BF2S Forums What is the most important aspect of modern warfare, and why?

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

The infantry wins the war. And the airforce can't find the enemy if theres no one in the area to provide intelligence. Or to provide a base of operations.

One question: If we can win without putting our men in harm's way, why do our troops die in Iraq?

EDIT: Oh, and my statement applies to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Lebannon... It just seems to happen pretty much every war these decades.

Because we are attempting to "liberate" Iraq, not destroy it. Infantry in modern warfare merely facilitate an invasion. Infantry are also nothing without an airforce and navy backing them. The air force and navy are what makes the U.S. able to project full military force anywhere on the globe.

And again, what decade are you living in?

jonsimon wrote:

The infantry wins the war. And the airforce can't find the enemy if theres no one in the area to provide intelligence. Or to provide a base of operations.

That is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these forums. Ever heard of satellites? Recon planes? Once again, the U.S. does not need infantry spotters on the ground to coordinate air and naval attacks.

Satellites need to know where to start. They are designed to supplement and aid the infantry, they cannot identify a threat without aid from another form of intelligence. Say there's a missle silo being built in Siberia. Satellites are not going to find it without being told to look there. Infantry on the ground are often the REASON for air and naval attacks. Artillery and bombing are often used as a supplement for the men on the ground.

The fact is that every war in the history of mankind has boiled down to men on the ground. Wars began with men, they are the fundemental component of war. Everything else is supplemental.

logistics: gotta get things in place
Technology: kill the enemy more effectively with lower cost to your own troops
Firepower: sometimes you gotta drop bigger bombs to succeed

Money is by far the most important aspect of modern warfare. And since personnel training wasn't an option (OP: you noob), I went with logistics. All the technology in the world means squat if you can't use or maintain it. After that comes morale, of which ideology is merely a subset. Then you can start talking about technology and firepower. Anymore, mumbers are only significant when you have alot of fronts to attend, or are playing a "balanced" online game.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-22 17:58:45)

Bubbalo wrote:

Sea_JayUK wrote:

Technology will always win even against numbers.

Korea, Vietnam, Chinese Civil War, the Eastern Front (WWII).  Need I go on?  Having said that, I do believe technology is the most important aspect: but no aspect can be ignored.

For once I agree with you! The Germans had better tech than anybody during WWII, but they got beat by a better will to win and numbers! The Soviets proved that!!

We took a tie with Vietnam, but we underestimated their "primative tech" to hide weapons caches, and improvised traps etc.!! This enabled them to fight us whenever and wherever! This caused slowdowns in resupplying front line troops, and fighting a conventional war in general. 

Technology is great, it helps enourmously, but as bubbalo said NO ASPECT can be ignored! +1 to Bubbalo

You can have your technology, numbers, and other resources aviable, but it all comes down how you use them, so I voted logistics.

It's the old Rock-Paper-Scissors game. Each under the right context trumps another. A thought provoking poll but since none of your factors exist alone I have to say it is the right combination at the right time that is the most important.

Short brainstorm: Ideaology can outfight technology without logistics if the war is fought in home territory of the ideologists (but even foraging is logistics). But there is a threshold of firepower and numbers with superior logistics that can likely defeat ideology. Tech is awesome but you need the right amount to survive attrition. Nope I can't see any one factor beating another alone.

What didn't make your list is Leadership, that would get my vote.

Technology. If you're in an f-35 and have ground troops in M1A2 Abrams tanks and your enemy is in a dromedary and firing RPG's, you're pretty much good to go. Won't stop troop deaths, but certaintely helps [decreasing troop deaths].

Last edited by Poseidon (2006-08-22 19:15:22)

Spawn camping APCs FTW!

There were many things left out.  Terrain.  Commanding ability (part of why the Iraqi army was so thoroughly trounced in both Gulf Wars was because the generals were morons).  Having the J-10s (joke, of course).

Anyways, you can for the most part get around not having one or two things very good.  Firepower can be somewhat overcome by technology.  You will kill an equal amount of people by having a very few jets fire laser-guided bombs into bunkers as having a WW-2 Soviet artillery division (yes, they had whole artillery divisions!) hit the bunkers and everything for 5 miles around.  And unless you need to defend something, a single highly mobile armored regiment could feasibly discombobulate an entire army's logistics if it can sneak behind the front lines (they just steal gas, and they either need to have compatible ammo or steal enemy guns).  Intelligence is major.  Damn near everything can be hidden from satellites and aerial recon, and you can't find out squat about camoflagued things unless you know where to look with those cameras.  One example of this, in Serbia or something like that, US-friendly guys with small arms took on tanks.  Although the infantry could do squat against said tanks, the tanks would have to gun up their engine to fight back.  Hmm... and is that a heat-seeking missile coming from that A-10?  Simply put, the heat their engines put out finally gave the US attack aircraft targets to hit.

