 |
| |
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Ok there has been alot of debate on how often does a forced armed with primative weapons defeat a forced armed with modern weapons
So i am challenging all of you history buff to find examples in history of where a force is either considered to be primative/irregular/obsolete defeats a force considered to be modern/technologically superior within the following criteria
*four different categories
4000bc-499ad
500-1799
1800-1949
1950-2002+
*the smaller force must have at least 100 soldiers
*the inferior force must have either won or virtually anihilated the superior force on the battlefield if it lost for it to count
*i am only concerned with military and not political victories
a force is considered inferior if it meets the following criteria
*when a nation cannot produce its own advanced weapon systems, and the quanity of advanced weapons it can provide is spread unevenly throughout a small percentages of its forces
*when a nation can produce advanced weapons which are spread throughout its forces but they are a generation or more behind the nation its at war with
*when a force is armed with comparable or better weapons systems buts its forces are not organized as a conventional force and they operate using guerrillas methods usually because they have a significant size disadvantage (in this case if a group of green berets, SAS commandos, etc defeated a conventional force it would count)
*when a force although it might have comparable weapons, organization, logistics, and size is generally perceived [at the time] by the great majority of its opponents to be inferior until it humiliates them on the battlefield (this is what i was thinking with Port Arthur)
please list the battle, and the give details about it such as the size of each force, causulties, tactics used to win etc.
please site a source, and link to it if possible
so lets see how history stacks up against civ3 shall we?
Last edited by korn469 on 10-01-2002 at 04:17
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:17
|
|
No, it wasn't nuff said.
American Revolution (War of Independence). An army came from nowhere (from among the civs population) and routed the civ.
Zulu Wars. Prior to Yorke's drift the Zulu dusted a sizable British contingent.
Any number of occasions in North America when Amerind bands or tribes wiped out European or American military units. Custer anyone (to name the most famous)?
Afghanistan (again). That time the Red Army was brought to its knees by the combined arms of what? Devout Muslims from all over the world who went there to fight the infidel. This time the British were annihilated by the Afghans when they tried to annex the country in the 19th (18th?) century. 1 man left the country.
Any revolution that succeeded that you care to name. French, Russian, Cuban, etc. These are all irregular forces that toppled contemporarily armed regimes (well, the French doesn't really fit, but oh well).
I will grant that no band of Cro-magnons ever bested a bunch of good ole boys by hurling rocks. But the Palestinians did accomplish a great deal with those same rocks. I guess they knew how to throw them better.
If you are looking for the examples of spears besting muskets, they are rare, but they did happen. If you think that any modern nation would still have guys with spears hanging around, I think you are chasing your tail. The designers should have done the same for Spearmen that they did for Workers, change their garb and weapons with the turning of the ages. After all, should militias have the same strengths as the newly minted Infantry of the standing army fresh from their Barracks? No. We discover Rifles, they get Muskets. We discover Art, they get Rifles. We discover... you get the idea.
Salve
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Korn:
What is your definition of technological difference? If the afghans are using american supplied stingers, then their technological inferiority is not that great. Besides, there is a major difference between a tech difference and a difference in force size or weaponry: A small country today can purchase advance small arms, including missiles and so forth, but if the lack heavy weaponry -tanks, arty, aircraft, they will loose. The difference here is not technological, but industrial or economic. Then there are differences in force structure and organization, which again, have little to do with arms technology. Going again to afghanistan, the reason you would expect the soviets to win is not because they know of certain weapons and technologies of which the afghans were ignorant, but because the soviets were organized and the mujahadeen were not(so think here of you vs. barbarians) and because, as a major industrial power, the soviets could make tanks, artillery, aircraft on their own and the infrastructure to use them effectively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Vietnam
American casualties : 55 000
Vietnamese casualties : more than 1 million
Both used automatics weapons.
USA forced to end the war because of international pressure and civil protestations.
Afghanistan
Russians casualties : between 10 and 30 000
Afghani casualties : more than 1 100 000
Both used automatics weapons.
USSR forced to end the war because of international pressure and cost.
I don't see any primitive weaponry defeating any modern army here. Political defeats, military victories. Russians and Americans were NOT vainquished on battlefield. |
Oh really? Well, I think the American people of the time felt that the 55,000 were to high a price. Thus, for the lack of a will to persevere, they were vanquished (or at least the will of their political rulers was).
And so too the Russians.
As far as the primitive weapons tail chasing goes... Give it a break please. Human history does not often move that way.
