Longest game?

[Karibu]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was thinking more with ships, but even for troops 50% is a big bonus to add to what else you can have...

Actually, it is not. Think about Iraq war. USA had superior equipments and superior training compared to Iraq soldiers. IIRC it was about 100-200 USA soldiers lost their lives during the campaign, but there were tens of thousands of Iraq soldiers who died (again, IIRC). Why? Because US troops could use satellites and reconnaissance planes to locate Iraq forces and bash them before they even knew something was wrong. Also tanks you use (M1A2 Abrams, IIRC) has far greater range than Iraq tanks ever had not to mention targetting system, which allowed US tanks to shoot with out problems in the middle of sandstorm. Iraq tanks relied heavily on visual sight.

Had US army have same equipments than Iraq soldiers, the result of war could have been something very different. I believe that even several hundred percents of improvement in troops and ships capability due training and superior equipments is not only credible but grounded.

[dogscoff]

I think you over-estimate Iraq's available forces in the most recent conflict. They had very little in the way of military equipment.

[Karibu]

Well, same thing happened in the gulf war 13 years ago. Then Iraq military was on their best capacity ever and they were ready when the alliance attacked them. Still their forces were crushed like house made of paper before tank. Furthermore, everybody knows what happened in Somalia 1993. You know the movie Black hawk down, which (propably not most trustworthy source, though) presents the situation there. About 100 US state of the art soldiers fought their way out of the city against forces whose numbers were far greater.

I believe that any military officer can confirm that sufficiently trained and equipment force is far more effective than any amount of troops alone.