RE: 2nd and 3rd rate powers

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Tom said:
> >2: IF rated as 3rd rate: I didn't say they weren't
> a force to be 
> feared, but I suspect they still lack flexibility in
> responses, 
> deeper doctrinal capability that only comes with
> being a superpower 
> with a long institutional military history
> 
> Yeah, like the guys had going into WWI...<g>

Actually, the Brits and Germans had first-rate forces
going into WWI.  Even German Ersatz divisions fought
extremely well.  The fact that the doctrine didn't
catch up to reality has nothing to do with the
military tradition involved.  The major Islamic power
in WWI lost their entire empire to a tiny percentage
of the British military.  

I'm REALLY not impressed.
 
> Doesn't necessarily do it.  The US army that started
> off in Korea was
> pretty poor, as I understand it.  Fortunately they
> learned, but only thru
> on-the-job training.	Certainly *some* NAC deserve
> first rate, but I'd say
> the bulk do not.

Yeah, take a unit trained and equipped for
constabulary duties, at 2/3 of MTOE strength (2
batteries per artillery batallion, 2 infantry
batallions per regiment, and those were not fully
manned), and with absolutely no anti-armor weapons,
and put them in front of T-34s, and I don't care if
they are God Almighty, they loose.
 
> >7: Some PAU and some IF might well be 4th rate. 
> IFed militia probably have (unfulfilled) hopes of
> being 4th rate.  The best
> IF Guards units are probably 2nd rate, with a good
> CO.

Again, personal preference--you're making really
cheerful assumptions about the IFed.   

But the last time any Islamic power was even 3nd rate,
matchlocks were cutting edge technology.

And then, they got clobbered by a Polish feudal levy.
 
John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs