Military principles
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has got to be in either Clausewitz or SunTzu.
Heard it reciently but cannot rember in which volume.
Heard it reciently but cannot rember in which volume.
A more appropriate ratio these days must be the ratio of troops on the ground to local population, especially in this coin centric world.
If we go up against a massive land army, do we need 3:1 ratio of tanks for example? Or can we use a single GR4 with 12 brimstone to redress the balance. This is the whole point of netcentric. By increasing the offensive power and SA of a smaller number of assets, you can now focus and CONCENTRATE FORCE much more easily.
By going after the achilles heel, ie centre of gravity, you also minimise the required amount of projected force to achieve an aim. In the GW1 and 2 examples, this would be the highly authoritarian Iraqi leadership structure. Take out the lead ING tank and the conscripts in the 20 vehicles behind go AWOL. In other wars, that may be the will to fight, or some national infrastructure system (electricity, water, oil, or how about the internet?)
Anyone expecting wide-scale assault purely based on numbers these days needs to look at the last few conventional wars we have fought. The next "big one" will be fought across national boundaries, with combatants able to attack national infrastructures across the internet, as opposed to the physical location of the battlefield. Imagine the carnage that would result if national communications networks were disrupted? That to me is our "centre of gravity" that can be exploited by some geek on the other side of the planet.
Last edited by VinRouge; 13th Mar 2010 at 09:03.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have suggested:
And you may wish to title your thesis/paper along those lines and then destroy the hypothesis. History is full of examples.
One of the earliest was the Battle of Thermopylae when around 2-3000 Spartans, Thespians and Thebans held off a force estimated at 500,000. The naval battle at Salamis shortly after is another example.
Study the tactics of the 'Horse People' from the steppes. They had never heard of the 3:1 ratio.
Look at Hannibal in Italy; Cannae. Perhaps the biggest loss of life until the Somme in warfare. Roughly equal numbers on each side.
Throw in a bit about how Mao strutted his stuff whilst vastly outnumbered.
Others have quoted more recent examples.
The fact is that superior equipment, training, morale and tactics are a force multiplier. May not always prevail, however.
Suspect the 3:1 was a Clauswitzian thing but not sure. Fellow has a lot to answer for.
There's a lot more to it than numbers.
One of the earliest was the Battle of Thermopylae when around 2-3000 Spartans, Thespians and Thebans held off a force estimated at 500,000. The naval battle at Salamis shortly after is another example.
Study the tactics of the 'Horse People' from the steppes. They had never heard of the 3:1 ratio.
Look at Hannibal in Italy; Cannae. Perhaps the biggest loss of life until the Somme in warfare. Roughly equal numbers on each side.
Throw in a bit about how Mao strutted his stuff whilst vastly outnumbered.
Others have quoted more recent examples.
The fact is that superior equipment, training, morale and tactics are a force multiplier. May not always prevail, however.
Suspect the 3:1 was a Clauswitzian thing but not sure. Fellow has a lot to answer for.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one is suggesting it's as simple as ' Have 3:1 superority and you'll win a ground battle ', modern weapons and practices have seen to that; the mailer who mentioned Goose Green had a point, a well trained, motivated force - even not particularly well armed - can knobble one far larger in numbers; but it was a close run thing, the Argentinians having 20mm rapid anti-air cannon which could be depressed low enough to wreak havoc.
However, speaking of the Falklands I think you'll find Admiral Woodward and his colleagues in planning did indeed refer to the 3:1 ratio as a ballpark figure, not relying on it but quoting it historically ; ' One Hundred Days ' by Sandy Woodward, I think also mentioned by others involved in that war, if I get time I'll look them up.
However, speaking of the Falklands I think you'll find Admiral Woodward and his colleagues in planning did indeed refer to the 3:1 ratio as a ballpark figure, not relying on it but quoting it historically ; ' One Hundred Days ' by Sandy Woodward, I think also mentioned by others involved in that war, if I get time I'll look them up.
Gentleman Aviator
About Mirbat ...
... shurely shome mishtake ...
SOAF Strikemasters in support (might have had RAF Loan Service pilots, but might not have .....)
plus not forgetting the RAF' help in straffing and dropping a 500lbs bomb on the Adoo position ,
SOAF Strikemasters in support (might have had RAF Loan Service pilots, but might not have .....)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the ratio is more figurative than actual, but the point is well made - you have to mad or desperate to attack without some sort of advantage.
IIRC Bernard Montgomery preferred odds of 15 -1. On the other hand
many of Alexander the Great's victories were against vastly superior numbers, but unless numbers are actually brought to bear they are spectators.
Superior equipment and training are force multipliers, and can redress the numerical balance but ultimately warfare is not about mathematical attrition and body counts, but about morale - breaking the will to fight of the opposing force.
Saul David's populist books "Impossible victories" and "Agaisnt all odds" are worth reading to point you at the exceptions that prove the rule.
IIRC Bernard Montgomery preferred odds of 15 -1. On the other hand
many of Alexander the Great's victories were against vastly superior numbers, but unless numbers are actually brought to bear they are spectators.
Superior equipment and training are force multipliers, and can redress the numerical balance but ultimately warfare is not about mathematical attrition and body counts, but about morale - breaking the will to fight of the opposing force.
Saul David's populist books "Impossible victories" and "Agaisnt all odds" are worth reading to point you at the exceptions that prove the rule.
Gentleman Aviator
Didnt current CDS get his afc for action in Oman?