However, the most important thing is that you know your own capabilities and your enemy's while denying that information to the enemy.  Given anything resembling realistic odds, you will be able to form a plan to destroy an enemy.

Ikarti wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

We took a tie with Vietnam, but we underestimated their "primative tech" to hide weapons caches, and improvised traps etc.!! This enabled them to fight us whenever and wherever! This caused slowdowns in resupplying front line troops, and fighting a conventional war in general.

Took a tie...LOL. That's a new one.

How did we lose?? No articles of surrender were ever filed. . . . 

The South Vietnamese were the ones who ultimatly lost, but the USA did not "lose" vietnam militarily.  One could say we lost the political war, but certainly not the military one.  We beat the shit out of the NVA and after the Tet offensive, the viet cong was almost totally destroyed.  Was it a popular war? NO! Did a lot of troops die(58,000) yes they did! But as far as military logistics, the US military never lost a pitched battle EVER throughout that war!  Were they ambushed etc. and had traps kill lots of guys. . . yea, and thats all Hollywood wants you to see!! But the REALITY, is that the US military did its job honorably and successfully.  If you dont believe me, read the history books about vietnam, I am not making this shit up.  .  . time and time again they say the political war is what killed that military effort.

Bottom line is the South couldn't withstand the NVA onslaught, and in the end, we got tired of helping a country that wouldnt help themselves.  Plus when politicians fight wars, and not let the commanders, things tend to go to shit very quick!

Bubbalo wrote:

Sea_JayUK wrote:

Technology will always win even against numbers.

Korea, Vietnam, Chinese Civil War, the Eastern Front (WWII).  Need I go on?  Having said that, I do believe technology is the most important aspect: but no aspect can be ignored.

Technology will always win over numbers???

Okay imagine this - PLA and USA facing off. The PLA have only their regular full-time troops, no air support, satellites, tanks, automatic weapons but they do have their nukes. The USA has all their reserves, the National Guard, USAF, Marines, ANG, and everything Hi-Tech including nukes.

Day 1. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill. What does the USA do?

Day 2. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill. What does the USA do?

...

Day 7. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill. What does the USA do?

And before anyone says this is ridiculous, these are the numbers we are talking about IN REAL LIFE.

Even worse schenario:

Day 1. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill and SURRENDER. The USA now has to house and feed a million people or be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Day 2. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill and SURRENDER. The USA now has to house and feed ANOTHER million people or be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Saying Technology will always beat Numbers is just naive. The American Revolutionaries beat the British, didn't they?

\\'

Windrider_Melb wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Sea_JayUK wrote:

Technology will always win even against numbers.

Korea, Vietnam, Chinese Civil War, the Eastern Front (WWII).  Need I go on?  Having said that, I do believe technology is the most important aspect: but no aspect can be ignored.

Technology will always win over numbers???

Okay imagine this - PLA and USA facing off. The PLA have only their regular full-time troops, no air support, satellites, tanks, automatic weapons but they do have their nukes. The USA has all their reserves, the National Guard, USAF, Marines, ANG, and everything Hi-Tech including nukes.

Day 1. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill. What does the USA do?

Day 2. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill. What does the USA do?

...

Day 7. A MILLION Chinese soldiers come over the hill. What does the USA do?

And before anyone says this is ridiculous, these are the numbers we are talking about IN REAL LIFE.

This is ridiculous...

Technology and logistics go hand in hand, so I'm not sure why they're even separate entities here. You have better logistics through better technology. With better technology, your advantage is wasted unless you know where and when to strike. Guerilla tactics can still defeat even the best technologically armed team if they aren't consistently apprised of what's going on around them.

Think of it this way. You wouldn't waste hardware worth millions of dollars on a scouting mission unless you knew it had a great chance of success, and you wouldn't want to send your poorly-equipped soldiers up against a hardened and better equipped unit without knowing you had the numbers to ensure a victory.

If anything I would lean more towards the logistics side of it. You don't need a high-tech sniper rifle to assassinate the ruler of an opposing force.

Last edited by Skexis (2006-08-26 23:27:28)