Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations
If you have 10 soldiers against 1, who will win Khajmer, straight up fight? Unless the one soldier can pull an Equilibrium scene, or become The One, I doubt he can dodge them bullets no matter how well he is trained.
Well, let's assume, in this example, that the one soldier has superior training to the ten soldiers. If the one soldier is in a position to take good cover before being shot at, then he does so, poking out at irregular intervals generally when his opponents are reloading or otherwise have ceased fire in order to fire his own shots, and using his well trained reflexes to pop back into cover. He will move from cover only to get to new cover, most likely because the new cover suddenly has the benefit of not having a live grenade there, or because the newer cover has a better tactical location.
And if he isn't in a good tactical position, then he hasn't been defeated by superior numbers, he's been defeated by the enemy's superior tactics, because they had the tactical sense to flank him before combat began, or by crap luck because there isn't any way that he could take advantage of his environment to overcome the enemy.
And this is, of course, ignoring that fighting as one against one, fighting as one against many, fighting as many against one, and fighting as many against many are all extremely different situations. However, the point is still there: superior tactics, skill, and luck are far more important than numbers. I again point to the Battle of Thermopylae. Despite being outnumbered by more than ten to one on a scale of thousands, the Greeks managed to hold off the Persians for a full week by taking a tactical position, a narrow road which happened to be the only passage from that direction to the city, and killing anything that came at them. Had the Persians thrown their entire army of 100-300 thousand men at that blockade, they would have lost. Their victory was not because of numbers, but because they were able to find a way to flank the Greeks and attack from multiple sides, a strategy which generally works so long as you don't have a large amount less
than your enemy.
In short, numbers are helpful, but against a smarter, more skillful opponent in the right conditions, it's essentially a Zerg Rush. Even if you win, the victory will be Pyrrhic, because your losses are going to be 2, 3, 4 to one, depending on the discrepancy. And unlike in a Zerg Rush, you haven't just thrown away a large number of easily replaceable packets of data, you've just sent hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. Morale will inevitably plummet, and the people will riot because for every person who dies at war, there are at least 2-3 family members ready to tear some heads off, and don't expect them to blame the other side, especially if you are the instigator of the war.
Originally Posted by metal sonic
Not to be 'that one guy', but Britain handed our asses to us on a silver platter back in 1812. My only comment is that China would collapse if they went to war with the US for the political reasons. Please resume your argument |D
The War of 1812 was actually a draw. Neither side was able to gain and hold any ground on each other. If you want to look at it technically,
yes, the British won, but only insofar as the Americans didn't achieve their initial military goals of ending British Impressment, which was actually a political failure, and capturing territory in Canada. However, in terms of toe-to-toe military conflict, the two sides were about equal, with the US only losing more troops because of their far more aggressive approach.
This is all moot, however, because I'm fairly certain that Lus was referring to the modern American military ranging from the early 20th century until now, in which case, in terms of military strength, he is correct. The modern US military has never lost a war to the point of being forced out of the other nation. We lost Vietnam and Korea, but not in the sense of being defeated; we lost in the sense of forfeiting. Technically speaking, with the invention of the nuclear weapon, we have become literally undefeatable to any nation which does not also have nuclear weaponry (which today means only the UK, France, Russia, China, North Korea and Israel, four of which are our allies, one of which is our loose friend, and one of which is too incompetent to make an ICBM, much less one that can get past American radars and be reduced to dust by our missile defense systems).