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

A well rounded mix of everything.  You can have millions of more troops than the enemy but if he still has better technology, ideologies, logistics, and firepower, than it would be a pretty even match up.

World War 2 could've turned out completely different if just one of these factors were different for one of the superpowers.  The Germans were pretty outnumbered, when you compare their numbers to every Allied soldier in Europe.  But they still held their own long after most people thought they would.

But nowadays we've got nukes to resort to if we ever engage in a full-scale war, so it kinda ruins the whole point of having a debate about it.  I mean, press a button, and boom, right?

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-21 15:40:32)

Spearhead wrote:

A well rounded mix of everything.  You can have millions of more troops than the enemy but if he still has better technology, ideologies, logistics, and firepower, than it would be a pretty even match up.

World War 2 could've turned out completely different if just one of these factors were different for one of the superpowers.  The Germans were pretty outnumbered, when you compare their numbers to every Allied soldier in Europe.  But they still held their own long after most people thought they would.

But nowadays we've got nukes to resort to if we ever engage in a full-scale war, so it kinda ruins the whole point of having a debate about it.  I mean, press a button, and boom, right?

Very good point - you could have all the military tech, firepower and logistical support but if you've only got 10 soldiers - you're not going to win any wars. On the other hand if you have millions and millions of troops and no firepower or logistics, you won't be able to deploy them and if you do ever manage to get them into combat they won't last long.

Massive numbers of troops, even with very little firepower can do well - the Russians didn't do too badly against the Nazis in WWII - purely on strength of numbers.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Troops. An army is nothing without men on the ground. Air force cannot work effectively without spotters, and neither the navy nor the airforce has ever captured soil. War always has, and always will come down to the footsoldier. Everything else is a buffer between your infantry and theirs.

I don't know what decade you're living in, but our modern air force does not rely on "spotters" on the ground. Although soldiers are used to capture enemy soil, the statement "an army is nothing without men on the ground" is completely irrelevent, since we are talking about modern warfare as a whole, not just the ground force.  The army, is, in fact, the LEAST important part of our military. I'm not implying that an army is useless, because it is not. What I'm saying is that we can defeat or surgically cripple and destabilize any nation on Earth without ever setting foot on their soil because we have the TECHNOLOGY to. Your statement, although accurate when applying it to World War I, couldn't be further from the truth today.

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.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-21 19:24:14)

ht_fly wrote:

jonsimon

ever hear of carpet bombing?

Guess not!

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

Who said that?

or is it some delusion from your own mind that makes you state comments which have no place in the debate!

Just my thoughts on your thinking process!

Carpet bombing would alleviate some of the requirements of intelligence. But only to a small extent.

The post I responded to explicitly stated that we could topple a nation without landing troops. I responded by posing the question: Why haven't we?

I don't know where you got confused, but frankly its hard to understand you. Perhaps you could use more comprehensive grammar or proofread your sentences for me.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-21 19:24:51)

ToXiC888 wrote:

Technology-Logistics-Firepower.  In that order.

logistics... you simply cannot support any of the others with out a good system... Who would run the USOs and cheer up the troops (Ideology). How would the technology get fixed in the field? How will the troops get to the field (numbers). Firepower doesn't happen with out ammunition which isn't made up on the spot. Spawn Camping in APCs is up there...

Communications.

The single most important thing in modern warfare.  That's why it's the first thing to be taken out.

your missing the most important necessity of war...INFORMATION....

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

None of the current options would, for example, explain why the United States lost in Viet Nam. I would add three things to this list that in my mind are the most important components of warfare.

First would be "motivation" - that which drives a force to win or to hold the goals of their force above all else. E.g. religion, ideology, compensation, allegiance, fear, etc.

Second would be "information" - specifically, knowing the battleground, knowing the enemy, knowing the strengths and limits of your own force, knowing the attitudes of civilians, etc.

Third would be "non-human resources" - cash, natural resources, oil reserves, etc.

wouldn't information and non human resources fall under logistics, and motivation under ideology

Logistics.

I suggest you read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. It presents a amazingly realistic scenario for a 1980-1990-ish war between the US and the USSR. He makes it quite clear that the Soviets lose because they don't have enough supplies - and that the Allies almost lose because their supplies are cut off.

The best gun in the world can't function without a bullet, and hasn't got a hope of defeating a whole splatoon single-handedly. The best plane in the world can't really stand up to swarms of SAM's and fighters, so numbers and technology balance each other out.

logistics. The ability to project a nearly unlimited number of your troops and their equipment over a nearly unlimited distance and supply them with all they need over an extended period of time.
Technology and Troops are all fine, but if you cannot bring the troops to the frontline, and provide fuel for all that technology, you are fucked.

That's why the US is on top right now. They are the only superpower that has the transport capabilities to supply their troops in a conflict thousands of miles away from home, i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...

troops ? laughable.. China has maybe the largest army as far as pure numbers go, but where are they supposed to go without proper transportation and supplies ? Troop numbers were important back in the days when you were actually able to walk to your enemy.

I'd say logistics, with technology coming in at second.

Btw, I believe you forgot something. Training and Motivation...

B.Schuss wrote:

troops ? laughable.. China has maybe the largest army as far as pure numbers go, but where are they supposed to go without proper transportation and supplies ? Troop numbers were important back in the days when you were actually able to walk to your enemy.

It won't be long till China have an impressive logistical support system in place. They have purchased a Kuznetsov-class carrier from the Russians at auction which is currently being refitted and upgraded at a dry dock in Dalian.

The PLAN have also begun work on constructing a brand new carrier fleet. China being able to project military power around the world is slightly scary if you ask me.

The most important aspect of modern warfare is to be able to blend into the civilian population.