As a Loan Service officer in Oman, wearing the Sultan's uniform, he could have earned (and been allowed to wear on RAF uniform) the Omani Distinguished Service Medal (AFC equivalent) or Distinguished Service Medal for Gallantry (DFC equivalent). In fact he only wears (the last two on the end, after the Jubilee Medal) the Dhofar Campaign Medal and the As Sumood Medal.
Edited to add:
Jock's AFC:
In March 1983, Stirrup, by then a Squadron Leader, was serving as a Flight Commander on No. 226 Operational Conversion Unit which was based at RAF Lossiemouth. His duties centred around the instruction of trainee pilots on the SEPECAT Jaguar. On 7 March 1983, Stirrup was carrying out a student progress check from the rear seat of his aircraft when they suffered a serious bird strike. Stirrup was unable to ascertain whether his student was conscious and forward vision through the canopy was obscured. One of his engines caught fire, and although ejecting from the aircraft would have been justified, not knowing whether the student was conscious or not, Stirrup managed to land at RAF Leuchars. Stirrup was later awarded the Air Force Cross for his actions.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thermopylae was a case in point, amazingly ' Thespians ' is no misprint, and though this may be the original phrase, the Spartans were indeed backed up by actors; thinking about it I'd run like hell, faced with a screaming horde of Luvvies & Danny La Rue's !
The Battle of Mirbat in Oman was a classic, superb action by SAS; there is a documentary about it on Sky TV, repeated fairly often.
Like Rorke's Drift ! Another example to disprove 3:1, to put it mildly.
Maybe the Alamo and ' Black Hawk Down ' ( please read book, don't bother with the film ) are also worth mentioning.
I do still say the upper UK Officers in the Falklands do refer to the classic 3:1 ratio, as a historical point to worry about rather than any such numbers they could deploy.
The Battle of Mirbat in Oman was a classic, superb action by SAS; there is a documentary about it on Sky TV, repeated fairly often.
Like Rorke's Drift ! Another example to disprove 3:1, to put it mildly.
Maybe the Alamo and ' Black Hawk Down ' ( please read book, don't bother with the film ) are also worth mentioning.
I do still say the upper UK Officers in the Falklands do refer to the classic 3:1 ratio, as a historical point to worry about rather than any such numbers they could deploy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Chaps, thanks for all the useful (and not quite so useful, but very amusing) steers. The context is WW1 and the course is AA312 Total War and Social Change: Europe 1914-1955. In places the course literature seeks to underline certain theories based on body count, but nowhere can I find any reference to the fact that as one side was attempting to do more advancing than another an 'uneven' body count could have been expected. Thanks again to one and all. CB.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may want to look at the origins of the Germans Storm Troopers in which case.
Stormtrooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stormtrooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: X:0 Y:0 Z:0 (relative to myself obviously)
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once told that the 3:1 ratio really comes down to the land commander's ability to control forces during an attack....
It makes it much simpler if all he has to think about is "This one, that one, and the other one!"
It makes it much simpler if all he has to think about is "This one, that one, and the other one!"
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was only ever taught to have a three to one scenario (at least).
Something I always found to be of massive importance was the time of the attack.
I would find it difficult to mention any numbers involved and their pro's and con's without adding a ref to the actual start (of attack) time. Whether this involves a large force, or even tiny numbers (including whether to attack when the nearest sentry has just come on stag, or is just going off. Just coming on being my personal favourite, as his eyes will not have adjusted yet, and will not know which sounds/movements to ignore).
A good commander will also try to take into account the religious or cultural habits of his/her opponent. There may be 1000 troops stationed at a base for example, but most of us would realise that they may not all be there at certain times (7pm on Friday for Brit troops, or ramadan etc for others).
The experience of the attacking troops will also be important. In a force of 400 average western soldiers with no combat experience, it is reckoned that in the initial attack, only 300 would be shooting to kill, thus removing 25% of the advantage. This of course would be very different in seasoned troops, as would their communication skills and battle drills.
Just my two penneth.
Something I always found to be of massive importance was the time of the attack.
I would find it difficult to mention any numbers involved and their pro's and con's without adding a ref to the actual start (of attack) time. Whether this involves a large force, or even tiny numbers (including whether to attack when the nearest sentry has just come on stag, or is just going off. Just coming on being my personal favourite, as his eyes will not have adjusted yet, and will not know which sounds/movements to ignore).
A good commander will also try to take into account the religious or cultural habits of his/her opponent. There may be 1000 troops stationed at a base for example, but most of us would realise that they may not all be there at certain times (7pm on Friday for Brit troops, or ramadan etc for others).
The experience of the attacking troops will also be important. In a force of 400 average western soldiers with no combat experience, it is reckoned that in the initial attack, only 300 would be shooting to kill, thus removing 25% of the advantage. This of course would be very different in seasoned troops, as would their communication skills and battle drills.
Just my two penneth.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian,
I wouldn't worry too much. I did OU 87 to 93...
My experience you could send in your bank statement and you'd still get 60%.
Awesome summer school in Bath though....toga, toga
I wouldn't worry too much. I did OU 87 to 93...
My experience you could send in your bank statement and you'd still get 60%.
Awesome summer school in Bath though....toga, toga
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been pointed out by folk much better qualified than me, it's not just numerical factors. Terrain, training, morale, equipment, element of surprise, intel, logistics, casevac, weather, orbat mix, symmetry, etc. Even stuff like weather: eg the sun will be in our eyes at that time.
Google "force multiplier".
Google "force multiplier".
Last edited by chippy63; 18th Mar 2010 at 22:35.
