DEBATE: A Question Of Tactics

[Sledgehammer427]

Heres the big brain bender.
Does technology have the upper hand against numbers of a less advanced force?

Example. WWIII, Russia had a vast amount of relatively simple tanks, compared to the US, which had technologically advanced tanks, well researched, but fewer in number.

Now, this is a TOTAL LAND WAR that I'm looking at. Assume all countries have supplies reaching the rear lines. Supply lines can be intercepted en route to the front.

Lets not make a huge scenario about this.

Discuss your side.

fewer numbers of technology advanced units?
or masses of technologically simple units?

[Sledgehammer427]

I actually can't see a side I want to be on. I have arguments for both.

what is everyone else's take on this?

[Gargamel]

Was just going to lurk on this one, as I'm not familiar with the game, but being a math oriented type of guy, I had this thought as I read it.

It all boils down to kill ratio, or attrition rate.

The superior tech will kill the enemy faster, but the more numerous side can overcome these losses with quicker reinforcements.

So as long as one sides (kill/loss)/(loss/replacement) ratio is greater than their opponents, they will win, eventually. This actually takes into account tactical advantages, as it's reflected the kill.loss ratio.

So to break it down, the tech side has the advantage in the kill/loss ratio, but the other side has it in the loss/replacement ratio. So it all depends on how fast they can be killed, or replaced.

[Skybird]

Obviously there is a critical threshhold beyond which the technologically superior simply will be overrun by bigger numbers.

Smaller numbers also means: more expensive equipment in smaller reserve-quantities. This makes the same numerically loss for the technological superior side more hurting than for the numerically superior.

Examples:

flooding a superior ICBM/MRBM shield via greater numbers. The attacker needs just to attack in greater numbers, and the defence breaks down, inevitably. Producing more missiles with the current tehcnology also is cheaper than to mnaintain a "sufficient" shield system and -technology.

In the cold war, from late 60s on, many fighter pilots in Europe expressed doubts (in books they wrote later, or biographies) that the technological advantage of the West in fighters and sensors would be enough to compensate the greater numbers of Eastern air forces.

The same argument can be imagined regarding the numerical dysbalance in tanks.

So, superior technology in a conflict were both sides fight on the basis of same military dogma (symmetric conflicts) helps always, but can compensate numerical inferiority only tzo a certain treshhold level - not beyond.

In asymmetrical conflicts, the superiority in technology is much less meaningful. Here nothing really compensates for the number of boots on the ground in order to not only conquer but also to hold new ground, and a functional anti-terror intelligence work and police work.

For the US, technology plays a role in scenarios of wars against China, but here it also is ecopnomic and ficnial and global-market factors which leaves the US nevertheless more vulnerable despite technological (and slwoly decreasing) superiority. In Afghanistan, the latest submarine quitening technology and missiles obviously plays a smaller role, with other technoplogy like satellite surveillance still being important. In Iraq, it is about good police work, investigation, infiltration and anti-terror operation and intelligence. You satellites and hightech weapons do not mean much here.

[Raptor1]

Well, whatever difference in technology is between two conventional combatants is almost always minor compared to other factors such as crew training, tactics, terrain and the operational situation. For tanks specifically the employment of combined arms support is often decisive as well. A numerical advantage is also effected by these factors, of course, but slightly less so.

All else being equal, I would tend to agree with what Skybird said. Technology can compensate for a lack of numbers, but only by so much compared to a large advantage in numbers.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Technology is ok as long as the people know how to use it - 'all the gear, and no idea!' springs to mind - but one side makes an advance in technology the others either copy or find a way of defeating said technology. And good intel needed too.

In Afghanistan expensive equipment, and irreplaceable lives, destroyed for the cost of some explosives and a mobile phone - v - high tech armament hitting the wrong building/compound/house! Or vice-versa!

[TLAM Strike]

What really matters is who holds the air space above those tanks. As we saw in '91 armor can be wreaked in mass by air power.

The west had some fantastic tank killing aircraft in the 1980s (A-10 and AH-64) that the Soviets didn't really have a proper equivalent for.

