The way modern warfare is conducted

You all speak of high-tech armies fighting poor low-tech armies.
How about two high-tech armies fighting?
Having your M1 tanks fighting Leopard2 tanks, your M109A6 being destroyed by PzH2000, Eurofighters fighting your F-22, European forces using Galileo system instead of GPS, and GPS being intercepted and malfuncioning? How many Apaches could survive in modern warfare, being so lightly armoured as they are?
Things wouldn't work so easily then

Why would they want to?

Sht happens

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies. They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale. Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy! This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts. *Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Other nations (Russia, China etc) while they have high tech components, don't base their strategies around them.

The following site, might well tell you what is is like in Iraq, and maybe that other place that Obama is sending troops?

I obviously posted the wrong address!



Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 08-Jan-2010 at 16:43

It really seems that all of those children we have trained to fight via remote control on the inter-net, are ready made warriors of the 21st century! Just move the man, ship, airplane, rocket, etc., and press "shoot!"

Remote control death! Just how soon it is reality is merely a guess?

Regards,

"It is only a flesh wound!"

Actually Deano, I sometimes feel that many of those great battles that we now read about, were merely the accounts of great "chess games!", and I am not really kidding!

Chess or one of its comparable games which may well be extinct, could have easily allowed one "despot" to fight via slow mail, a war without death?

All one needed was a writer, who watched the match, and then prepared great events onto paper, or papyrus, or vellum, and left them for posterity! Ergo, then these "fictionalized" accounts were found and taken as "fact!" They (the chess battles) were then entered into "history", and especially "chronology", as "fact?"

Much the same could easily be done today with computer simulations! Why risk so much when a mere game with a "bet" is much easier for each "cousin" to accept? I use the word "cousin" because within the royal families of Europe and the surrounding area, most all rulers were related by "blood!" As they are today!!!

Seriously, just who knows?

Edited by opuslola - 13-Mar-2010 at 15:32

Yes, if it were really so today!

But, in our past, we really do not know if what I wrote was true or not?

There have been numerous investigations into the fields of ancient battles that have returned "NOTHING!"

Just like the casualties a Chess Game would produce!

Edited by opuslola - 02-Dec-2010 at 22:34

I will also suggest that often or not, sometimes the "Jousts" were a means of settling differences!

Of course in the Greek world, there does exist a chance that the Olympic Games performed the same? Please look up the ancient game called, I think "Hippias?"

It is merely a childs way of practicing for a joust!

Maybe it was spelled Hippas? Like hippos, horses, etc.? Although Hippias is also important!

Edited by opuslola - 03-Dec-2010 at 22:25