wil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:27 pm
crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:54 am
Somebody ask the Afghan Tribesmen how they pushed the Russians out of their country without the benefit of MIG-29s and Nuclear Weapons, Enguiring Minds want to know?
amongst many factors they had outside help, which put stinger missiles into thier hands and gave them the means to defeat soviet attack helicopters which were up to that point kicking their asses.
Once they had those, the fight changed to roughly their advantage.
we don't have the man-portable capabilities they did and that is the difference.
The Russians weren't really winning before the stinger missiles. They had great difficulty supplying their forces in country and had to fly most things in. But after the CIA supplied training and stinger missiles the Russian position was untenable.
Not sure the situation in Afghanistan is exactly comparable. The historical ratio of troops to guerillas is around 10-to-1. For every guerilla it takes 10 soldiers deployed to MATCH. The 10-to-1 ratio is no guarantee of success.
James Madison wrote about the situation in
Federalist 46:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Essentially the militia as envisioned by the founders CAN NOT be beaten by a conventional military force. You would need an army larger than a population of the country (250%) to MATCH a guerilla force of 25% of the country. As envisioned the militia is the ultimate guarantee of freedom.
And if you think that "technology" is always the deciding factor, you would be wrong.
After 20 years of fighting
Hezbollah with relatively modest weaponry, gained enough experience to trade casualty for casualty with the IDF. And the Israeli's withdrew from Southern Lebanon.
Chet Richards has an excellent and important discussion on the subject:
Who wins?
Two factors are often thought to determine the outcomes of military engagements, size of the opposing forces and the levels of technology they employ. Biddle (2004), however, found that since 1900, the larger force wins about 60% of the time, only slightly better than if the two commanders had settled the matter with a coin toss. For the more technologically advanced force, the odds are almost exactly 50 - 50, that is, technology, per se, is not a significant factor in determining the outcome of engagements.
link
