korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Kc7mxo]

Especially for the russians, who sailed a LONG way to get sunk.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469
notyoueither
i changed the criteria slightly, i'm only talking about on the battlefield, so i'm certain that battles in each war will count, but not the entire war itself

You can't dissect the one from the other when it comes to irregular forces. The only battle the irregulars win is the one of attrition that makes the more technologically capable force go away.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Especially for the russians, who sailed a LONG way to get sunk.

Port Arthur was a Russian fortress. Come again. The Japanese besieged it and successfully took it.

You may be thinking of the Russian fleet that was scattered/severely damaged by a Typhoon. Hence *Divine Wind*. I think this also applied to a Mongol fleet that was bent on subduing Japan many centuries earlier. I believe (I could be wrong) that it (the Wind) was called Kamikaze.

Salve

[korn469]

notyoueither

well Civ3 already simulates internal pressure with war weariness so i'm not so concerned with the aspect of a final political victory as much as i am the irregulars winning an actual military campaign

so Dien Bein Phu would count towards this list while the Tet Offensive wouldn't although the Tet Offensive was of a comparable magitude when looking at it from the political aspect

anyways i have updated the criteria, so please list those unlikely victories

[yin26]

The document Yin had are all examples of bad leadership or tactics, but none really show huge technological differences between the sides mentioned.

I posted that primarily to deal, as I think Korn intends to here, with the question of: How and under what circumstances can superior forces lose to 'inferior' ones? Certainly that document gives some very good insight.

[GePap]

About commandoes

Korn:
I don't agree with the commando factor:
Besides the difficulty of finding a battle in which that many elite forces (100) were used at once in the same engagement agains forces of a significantly different size (a brigade or entire regiment), commandoes almost by definition are both elite, well organized, and technologically modern.

Another question (I always have more): Whats the definition of battlefield or battle? I think it would be best if you limit the timeframe of the engaement. The Somme is a battle, and so is Stalingrad, but both took months, saw millions fight over vast areas. These 'battles' were bigger than entire wars. This problem arises from your last criteria. Everone though the Wehrmacht would crush the Red Army in six months tops- 4 years and at least 8 million battle deahts later the Red Army won, but personally I don't think this type of 'example' is that valid.

I think it would be best if you limit it to one day affairs- most battles before the time of napoleon took under a day, and very few ever took more than 3 or four. The longer a battle takes, the more other factors, like force morale, logistics, and so forth may make a vital difference- if you are trying to separate tech as the independent variable, its best to limit the possible influence of tother factors.

[notyoueither]

Oh, oh, oh, ohhhhh, (i feel like Arnold Horshack).

Here's a good one for you Korn.

The Eritrean's (sp?) (Ethiopia) with Cav defeated the Italians (light tanks) in the 30s when Ill Duce tried to annex them.

Those pesky East Africans have proven to be difficult before.

Salve

[GePap]

On the documents

Yin:
As the question was stated, Korn is seeking historical evidence for the 'spearmen beat tanks' debate specificly, thoguh with the changed parameters some of these examples become slightly more relevant.

[yin26]

Don't think that's what he's after. You'll see.

[korn469]

GePap

very good points, but still if 100 men defeated 5,000-10,000 using guerrilla tactics i would be impressed

but we can use our collective judgment to kick examples like those you presented off the list

anyways the list so far

*?The Eritrean's (sp?) (Ethiopia) with Cav defeated the Italians (light tanks) in the 30s when Ill Duce tried to annex them. (more research needed)
*Dien Bein Phu (more details needed)
*Port Arthur (more research needed to determine if this is a good example or not)
*Little Bighorn (more details needed)
*Isandhdlwana, Intombi river, Hlobani (more details needed)
*St. Clair's defeat (more details needed)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469
notyoueither

well Civ3 already simulates internal pressure with war weariness so i'm not so concerned with the aspect of a final political victory as much as i am the irregulars winning an actual military campaign

so Dien Bein Phu would count towards this list while the Tet Offensive wouldn't although the Tet Offensive was of a comparable magitude when looking at it from the political aspect

anyways i have updated the criteria, so please list those unlikely victories

But you're lobotomizing the process from the beginning. Most of the examples (not all) of the disadvantaged overcoming the advantaged are those of revolution and or guerilla warfare.

This is like saying, this proves it's possible, I don't like it. Change the criteria! Sorry, but that's the case.

The fact remains that disadvantaged forces do NOT win battles as a general rule. They DO win wars when the advantaged lack the determination or ability (political, economic) to prosecute those wars.

You asked for the history buffs to come out. Now you are dismissing the lessons of history. Strange.

You are not going to find more than 2 hand fulls of examples of the primitive/irregular defeating the advanced in a SINGLE battle. These sorts of wars do not work that way.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469
GePap

*when a nation cannot produce its own advanced weapon systems, and the quality of advanced weapons it can provide it forces is spread unevenly throughout only a small percentages of its forces

*when a force is armed with advanced weapons systems buts its forces are not organized in a traditional sence and they operate more like guerrillas than a conventional army usually because they have a significant size disadvantage, in this case if a group of green berets, SAS commandos, etc defeated a conventional force

*when a force although it might have comparable weapons, organization, logistics, and size is generally perceived by all of its opponents to be inferior until it humiliates them on the battlefield (this is what i was thinking with Port Arthur)

You have just described the Continentals of Washington's Army to
a tee.

Thank you very much for playing. Come again.

