Re: [SG2] weapons

--- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at battles, you are correct.  If you
> look at wars, you are
> wrong.

Funny, I thought we were wargaming, not playing "Count
the Ballots".  I may stand corrected in your case, but
if that's so you're on the wrong mailing list.

> > 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.

You're missing one major factor:  The superior C4I,
superior logistics, and superior mobility of the
high-tech force means it is not the low-tech force's
choice when to come out and play.  They either engage
on the enemy's terms, or let the high-tech forces romp
through their rear areas and trash their supply lines 
and headquarters at will.

> You've done a great job contradicting yourself. 

Not at all.  I've said that training requires big
bucks, and if you've got that kind of money you can
generally afford decent gear too.

> 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.

I have this mental image of Imre leading a paintball
team up against a platoon of airborne.

John

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/