Take your votes of what you think makes a successful and powerful army. If you ask me, I say the key of a powerful army is weapons. Crossbows and Guns allowed untrained peasants to take down knights with ease. A missile can strike down a target before it gets into firing range. As brave as the Japanese were, they lost to Americans, because they had better guns and tanks.
What is key to a superior army?
- Thread starter BeserkWraithlor
- Start date
Doesn't matter how big/powerful/skillful an army is, if you don't use the terrain, and your enemy does, you're screwed
Upvote
0
Discipline?
United cohesion?
This thread seems to be talking about a superior army, which is a big-picture thing, while the examples seem to be more of a small picture thing, e.g., METT-T.
United cohesion?
This thread seems to be talking about a superior army, which is a big-picture thing, while the examples seem to be more of a small picture thing, e.g., METT-T.
Upvote
0
The ideology, mass , many money, the organized state structure (or structure similar on the functions), economic base (it is not obligatory in the territory), time for creation.
Examples of armies capable now to wage war and win .
American.
Chinese.
Indian.
Iranian.
Examples of armies capable now to wage war and win .
American.
Chinese.
Indian.
Iranian.
Upvote
0
Tactics/Leadership, without a doubt. I can't really separate the two as they are too closely interrelated.
The most well armed army in the world can be destroyed by a group of archaic armed savages if the savages have a large enough benifit in leadership and tactics. Have an utter lacking in leadership and tactics and you will never win in the long run. Even your victories will be losses because they will be prohibitively expensive ones.
THis has been proven time and again.
All the factors are important but leadership/tactics are the key. Without them nothing else matters nearly as much.
The most well armed army in the world can be destroyed by a group of archaic armed savages if the savages have a large enough benifit in leadership and tactics. Have an utter lacking in leadership and tactics and you will never win in the long run. Even your victories will be losses because they will be prohibitively expensive ones.
THis has been proven time and again.
All the factors are important but leadership/tactics are the key. Without them nothing else matters nearly as much.
Upvote
0
That is how Caesar beat the Gauls. I'm sure the Gauls were very fierce fighters, and some of the bravest having challenged Rome, the superior Leadership, Tactics, and discipline of Caesars Army won the war.
Upvote
0
This poll is a silly oversimplification. You can't boil it down to just one thing.
I'd rate the number one factor as "will". The will to win, the will to continue no matter what. Without that, none of the others matter.
Some examples: the Winter War was won without superior equipment (for God's sake, they were rebuilding the rifles they took from dead Soviets!), but mainly because of the Finns' determination to win. What was in it for the Soviet troops? Not a lot, and as a result, they weren't as determined.
The crossbows etc. allowing peasants to take knights down? Usually when the peasants were defending their land and/or their rights (among them, their right to have enough food...)
The US Revolution: our forces were totally out-gunned in a number of situations, horrible supply lines, but still had the determination to stick it out and beat Britain, which was the "superpower" of the day.
Pretty much every Israeli war: out-numbered, out-gunned... but REALLY (really really really) angry. Don't bet against the furious ones...
And never bet against someone defending their own home.
Morale is one of the most powerful things you can have on your side.
Having said that, you can't put it all on one single aspect. There have to be a few that all come together. Or your enemy just has to REALLY ****.
I'd rate the number one factor as "will". The will to win, the will to continue no matter what. Without that, none of the others matter.
Some examples: the Winter War was won without superior equipment (for God's sake, they were rebuilding the rifles they took from dead Soviets!), but mainly because of the Finns' determination to win. What was in it for the Soviet troops? Not a lot, and as a result, they weren't as determined.
The crossbows etc. allowing peasants to take knights down? Usually when the peasants were defending their land and/or their rights (among them, their right to have enough food...)
The US Revolution: our forces were totally out-gunned in a number of situations, horrible supply lines, but still had the determination to stick it out and beat Britain, which was the "superpower" of the day.
Pretty much every Israeli war: out-numbered, out-gunned... but REALLY (really really really) angry. Don't bet against the furious ones...
And never bet against someone defending their own home.
Morale is one of the most powerful things you can have on your side.
Having said that, you can't put it all on one single aspect. There have to be a few that all come together. Or your enemy just has to REALLY ****.
Upvote
0
I'd say that morale is THE most powerful thing. That's what makes modern weaponry so scary, IMO.
Morale is a human factor. War is an inhuman experience. It keeps that humanity there. You can always see the situation from your enemy's point of view, and see their reason to fight. It keeps war in check. What do nuclear weapons do (or even massed conventional weapons)? They oblitherate the enemy. Suddenly that enemy has no morale, and no will. What's left of the enemy is in hospitals. And in some cases, what they were fighting for is gone too (their homes or their land for instance). I think that's part of the reason that WWII was so decimating. IMO it was the last war with a clear 'winner' and 'loser'. The German armies (and Japanese, to be sure) lost first because they lost the morale. Their homes and lives had been destroyed. If they returned home, the did so to empty and leveled towns. The only thing left for them was a great big question: "What am I fighting for?".
On the other hand, when there is no apparent gain, there is low morale also. The 'attackers' that have nothing to fight for will lose just as surely as the 'defenders' with nothing to fight for.
Just my slightly-intoxicated opinion
Morale is a human factor. War is an inhuman experience. It keeps that humanity there. You can always see the situation from your enemy's point of view, and see their reason to fight. It keeps war in check. What do nuclear weapons do (or even massed conventional weapons)? They oblitherate the enemy. Suddenly that enemy has no morale, and no will. What's left of the enemy is in hospitals. And in some cases, what they were fighting for is gone too (their homes or their land for instance). I think that's part of the reason that WWII was so decimating. IMO it was the last war with a clear 'winner' and 'loser'. The German armies (and Japanese, to be sure) lost first because they lost the morale. Their homes and lives had been destroyed. If they returned home, the did so to empty and leveled towns. The only thing left for them was a great big question: "What am I fighting for?".
On the other hand, when there is no apparent gain, there is low morale also. The 'attackers' that have nothing to fight for will lose just as surely as the 'defenders' with nothing to fight for.
Just my slightly-intoxicated opinion
Upvote
0
Lots and lots of soldiers. The enemies bound to run outta ammo sooner or later.
Worked for the Russians.
. Worked for the Russians.
Upvote
0
Right on, Tak. Pretty good points, except that destroying homes can actually RAISE morale (maybe only temporarily.) Look how it worked on the Brits when Germany was carpet-bombing London. Until it's completely levelled, the attitude is "we need to stop it at ANY cost."
Of course, that doesn't apply to nukes. Nukes run both ways, though. The biggest thing that stops a first strike is the fear of a retaliatory strike. If you don't strike the enemy, he's scared of getting hit with retaliation if he hits you first. MAD worked.
Now, if you DO nuke your enemy, he's gonna have nothing left to lose. "Eh, I'm screwed, might as well do the same back."
What's scariest is nations or groups getting hold of nukes who don't CARE if they get hit with a retaliatory strike (I can think of a couple... Hmm, one of them starved a large portion of his nation's population to death....) That makes MAD not work, and when MAD doesn't work, someone (lots of someones) gets fried.
Of course, that doesn't apply to nukes. Nukes run both ways, though. The biggest thing that stops a first strike is the fear of a retaliatory strike. If you don't strike the enemy, he's scared of getting hit with retaliation if he hits you first. MAD worked.
Now, if you DO nuke your enemy, he's gonna have nothing left to lose. "Eh, I'm screwed, might as well do the same back."
What's scariest is nations or groups getting hold of nukes who don't CARE if they get hit with a retaliatory strike (I can think of a couple... Hmm, one of them starved a large portion of his nation's population to death....) That makes MAD not work, and when MAD doesn't work, someone (lots of someones) gets fried.
Upvote
0
of those listed, leadership is most key, for an army
you can have all the rest, but without good leadership, you will lose almost every time, and your only victories will be pyrrhic
you can have all the rest, but without good leadership, you will lose almost every time, and your only victories will be pyrrhic
Upvote
0
I'd say that morale is THE most powerful thing. That's what makes modern weaponry so scary, IMO.
IMO it was the last war with a clear 'winner' and 'loser'. The German armies (and Japanese, to be sure) lost first because they lost the morale. Their homes and lives had been destroyed. If they returned home, the did so to empty and leveled towns. The only thing left for them was a great big question: "What am I fighting for?".
Just my slightly-intoxicated opinion
I can't agree about your opinion of the Japanese army. That army was fanatical when it came to their will to fight. They were willing to fight to the last man. On many islands they did. It was the Emperor himself who finally put an end to the fight. He saw the carnage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and decided the war was costing Japan too many lives. Many high ranking officers ended their lives because they couldn't stand to live with the shame of defeat.
The Japanese were never lacking in spirit. Had it not been for the bomb. They would have fought on until many more thousands, perhaps millions of lives had been taken on both sides. So I guess in this case, technology and science could be considered the victor.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I didn't know about the suicidal generals, wow. I know that honor and all that go way back in Japanese culture, but that's just nuts.
Anyway, I stand corrected, but I'd be willing to wager that at least a good handful of average Japanese soldiers from Nagasaki or Hiroshima were suddenly very angry, then very (emotionally) defeated.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, the every day infantrymen of every army have been human beings first, soldiers second, and that is mainly the type of person I meant in my post. It's their officers and commanders that spur on the zealotry (is that a word?), but not matter how hard you push if a soldier has lost the will to fight he has already lost the war.
Anyway, I stand corrected, but I'd be willing to wager that at least a good handful of average Japanese soldiers from Nagasaki or Hiroshima were suddenly very angry, then very (emotionally) defeated.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, the every day infantrymen of every army have been human beings first, soldiers second, and that is mainly the type of person I meant in my post. It's their officers and commanders that spur on the zealotry (is that a word?
), but not matter how hard you push if a soldier has lost the will to fight he has already lost the war.
Upvote
0
Lots and lots of soldiers. The enemies bound to run outta ammo sooner or later
Worked for the Russians.
Attempts of the Soviet armies to pass in counterattack have begun still in 1941. But it was found out that tactical variants available before war do not work.
All these attempts have failed. All variants which were considered modern and perspective against Germans did not work.
And then Zhukov has started to plan attack near Yelnya , just as it did earlier, in the first world war. Mass artilery + mass infantry.
It has worked. Not completely, Germans have simply pushed out from positions. To surround and crush it was not possible.
On this pattern then were under construction almost all attack operation. It worked.
Upvote
0
Bingo. To the OP a main reason the Japanese lost (or at least didn't inflict as much damage as they could've) is because their tactics were abysmal. I agree with Musketeer that people think technology will overcome EVERTHING on it's own, not so. You can have all the tech in the world but if you lack the will to maximize it's use and not just use it as a substitute for Supreme Tactics and Planing you won't really accomplish much.
Upvote
0