Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

[gp100man]

In WWI numbers won out over superior technology in the sky--ie. the Fokker D-7 and D-8. Superior technology lost.
In WWII numbers(Sherman tanks and P51D Mustangs and huge numbers of allied aircraft VS Nazi TIGER TANKS and ME-262 fighter jets). ALSO, the TYPE 21 Nazi submarine VS Large numbers of Allied craft. Another case of "To Little-To Late".
Superior Technology lost to greater numbers.
Korea--Superior technology did not prevail over great numbers of enemy troops.
Vietnam-Superior Technology did not prevail.

In each case there were other factors involved, ie. weather on the Russian front and other unseen factors. But, I wonder if putting to much faith in superior technology gives a false sense of security.



http://news.yahoo.com/china-submarines- ... nance.html

[JWLaRue]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

It's never as simple or cut 'n dried as that. For example the results of Desert Storm run counter to your supposition.

-Jeff

[gp100man]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

You are right Jeff, I agree, however I still think we should consider having more submarines than we currently do. A division of Diesel/Electric subs might be worth looking into.

I like the idea of going to battle like Chief Crazy Horse at the Battle of Little Bighorn. Superior numbers with superior weapons. Custer didn't have a chance. Custer's boys should have had Winchester Repeating 1873 rifles, and 1873 revolvers that take the same ammo; but they didn't. But hindsight is always 20-20. Lack of knowledge about your enemy is costly. If Custer knew about their repeaters, AND the numbers of Indians, than he was crazy.

Did you recently see the video circulating about the IRANIAN swarm tactic of taking large number of small craft, and attacking an aircraft carrier with small missiles? Looks like it would be challenge to counter such an attack. Which got me to thinking, I wonder if they plan to do that to one of our submarines with a large amount of GHADIR midget submarines. Problem is, they have to find our submarine before they can attack it.

Just some random thoughts.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/iran-s ... 00f16d1853


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran- ... ll-n312416

[JWLaRue]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

Yup, saw the video. From my perspective, 'attacking' a lone carrier doesn't in any way represent real-world conditions. But it is something to think about.

-Jeff

[tom dougherty]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

Did you recently see the video circulating about the IRANIAN swarm tactic of taking large number of small craft, and attacking an aircraft carrier with small missiles? Looks like it would be challenge to counter such an attack.

They were attacking a prop, not a real aircraft carrier. It was more like Michael Bay special effects than a real carrier; the whole exercise was more for Iranian domestic consumption. One Nimitz class carrier deploys more aircraft than Iran possesses. US carriers do not ravel alone; they are part of a battle group, which always includes at least one submarine.

As far as superior technology vs. numbers, the US acoustic technology during the Cold War allowed submarine trailing operations on many Soviet submarines (which were more numerous and more heterogeneous in terms of different classes). The F-117 and laser guided bombs certainly proved the worth of superior technology during the Gulf War. Lots of bombs on target and no loss of aircraft.

As Jeff said, it isn't a simple equation.

[gp100man]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

http://rt.com/news/235651-china-us-submarine-fleet/

[subicman]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

They might out number us, but this would be a clear cut case of superiority over quantity. I can personally vouch for the fact out crews are better trained, better equipped and the boats are better built than what they are fielding. And I know that their number of boats do not outnumber our inventory of MK48 ADCAPS.

[drschmidt]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

Easy math:

You have a tank that is superior, so superior that it will destroy 10 enemy tanks before it gets destroyed. That implies that you can withstand foreces that have up to 10 times more tanks than you have. If they have 11 times more, you are toast. If they have 9 times more, you win.

So superior technology helps you to save lifes. The russians e.g. defeated the Nazi forces through a tremendous sacrifice of human lives. Much more killed Russians than Germans, but enough to defeat the superior technology.

[JWLaRue]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

[quote]Easy math]
That only 'works' given a number of assumptions such as all 10 are going up against all 11 at the same time, level of training and experience, etc.

-Jeff

[drschmidt]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

Well, for most military units there are ststistics that serve to model these numbers more correctly. My example was of course simplified and crude. But there are good rules of thumbs. e.g.if you have 100 enemies hidden in small forrest, then you'll need about 300 men with equal equipment and training to take the forrest from an open field, and you'll end up with only 100 of your men standing after you have taken the forrest.

[JWLaRue]

Re: Does Superior Technology five a FALSE sense of Security?

Fully agree. Models = assumptions.

-Jeff