Military questions

[DeamondBleed]

1. How threatening is the size of a ground force? How mauch of an advantage does having a much larger number of soldires in the army give?

2. Are Police tecnically a Military or civilian target?

[Steve Faust]

Originally posted by DeamondBleed
1. How threatening is the size of a ground force? How mauch of an advantage does having a much larger number of soldires in the army give?

2. Are Police tecnically a Military or civilian target?

That would depend on the nature of their arms and integration of their various elements. In my opinion, WWII's German army was vastly superior to the mixed ground / air forces of any other country due to the use of highly integrated panzer, panzer grenadier, and close air support ( and, lets not forget the judicious use of the 88 ) by career officers like Manstein.

Today, the rules have changed. Large ground armies can be worn away by insurgent action and enormous economic battles can be won by simply keeping an enemy's large force engaged with a relatively small force for months or years ( It costs a great deal to keep one tank in the field for a few days ). 9/11 was a victory because a small force terrorized an entire nation, leading to the collapse of many sectors of the economy. Small forces can also cause extensive damage if they acquire nuclear warheads or biological agents. I foresee a time when intelligence networks are the most important elements within a nation's forces- and I mean good old WWII use of agents and not reliance solely upon technology and gagets that net political fat cat's friends lucrative contracts.

There are many kinds of police ( e.g Gestopo vs the Sunnyvale sheriff ). Still, I should think taking out communications and police would be a priority in a military raid of any size.

Steve

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by DeamondBleed
1. How threatening is the size of a ground force? How mauch of an advantage does having a much larger number of soldires in the army give?

2. Are Police tecnically a Military or civilian target?

A large ground force can be completely useless but also highly effective, depending on what it intends to achieve and what tactics are used. I think that in attacks it is not primarily an efficient tool due to potential heavy losses. Air attacks or long range artillery are more effective for that. Ground troops are useful however for taking control of territory once the enemy defences have broken down, dealing with pockets of resistance, and also for holding this territory, preventing civilian unrest, interim police work and attempting to foster friendly relations with the civilian population, providing humanitarian support and paving the way for reconstruction work. In the latter type of task, showing some understanding is useful and it helps if the troops are familar with the local culture to some extent to prevent misunderstandings which could escalate or unnecessarily alienate the invaders.

As for police, I agree with Steve that this depends very much on the type of force. I think it depends especially on their organisation and purpose, who they report to, the type of training they have and the type of weapons they carry (if any).

[Boomstick]

Police probably wouldn't be considered collateral damage, if that's what you're asking, because they're part of the government system that's involved in a war.

[Paladin]

1. How threatening is the size of a ground force? How mauch of an advantage does having a much larger number of soldires in the army give?

Quality usually trumps quantity in my opinion. I'd rather have an Army of 300,000 well trained & well equipped professionals than a 1 million man of Army of poorly trained conscripts using shoddy kit. The size of an Army isn't everything. Of course all things being equal in the quality department, size matters. A larger not as well trained force can sometimes defeat a smaller more professional one, but it requires a very large advantage in numbers and a high tolerance for horrendous casualties.

Numbers do matter somewhat while on the offense. Conventional military doctrine does call for a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers when on the attack, and a 5 to 1 advantage in numbers when attacking a well-prepared defense. Of course logistical advantages, air power, artillery or naval gunfire support, advantages in training, advantages in discipline & morale over your enemy ect.,ect., are all force multipliers which can enable forces which do not meet this ratio to overcome the defenders.

2. Are Police tecnically a Military or civilian target?:bg:

Protocol 1, Article 52, paragraph 2 of the Geneva convention states: "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives." These objectives are defined as "those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make effective contribution to military action."

I would think whether or not they are a military target depends on the nation & the situation. In some nations, especially in the Third World, the police are a paramilitary organization that are used to keep an oppressive regime in power. They would be legitimate military targets IMO.

Police would also be a legitimate military target if the nation planned to use them to defend against the enemy force.(for example the London bobbies in WWII)