Yes, there are times when an *ancient* cuture is found by a *modern* culture, such as Columbus bumping into America. However, the majority of human history has ideas and goods moving to and fro far beyond the control of Dictators such as Caeser, Pope, Warlord and President. In other words, there never will be a case of Spearmen vs ModArm, no matter how far you look for it. Even though for Somalia, the Mechanicals cost about the same as a Spearmen.
Salve
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kc7mxo
|
 |
Kansas City, Kansas
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
American Revolution (War of Independence). An army came from nowhere (from among the civs population) and routed the civ.
|
An army that was using modern (for the time) weapons, if not modern tacts.
quote:
Zulu Wars. Prior to Yorke's drift the Zulu dusted a sizable British contingent.
|
And then were defeated by a tiny band of hard pressed red coats led by an engineer. cough cough.
quote:
Any number of occasions in North America when Amerind bands or tribes wiped out European or American military units. Custer anyone (to name the most famous)?
|
Actually, despite whatever you saw in tv, the Sioux were armed better than custer. Many of them had repeating rifles, which custers men lacked. If custer had brought the gatling guns with him instead of leaving them at the fort, things might have gone rather differently.
As for the rest, the US cavalry at that point is considered by many to have been made up of the cast off and renegades of the US. And when you consider that we're the cast off of the world. . . . They weren't the epitompy of soldiers, and were typically outnumbered by troops that knew the terrain. While we don't know the unit strengths of the civ 3 military units, I think its a safe assumption that my cavalry unit isn't made up of less than 200 men and isn't facing a spearmen unit of 40,00.
quote:
Afghanistan (again). That time the Red Army was brought to its knees by the combined arms of what? Devout Muslims from all over the world who went there to fight the infidel. This time the British were annihilated by the Afghans when they tried to annex the country in the 19th (18th?) century. 1 man left the country.
|
Who were supplied by us because we were rather irritated by the Soviets. Or do you really think that a musket can take down a Hind? Cough STINGER Cough cough.
quote:
Any revolution that succeeded that you care to name. French, Russian, Cuban, etc. These are all irregular forces that toppled contemporarily armed regimes (well, the French doesn't really fit, but oh well).
|
Irregular does NOT imply primitive. The discussion concerns technology not tactis, tactics are not represented by civ statistics.
quote:
I will grant that no band of Cro-magnons ever bested a bunch of good ole boys by hurling rocks. But the Palestinians did accomplish a great deal with those same rocks. I guess they knew how to throw them better.
|
Accomplished a great deal with those same rocks? If the middle east wasn't full of oil, the israelis would have driven them all as far as the israelis wanted, because none of the other arab nations would have the technology and international clout to stop them, and nobody elsewhere in the world would care.
quote:
If you are looking for the examples of spears besting muskets, they are rare, but they did happen. If you think that any modern nation would still have guys with spears hanging around, I think you are chasing your tail. The designers should have done the same for Spearmen that they did for Workers, change their garb and weapons with the turning of the ages. After all, should militias have the same strengths as the newly minted Infantry of the standing army fresh from their Barracks? No. We discover Rifles, they get Muskets. We discover Art, they get Rifles. We discover... you get the idea.
Salve |
No. They should have elimated the spearmne unit so that this situation would not come up. Primitive units should go obsolete.
quote:
We discover Art, they get Rifles.
|
What???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Korn:
I don't agree with the commando factor:
Besides the difficulty of finding a battle in which that many elite forces (100) were used at once in the same engagement agains forces of a significantly different size (a brigade or entire regiment), commandoes almost by definition are both elite, well organized, and technologically modern.
Another question (I always have more): Whats the definition of battlefield or battle? I think it would be best if you limit the timeframe of the engaement. The Somme is a battle, and so is Stalingrad, but both took months, saw millions fight over vast areas. These 'battles' were bigger than entire wars. This problem arises from your last criteria. Everone though the Wehrmacht would crush the Red Army in six months tops- 4 years and at least 8 million battle deahts later the Red Army won, but personally I don't think this type of 'example' is that valid.
I think it would be best if you limit it to one day affairs- most battles before the time of napoleon took under a day, and very few ever took more than 3 or four. The longer a battle takes, the more other factors, like force morale, logistics, and so forth may make a vital difference- if you are trying to separate tech as the independent variable, its best to limit the possible influence of tother factors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh really? Well, I think the American people of the time felt that the 55,000 were to high a price. Thus, for the lack of a will to persevere, they were vanquished (or at least the will of their political rulers was). |
????? 
