Re: WP/Nato: Infantry discussion !
Quote:
hoplitis said:
[...]like adding up apples and oranges. Inf serves an army, the army functions within the framework of a doctrine, the doctrine is the way leadership thinks (or hopes) will achieve its strategic goals. The real question is which inf "serves" its side's doctrine better.
|
It's so true. We could also extend this and simply admit that all the money spared by NATO with smaller army(s) has been spent to achieve the final political victory over WP.
From this point of view NATO army has just done as well as if she had defeated the whole WP without any casualties.
Naturaly, this a bit far from the first question:
with same number of troops NATO wins because of better quality,with a proportionnal number it's... balanced in favor of WP.
__________________
"On 17 January, I started with 39 tanks. After 38 days of aerial attacks, I had 32, but in less than 20 minutes with the M1A1,1 had zero." an Iraqi
battalion commander, after being captured by the 2nd Armored Cav Regiment, speeking to Col Don Holder.
|