Null vote: Air Superiority.
Poll
What is the most important aspect of modern warfare, and why?
| Numbers | 6% | 6% - 17 | ||||
| Technology | 30% | 30% - 77 | ||||
| Ideology | 9% | 9% - 25 | ||||
| Logistics | 19% | 19% - 50 | ||||
| Firepower | 15% | 15% - 40 | ||||
| Spawn camping in APC's | 17% | 17% - 44 | ||||
| Total: 253 | ||||||
Ideology (I believe morale is justified in the same catagory as ideology) is probably the most important....right behind that is firepower.
Why? You can destory an army...but you cant destroy an idea / ideal.
Fanatics / Terrorists...etc...usually arent paid to fight.
If what they believe is right, and true..and willing to die for it...that makes for one dangerous enemy.
Some degree of firepower is important too...withouth guns noone would take terrorists seriously.
I mean firepower...meaning whatever weapons you can get.
Why? You can destory an army...but you cant destroy an idea / ideal.
Fanatics / Terrorists...etc...usually arent paid to fight.
If what they believe is right, and true..and willing to die for it...that makes for one dangerous enemy.
Some degree of firepower is important too...withouth guns noone would take terrorists seriously.
I mean firepower...meaning whatever weapons you can get.
Ideology is a fickle thing. You get out on the battlefield and see some entrails fly, and all of your high-minded ideals follow your butt into the foxhole.HCSkorpio wrote:
Ideology (I believe morale is justified in the same catagory as ideology) is probably the most important....right behind that is firepower.
Why? You can destory an army...but you cant destroy an idea / ideal.
Fanatics / Terrorists...etc...usually arent paid to fight.
If what they believe is right, and true..and willing to die for it...that makes for one dangerous enemy.
Some degree of firepower is important too...withouth guns noone would take terrorists seriously.
I mean firepower...meaning whatever weapons you can get.
Exactly thats why I put morale within ideology.
Morale is independent of ideology, and no, if you want to call attention to it, you didn't mention morale.
No, morale is an aspect of ideology, if you believe in the cause strongly enough, it will positively effect your morale, on the other hand, if your ideology is against the fight, your morale will drop. One man who believes enough in the righteousness off his cause will stand down a tank.....he'll still end up a squishy pink substance in the tread links, but he'll do it anyway.
You can also have high morale because you have a commanding officer who knows his head from his asshole or because you're getting some off time away from battle. Your morale is not restricted to the way you think about the war or your country. (Vietnam and Iraq now being the most obvious examples.)=JoD=Corithus wrote:
No, morale is an aspect of ideology, if you believe in the cause strongly enough, it will positively effect your morale, on the other hand, if your ideology is against the fight, your morale will drop. One man who believes enough in the righteousness off his cause will stand down a tank.....he'll still end up a squishy pink substance in the tread links, but he'll do it anyway.
Sure, it helps to have soldiers who believe in the cause. That's why the draft is a last resort. But soldiers, who are -- first and foremost -- people, won't always have high morale just because they believe they're doing the right thing.
you're all wrong
pwned (?)
Null.
This generalization is the exact reason we can not win the war on terror. I think it needs to be taken on a case to case basis. Deciding "the" most important thing is the wrong way of doing it. We need to adapt to each situation.
This generalization is the exact reason we can not win the war on terror. I think it needs to be taken on a case to case basis. Deciding "the" most important thing is the wrong way of doing it. We need to adapt to each situation.
exactly. too many armchair generals who see a few movies or play a few gamesSnipedya14 wrote:
Null.
This generalization is the exact reason we can not win the war on terror. I think it needs to be taken on a case to case basis. Deciding "the" most important thing is the wrong way of doing it. We need to adapt to each situation.
That's why we aren't paid to do it.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
exactly. too many armchair generals who see a few movies or play a few gamesSnipedya14 wrote:
Null.
This generalization is the exact reason we can not win the war on terror. I think it needs to be taken on a case to case basis. Deciding "the" most important thing is the wrong way of doing it. We need to adapt to each situation.
You think anyone strolls into the fan boards for Madden games and tells people they shouldn't be talking about how to run a ball team?
Shhhh.... now you're making a case for logistics....=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Ah yes, the Chinese do have quite a significant numerical advantage, but before all those millions of Chinese come over your mythical hill, just one little problem, how will they get there? And once there, how will they have the equipment necessary to fight? You bring up the difficulty of the American forces feeding 1 million prisioners, what about the Chinese difficultly of feeding a million soldiers?
Yes, yes it is. And that is the whole point.EVieira wrote:
This is ridiculous...Windrider_Melb wrote:
Technology will always win over numbers???Bubbalo wrote:
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.
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.
Or should I bring-up Little Bighorn? One side had the technological advantage and one side had numbers. Numbers won. How about Vietnam? Somalia?
Little Bighorn, Custer was a moron. Vietnam and Somalia both were failures only due to spineless politicians. In both cases, we had the tools to win the war, but politicians and an apathetic public forced us to cut and run early (plus, in Vietnam, we went in with the wrong strategies). Vietnam, had we invaded North Vietnam and destroyed their logistics early, we may have been able to reverse the outcome. In Somalia, the Rangers and Delta Force were ready to go back in, and knew they could do it.
And as for the theoretical millions of Chinese coming over the hill... there's the slight problem of getting them over the hill before airpower and artillery wipes them out. And the problem of the Chinese supplying them until they can get to the hill. And the problem that no sane US formation would fight a million infantry at once.
And as for the theoretical millions of Chinese coming over the hill... there's the slight problem of getting them over the hill before airpower and artillery wipes them out. And the problem of the Chinese supplying them until they can get to the hill. And the problem that no sane US formation would fight a million infantry at once.
Exactly. Finally someone gets it.starman7 wrote:
And the problem that no sane US formation would fight a million infantry at once.
\\'
Destroy what logistics in north vietnam? Their logistics were underground tunnels and paths through the forest. They transported everything on foot.starman7 wrote:
Little Bighorn, Custer was a moron. Vietnam and Somalia both were failures only due to spineless politicians. In both cases, we had the tools to win the war, but politicians and an apathetic public forced us to cut and run early (plus, in Vietnam, we went in with the wrong strategies). Vietnam, had we invaded North Vietnam and destroyed their logistics early, we may have been able to reverse the outcome. In Somalia, the Rangers and Delta Force were ready to go back in, and knew they could do it.
We pulled out of Vietnam because we had lost. The french pulled out long before us, the locals on both sides of the line were against us, our enemy was no weaker, and we weren't trained to fight in dense forest.
It has to be numbers. I don't care how many warheads a nation has, if the other nation keeps spewing out soldiers- the bombs will eventually run out. Sheer numbers always matters in war- even if they don't have the technology. What good is firepower, if you have nobody left to use it?
Their logistics in that case using guerilla tactics and the environment (home field advantage) to their benefit.jonsimon wrote:
Destroy what logistics in north vietnam? Their logistics were underground tunnels and paths through the forest. They transported everything on foot.