Modern War: Who would win?

[King Alboin]

Righto. Here enters the strange guy with his comment... Now you say England hasn't been invaded since 1066 which is wrong. But Acer the closest somebody (to the extent of my knowledge which may not be adequate) has come to conquering England (which I think Powerwolf is getting at) would be the Scots. William Wallace, Robert The Bruce, Bonnie Prince Charles and the likes of them. Albeit at different times throughout History these were the closest anybody got since William the Conqueror. Also on the sly side the Nazi's did invade Britain but didn't get very far (The Channel Islands the only part of Britain to be occupied in either of the World wars.)

But hey I could sit here and blab on about wanting a squadron of Spitfires of a Division of Anzac's, of a Division of Scots and yada yada yada. But the fact remains that Britain has not been conquered by an outside foe since 1066. Britain has been invaded and lost territory but not conquered and yes before you try to add they have been defeated. Yes they have been defeated but those bloody Pom's bounced back.

Its cuz nobody wants England no more. Bad dental plan and all. For I suggest, that England is being overrunned from the inside. Wont be long before everyone is speaking ..... farsi =\

[powerwolf]

all i was actually trying to point out size and numbers don't mean anything in a war no matter if it is historic or wars today..

because if that was the way you win a war, then russia would be the number 1 super power and no one could dint them.. why they have the largest land mass and if you add up all the people that live there and that are in their armed forces it is simple they would be...

because thats all i been seeing mainly in here is the bigger country will defeat anyone... does anyone get my point now about size means nothing?

[JonnyAngel]

does anyone get my point now about size means nothing?

That's not necessarily true. The larger you are, the more potential you have to be more powerful.

More Population = more soldiers = more troops to use = last longer in a conflict (especially wars of attrition)
More Workers = a *potentially* larger economy, certainly a greater potential for one

However, most of that is simply potential. Throughout history, we have seen nations take on greater nations in number and end successful, however, there has always been a reason for that success. Several examples of the smaller defeating the larger that come to mind off the top of my head would be the Napoleonic Wars and the Yom Kippur War. However, both of these wars played out the way that they did due to several factors. Number for number, both sides should have easily lost and this is where having superior numbers helps. The more you have, the more you can afford to lose. As we have seen in these wars, as well as others, superior planning/tactics, organization, as well as to a limited degree, determination, can "even the odds" in battle. Superior strategy, however, can only go so far. It gets to a certain point, certainly in more symmetrical battles (as opposed to asymmetrical ones) that you can overwhelm any side with numbers.

That is simply in the tactical setting. On the larger scope, as I already mentioned, numbers are a key factor in victory. Wars of attrition, wars that most of these would end up becoming, are best fought by those who can continue to supply their troops and the troops themselves, to battle. To say that numbers are irrelevant to the proposed situation is a fallacy; they most certainly are. In symmetrical warfare, the advantage goes to the larger side- which is where technology and strategy play their role in evening out the odds; however, even they can only go so far for so long.

As a side note, Russia is in no-way fit to be the #1 superpower. Their army, while large, is not only smaller then the US's and China's, but, a good deal of their equipment is outdated. While they are making moves to keep their forces on the technological edge, they simply can't keep up all of their conventional forces as advanced (on average) as those of the United States or some countries in the EU

[MrHyde]

+ rep on the bot.

And yes, population does matter to an extent.

PS. China has the biggest army force. Not Russia.

[powerwolf]

That's not necessarily true. The larger you are, the more potential you have to be more powerful.

More Population = more soldiers = more troops to use = last longer in a conflict (especially wars of attrition)
More Workers = a *potentially* larger economy, certainly a greater potential for one

However, most of that is simply potential. Throughout history, we have seen nations take on greater nations in number and end successful, however, there has always been a reason for that success. Several examples of the smaller defeating the larger that come to mind off the top of my head would be the Napoleonic Wars and the Yom Kippur War. However, both of these wars played out the way that they did due to several factors. Number for number, both sides should have easily lost and this is where having superior numbers helps. The more you have, the more you can afford to lose. As we have seen in these wars, as well as others, superior planning/tactics, organization, as well as to a limited degree, determination, can "even the odds" in battle. Superior strategy, however, can only go so far. It gets to a certain point, certainly in more symmetrical battles (as opposed to asymmetrical ones) that you can overwhelm any side with numbers.

