military units actually does matter?
I think the Iraqi Army might disagree that it had nothing to fear from the numerically inferior 3 ID and the other US forces. The only problem is the Iraqi Army isnít around to attest to the fact that superior numbers is only one in a long list of factors but I guess their lack of ability to say that means something. Then you can look at the Iran-Iraq War and see how two countries grossly mismatched in numbers ended up stalemated in a bloody conflict.
The key to modern warfare is a good combined arms doctrine with flexibility. Then you need mobility, technology, communications, and overwhelming firepower on the battlefield. Numbers is just one component among a host of many and is far from being the most important.
ph3n1ks: Attrition is the new mass of modern combat theory.
Attrition the new mass?
Obviously these fellows are not military historians nor know a ounce of military history. Attrition was one of the central doctrines of the South during the Civil War with their intention being to bleed the North until it lost the will to fight. Then WWI upped the ante with both sides attempting to bleed the other dry in bloody trench warfare battles like Verdun. World War II could be seen as the transitional stage from attrition with mass forces to modern combined arms focused on technology, firepower, communications and mobility. To put in other terms mass numbers died as the ultimate deciding force with the advent of atomic weaponry. You can deploy as many guys as you want and they will make nice fodder for my tactical nuclear weapons. Now with weapons like MOAB the lethality of conventional weapons is rapidly reaching lethality where entire massed formations can be vaporized by a single weapon.
ph3n1ks: Therefore, if I put more troops and equipment on the field than you do and I can last longer than you, I will win the war. Amazingly, this has worked for many, many conflicts, wars, and skirmishes. Thus, the more potential corpses I can commit to a war, with equipment, the better chance I have of winning.
This sounds like Soviet Doctrine and that shows the great flaw of it. This is the type of thinking that results in T-72 tanks being killed by Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Iíll take superior technology, communications, mobility, and firepower over numbers any day of the week.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE