No one can deny that having higher numbers when going to battle is an advantage, but it surely does not guarantee victory. The will to win, great tactics, fluidity of movement, and force multipliers are important, and the way one uses all aspects and information in the battle space can still win. Yes, it helps to have higher numbers, since the law of size “that I like to call it allows you to recover from mistakes or surprises. But, maybe it is important that we have a philosophical discussion about this to make everything clear.
“The most common element for victory is superiority in numbers,” rough translation by Karl von Clausewitz.
Historically speaking, this is true: it has been the “most common” element of victory and certainly in its day, however, it is not always the case, essentially pretending that the Bully in the School Yard, Law of Bigness is the most important thing, which is not true, but keep in mind that “generally” and “most commonly” do matter.
Examples where it couldn’t be “David and Goliath” for a fun biblical reference, and there are plenty of others in Scripture, I know I’m not of religion so I wouldn’t use that one, but one debating this point might surprise your audience there, especially if that audience was mostly full of Christians, it will get you thinking, then the debater might “Jam it To Them” while they’re thinking about it with the old folks; The example of “George Washington” crossing the Delaware, and even Clausewitz realizes the value of “Surprise” just like Sun Tzu, and can also talk about Colonel Boyd’s “guerilla warfare” tactics to make them sound smart about the topic.
The debater could then take his audience into the realm of the human biosystem, with its superior immune system and how something as small as a virus or bacteria can eliminate it, everything from a common cold to long-term health. deterioration, sometimes death. The “Law of Greatness” is not a guarantee, although it is a formidable deterrent “in general”, and also in Clausewitz’s time opponents lined the battlefield and often played a game of attrition, not recommended in my book, but that’s how they used to do it.
It could be debated that the concept of overwhelming force to win a battle may not win the war or complete the objectives, but certainly win some battles along the way. For example, the “sudden increases” in the taking of regions in Afghanistan or Iraq, since there is the problem of maintaining that territory, which is expensive, feeding mouths and the logistics supply chain. One of the biggest problems in those wars was the costs incurred for the US Treasury, $ 2 billion a week in Afghanistan is a lot to digest at a time when the economic recovery here at home is the main driver and the political momentum, do you see that point?
Also, you need to realize, when it comes to costs, that for every member on the battlefield, behind those swords, we now see 10-20 in the supply chain for every royal warrior – huge costs that could lead to bankruptcy. to the state, in the Wipe out the economy kill the nation with the giant army, not the enemy, so even if you outmatch the enemy, you may lose the war. Therefore, simply having a giant military force, but still misusing it, ignores military strategy during the actual conflict.
Proper tactics allow a military force to penetrate and force a larger army to its knees. Consider the tactics of the German “Blitzkrieg” perhaps the best example as it can exploit the weakest link, so who cares how big the opposing force is? Any force has important issues to be content with; Will, morale, supply lines, media, public support, politics, command and control, climate, technology, etc. – Still, Clausewitz is right on most of the part numbers. Now, to finish this philosophical investigation, let me leave you a question; Do robotic weapon systems count as “top numbers”? If so, please consider it too.