That is simply in the tactical setting. On the larger scope, as I already mentioned, numbers are a key factor in victory. Wars of attrition, wars that most of these would end up becoming, are best fought by those who can continue to supply their troops and the troops themselves, to battle. To say that numbers are irrelevant to the proposed situation is a fallacy; they most certainly are. In symmetrical warfare, the advantage goes to the larger side- which is where technology and strategy play their role in evening out the odds; however, even they can only go so far for so long.

As a side note, Russia is in no-way fit to be the #1 superpower. Their army, while large, is not only smaller then the US's and China's, but, a good deal of their equipment is outdated. While they are making moves to keep their forces on the technological edge, they simply can't keep up all of their conventional forces as advanced (on average) as those of the United States or some countries in the EU

then if that was then in the Falklands war, great Britain should have lost since
Argentina has a bigger land mass and on top of that a larger armed force and they also had superior air power plus 40 ships around that island 12000 troops sitting on it.. and also they are much closer to the islands than the united kingdom were.. (8000 miles away was the uk) but still sent a fleet in the navy headed by one of the two main ships in it, the flag ship HMS Hermes, since they were the main ships within the royal navy..

but by all sense, since Argentina was closer and would have sent more troops and naval forces while with their superior air power they had compared to the 8000 miles the RAF would have had to go compared to the Argentine air force..

with that said the Falklands would and should have been under the control of the Argentina but today and before that war, those islands still belong to the united kingdom..

and before you say the united states helped in that war sorry to pop your bubble but here this proves the united states had nothing to do in that war than many in the US think..

the Reagan Administration refused to help Argentina or Great Britain in the Falklands war because of the alliance the country had with both sides..

little country taking on a country twice it's size and defeats it? so where do you say numbers is everything?

also note, the Argentine Naval forces also had the type 42 destroyers designed by the British...

also i am British, i'm not trying to pass the UK as being all great and mighty it is a lot easier to prove numbers is nothing when i compare history battles and it is even better since both these countries in that war had the tech, and one was closer and could have sent more ships, planes and troops than the other..

the UK has had it's time and we don't want to do that all over again..

so dude explain yourself out of this one if numbers and size really matter in a war..

also you must have forgot Russia has over 40,000 inactive nukes that they could make active at anytime..

and im not saying the US is not the number one super power, only trying to make people think about size don't matter, since everyone thinks a size of a country is what makes it powerful and all that because it has more troops..

take a war thats going on right at this moment, been going on for nearly 11-12 years... and they have no tech only running around with AK47 and making bombs that both our countries made the mistake when we taught them how to build them. without our countries doing that, we would not have even had to bother with this war, and a lot more people would be alive today...

explain how our tech on both sides is not really doing what it is ment to do in afgan? if it was this war would have been over years ago

[JonnyAngel]

then if that was then in the Falklands war, great Britain should have lost since
Argentina has a bigger land mass and on top of that a larger armed force and they also had superior air power plus 40 ships around that island 12000 troops sitting on it...

with that said the Falklands would and should have been under the control of the Argentina but today and before that war, those islands still belong to the united kingdom..

and before you say the united states helped in that war sorry to pop your bubble but here this proves the united states had nothing to do in that war than many in the US think..

little country taking on a country twice it's size and defeats it? so where do you say numbers is everything?

so dude explain yourself out of this one if numbers and size really matter in a war..

also you must have forgot Russia has over 40,000 inactive nukes that they could make active at anytime..

and im not saying the US is not the number one super power, only trying to make people think about size don't matter, since everyone thinks a size of a country is what makes it powerful and all that because it has more troops..

First off, the Falklands campaign is not a good example of numbers. Yes, the British were outnumbered. But, we are talking about troops in the Brigade size, no where near as close to the huge masses we are referring to in these hypothetical arrangements. So, this speaks more to British planning and unit skill then it does to drawn-out engagement where millions of soldiers, not several thousand, are involved. The success of the Falklands campaign was mostly contingent upon the superior training/experience that the British soldiers had, rather then numerical superiority.

