What it takes to make a good army

[enika]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to this forum and I'd like to ask you all a question. What makes a good army ( im referring to a terrestrial army, not an air force or navy ). In my opinion these are (in order) :

1. Morale
2. Training/Discipline
3. Leadership
4. Equipment/Logistics

Thank you

[dragos]

A fair answer cannot be given to this question, because each of these characteristics is required to gain advantage, but none of them can guarantee a victory. At least we can comment them individually.

1. Morale is the most subjective characteristic and often unpredictable. Morale can vary greatly over a short period of time, and even apparently determined troops can suffer morale failure during struggle. Often alcohol was used to induce courage or rather to supress fear, in detriment of efficiency. Other substances or drugs are unknown to me.

2. Training is (most) important because it gives own troops the ability to disable the enemy quickly and effectively. But even this characteristic is circumstantial. Without ammo, weapon, assitant, or surrounded by enemy, training has little meaning.

3. Leadership is another subjective characteristic, due to its human side. Leadership is made of professional quality, experience in the field and morale. The disavantages of missing leadership can be negated partially by training of lower ranks to carry out actions independently, or to replace their direct commander when needed.

4. Equipment is maybe most important in the modern warfare, when there are no longer large masses of infantry. But if we do not speak of air strikes and sattelite-guided missiles, then the number of guns and a steady supply of ammo often wins the day. Basically the rifle remained the same for over 100 years.

[Indrid]

sounds a lot like sun tzu


inspired?

[dragos]

QUOTE

sun tzu

I've heard of it, but never read it.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Training is (most) important because it gives own troops the ability to disable the enemy quickly and effectively. But even this characteristic is circumstantial. Without ammo, weapon, assitant, or surrounded by enemy, training has little meaning.

Training/morale can still make the difference quite often but then it falls partly in the category of doctrine. In several modern armies for example, when you are ambushed, the doctrine is to immediately assault the ambushers, which requires training & morale. Of course it is dangerous but the reasoning is that it is far more dangerous to sit on his ass and being picked one by one.

Mobile offensive doctrine emphasize getting inside the enemy command curve to seize the initiative. Soldiers are quick to sense when their commanders are loosing control of the battle and morale is then likely to shrink or collapse.

[Indrid]

you`ve never read "the art of war"?