What the HELL do we care about how the Americans felt about their deaths ?
Aren't we talking about efficiency of armies on the battlefield ? I answered in a thread that asked examples of obsolete armies defeating modern armies.
Americans and Russians just slaughtered their opposition on the BATTLEFIELD. The fact that they were POLITICALLY pushed out is irrelevant. If you can't see the difference between a battle on the battlefield and a political decision then I can't do anything for you.
quote:
As far as the primitive weapons tail chasing goes... Give it a break please. Human history does not often move that way.
Yes, there are times when an *ancient* cuture is found by a *modern* culture, such as Columbus bumping into America. However, the majority of human history has ideas and goods moving to and fro far beyond the control of Dictators such as Caeser, Pope, Warlord and President. In other words, there never will be a case of Spearmen vs ModArm, no matter how far you look for it. Even though for Somalia, the Mechanicals cost about the same as a Spearmen.
Salve |
Again, do the question is "give me examples of obsolete armies beating technologically superior units" or "explain me how the world is working ?".
Accept your both examples are false and that MILITARY SPEAKING, Russians and Americans were not defeated.
Back on topic :
Dien-Bien-Phu was the defeat of 15 000 french veterans against 100 or 200 000 Viet-minh. They were better equiped, though the Viet-Minh had anti-air gun, artillery, rifles and so on. I rather see it as conscript infantry against veteran infantry, and I don't think that the technological difference was great. Though of course the french had a much better per-man equipement.
Another thing to be taken in consideration : as the Civ3 fight is always one unit against one, we have to remember that the fights are supposed (in the game) to be always between forces of the same size. Until now, ALL the historical examples of high-tech soldiers losing to low-tech ones involve grossly imbalanced numbers in the advantage of low-tech ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
*?The Eritrean's (sp?) (Ethiopia) with Cav defeated the Italians (light tanks) in the 30s when Ill Duce tried to annex them. (more research needed)
*Dien Bein Phu (more details needed)
*Port Arthur (more research needed to determine if this is a good example or not)
*Little Bighorn (more details needed)
*Isandhdlwana, Intombi river, Hlobani (more details needed)
*St. Clair's defeat (more details needed) |
1. I don't know enoguth about ethiopia nor do I know of St. Claire's defeat.
2. The Vietmihn had about 40,000 regulars at Dien Bien Phu vs. around 15,000 french forces. The French had a few light tanks (10 Chafee's) and light artillery and air support. The Viet Mihn had heavy artillry and Flak guns (AAA) on mountains surrounding the french (who were in a valley). The Viet Mihn was an organized military force (they are the predecessors of the North Vietnamese army, not the Viet Cong). Because of all of these, I would not include this battle- fine, the public at home and those ignorant of asia might have beleived that European forces would invariably win, but any military startegist worth a danm could see the french defat coming once the Viet Mihn got its gun into position.
2. Port Arthur. The Russian Garrison was about 20-25k, the Japanese force larger, but under 50k. As I said before, the two sides were technologically equal- both used maxims machine guns, breech loading artillery (the Japanese had 11 inch siege howlitzers ready) and both had equally modern navies. THe siege was bitter and there was actually trench combat WW1 style. As with Dien Bien Phu, the racist theories of the time might have predicted that the Whites should win, but any military thinker would know that a garrison cut off from all chance of rescue (the Nearest Russians were at Mukden, 500 mile plus away) and under siege will fall. Thus, not a good example.
3. Custer:
He had under 400 men with him at the time vs. between 3-4,000 warriors. His men had single fire breach loader springfields and revolvers. The warriors had a large mix of weapons, from bows and arrows, to the same guns as the cavalry, to superior rapid fire rifles. Custer divided his already smaller forces into 3 groups, one reserve, one made a frontal attack to draw away warriors while Custer and his main force would attack from a different angle. In time, Reno, Custer's 2nd, lost contect with Cister and retreated to a hill, where he was joined with the 3rd command and made a defese that held until the rest of the Army arrived in the days after. The forces with Custer were attacked in open ground by the more mobilie natives, who made better use of the land. I am divided on this example since tech or organization were not the main variables -numbers and tactical mistakes by Custer were.
4. Isandhdlwana: Best example so far. I can't say numbers of my head but the british force was nearly 1000, the Zulu force larger. The Brits had guns, the Zulus didn't (big tech difference), though the Zulus were definitely a trained army with complax tactics. I don't really know about the other two Zulu battles.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2002 12:21
|