[Oberon]

It's quite amusing really, I know of a British chap, who was TA and I believe has been bouncing around various armed forces, rather the big 'I am', but he seriously underestimates air power, he always trots out the joke "Two Russian commanders meet in Paris, one asks to the other, 'Who won the air war?'"
I'd just love him to experience life under enemy air superiority...just to see what its like...

[Lieste]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

What really matters is who holds the air space above those tanks. As we saw in '91 armor can be wreaked in mass by air power.

The west had some fantastic tank killing aircraft in the 1980s (A-10 and AH-64) that the Soviets didn't really have a proper equivalent for.

Other than ZSU23-4, and all those tactical SAMs - both MANPADS and vehicle mounted...
And the SU-25 is arguably a better ground attack aircraft than the A-10.

I'd also take issue with the assumption that NATO had a significant edge in armoured technology during the early 1980s. The majority of NATO armour had the 105mm L7/M68 gun, which is marginal at best using 1980's ammunition against the later T64B/T80B tanks of GSFG (The 120mm L11 was probably less effective, as it was still mostly using APDS). A proportion of hits would penetrate through weakened areas of the frontal armour - but equally many would not be capable of penetrating... forcing many re-engagements and increased vulnerability - against return fire an M60 or Leopard 1 is relatively vulnerable to any KE/HEAT round striking it - and the original M1 and Leopard 2A0-2A4(early) was only marginally protected against the more modern rounds used in GSFG tanks. The 'long range advantage' is eroded further by sight lines in a European context - the average is between 1-1.5 km and it is common to be able to approach to within a few hundred metres in some directions without intervisibility.

NATO also underestimated the effectiveness of dense fire concentrations of HE quick on armour and anti-armour systems. Their late cold war testing indicated that casualties would be around 50% for all types of equipment in the area of effect - although tanks would 'only' be damaged except by a direct hit, they were still vulnerable to mobility and firepower kills at rates similar to lighter vehicles.

Fighting equal numbers of early model T72 in open desert and with air-superiority after 30-40 days of the air-war is very different from being outnumbered and attacked by echeloned forces which have jumped over the border 'fresh' in a densely built-up and wooded European terrain.

Fortunately this wasn't tested, as both sides would most likely have used Chemical and/or nuclear forces if the war had gone hot - either pre-emptively to aid break-in, or defensively to halt a successful attack/counter attack.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Lieste

Other than ZSU23-4, and all those tactical SAMs - both MANPADS and vehicle mounted...
And the SU-25 is arguably a better ground attack aircraft than the A-10.

The Mav had greater range than all Soviet light SAMs.

The A-10 could fly faster and farther and could carry almost twice the payload as the Su-25. Plus its primary missile had twice the range.

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The Mav had greater range than all Soviet light SAMs.

The A-10 could fly faster and farther and could carry almost twice the payload as the Su-25. Plus its primary missile had twice the range.

I mentioned total land war and something told me that it was going to turn into an air superiority discussion.

How about them Wild Weasels TLAM, we still have those right?
at least to clear the way for the 'Hogs to roll in and blow the crap out of everything else

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer427

I mentioned total land war and something told me that it was going to turn into an air superiority discussion.

How about them Wild Weasels TLAM, we still have those right?
at least to clear the way for the 'Hogs to roll in and blow the crap out of everything else

Can't talk about war on land with out talking about war in the air. The Ground-Air battle is just too integral in modern tactics.

The Wild Weasel has been retired. Currently the US Military's SAM killers are the EA-6B Prowler and the new F/A-18G Growler (the 1st ones has been delivered I think), those both are operated by the Navy and the Corps. The USAF can mount Jammers and HARMs on their Strike Eagles and Vipers but they don't have a dedicated aircraft for SEAD.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Lieste

Other than ZSU23-4, and all those tactical SAMs - both MANPADS and vehicle mounted...
And the SU-25 is arguably a better ground attack aircraft than the A-10.

