Technology or the man behind the gun
-
This is an issue that came up recently during one of the threads here. Which is more important military technology or having a solid soldier using outdated weapons? Let me give you this scenario. Country A and Country B are identical in terms of national wealth, population and other issues. Both have a equal amount of defence budget. The difference is that Country A uses that defense budget to buy and develop highly capable and modern weapons. So we're talking top of the line equipment like modern MBTs,MLRS, air superiority fighters,IFVs etc etc. Country B on the other hand uses it defense budget on training its manpower. As a result, Country B's soldiers are better trained, more garang and tough, its general staff is more effective and its doctrine is more defined. Given that all other factors are equal, if Country A and B were to go to war, who would win?
-
There are many oil rich nations armed with the latest and most modern weapons. How do you rate them in terms of being able to fend off a poorer armed but determined enemy ? Ask yourself if any have ever successfully fought a battle, let alone a war, without the help of a " friendly " superpower.
-
there is only so far you can push a man... as man has physical as well as mental limitations...
a man can learn to calculate very fast.... but there is no way a man can calculate faster then computer...
3 man can carry 80kg up the mountain... the same 3 man flying a chinook can carry 14,000kg up and down the mountain as many times as you want...
you can see johor from the tallest building in singapore... but a satellite can see all the way to the north pole...
think i make myself clear? -
the above arguement is similar to a quality vs quantity arguement of WW2. The Germans have superior tanks for the Allies have swarms of T-34s and Shermans..... and look at the outcome...Originally posted by fallin:This is an issue that came up recently during one of the threads here. Which is more important military technology or having a solid soldier using outdated weapons? Let me give you this scenario. Country A and Country B are identical in terms of national wealth, population and other issues. Both have a equal amount of defence budget. The difference is that Country A uses that defense budget to buy and develop highly capable and modern weapons. So we're talking top of the line equipment like modern MBTs,MLRS, air superiority fighters,IFVs etc etc. Country B on the other hand uses it defense budget on training its manpower. As a result, Country B's soldiers are better trained, more garang and tough, its general staff is more effective and its doctrine is more defined. Given that all other factors are equal, if Country A and B were to go to war, who would win?
Similarly to the Japanese in the Pacific.. you can't get any braver then a Kamizake pilot.... but the outcome is the same...
Most countries try to achieve a "balance" of the above arguement as best as they could....
For the US, because they are technologically advanced, there will be more focus on technology...
for Singapore, there is more focus on technology over the years, to make do with our shortfall in manpower but also because our defense budget have been going up...
But we no matter what we say about technology, the key is to make sure that everything and everyone work together.... and that the common grunt have faith in their commanders and their cause.... -
the best is can have the most garang and tough soldiers equipped wif the most sophisticated technology and weaponry.Singapore's 3G soldier of the future?
-
Don't you know SIngapore has gandam.
-
Ya! Technology is the only way to win any war!
Hizbollahs have shown us the way.
Edit: Should add that IDF has shown us the other way too!!! -
nuke
-
The T34's were better then most german tanks if not on par with the best of them.The Western Allies simply bombed the germans into submission and destruction.So you cant really compare.Unless you look at France 1940.German Panzer I and II were lousier then the French SOUMA tanks.Less armour and less powerful gun but still won.Originally posted by spencer99:the above arguement is similar to a quality vs quantity arguement of WW2. The Germans have superior tanks for the Allies have swarms of T-34s and Shermans..... and look at the outcome...
Similarly to the Japanese in the Pacific.. you can't get any braver then a Kamizake pilot.... but the outcome is the same...
Most countries try to achieve a "balance" of the above arguement as best as they could....
For the US, because they are technologically advanced, there will be more focus on technology...
for Singapore, there is more focus on technology over the years, to make do with our shortfall in manpower but also because our defense budget have been going up...
But we no matter what we say about technology, the key is to make sure that everything and everyone work together.... and that the common grunt have faith in their commanders and their cause.... -
Trained pilot in a US$16 million chopper taken down by uneducated gangster with a $25 RPG-7.Originally posted by tripwire:there is only so far you can push a man... as man has physical as well as mental limitations...
a man can learn to calculate very fast.... but there is no way a man can calculate faster then computer...
3 man can carry 80kg up the mountain... the same 3 man flying a chinook can carry 14,000kg up and down the mountain as many times as you want...
you can see johor from the tallest building in singapore... but a satellite can see all the way to the north pole...
think i make myself clear?
Think I make myself clear? -
That's right. Just nuke 'em.Originally posted by lim li hao matthew:nuke -
Guess there's no end to the debate. Hence marketing is an important deterant! That's what we're doing. We just have to market to the world and potential aggressors we have high tech weapons and can blow them off till cow come home. And we have to market our soldiers are smart and capable. As long as they dun find any proof otherwise, we win. keke
-
so... ask malaysia dont buy helicopter... disband your air force... and stick to RPG...Originally posted by Gedanken:Trained pilot in a US$16 million chopper taken down by uneducated gangster with a $25 RPG-7.
Think I make myself clear?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:Trained pilot in a US$16 million chopper taken down by uneducated gangster with a $25 RPG-7.
Think I make myself clear?
VS
-
Remember heli can att from miles away from target. heli also got flares which can trick the heat seeking missles because the heat is 3x greater that the engine.
