Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor1
This has to be the most often cited and possibly least accurate theory about warfare I have ever head (And keep hearing). There's no such thing as 'assure success' and the amount of forces required by an attacker to have a reasonably high chances of succeeding is heavily dependent on the state of the defending force.
Also, an attack can suffer much less casualties regardless of ridiculously high numerical superiority if it's properly executed.
|
Your point is well taken in modern warfare, but USA's civil war was the beginning of the end of linear tactics, and restrictions.
Let's luck at muzzleloaders (Springfield / Enfield).
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity.
Attacker: Fix bayonette. Advance. Usualy 1 shot, if one lives to fire it.
Artillary.
Attacker: Pre-advance barage.
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity. Final round = grapeshot.
That's where that 3 to 1 pretext came from. However, in the end, you are correct. Nothing is even close to being written in stone, and there are infinate possabilities that can have a minor, or major effect.
An often overlooked handicap of the attacker is logistics. It's a whole discussion in itself.
And a very complex one at that.