Salve

[yin26]

Seriously. Read my link carefully. I just read the Mexican Punative section, which describes how lack of training and equipment not fit for the climate resulted in much less than was hoped. Indeed, the document mentions the 'advanced' v. 'less advanced' situation throughout.

But its conclusion is:

Superior technology alone does not guarantee victory. Training, leadership and technology suited to the terrain all play huge factors. Of course, none of those factor are in Civ3, which leaves another conclusion:

Advanced tech in Civ3 should almost alway win because the elements that could contribute to their being rendered almost useless do no exit in the game. Even with elite status (which hints at training), the occasional --rare-- leader (which hints at leadership) and terrain bonuses (which hint at tech being suited to terrian), Civ3 barely scratches the surface of the factors that have historically sent the better man packing.

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh really? Well, I think the American people of the time felt that the 55,000 were to high a price. Thus, for the lack of a will to persevere, they were vanquished (or at least the will of their political rulers was).

?????
What the HELL do we care about how the Americans felt about their deaths ?
Aren't we talking about efficiency of armies on the battlefield ? I answered in a thread that asked examples of obsolete armies defeating modern armies.
Americans and Russians just slaughtered their opposition on the BATTLEFIELD. The fact that they were POLITICALLY pushed out is irrelevant. If you can't see the difference between a battle on the battlefield and a political decision then I can't do anything for you.

As far as the primitive weapons tail chasing goes... Give it a break please. Human history does not often move that way.

Yes, there are times when an *ancient* cuture is found by a *modern* culture, such as Columbus bumping into America. However, the majority of human history has ideas and goods moving to and fro far beyond the control of Dictators such as Caeser, Pope, Warlord and President. In other words, there never will be a case of Spearmen vs ModArm, no matter how far you look for it. Even though for Somalia, the Mechanicals cost about the same as a Spearmen.

Salve

Again, do the question is "give me examples of obsolete armies beating technologically superior units" or "explain me how the world is working ?".
Accept your both examples are false and that MILITARY SPEAKING, Russians and Americans were not defeated.



Back on topic :
Dien-Bien-Phu was the defeat of 15 000 french veterans against 100 or 200 000 Viet-minh. They were better equiped, though the Viet-Minh had anti-air gun, artillery, rifles and so on. I rather see it as conscript infantry against veteran infantry, and I don't think that the technological difference was great. Though of course the french had a much better per-man equipement.

Another thing to be taken in consideration : as the Civ3 fight is always one unit against one, we have to remember that the fights are supposed (in the game) to be always between forces of the same size. Until now, ALL the historical examples of high-tech soldiers losing to low-tech ones involve grossly imbalanced numbers in the advantage of low-tech ones.

[GePap]

One by one

Originally posted by korn469

*?The Eritrean's (sp?) (Ethiopia) with Cav defeated the Italians (light tanks) in the 30s when Ill Duce tried to annex them. (more research needed)
*Dien Bein Phu (more details needed)
*Port Arthur (more research needed to determine if this is a good example or not)
*Little Bighorn (more details needed)
*Isandhdlwana, Intombi river, Hlobani (more details needed)
*St. Clair's defeat (more details needed)

1. I don't know enoguth about ethiopia nor do I know of St. Claire's defeat.
2. The Vietmihn had about 40,000 regulars at Dien Bien Phu vs. around 15,000 french forces. The French had a few light tanks (10 Chafee's) and light artillery and air support. The Viet Mihn had heavy artillry and Flak guns (AAA) on mountains surrounding the french (who were in a valley). The Viet Mihn was an organized military force (they are the predecessors of the North Vietnamese army, not the Viet Cong). Because of all of these, I would not include this battle- fine, the public at home and those ignorant of asia might have beleived that European forces would invariably win, but any military startegist worth a danm could see the french defat coming once the Viet Mihn got its gun into position.
2. Port Arthur. The Russian Garrison was about 20-25k, the Japanese force larger, but under 50k. As I said before, the two sides were technologically equal- both used maxims machine guns, breech loading artillery (the Japanese had 11 inch siege howlitzers ready) and both had equally modern navies. THe siege was bitter and there was actually trench combat WW1 style. As with Dien Bien Phu, the racist theories of the time might have predicted that the Whites should win, but any military thinker would know that a garrison cut off from all chance of rescue (the Nearest Russians were at Mukden, 500 mile plus away) and under siege will fall. Thus, not a good example.
3. Custer:
He had under 400 men with him at the time vs. between 3-4,000 warriors. His men had single fire breach loader springfields and revolvers. The warriors had a large mix of weapons, from bows and arrows, to the same guns as the cavalry, to superior rapid fire rifles. Custer divided his already smaller forces into 3 groups, one reserve, one made a frontal attack to draw away warriors while Custer and his main force would attack from a different angle. In time, Reno, Custer's 2nd, lost contect with Cister and retreated to a hill, where he was joined with the 3rd command and made a defese that held until the rest of the Army arrived in the days after. The forces with Custer were attacked in open ground by the more mobilie natives, who made better use of the land. I am divided on this example since tech or organization were not the main variables -numbers and tactical mistakes by Custer were.
4. Isandhdlwana: Best example so far. I can't say numbers of my head but the british force was nearly 1000, the Zulu force larger. The Brits had guns, the Zulus didn't (big tech difference), though the Zulus were definitely a trained army with complax tactics. I don't really know about the other two Zulu battles.