-
It helps a whole lot if you have one and only one enemy to destroy.
So much clearer! -
France 1940 was an example I was thinking of too. All the big guns in the world mean nothing if you don't know how to use them. Just look at it. Panzer Is were nothing more than one armoured hull carrying 2 machine guns. Even so tins cans like that managaed to sweep through France in 6 weeks. I feel that the Battle of France was a really a triumph of the NCO Corp. Quick-witted, initiative. Good soldiering is more than being garang.Originally posted by |-|05|:The T34's were better then most german tanks if not on par with the best of them.The Western Allies simply bombed the germans into submission and destruction.So you cant really compare.Unless you look at France 1940.German Panzer I and II were lousier then the French SOUMA tanks.Less armour and less powerful gun but still won. -
Viet n USA
who won that one?
Iraq n USA
how bout that one? -
Vietnam I wouldn't call it a very good example because I have the impression that the US had their hands tied by public opinion.Originally posted by alexkusu:Viet n USA
who won that one?
Iraq n USA
how bout that one? -
Hizbollahs show you the way ? yep just knock out a few tanks only what .... Isreal still there .... so they way is - to win some then go home and talk cock !!! that is not winning the war.Originally posted by Fairyland:Ya! Technology is the only way to win any war!
Hizbollahs have shown us the way.
Edit: Should add that IDF has shown us the other way too!!! -
No not on the $27 dollar part !!! can please let us know how you get your $25 rpg price ?Originally posted by Gedanken:Trained pilot in a US$16 million chopper taken down by uneducated gangster with a $25 RPG-7.
Think I make myself clear?
So what , must remember the situation the helicopter is being brought down also what ....... cannot judge by black hawk down type of situation which the helicopter was sitting duck.
with a helicopter flying in 6km in head on shooting at you. you with 1 rpg you think who will win ? -
Yes, sir, clear as fog...Originally posted by tripwire:there is only so far you can push a man... as man has physical as well as mental limitations...
a man can learn to calculate very fast.... but there is no way a man can calculate faster then computer...
3 man can carry 80kg up the mountain... the same 3 man flying a chinook can carry 14,000kg up and down the mountain as many times as you want...
you can see johor from the tallest building in singapore... but a satellite can see all the way to the north pole...
think i make myself clear?
The Vietminh (Vietcong's grandfather) pushed field guns up a mountain and completely confound and defeated the techonologically superior French at Dien Bien Phu.
Where got Chinook?
Is there a limit for human when there is a will?
But like someone said, no right or wrong to the question. As all wars, outcome always depend on so many factors.
But if I were to put my money, I would put it on the man. The best weapon is useless if your soldier got no balls, no morale, no motivation. On the other hand, a lot of highly motivated peasants continue to hold up or even wear out regular modern armies. -
None of that changes the fact that a piece of high-tech equipment was defeated by a copy of a WW2 weapon. To address Darkness_hacker99's point, the Black Hawk had Black Hole IR suppression for its exhaust and a heap of electronic defences, but ultimately it was brought down by a primitive unguided weapon that was fired by someone who knew how to use it.Originally posted by storywolf:No not on the $27 dollar part !!! can please let us know how you get your $25 rpg price ?
So what , must remember the situation the helicopter is being brought down also what ....... cannot judge by black hawk down type of situation which the helicopter was sitting duck.
with a helicopter flying in 6km in head on shooting at you. you with 1 rpg you think who will win ?
Tripwire's point was that we've got all of these wonderful toys that can do amazing things. Sure it can, but the historical facts bear out that what happens on the business end of all of any weapon, be it a high-tech doohickie or a Boer War rifle, is still determined by the user at the other end. Technology, useful as it is, still does not eliminate the need for competence in the human part of the equation.
Tripwire says that satellites can see all the way to the North Pole. Well and good. Did satellites find Saddam, or was humint the key? Have satellites been able to locate Osama?
Alex makes a good point of highlighting Vietnam and Iraq. The fact is that the American military structure is geared for a Gulf War 1 style fight. When it becomes asymmetrical warfare, which is pretty much all we've been seeing lately, it is, and I quote the Chinese colonel who commented on 9/11, "trying to hit a mosquito with a hammer".
Why did the Americans lose Vietnam and why has Bush admitted that they are struggling in Iraq? The American definition of a win requires that front lines be crossed for victory to be achieved. By definition, guerrilla warfare exists without front lines, so there can never be a win for the Yanks. You can use Apaches to wipe out the enemy's tank divisions, but what can you do if there is no tank division to destroy, and instead you have a dispersed and hidden enemy on your hands? You're just punching water.
The bottom line is that it's not a matter of how whiz-bang your toys are, but how well suited they are to the job. If it was just a matter of technology, Iraq would have been done and dusted ages ago and the US population would be 3000 members richer. -
you need 3 M:
MEN
Includes women also)Tranined,committed,loyal,least corruptions,..
MACHINES:Reasonable standard,well maintained,intergrated syatems,
MONEY:To pay the men and to buy and maintain machines.
2.SAF has not been tested in large scale.
But SIA has been tested day and night for so many years.
SIA is just like SAF,if not more complicated .
If SG can run SIA so good,i think SG can run SAF well. -
What does how Singapore runs the SAF, much less SIA, have to do with the topic at hand?