I'd also take issue with the assumption that NATO had a significant edge in armoured technology during the early 1980s. The majority of NATO armour had the 105mm L7/M68 gun, which is marginal at best using 1980's ammunition against the later T64B/T80B tanks of GSFG (The 120mm L11 was probably less effective, as it was still mostly using APDS). A proportion of hits would penetrate through weakened areas of the frontal armour - but equally many would not be capable of penetrating... forcing many re-engagements and increased vulnerability - against return fire an M60 or Leopard 1 is relatively vulnerable to any KE/HEAT round striking it - and the original M1 and Leopard 2A0-2A4(early) was only marginally protected against the more modern rounds used in GSFG tanks. The 'long range advantage' is eroded further by sight lines in a European context - the average is between 1-1.5 km and it is common to be able to approach to within a few hundred metres in some directions without intervisibility.

NATO also underestimated the effectiveness of dense fire concentrations of HE quick on armour and anti-armour systems. Their late cold war testing indicated that casualties would be around 50% for all types of equipment in the area of effect - although tanks would 'only' be damaged except by a direct hit, they were still vulnerable to mobility and firepower kills at rates similar to lighter vehicles.

Fighting equal numbers of early model T72 in open desert and with air-superiority after 30-40 days of the air-war is very different from being outnumbered and attacked by echeloned forces which have jumped over the border 'fresh' in a densely built-up and wooded European terrain.

Fortunately this wasn't tested, as both sides would most likely have used Chemical and/or nuclear forces if the war had gone hot - either pre-emptively to aid break-in, or defensively to halt a successful attack/counter attack.

I disagree on Lieste'S assassment on the Su-25 and A10, but I support his hinting at that the T-72 is underestimated. This is because we tend to see it in the light of Iraq 1991, and modern Abrams and Leopard2s and airpower. But when the T-72 came up, these Western tanks still did not exist, and NATO would have fought with the very agile Leopard-1A5s, and M-60s, which are very slow, both had still 105 mm guns - and which to counter the T-72 had been designed. A three-echelon attack by T-72s with their 125mm guns and solid forward speed and low profile and, for that time, relatively good armor, would have been something that still needfs to be shown that NATO could have stopped it by ground forces alone. The gunning at the typical German viewing ranges of far less than 4 km would have given the theoretically inferior ammo designs of the Soviets still a bigger punch over the NATO tanks, I think.

The most decisive digfference in favour of NATO tanks would have been their night combat ability. The Russians are struggling with that until today. Wikileaks showed cables that the Russian troops in the Georgia war messed it up very dramatically by night. They simply do not have a significant night fighting capacity that is worth to be called that.

I recommend to switch some Steel Beasts scenarios from modern tanks to early T-72s, M60A3s and Leo-1A5, all of which are included. You'd be surpürised to see how dangerous the T-72 suddenly becomes.

Using the Leo-1 against T-55s and T-64, on the other hand, or comparing it to the M60, teaches you with one show why the Leo-1 for most people has been the by far best trank design in the pre-T72, -M1 and -Leo-2 era. Compared to the competitors of its era, both East and West, the thing is fast and agile.

Imagine a Leo-1 with a 120mm-gun - the German answer to the Centauro! Both offer heavy turrets on medium hulls, but the 120mm giving a meaner punch.

[Lieste]

The T64 and T80 is the technological high-point of the Txx line of the cold war era - the T72 is a much more basic (but affordable) tank.

Both the T64 and T80 received laser designated ATGM for accurate fire to 4-5km at a time when 2.5km was considered 'long-range' tank gunnery.

The accuracy of these is still superior to any unguided weapon at these ranges today in good conditions, and the flight time is less than half that of TOW.

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Imagine a Leo-1 with a 120mm-gun - the German answer to the Centauro! Both offer heavy turrets on medium hulls, but the 120mm giving a meaner punch.

Doesn't the Leo-2A6 have the 120mm gun?
I like the design but you Germans have a thing for shot traps on your turrets.
I'm referencing, of course, those angular additions on the front of the turret.