The example is a limited and small-scope theater. I could cite off numerous battles in which the United States defeated a larger, if not significantly larger, force. For example, consider the Battle of Mogadishu; In which about 150-160 American soldiers were able to fend off thousands of armed fighters while only losing less than 20 soldiers. This is another example of small theater operations- smaller forces can easily defeat larger forces on the *small scale* given that they have superior battle strategy, maneuvering, training, etc. However, these small forces can't hold out forever. Eventually, the smaller nation will run out of soldiers- in a long and drawn out war, small nations will eventually lose out to larger nations (depending on the front) especially if the smaller nations are attempting to occupy the larger.

Secondly, whether or not there are 40k Russian nuclear devices around or not is relatively irrelevant to the discussion. It would take only several hundred of them to wipe out most of the US's/EU's cities, and only a few thousand of them to destroy the world. Same for the United States. Honestly, the number doesn't really matter; it means that there are more to destroy/harder to control, however, it only really takes 1 MIRV equipped ICBM to wipe out a considerable amount of space.

Also, as to size, nobody is arguing that just because a country is larger is size they are able to win more. Size does play a role in war, however. It is far harder to win against a country of greater geographical size as an invading army must consider logistical support, not to mention the fact that their army's flanks/rear, etc., are far more exposed in large regions. As I mentioned a few posts back, one of the reasons the Germans lost against the Russians was that their logistical lines were stretched out because of the massive distance between their home country/production and the front. Obviously, war is different now, however, the longer your supply lines are, the higher the risk they are at and the easier they are to disrupt.

[acer5200]

then if that was then in the Falklands war, great Britain should have lost since
Argentina has a bigger land mass and on top of that a larger armed force and they also had superior air power plus 40 ships around that island 12000 troops sitting on it.. and also they are much closer to the islands than the united kingdom were.. (8000 miles away was the uk) but still sent a fleet in the navy headed by one of the two main ships in it, the flag ship HMS Hermes, since they were the main ships within the royal navy..

but by all sense, since Argentina was closer and would have sent more troops and naval forces while with their superior air power they had compared to the 8000 miles the RAF would have had to go compared to the Argentine air force..

lol no. This is what aircraft carriers are for. Multi-role fighters and bombers can't even travel that far and land safely.

with that said the Falklands would and should have been under the control of the Argentina but today and before that war, those islands still belong to the united kingdom..

and before you say the united states helped in that war sorry to pop your bubble but here this proves the united states had nothing to do in that war than many in the US think..

the Reagan Administration refused to help Argentina or Great Britain in the Falklands war because of the alliance the country had with both sides..

little country taking on a country twice it's size and defeats it? so where do you say numbers is everything?

also note, the Argentine Naval forces also had the type 42 destroyers designed by the British...

I really can't comment on this since Johnny already did, but... yea. The Argentinians weren't trained well enough to win that. Also, everyone knows that Argentina didn't want to start a political poostorm with the rest of the world and just gave up after the British fended off their attacks.

Also, Scots: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

also i am British, i'm not trying to pass the UK as being all great and mighty it is a lot easier to prove numbers is nothing when i compare history battles and it is even better since both these countries in that war had the tech, and one was closer and could have sent more ships, planes and troops than the other..

the UK has had it's time and we don't want to do that all over again..

Yes you are. You do it all the time.

so dude explain yourself out of this one if numbers and size really matter in a war..

also you must have forgot Russia has over 40,000 inactive nukes that they could make active at anytime..

And I have 50 pounds of rice. Doesn't mean I'm going to use it.

and im not saying the US is not the number one super power, only trying to make people think about size don't matter, since everyone thinks a size of a country is what makes it powerful and all that because it has more troops..

Economy + Size + Politics + Tactics + Technology = Dominance.

take a war thats going on right at this moment, been going on for nearly 11-12 years... and they have no tech only running around with AK47 and making bombs that both our countries made the mistake when we taught them how to build them. without our countries doing that, we would not have even had to bother with this war, and a lot more people would be alive today...

explain how our tech on both sides is not really doing what it is ment to do in afgan? if it was this war would have been over years ago

lol you have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm not even going to go into what they're doing but damn, you're so far off.

