Prev: Re: [GZG] SG-3 Technology Differences Next: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:14:59 -0600
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

On Feb 8, 2008 10:12 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:

> The WWI to modern aircraft analogy was to show how just 90 years can
> completely change the aspect of warfare.  If infantry weapons proceed
at the
> same rate, what would infantry weapons look like in future, or would
there
> even be infantry?

There will always be infantry.	If you don't hold the ground, you have
not won the war.  You may have eradicated your opponent with nuclear
devices, but you have not gained control of terrain, population, or
resources.

> In the future, would a colonial army armed with the equivalent of
today's
> weapons stand a chance against the top-notch armies of the future?

No.

Would a World War 2 Panzergrenadier division stand a chance against a
battalion of M-1A1 SEPs and Bradleys?

The invention of counter-battery radar doomed primitive artillery, to
the point that you pretty much only survive against 1st world
artillery forces if you use single tubes on mobile platforms firing
from areas full of civilians and don't do enough damage to inspire a
change in the ROE to permit counterbattery.

Tanks without stabilizers, laser rangefinders, and other fire control
advances are dead meat against tanks without.

So on and so forth.

Instances where primitive forces inflicted tactical defeats against
high-tech forces since the invention of the machine gun (the first
point in which technology became decisive at the tactical level) are
essentially limited to two circumstances.

a) The high-tech force made absolutely boneheaded mistakes that
effectively nullified their tactical advantages (British troops
deployed badly and without sufficient on-hand ammo at Isandalwalha)
b) The low-tech force outnumbered the high tech force so heavily that
they could absorb the casualties and keep fighting (reference recent
discussion about Mogadishu and the force ratios involved--although
there was a good bit of problem a in that situation as well).

Most cases combine the two effects.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Prev: Re: [GZG] SG-3 Technology Differences Next: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?