Re: [SG2] weapons

> The problem with a Low Budget defensive strategy is
> that it no longer works.  Hasn't worked for 50 years
> and isn't going to start working in the future when
> Real armies have microchips in every bullet.
> Technology wins fights, plain and simple.  Look at
> every fight the US has been in since 1940:  Superior
> communications, superior fire support, superior
> mechanization win the day.  See also Israel vs. Arabs.

If you look at battles, you are correct.  If you look at wars, you are
wrong.
Korea -- high tech force stalemated.
Vietnam -- high tech force defeated.
Lebonon -- high tech force defeated.
Grenada -- high tech force wins.
Panama -- high tech force wins.
Afganistan I -- high tech force defeated -- USSR.
Iraq I -- high tech force wins limited objective.
Afghanistan II -- yet to be determined.
Iraq II -- yet to be determined.

As for the Israelis, they have said several times that they could have
used
the equipment of their enemy and still won.  The only difference would
have
been slightly higher casualties.  Training and skill is what made the
difference.

> Hell, in Vietnam the political and senior military
> leadership made every possible mistake, the terrain
> was perfect for guerilla warfare, the PAVN had both
> the Soviets and the Chinese Communists funnelling
> billions of dollars worth of weapons in as fast as
> they could, and the US Army and USMC still won every
> fight they got into, still ran around most of the
> country at will, and still killed over a million
> Vietnamese Communists.  In fact, the US even managed
> to destroy the NLF infrastructure completely in 1968.
> The only thing resembling 'even fights' were those
> involving 5-6 times as many Vietnamese as Americans.

And still lost the war.

> And the only interesting war games scenarios involving
> low-tech vs. high-tech require you to artificially
> take away much of the advantages of the high-tech
> force in superior C&C and superior fire support, plus
> throw in such grotesque numbers that it's ridiculous.

If the low tech enemy is smart, they won't engage until they have most
of
those advantages.

> The other major factor is that technology of weapons
> is a factor of budget, and so is training.  If you
> can't afford guns, you generally can't afford proper
> training regimes either.  Not always (cf Australia,
> Canada), but usually.  Training is bloody expensive,
> and if you can't afford to keep your troops in the
> field firing off their weapons they aren't going to be
> any damn good (again, classic examples are Israel vs.
> Arabs and US vs. Practically Everyone We've Fought
> [except for the Germans]).

You've done a great job contradicting yourself.  There are quite a few
third
world countries that have bought advanced fighters and still aren't
worth
pile feces.  It's better to be good with you can afford, then have some
high
tech toys and less skell.

> Now, apply this to SF colonial warfare.  Your
> very-expensive high-tech brigade battle group or
> division task force (the largest formation mentioned
> in the official GZG timeline) can beat 10-20 times
> it's own numbers in low tech garbage troops.	Not an
> unrealistic estimation given the modern examples of
> Iraq vs US, Israel vs the Arabs, and US vs. Chinese
> Communists.  Given a choice between raising 15
> Brigades of People's Militia and knowing they aren't
> worth a damn or getting together 2-3 brigades of
> Regulars and then keeping them in the field 4-6 months
> a year so they get very, very, very good, what is
> anyone gifted with at least the ration of brains
> normally given by God to little white mice going to
> choose?  And what are we going to use for our (limited
> by shipping requirements) expeditionary forces?
> Militia might be fine for fending off pirates or
> somesuch, but without a modicum of serious training
> and a commitment to equip them with modern weaponry
> they aren't going to do much more.

The German military in the 1920's and early thirties effectively plowed
through as many men as possible to create as large a trained reserve as
possible.  Without this, the Wermacht would have been much smaller at
the
beginning of WWII.  Also note that Germany in this time period
encouraged
civillian hobbies with military applications, such as gliders, etc. 
There
is no reason why goverments can't do the same now or in the future.

ias