First off, the Falklands campaign is not a good example of numbers. Yes, the British were outnumbered. But, we are talking about troops in the Brigade size, no where near as close to the huge masses we are referring to in these hypothetical arrangements. So, this speaks more to British planning and unit skill then it does to drawn-out engagement where millions of soldiers, not several thousand, are involved. The success of the Falklands campaign was mostly contingent upon the superior training/experience that the British soldiers had, rather then numerical superiority.

The example is a limited and small-scope theater. I could cite off numerous battles in which the United States defeated a larger, if not significantly larger, force. For example, consider the Battle of Mogadishu; In which about 150-160 American soldiers were able to fend off thousands of armed fighters while only losing less than 20 soldiers. This is another example of small theater operations- smaller forces can easily defeat larger forces on the *small scale* given that they have superior battle strategy, maneuvering, training, etc. However, these small forces can't hold out forever. Eventually, the smaller nation will run out of soldiers- in a long and drawn out war, small nations will eventually lose out to larger nations (depending on the front) especially if the smaller nations are attempting to occupy the larger.

Secondly, whether or not there are 40k Russian nuclear devices around or not is relatively irrelevant to the discussion. It would take only several hundred of them to wipe out most of the US's/EU's cities, and only a few thousand of them to destroy the world. Same for the United States. Honestly, the number doesn't really matter; it means that there are more to destroy/harder to control, however, it only really takes 1 MIRV equipped ICBM to wipe out a considerable amount of space.

Also, as to size, nobody is arguing that just because a country is larger is size they are able to win more. Size does play a role in war, however. It is far harder to win against a country of greater geographical size as an invading army must consider logistical support, not to mention the fact that their army's flanks/rear, etc., are far more exposed in large regions. As I mentioned a few posts back, one of the reasons the Germans lost against the Russians was that their logistical lines were stretched out because of the massive distance between their home country/production and the front. Obviously, war is different now, however, the longer your supply lines are, the higher the risk they are at and the easier they are to disrupt.

Oh god. Somebody who's arguing my points for me. I love you.

[Ravenfire666]

Interesting thread and a very detailed / great post by JA

[powerwolf]

we will go to a more resent one then aser... well not really war.. but what a bout Libya?

do you really think the RAF was flying off aircraft carriers? cuz the did not go off a carrier, but they left the united kingdom flew dropped a few missiles and bombs and flew home with air to air refueling.... only taking upto 4 hours to get their and back in total

so your point about aircraft carriers is defeated mate lol

[JonnyAngel]

we will go to a more resent one then aser... well not really war.. but what a bout Libya?

do you really think the RAF was flying off aircraft carriers? cuz the did not go off a carrier, but they left the united kingdom flew dropped a few missiles and bombs and flew home with air to air refueling.... only taking upto 4 hours to get their and back in total

I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. No, the RAF did not fly off of Aircraft Carriers. In the first place, who would fly off a British Aircraft Carrier in the first place?



Secondly, there was no need to launch aircraft off of aircraft carriers in what should not be called a war. That was a civil war. While it might have been a regional war, there was little conventional fighting going on, and strikes done by NATO/UN/EU, etc., were more of the target practice with live-fire nature then they were anything else. Landing on airbases in nations such as Italy and France were far more convenient then having to land on board an aircraft carrier.

so your point about aircraft carriers is defeated mate lol

Learn Naval history...Aircraft carriers have been, and are, the Queens of the Ocean. Superseding the battleship, these floating flotillas carry enough short range firepower to pack a sizable punch at close range, and enough aircraft to obliterate targets at long range. Basically, the Aircraft carrier serves as a floating airbase for aircraft. And we all know the power that Aircraft have...especially when the Nuclear Devices are rolled onto deck and loaded into long-range aircraft. As opposed to a fixed base for aircraft, Aircraft Carriers are mobile, well armed targets that allow versatility, distance coverage, and the ability to deliver a huge amounts of ordnance. To say that Air Craft Carriers are not important in any respect is comical... I simply have to laugh at that.

In your case, however, I understand.... anyone with puny aircraft carriers like those (see above) would feel like they aren't needed