Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
enika |
Posted: December 27, 2003 01:30 am
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 1 Member No.: 175 Joined: December 27, 2003 |
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 |
Posted: December 27, 2003 02:33 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
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 |
Posted: December 28, 2003 09:34 am
|
Sublocotenent Group: Banned Posts: 425 Member No.: 142 Joined: November 15, 2003 |
sounds a lot like sun tzu
inspired? |
dragos |
Posted: December 28, 2003 09:44 am
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
I've heard of it, but never read it. |
||
Chandernagore |
Posted: December 28, 2003 10:01 am
|
||
Locotenent colonel Group: Banned Posts: 818 Member No.: 106 Joined: September 22, 2003 |
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 |
Posted: December 28, 2003 10:09 am
|
Sublocotenent Group: Banned Posts: 425 Member No.: 142 Joined: November 15, 2003 |
you`ve never read "the art of war"?
|